Atwater City Council
July 13, 2026

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 83
• Hazardous Waste Generator Program
• Tiered Permitting Program
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a key California agency responsible for regulating hazardous waste, conducting inspections, providing emergency response for hazardous materials incidents, protecting water resources from contamination, and overseeing waste removal. The DTSC operates under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the California Health and Safety Code, implementing regulations found in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5.

Government Code Section 65962.5 mandates that the DTSC compile and annually update a comprehensive list of hazardous waste sites in California. This list, known as the Cortese List, includes:

1. Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action (HSC Section 25187.5).

2. Land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property (HSC Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 11, commencing with Section 25220).

3. Information on hazardous waste disposals on public land (HSC Section 25242).

4. Sites listed pursuant to HSC Section 25356.

5. Sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program.

The DTSC distributes the Cortese List to all cities and counties in California. CCR Title 22 stipulates that soils excavated from a site containing hazardous materials are considered hazardous waste and must be handled accordingly. Cleanup requirements for contaminated soil are determined on a case-by-case basis by the relevant jurisdiction.

Record Search
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) 28, California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database 29, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database29F
30 include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on April 2, 2026. The searches identified one (1) leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site located on or adjacent to the Project site. The LUST site has been closed since 11/1/1996, indicating that cleanup and regulatory closure requirements have been met.

Atwater General Plan
The Atwater General Plan Seismic and Public Safety Element includes policies to protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials, as listed below. 28 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund National Priorities List. Accessed April 2, 2026, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c41f1 29California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed April 2, 2026, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
30 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Accessed April 2, 2026, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 84
GOAL SF-9 Prevent potential contamination and hazards resulting from the inappropriate storage, transport, and handling of hazardous materials.

Policy SF-9.1 Require new development projects which produce, store, utilize, or dispose of significant amounts of hazardous materials or waste to incorporate appropriate state-of-the-art project designs and building materials to protect employees and adjacent land uses.

Policy SF-9.2 Promote the routing of vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials along transportation corridors that reduce the risk of exposure to the public and sensitive environmental areas.

Policy SF-9.3 Encourage continued monitoring of hazardous material cleanup at the CAADC site, and monitoring of hazardous material use or storage at the site.

Implementation Program SF-9.a Require that applications for projects that will generate hazardous wastes or utilize hazardous materials include detailed information regarding the types and volumes of hazardous materials that will be involved and plans for hazardous waste reduction, recycling, and storage.

Implementation Program SF-9.b Forward all proposed development projects which involve the manufacture, use, and/or storage of hazardous materials to the Merced County Environmental Health Department, to ensure that all appropriate business and emergency plans are required and any other special requirements or mitigation measures are incorporated into conditions of approval for the project.

The General Plan also includes policies to reduce the potential impact on adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans, as listed below.

GOAL SF-10 Ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is provided to developed areas.

Policy SF-10.1 Require each residential subdivision over 50 units in size to have at least two points of access.

Policy SF-10.2 Continue to require all cul-de-sacs to have a length no greater than 600 feet and to have a sufficient turnaround area for emergency response equipment.

5.9.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The hazardous materials associated with Project would be typical of medical uses, such as solvents, cleaning supplies, paints, and transmission fluids. While these materials are potentially hazardous, the quantities generally small and do not pose a significant risk to the public or the environment under normal conditions of use and storage.

Some appliances and electronics may contain hazardous components (e.g., refrigerants, oils, etc.). However, the handling and disposal of these components are strictly regulated by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, for transport regulations, as implemented in California by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Atwater. Compliance with these

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 85
regulations would ensure that the use, storage, and disposal of such items within the residences do not create a significant hazard.

During Project construction, the use of fuels, lubricants, and other potentially hazardous materials associated with construction equipment is anticipated. These potential impacts will be short-term and temporary and would be reduced through compliance with a comprehensive set of regulations, including EPA's oil spill prevention and preparedness regulations (e.g., Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plans), California Office of Emergency Services regulations related to hazardous materials accident prevention, California Department of Toxic Substances Control permitting and regulations for hazardous waste generation and handling, Merced County's environmental health regulations related to hazardous materials, and standard equipment operating practices and best management practices (BMPs) as specified in operator manuals and construction management plans.

Therefore, because the hazardous materials associated with the Project's operation are subject to extensive federal and state regulations, and because construction-related hazardous materials would be managed according to a comprehensive regulatory framework, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s operational activities would involve small quantities of hazardous materials typical of medical clinic uses (e.g., cleaning supplies, solvents). Given the limited quantities and nature of these materials, the risk of a significant hazard to the public or the environment from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions is considered low. Construction activities would involve the temporary use of limited quantities of potentially hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and cleaning solvents. Standard construction safety practices and BMPs would be implemented through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations to prevent spills and releases.

A database search identified one (1) closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) adjacent to the Project site.

The closed LUST site has been remediated to regulatory standards no longer poses a hazard. If excavation or grading activities encounter contaminated soil or groundwater, management and disposal would be conducted in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) requirements.

With adherence to existing regulatory requirements, local oversight, and implementation of standard construction and operational practices, the Project would not be expected to result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment from reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 86
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. Mitchell K-6 Elementary School is located approximately 0.16 miles southwest of the Project site. Mitchell Senior Elementary and Intermediate School are located approximately 0.10 miles west of the Project site. As described under criteria a) and b) above, the Project is not anticipated to emit hazard emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would pose a risk or threat to the schools or surrounding. In addition, all materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. According to NPL, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker, the Project site does not include a hazardous material release site. Since there are no active hazardous material release sites on the Project site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the environment and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
No Impact. The nearest public airport or public-use airport is Castle Airport, located approximately 2.80 miles northeast of the Project site. According to the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is not within an Airport Influence Area (AIA). 31 The Project would not be subject to any related land use restrictions or policies, and there would be no potential for aircraft-related safety hazards affecting people working in the project area. As such, there would not be a safety hazard for people residing or working on the site and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve any new or altered infrastructure associated with evacuation, emergency response, and emergency access routes within the City of Atwater or Merced County, 31 County of Merced. (2012). Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed April 2, 2026, https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/aluc/alucp_july2012/2012_mer_alucp_entire_document.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 87
including procedures identified in the County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Construction may require lane closure; however, these activities would be short-term and access would be maintained through standard traffic control.

Following construction, these roadways would continue to provide access to the site. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access. Therefore, through compliance, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant. The Project site is located on a relatively flat, highly disturbed property with minimal slope.

The site is not situated in a wildland or a Cal Fire-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).32 Furthermore, the site is within an “area of local responsibility.” The flat terrain, lack of wildland vegetation, absence of prevailing winds that would exacerbate fire risk, and location outside a FHSZ reduces wildfire risk and the potential to expose people or structures to wildland fires. In addition, the development itself would be constructed in compliance with the CBC and local fire safety regulations, including the Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Standards of the CBC Chapter 7A, which include measures to minimize fire risk. The site is currently developed with an existing building and is surrounded by urban development and infrastructure with impervious surfaces (e.g., pavement and rooftops), which further limit the potential for wildfire to spread. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
32 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed on April 2, 2026, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 88

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:

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

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

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

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 89

5.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site was previously developed and is within City limits and thus, is connected to water and stormwater services. The City’s water and stormwater services are described as follows.

Water
The City of Atwater Public Works Department provides water service for residences, commercial establishments, manufacturing plans, institutional facilities, and parks within the city limits. The City operates nine (9) wells to provide water to its customers. All wells are located within the City except for Well #21, which is located at the northeast corner of the Castle Airport facility adjacent to the U.S. Federal prison. 33 In 2016, the City produced an average of eight million gallons per day (mgd). The system has a capacity to pump 15,388 gallons per minute (gpm) and two (2) million gallons of storage. As of 2016, the system serves approximately 6,800 residential connections, 520 commercial connections, six (6) industrial connections, and 45 irrigation connections. 34 The water is distributed through a grid system of pipelines ranging from four (4) to 14 inches in diameter. The system supplies the City with drinking water and provides water for fire protection through fire hydrants.

The City has an overall Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that allows for remote monitoring and control of the water system via radio control. This system enhances quick response times to problem situations and fathers real-time, accurate data. The system can accurately determine water production quantities. To protect groundwater resources and minimize the future need to import water from other sources, the City and MID are engaged in efforts to reduce water consumption. New Atwater connections are metered, and per State law, unmetered connections will be metered in 2025. 35 The City’s water supply is obtained from the Merced Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin and is regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act by the Merced IrrigationUrban Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSA). The Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), adopted in December 2019, was developed to address the subbasin’s critical overdraft and bring it into balance by 2040. The Subbasin is heavily reliant on groundwater. Of note, the City and MID are working to reduce water consumption. The City has met Assembly Bill No. 2572 requirements for water meter installation in all residences built in/after 1992; such requirements seek to reduce consumption. Implementation of the Merced Groundwater Subbasin GSP will ensure that groundwater supply is sustainability managed.

In an effort to ensure future growth on the eastern side of the City , in 2016 the City negotiated a settlement with the private Meadowbrook Water Company to relocate their “service area” from the area east of Buhach Road, north of (SR) 99 located within the City Sphere of Influence, to an area north of Santa Fe Drive and south of Cardella Road further to the northeast (the Meadowbrook Water Company was sold to Cal American Water Company in late 2016).
33 City of Atwater. (2018). Drinking Water Quality Report. Accessed April 3, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf 34 City of Atwater; EMC Planning Group, Inc. (2017). 2014-2043 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. Accessed April 3, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/city-of-atwater-2014-2023-5th-cycle-housing-element/ 35 City of Atwater. (2018). Drinking Water Quality Report. Accessed April 3, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 90
The Atwater General Plan established goals and policies related to groundwater use that would potentially influence implementation of the GSP, as listed below. The GSP anticipates that implementation of the GSP will reinforce Atwater’s General Plan goals in addition to the groundwater quality monitoring and remediation described therein.

GOAL CO-1. Support efforts to monitor and remediate existing groundwater contamination within the planning area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOAL SF-4. Avoid damage to persons and property resulting from flooding.

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

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

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

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

Stormwater
The City of Atwater Public Works Department manages the drainage system using retention basins and detention basins with a discharge to a natural drain or Merced Irrigation District (MID) canal. There are 13 detention basins and 16 storm water lift stations in the city, with pumping capacities ranging from 75 gpm to 8,000 gpm. The City has an agreement with MID for storm water discharge that includes a fee for maintenance of the canal system. MID sets a maximum rate of discharge for each development. In some situations, where service is not available, the City requires private basins to be constructed on Project sites.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 91

5.10.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The Project's construction activities, including grading, excavation, and loading, could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Potential stormwater pollutants may originate from construction materials, equipment maintenance, and earthmoving. The Project would be subject to the City's MS4 permit and applicable constructionperiod best management practices (BMPs) as standard conditions of the grading and building permits. Formal grading and drainage plans are required for City review and approval prior to building permit issuance, and all improvements must be designed and constructed per the City of Atwater Improvement Standards and Specifications. Compliance with these requirements would prevent pollutant discharges or runoff during the construction period.

Operations
The Project proposes a total impervious surface area of approximately 56,300 square feet, an increase of approximately 11,300 square feet more than the existing conditions of the site. On-site storm drain infrastructure would be designed to comply with City stormwater management standards with no increase in off-site runoff. The developer is required to comply with AMC Chapter 13.22 – Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, and the City's Post-Construction Standards Plan, prepare a Post-Construction Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan for City Engineer review and approval, and execute any required long-term BMP maintenance agreements. The developer must also provide a drainage system capable of accommodating all on-site surface water, including any necessary easements and infrastructure upgrades if public facilities are found to be inadequate. Waste discharge (i.e., sewer) would be conveyed to the City's existing sanitary sewer system.

With mandatory compliance with the City's MS4 permit, AMC Chapter 13.22, the Post-Construction Standards Plan, and applicable construction-period BMPs as required through the conditions of approvals, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would not substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 92
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 36 This plan is intended to serve as a tool for planning and phasing the construction of future domestic water supply infrastructure for the projected buildout of the City of Atwater, in accordance with the General Plan.

According to the UWMP, the City uses groundwater wells as the sole source of supply; the City does not use any other water sources including surface water, storm water, recycled water, or desalinated water. As such, groundwater should be viewed as a sustainable resource. The Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), adopted in 2019 and revised in 2022, has a goal to achieve sustainable groundwater management on a longterm average basis by increasing recharge and/or reducing groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results. 37 The implementation of the GSP is expected to improve the long-term water supply reliability for the City.

Along with the adoption of the UWMP and GSP, the City adopted its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which consists of four (4) stages to allow the City to reduce its water demand in addition to several restrictions and prohibitions on end users.

The City’s existing and projected potable water demands by sector are shown in Table 5-5 per the 2020 UWMP.

According to the UWMP, the projected water demand for the City, based on a population of 41,611 and a per capita water demand of 254 gallons per capita per day, would be 11,838 acre-feet (AF) in 2040. The 2020 UWMP anticipates, assuming groundwater remains the sole supply source, a total water supply of approximately 9,642 AF in 2025 and 11,838 AF in 2040. 38 As such, it is expected that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies throughout 2040.

Table 5-5 Projected Potable Water Demand by Sector, 2025 – 2040 Use Type
Water Use by Volume (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Single-Family 4,582 4,907 5,254 5,626
Multi-Family 951 1,018 1,090 1,167
Commercial 2,449 2,622 2,808 3,007
Other 1,660 1,777 1,903 2,038
Total 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838
Source: City of Atwater, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation of approximately 0.56 acres from Low Density Residential/R-1 to Institutional/C-O. Project water use was estimated using CalEEMod methodology (Appendix A). Based on default land use factors, the Project would require approximately 2,069,188 gallons of water annually, equivalent to 6.35 AFY. This estimate reflects operational (post-construction) demand. The Project’s projected annual demand of 6.35 AFY represents less than one percent of the City’s projected 2040 supply and 36 City of Atwater (2022). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed April 9, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Final-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf 37 Merced SGMA. (2026). Resources. Accessed April 9, 2026, https://mercedsgma.org/resources#documents 38 According to the UWMP, “Because groundwater is the sole source of water supply, projected water supply is equal to the projected water use.”

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 93
would be well within the available groundwater capacity under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions.

Therefore, Project operations would not cause or contribute to groundwater depletion.

In terms of groundwater recharge, Project development would increase impervious surface area, which could locally alter infiltration capacity. However, stormwater runoff would be directed to onsite drainage facilities designed in compliance with City standards and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. These systems are intended to treat, detain, and infiltrate stormwater onsite to the extent feasible, ensuring no measurable increase in offsite runoff or reduction in groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Project would not substantially interfere with recharge processes or sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

The Project will comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11, Section 4.304 – Outdoor Water Use) and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO; Title 23, CCR §2.7), both enforced through the City’s permitting and plan-check process. Compliance will ensure installation of efficient fixtures, irrigation systems, and drought-tolerant plantings.

In addition to operational demand, water will be temporarily required for construction activities, including dust suppression, soil compaction, and minor worker use. This temporary demand, while not calculated in the operational model, will be minimal and short-term when compared to the City’s overall annual supply capacity.

Construction water will be sourced and supplied under standard City permitting, and its demand will not substantially impact the City's long-term water supply reliability. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is a partially developed urban parcel with an existing building, paved parking lot, and landscaping. While construction activities on the primarily undeveloped site could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation, the Project would implement erosion controls and BMPs, as standard conditions of grading and building permits. These BMPs, such as covering/binding soil surfaces and using barriers like straw bales and sandbags, would minimize soil detachment and transportation. Formal grading and drainage plans are required for City Engineer review and approval prior to building permit issuance, ensuring that construction-period drainage and erosion control measures are appropriately designed for site conditions.

Post-construction, the Project would result in a net increase in impervious surface area of approximately 11,300 square feet. However, this is balanced by a significant reduction in exposed soil, which minimizes long-term erosion and siltation potential. The Project would generally maintain the existing site drainage pattern in accordance with an approved grading and drainage plan, and on-site storm drain infrastructure would be designed to ensure no increase in off-site runoff. Compliance with these requirements will prevent substantial alteration of the drainage pattern that could lead to substantial erosion or siltation, resulting in a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 94
Mitigation Measures
None required.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would disturb vegetation and soil, potentially altering the Project site's natural hydrology and increasing runoff volume and velocity, which could increase the risk of localized flooding. However, runoff would be controlled through approved grading and drainage plan, which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance, ensuring that construction-period drainage is appropriately managed to prevent on- or off-site flooding.

Post-construction, the Project would result in a net increase in impervious surface area of approximately 11,300 square feet, which could incrementally increase stormwater runoff volumes relative to existing conditions. On-site storm drain infrastructure would be designed in compliance with City of Atwater stormwater management standards to ensure no increase in off-site runoff rates or volumes, as required by the Post-Construction Standards Plan. The developer is further required to provide a drainage system capable of accommodating all surface water originating within and flowing onto the development. These measures would ensure that runoff is controlled and directed in a manner that would not lead to on- or off-site flooding, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would temporarily disturb vegetation and soil, potentially altering the Project site's existing hydrology. However, the approved grading and drainage plan and BMP implementation would control and direct runoff, reducing construction-related impacts on runoff volume and pollution, and preventing exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Post-construction, the increase in impervious surfaces would increase runoff. However, compliance with approved grading and drainage plans would reduce the potential for substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff exceeding the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. Therefore, both construction and operational impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. While the Project would increase impervious surfaces, it would be required to maintain the existing site drainage pattern through City-reviewed and approved project-specific grading and drainage plans.

This compliance would minimize or eliminate the potential to impede or redirect flood flows, resulting in a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 95
Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site faces minimal risk of inundation and subsequent pollutant release from tsunamis, seiches, and standard riverine floods. While multiple dams exist in the County, the Project site's location is generally considered outside the worst-case inundation areas for the largest facilities. There is no risk of tsunami as the site is located in the Central Valley, hundreds of miles from the Pacific Ocean. Seiches (standing waves in an enclosed body of water) are unlikely because the area is subject to historically low-to-moderate ground shaking, and there are no large, immediately adjacent water bodies of a size or shape conducive to seiche formation. The Project site is within FEMA Flood Zone X (Figure 5-3), which is designated as a minimal flood hazard area. This zone has a 0.2% annual chance of flooding (the 500-year floodplain) and includes areas of the 1% annual chance flood (100-year floodplain) that have shallow depths or small drainage areas. The risk of significant inundation from standard flood events is low. There is potential for inundation from a catastrophic dam failure, but the risk to the Project site is assessed as low due to its elevation and location relative to potential flood pathways (Table 5-6). Since the Project site is located in a minimal flood zone (FEMA Zone X) and is anticipated to be outside the primary inundation areas of the largest nearby dams (per the General Plan), the potential for inundation is minimal. As the Project would not introduce significant new flood-susceptible sources of pollution, and the hazard risk is minimal, the risk of pollutant release due to Project inundation is less than significant. The Project would not affect the City's ongoing requirement to update its emergency plan to address dam failure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5-6 Assessment of Dam Failure Inundation Risk
Dam Name
Distance to
Project Site
Inundation Risk to Project Site
Castle

4.9 miles
northeast
The City's General Plan indicates the City's emergency plan needs updating to address failure of this closest dam.

Lake
Yosemite

9.4 miles east
The City's General Plan states the Castle Airport area and the far northern periphery of the city are expected to be outside this inundation area.

Other Dams, including Mustang Creek, Merced Falls, Burns, Kelsey, Los Banos Creek Detention, O’Neill Forebay, and B.F.

Sisk Dike/B.F. Sisk are more of significant distance, which mitigates risk.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. A revised groundwater sustainability plan was adopted for the Merced Groundwater Sub-basin in January 2025 by the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MSGSA), and Turner Island Water District Groundwater Sustainability

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 96
Agency #1 (TIWD GSA-1), collectively referred to as “GSAs”. The City of Atwater is part of the MIUGSA. 39 The goal of the Merced Subbasin and GSAs is to achieve sustainable groundwater management in the Merced Subbasin by the year 2040 through a combination of increased recharge and reduced groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results. The proposed Project is required to comply with the adopted plan to meet the 2040 sustainability deadline for the basin. The Atwater General Plan includes goals and policies related to groundwater use that influence implementation of the GSP. The Merced County Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) anticipates that the Atwater General Plan Update 2024 will further strengthen this alignment by ensuring that all land use and resource management policies remain in full compliance with the GSAs adopted GSP. As such, compliance with the Atwater General Plan would ensure that the Project does not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the GSAs plan. As mentioned above, impacts to groundwater supplies from the proposed Project will be minimal. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
39 Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2025). Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Accessed April 9, 2026, https://www.mercedsgma.org/resources

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 97
Figure 5-3 Flood Zone Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 98

5.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the Project:

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

5.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Atwater, County of Merced, California. The site is located on the southwest corner of Ivy Avenue and Third Street at 1775 Third Street, Atwater, CA 95301. The Project site has historically been used for intermittent clinic purposes by a private medical group. The Project site is currently developed with an existing 6,400 square-foot building, 77 parking spaces and landscaping along Third Street and the south side of the property line.

The Project site currently has a City of Atwater General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and Institutional. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to amend the site to Institutional land use designation. According to the General Plan, the Institutional land use designation is “intended for public and quasipublic facilities, including, but not limited to, government services and facilities, fire/police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, electrical substations, domestic water treatment, and storage, and other similar uses.” The Project site is currently within the City’s R-1 and C-O zone district. The Project proposes a Zone Change to amend the zone district to the C-O zone district. The proposed zoning designation of C-O for the Project site is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Institutional.

As referenced in Table 3-2, to the north of the Project site, the existing land use is single-family residences. The planned land use and zoning district in this area is designated as Low Density Residential. To the south, the existing land use includes a health care center, single-family residences and a park. The planned land use for this area is designated as Institutional, Park, and High Density Residential and the current zoning is Low Density Residential and High Density Residential. To the east, the existing land use includes single-family residences, a park, and a library.

The planned land use for this area is designated as Institutional, Park, and Low Density Residential and the current zoning is Low Density Residential. To the west, the existing land use includes a school, church, and single-family residences. The planned land use for this area is designated as Low Density Residential, Institutional, and School and the current zoning is Low Density Residential.

5.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 99
Less than Significant Impact. The physical division of an established community typically involves the construction of a barrier, such as a highway or railroad tracks, or the removal of a crucial access point, thereby impairing community connectivity. This Project would modify the existing medical facility site, resulting in approximately 14,800 square feet of building area and other on-site improvements. It will not construct a dividing feature, nor will it remove an essential access route. Instead, the Project would be designed in accordance with the General Plan, AMC, and other applicable standards to ensure a cohesive site and circulation plan that integrates with the surrounding community. Therefore, this Project would not physically divide an established community, and the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would modify an existing medical facility site, resulting in approximately 14,800 square feet of building area, 83 parking spaces, and other site modifications including pedestrian pathways, bike parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, and a secure outdoor staff area, consistent with the Institutional land use designation for the site. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to allow medical clinic uses on the Project site. Generally, policy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A discussion of land use policies that are applicable to the project are included in Table 5-7. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the proposed Institutional land use designation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5-7 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Institutional Development General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Goal LU-2. Ensure that the appearance of non-residential development contributes positively to the community’s image.

Consistent. Through the entitlement process, the
Project would be required to comply with all relevant
design guidelines. As such, the Project will be
appropriately designed to present an attractive public
view and contribute positively to the community’s
image.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 100

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

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

5.12.1 Environmental Setting
Mineral resources include commercially viable oil and gas deposits, and nonfuel mineral resources deposits.

Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. California is the largest producer of sand and gravel in the nation.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the Mineral Land Classification Map in 1997 shows that the Project is not within a mineral resource zone. 40 The Geologic Energy Management Division’s (CalGEM) online mapping application, Well Finder, presents California’s oil and gas industry information, including the location of oil/gas wells, geothermal wells, gas/oil facilities (i.e., tank, vessel, sump), underground gas storage, as well as the boundaries of CalGEM-recognized oil/gas fields. According to Well Finder, the Project Site is not within a CalGEM-recognized oil/gas field. 41 Atwater General Plan
According to the Atwater General Plan, Merced County is located in the center of a productive agricultural belt underlain primarily by unconsolidated sedimentary rocks and alluvial sediments deposited by river tributaries draining into the San Joaquin River. Within the City’s Planning Area, there are two active mining sites located near SR 140. However, mineralogical occurrences within Merced County are less numerous compared to other regions of the San Joaquin Valley, the General Plan does not establish any policies to protect mineral resources in the City’s Planning Area.
40 California Department of Conservation. (1997). Mineral Lands Classification. Accessed on April 7, 2026, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc 41 California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division. Well Finder. Accessed on April 7, 2026, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 101

5.12.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. There are no identified mineral deposits of significance or active mine operations on the Project site.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. There are no identified mineral deposits of significance or active mine operations on the project site. As a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 102

5.13 NOISE
Would the Project:

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

5.13.1 Environmental Setting
In general, there are two (2) types of noise sources: 1) mobile sources and 2) stationary sources. Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trucks, trains, and aircraft. Stationary sounds are sources that do not move such as machinery or construction sites. Stationary sources can also include events, recreational uses, amplified systems, automotive repair facilities, building mechanical systems, and landscape maintenance. These sources can vary based on factors such as site conditions, equipment operated, and specific activities conducted. Noises generated are also directional but can vary based on site and operational characteristics.

Nosie-related impacts typically affect sensitive receptors, and land uses such as residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels. Noise levels for noise-sensitive receptors will vary depending on location, distance from the source, shielding by terrain and structures, and ground attenuation rates.

Atwater General Plan
The Atwater General Plan Noise Element sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) metric. The CNEL is the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 3 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p.m.10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 103
CNEL represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and is therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.

The Noise Element establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 60 dB for exterior noise levels in outdoor activity areas of museums. Outdoor activity areas generally include outdoor common use areas, porches, or patios. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation.

The Noise Element also provides land use compatibility guidelines for community noise exposure levels. Figure 5-4 (Table 6‐5 in the General Plan Nosie Element) summarizes land use compatibility guidelines for various noise exposure levels within the community. An exterior noise level up to 60 dB is considered “Normally Acceptable” and an exterior noise level between 65 dB and 75 dB is considered “Conditionally Acceptable” for museum land uses within the City of Atwater. Exterior noise levels above 75 dB are generally considered unacceptable for office land uses.

Figure 5-4 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Development

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 104
The City Code of Atwater, California
The AMC, Title 8, Chapter 8.44, provides standards for noise levels, as discussed below.

Section 8.44.040 – Specific prohibited noises. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following acts and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared and deemed to be in violation of this chapter:

A. Placement of Stereo Speakers. The amplification of music or any other sound on private property, through speakers located either (1) outdoors, or (2) in one or more windows or doorways, when such speakers are directed towards and such music is plainly audible on an immediately adjacent public right-of-way.

B. Band or Orchestral Rehearsals. The conducting of or carrying on, or allowing the conducting or carrying on of band or orchestral concerts or rehearsals or practices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. sufficiently loud as to be plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating.

C. Engines, Motors and Mechanical Devices Near Residential District. The sustained, continuous or repeated operation or use between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of any motor or engine or the repair, modification, reconstruction, testing or operation of any automobile, motorcycle, machine, contrivance, or mechanical device or other contrivance or facility unless such motor, engine, automobile, motorcycle, machine or mechanical device is enclosed within a sound insulated structure so as to prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating.

D. Motor Vehicles. Racing the engine of any motor vehicle or needlessly bringing a motor vehicle to a sudden start or stop.

E. Loading and Unloading. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause noise disturbance, except for solid waste collection by a franchised collector.

F. Non-Emergency Signaling Devices. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any electronically amplified signal from any bell, chime, siren, whistle or similar device, intended primarily for non-emergency purposes, from any place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and in no event for more than ten consecutive seconds in any hourly period outside those hours.

G. Emergency Signaling Devices.

1. The intentional sounding, or permitting the sounding, outdoors, of any emergency signaling device including fire, burglar, civil defense alarm, siren, whistle or similar emergency signaling device, provided, however that testing of an emergency signaling device is permitted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Any such testing shall use only the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall such test time exceed 60 seconds. Testing of the emergency signaling system shall not occur more than once in each calendar month.

2. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm unless such alarm is terminated within 15 minutes of activation.

3. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm unless such alarm is terminated within five minutes of activation.

4. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm more than three times of any duration in any 24-hour period.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 105
H. Commercial Establishments Adjacent to Residential Property. Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary, continuous, repeated or sustained noise from the premises of any commercial establishment which is adjacent to one or more residential dwelling units, including any outdoor area part of or under the control of the establishment, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. that is plainly audible from the residential dwelling unit's property line.

Section 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.

B. Special Circumstances. The building official may grant an exception to the provisions of this section in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Upon receipt of an application in writing therefore stating the reasons for the request and the facts upon which such reasons are based, the building official may grant such permission if he or she finds that:

1. The work proposed to be done is in the public interest; or

2. Unusual hardship, injustice or unreasonable delay would result from adherence to the hours and days specified above.

Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the building official may forthwith appeal to the City Council.

C. Utilities Exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to construction, repair or excavation by a public utility which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and where such work is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare and where such necessity makes it necessary to construct, repair or excavate during the prohibited hours.

D. City Exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to public works which are authorized by the City.

Existing Ambient Noise Environment
The Project site’s existing noise environment is impacted by various noise sources. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Project site is largely surrounded by residential and institutional uses. Associated noises include vehicles and typical neighborhood noise (i.e. talking, car doors shutting, dogs barking, etc.), general employee activity, which are usually minimized by trees and landscaping. The Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Castle Airport, nor is it within the Airport’s community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contour. Other sources of noise include the vehicular traffic on Third Street and Ivy Avenue.

Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual Some additional vibration guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table 5-8 (Acoustical Analysis Table III) and Table 5-9 (Acoustical Analysis Table IV), and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 106
Table 5-8 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria (Acoustical Analysis Table III)

Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans
Table 5-9 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria (Acoustical Analysis Table IV)

Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.0 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50
Source: Caltrans

5.13.2 Impact Assessment
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less than Significant Impact. Noise generating activities of the Project would include traffic noise and stationerysource noise, such as operations and construction as described below. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards, given the type of development proposed (i.e., medical clinic).

Traffic Noise Exposure
Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft.

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space-recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels. The nearest sensitive land uses are single-family residences that are located to the north, south, east, and west of the Project site. The primary source of exterior, on-going noise from buildout of the Project would be from vehicles traveling to and from the site. Future buildout of the Project site would generate an increase in traffic on roadways in the Project vicinity. However, the number of new trips (i.e., 28.9 ADTs) as associated with buildout of the Project site is not likely to increase the ambient noise levels by a significant amount as the area is active with vehicles. Additionally, increased traffic noise levels on adjacent roadways due to buildout of the Project is expected to be minimal since the trips generated by operations (i.e., a medical clinic) do not include heavy duty trucks. While Project operations may include delivery vehicles (e.g., FedEx, UPS, USPS, etc.), Project operations would not require any unusual or atypical amount of deliveries. Further, while

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 107
Project construction would require use of heavy duty trucks and construction equipment, construction would be limited and temporary and truck trips would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, it is expected that the traffic noise levels will increase minimally and will not have a significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Noise Exposure
Construction noise will result from construction activities through the use of construction equipment for grading the site and building the proposed structures. Construction phases would include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Of all construction phases, it is anticipated that grading would produce the loudest noise. Short-term construction noises include traffic noise generated from transporting construction equipment and materials and construction worker commuting. These activities would raise noise levels near the site. Ambient noise from construction activities would cease upon completion of construction.

Although the nearby residential uses would experience elevated noise levels from construction, these activities would be temporary and would generally take place in accordance with AMC Section 8.44.050, which regulates permissible hours of construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends. According to the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, noise exceeding 90 Lmax in the daytime (7 am to 6 pm) and 85 Lmax in the evening (6 pm to 10 pm) is considered significant. It is not expected that the construction of the Project would exceed the construction noise thresholds of the FHWA since 1) not all construction equipment is expected to be used at the same time and 2) trees between the site and nearby residences, as well as windows and walls of the residences would provide noise reduction.

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

Operational Noise Exposure
The proposed medical clinic use is expected to generate typical medical clinic noise (i.e., talking, car doors shutting, etc.). These noises are expected to be minimal due to the type of noise and intervening trees and landscaping and will not introduce a new significant source of noise that isn’t already occurring in the area. In addition, commercial machinery sounds (e.g., HVAC systems, generators, etc.) will be confined within the interior of the buildings. As such, it is expected that the operational noise generated by the Project will be minimal and most likely not cause significant impact to existing uses. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although the Project would result in increased ambient noise levels at the Project site, compliance with the General Plan policies and AMC requirements would result in the Project’s compliance with applicable standards. Overall, the Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to noise. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Ground borne vibration may result from operations and/or construction, depending on the use of equipment (e.g., pile drivers, bulldozers, jackhammers, etc.), distance to affected structures, and soil type. Depending on the method, equipment-generated vibrations could spread through the ground and affect nearby buildings. The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 108
breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed Project.

The existing single-family residences surrounding the site are located more than 100 feet from the Project site.

Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet are summarized by Table 5-10. Most of these levels are barley perceptible at 100 feet according to the vibration annoyance potential thresholds shown in Table 5-8 and Table 5-9. At 500 feet, the vibration levels would attenuate further and would not be expected to cause perceptible disturbance at the nearest residences, according to the damage potential thresholds shown in Table 5-9.

Table 5-10 Typical Vibration Levels During Construction Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
At 25 feet At 50 feet At 100 feet At 300 feet
Bulldozer (Large) 0.089 0.0415 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.003 0.0014 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.0355 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0163 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.03 0.013
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0415 0.01 0.006
Source: California Department of Transportation
As a result, it is not expected that construction activities would exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage. Additionally, operational activities related to commercial uses are non-perceptible (i.e., vibration from HVAC, generators, etc.) thus would not create any vibration impacts. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest public airport to the Project site is Castle Airport which is approximately 2.80 miles northeast of the site. Per the General Plan Noise Element, the Project site is not within the airport noise contour.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 109

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:

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

5.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide an example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a Project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units. A key consideration in evaluating growth inducement is whether the activity in question constitutes “planned growth.” City of Atwater General Plan
The City of Atwater General Plan estimates the capacity of existing residential uses to hold a total of 64,172 people and non-residential land uses to hold a total of 44,956 employees at full buildout of the city’s Planning Area.

U.S. Census Bureau
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Atwater is 32,248 in 2024 with an average household size of 3.09 in 2023.
42 5.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
42 U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). QuickFacts: Atwater city, California. Accessed on April 3, 2026, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/atwatercitycalifornia/PST120222

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 110
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would modify an existing medical facility site, resulting in approximately 14,800 square feet of building area, 83 parking spaces, 27 exam rooms, and other site modifications including pedestrian pathways, bike parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, and a secure outdoor staff area. No residential development is proposed that would induce population growth. The Project does not require extension of roads or utilities beyond the site, except for roadway improvements along the site’s frontage (i.e., curb, gutter, and sidewalk) and utility connections to existing pipelines. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain any existing residents as the site is currently developed with an existing intermittent clinic, including landscaping, parking lots, and pedestrian walkways. Therefore, the Project would not result in the physical displacement of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur because of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 111

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

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

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

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

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in the city are provided by CAL FIRE; the City also has a mutual aid agreement with the City of Merced that was established in 1993. The City of Atwater operates two (2) fire stations: Station 41 at 699 Broadway Avenue and Station 42 at 2006 Avenue Two. Fire Station 41 is located approximately 0.53 miles southeast of the Project site. According to the General Plan, the total staffing for CAL FIRE includes 17 full-time firefighters, 1 administrative employee, and 25 volunteer individuals. In 2017, the City updated the Municipal Service Review and cited a response time of less than seven (7) minutes for 90 percent of responses. In 2024, CAL FIRE responded to 4,465 calls for service and 172 calls for fires.

Atwater General Plan
The General Plan Seismic and Public Safety Element includes the following goals and policies to ensure reductions for the potential of fire hazards.

Goal SF-6 Reduce the potential for both urban and wildland fires to occur.

Policy SF-6.1. Maintain, and if feasible improve, the City’s ISO rating of 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 112
Policy SF-6.2. Ensure that all new development and redevelopment of older projects conform to the fire safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code.

Policy SF-6.3. Maintain and augment mutual and automatic aid agreements with the Merced County Fire Department.

Policy SF-6.4. Support the relocation of Merced County Fire Department’s Station 82 to the proposed Applegate Road location to provide better fire protection service to the McSwain-South Atwater area.

Implementation Program SF-6.a. Enforce the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 on all development projects, the provisions of which include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Maintain structural roofs free of vegetative growth and debris. • Remove any portion of trees growing within 10 feet of chimney/stovepipe outlets. • Maintain screens over chimney/stovepipe outlets or other devices that burn any solid liquid or fuel.

Implementation Program SF-6b. Develop a comprehensive vegetation and weed abatement program for open space areas, including those located in existing subdivisions.

Further, projects are subject to review by CAL FIRE and to regulations and standards such as the California Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance and building use. The UFC addresses fire department access, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarm system, etc., for new buildings.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services in the City are provided by the Atwater Police Department. The Police Department currently operates from the main police station located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301, which is approximately 0.63 miles northeast of the Project site. According to the General Plan, there are 39 employees, 29 which are sworn officers, and 17 which are patrol officers. The City maintains a ratio of 1.2 police officers per thousand residents would support adequate law enforcement efforts at buildout of the General Plan.

Schools
Educational services within the City of Atwater are provided by the Atwater School District, Merced Union High School District, McSwain School District, Merced City School District and Winton School District. The six (6) school districts operate 13 public schools within the City’s Planning Area. The Project site is located within the Atwater Elementary School District, which includes 8 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and a community day school.

The nearest school is Mitchell Senior Elementary and Mitchell K-6 Elementary School located approximately 0.17 miles to the west/southwest of the site.

Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq. (State statutes) which govern the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” A School District Developer Fee would be assessed for development based on the rates in place at the time payment is due.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 113
Parks and Recreation
Park and recreational facilities are overseen by the City of Atwater Public Works Department. According to the General Plan, there are 18 parks within the City, totaling 77.62 acres of parkland, which provides a parkland to population ratio of 3.37 parks per thousand people. This meets the 1975 Quimby Act and the City’s park standard, which requires a minimum of three (3) acres per thousand residents.

Atwater General Plan
The General Plan Land Use, Public Facilities and Community Infrastructure Element includes the following objectives and policies related to park and recreational facilities and services:

Goal LU-23. Develop a comprehensive strategy for parkland acquisition, construction, and maintenance which meets the community’s adopted standards for recreation facilities.

Policy LU-23.1. Strive to maintain or exceed a minimum standard of 3.0 acres of public park land per 1,000 population.

Policy LU-23.2. Ensure that park and recreation facilities are distributed equitably throughout the community.

Policy LU-23.3. Identify areas of the City that are deficient in park and recreational facilities and assign top priority for future park construction to these areas.

Policy LU-23.4. Incorporate park and recreation facilities within the CAADC into the City’s park system, as appropriate.

Policy LU-23.5. Encourage private ownership and operation of park and recreation facilities located within the CAADC that are not incorporated into the City’s system.

5.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently served by CAL FIRE. Station 41 is located approximately

0.53 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project’s proximity to the existing fire station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. Additionally, through the entitlement and building permit process, the Project would be required to comply with the CBC and Uniform Fire Code to ensure fire safety elements are incorporated into Project design. Proposed internal circulation would be required to provide appropriate widths and turning radii to safely accommodate emergency response and the transport of emergency/public safety vehicles. The Project would also be designed to meet City requirements regarding water flow, water storage requirements, hydrant spacing, infrastructure sizing and emergency access.

Through compliance, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 114
None required.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site would be served by the Atwater Police Department. The Police Department currently operates from the main police station located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301, which is approximately 0.63 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project’s proximity to the police station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for police protection services.

For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities that could have an environmental impact and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
iii. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the Atwater Elementary School District. The nearest school is Mitchell Senior Elementary and Mitchell K-6 Elementary School located approximately 0.17 miles to the west/southwest of the site. The Project does not include residential development and would not directly generate new students or result in the need for new or expanded school facilities. To offset potential impacts of the development, a School District Developer Fee would be assessed for the Project based on the rates in place at the time payment is due. As stated in Government Code Section 65995 et seq., payment of a school impact fee is deemed full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. Therefore, payment of the assessed School District Developer Fee would reduce impacts related to new school facilities resulting from implementation of the Project and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
iv. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. The Project would modify an existing medical facility site, resulting in approximately 14,800 square feet of building area, 83 parking spaces, 27 exam rooms, and other site modifications including pedestrian pathways, bike parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, and a secure outdoor staff area. Because the Project does not include residential development, it would not introduce residents to the area and therefore would not increase the demand for and use of existing public parks or other recreational facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in new housing or employment centers that would significantly increase demand for other public facilities such as libraries or community centers. Visitor-serving uses (e.g., expanded medical clinic) would represent an intensification of an existing facility but would not generate

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 115
population growth that requires new or expanded facilities. Therefore, impacts on other public facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 116

5.16 RECREATION
Would the Project:

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

5.16.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.15. Public Services.

5.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. The Project would modify an existing medical facility site, resulting in approximately 14,800 square feet of building area, 83 parking spaces, 27 exam rooms, and other site modifications including pedestrian pathways, bike parking, landscaping, trash enclosures, and a secure outdoor staff area. Thus, because of the nature of the Project and the characteristics of the area, there would be no increased demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities associated with the Project and the Project would thereby not result in physical deterioration of recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Project proposes medical office use that does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 117

5.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project:

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

5.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently developed with a 6,400 square feet existing building, landscaping, parking lot, and pedestrian walkways. The Project site has street frontage along Third Street on the eastern edge, and Ivy Avenue on the northern edge.
2022 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Community Strategy for Merced County The 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) for the Merced County Region, approved in August 2022, was prepared to ensure that all planned additions and modifications to the regional transportation network address both existing and future mobility needs. The objective of the RTP/SCS is to provide a strategic and financially constrained roadmap for investments in roads, freeways, public transit, bikeways, and other modes of travel across Merced County over the next 25 years. The RTP/SCS identifies transportation system needs and projects throughout the county as well as within incorporated cities, including the City of Atwater. 43 According to the RTP/SCS, 77 percent of workers in Merced County drove to their jobs, and traffic collisions in 2019 resulted in approximately 2,270 injuries or fatalities. With continued population growth anticipated in the County, improvements to the transportation system are necessary to enhance safety, reduce congestion, and better serve community needs. Planned projects in the City of Atwater include:
• Bellevue Road and Broadway Avenue Reconstruction
• Citywide Traffic Signal Synchronization
o Shaffer Rd/Channel Ave
43 Merced County Association of Governments. (2022). 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy for Merced County. Accessed April 8, 2026. MCAG-2022-RTP-SCS

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 118
• Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project along multiple corridors o Grove Ave, Fir Ave, Elm Ave, Drakeley Ave, Cedar Ave, Broadway Ave, Seventh St, Sixth St, Fifth St, alley between Winton Way and Fifth St
o Fourth St, Third St, Second St, First St
o Oak Ave, Mulberry Ave, Laurel Ave, Kadota Ave, Juniper Ave, Third St, Linden St, First St o Holly Ave, Hemlock Ave, Groce Ave, Fir Ave, Elm Ave, Eucalyptus St, Packers St, High St. • Fruitland Avenue Reconstruction
o Winton Way to Shaffer Road
Atwater General Plan
The Circulation Element of the Atwater General Plan established policies to maintain the operations of existing roadway systems as new development occurs. These policies aim to ensure that adequate transportation system is provided. The following goals and policies are generally applicable to the proposed Project.

GOAL CIRC-1. Maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for City streets and intersections.

Policy CIRC-1.1 Establish and maintain a minimum LOS of D for all arterial and collector streets within the City.

Policy CIRC-1.2. Establish intersection LOS standards when more specific intersection traffic data becomes available.

Policy CIRC-1.3. Design roadway improvements and evaluate development projects using established LOS standards.

Policy CIRC-1.4. Develop the City’s roadway system in conformance with the planned roadway system shown on the Circulation Plan and the City’s adopted cross section standards.

Policy CIRC-1.5. Access for land uses adjacent to Castle Parkway will be provided by frontage roads which parallel the Parkway. Direct access to the Parkway will be limited to the primary east-west corridors in the area.

GOAL CIRC-5 Provide sufficient parking for all commercial, industrial, residential, and other uses, either off-street or on-street as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-5.1 Require that all new development provides sufficient on- or off-street parking to meet the standards of the City’s Zoning Code or any other applicable planning document (such as the Downtown Specific Plan).

GOAL CIRC-8 Provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system which connects residential areas, schools, and commercial areas with parking lots and public transportation.

Policy CIRC-8.1 Require new public and private development and infrastructure projects to include sidewalks or onsite pedestrian features.

Policy CIRC-8.2 Ensure that pedestrian circulation within commercial development projects is considered and that safe walkways are separated from parking stalls and drive aisles are provided.

The Circulation Element designates Santa Fe Drive and Buhach Road as Urban Major Arterials. Per the General Plan, these are roads within the Sphere of Influence that carry large volumes of traffic relatively long distances within or through an urban area. They also serve considerable local traffic traveling short distances. Along these roadways, priority is placed on through traffic mobility rather than access to fronting property, and direct access to individual fronting parcels is discouraged. A major arterial with fully controlled frontage access is also considered an

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 119
expressway. Major urban arterials should be continuous through the urban community they serve and link to arterial routes in adjacent communities or the rural areas.

SB 743 Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.

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

According to the Technical Advisory, lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. The City of Atwater has not developed their own specific thresholds; however, the City does use Merced County’s Guidelines.

MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines
In 2022, Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) adopted VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines for the seven (7) jurisdictions: City of Atwater, City of Dos Palos, City of Gustine, City of Livingston, City of Los Banos, City of Merced, and the County of Merced. The Guidelines include project screening criteria,

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 120
methodologies for estimating project specific VMT, regional and local thresholds, and VMT mitigation strategies. 44 The project screening criteria listed in the Guidelines are similar to those identified in the TA, including:
• Project is within a Transit Priority Area/High Quality Transit Corridor: within 0.5 miles of a transit stop, consistent with RTP/SCS, FAR >0.75, limited parking, does not reduce the number of affordable housing units.
• Project is a Local-Serving Retail less than 50,000 sf. • Project is a Low Trip Generator: less than 1,000 ADT for projects consistent with the General Plan and less than 500 ADT for projects inconsistent with the General Plan. • Project is 100% Affordable Housing Units.
• Project is Institutional or Government and Public Service Uses. • Project is located in Low VMT Zones.

If the project does not meet any of the screening criteria listed above, the project is subject to further analysis using the MCAG Travel Demand Model (TDM).

5.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all project-level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle. And pedestrian facilities. Compliance is further discussed below. Overall, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems and a less than significant impact would occur.

Roadway Facilities
Project construction and operations would generate vehicular trips to and from the Project site. The Project would be accessible via existing driveways along Third Street providing ingress and egress to the medical clinic. An internal circulation system consisting of pedestrian walkways would connect the buildings to the parking lot. The Project does not propose any modifications to the existing roadway network. In addition, trips generated by construction and operations would be minimal. Construction-related trips would be limited in duration as the site is prepared for construction, and the proposed structures are built. Operations would generate limited trips, approximately 29 average daily trips as identified in criterion b). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as shown on the Existing Roadway Network described in the Circulation Element. 44 Merced County Association of Governments. (2022). VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines. Accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.mcagov.org/DocumentCenter/View/3872/MCAG-SB-743-VMT-Thresholds-and-ImplementationGuidelines_11-10-2022?bidId=

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 121
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
There are no existing bicycle facilities along Third Street and Ivy Avenue. There are existing pedestrian facilities along Third Street and Ivy Avenue. The General Plan Circulation Element does not identify any future bicycle or pedestrian facilities in this area. Because the Project does not include or require public street improvements, it would be consistent with the General Plan and would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

Transit Facilities
The City of Atwater is served by Merced County Transit, which provides public transportation throughout the County. There are no bus routes or bus stops along Third Street or Ivy Avenue. The Project does not propose public street improvements and would not alter or obstruct the existing bus stop or route. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would expand an existing medical facility through construction of an approximately 8,400-square-foot addition, resulting in 14,800 square feet of building area, 83 parking spaces, 27 exam rooms, and other site modifications including pedestrian pathways, bike parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, and a secure outdoor staff area. Trip generation associated with the Project was estimated using the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the ITE clinic rate (3.44 trips per 1,000 square feet GFA). The average daily trip generation rate was applied to the proposed 8,400 square feet addition of medical clinic space which yields an estimated 28.9 average daily trips (ADT) 3.44 × 8.4 = 28.9ADT).

Per the MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines, projects that generate less than 1,000 ADT (consistent with General Plan) or 500 ADT (if not consistent with General Plan), it can screen out as a Low Trip Generator. Because the Project would generate less than 1,000 ADT, it would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain any geometric design features that would create roadway hazards. Implementation of the Project would not require improvements or expansions to the roadway network serving the Project site. Access would continue to be provided by the existing driveways on Third Street. The Project proposes an internal circulation of pedestrian walkways to buildings and internal drive aisles to parking lots; fire lanes would be designed and constructed in accordance with City engineering standards and fire-department requirements, including appropriate turning radii, sight distance, clearances, and emergency vehicle access.

Furthermore, the Project proposes institutional development within an area that comprises existing and planned residential and institutional uses. Because the Project is consistent with both the site’s land use designation and existing development pattern and surrounding land uses, it would not introduce incompatible uses. Therefore,

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 122
implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards associated with roadway design features or incompatible uses.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be accessible via the existing driveways along Third Street, providing ingress/egress to the medical clinic. The Project would not alter or impede any primary evacuation routes. While temporary lane closures may occur during construction, these would be managed through approved traffic control plans and encroachment permits to maintain emergency vehicle access. Post-construction, the Project would maintain adequate emergency access, including appropriate turning radii for emergency vehicles, clearly marked fire lanes, and sufficient hydrant access. The City's review and approval process would ensure compliance with all applicable codes and regulations related to emergency access and evacuation. Therefore, the Project would not impair emergency response or evacuation plans, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 123

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

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

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

X

5.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 5.5. Cultural Resources.

5.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Public Resources Code Section 21074 defines a "tribal cultural resource" as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or listed in a local register of historical resources. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k) further clarifies that a local register of historical resources is a list of properties officially designated as historically significant by a city or county through a local ordinance or resolution.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 124
As discussed in Section 5.5. Cultural Resources, a CHRIS record search, consultation notices to Native American tribes, and a Sacred Lands File check were conducted for the Project site and surrounding area. These efforts, which specifically sought to identify known tribal cultural resources, did not identify any such resources within the Project boundaries. Therefore, the Project would not impact any known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register.

However, recognizing the possibility of encountering undiscovered tribal cultural resources during grounddisturbing activities, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3. This measure would protect any inadvertently discovered cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. Specifically, this measure outlines a stop-work and assess procedure during the construction phases of the project including stop work, expert consultation, City notification, resource evaluation and protection, and long-term preservation to avoid or minimize potential impacts. This measure directly addresses potential impacts to undiscovered tribal cultural resources that might meet the criteria of PRC Section 21074.

Therefore, considering the negative findings of the record search and tribal consultation regarding known resources, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3 to address potential impacts to undiscovered resources, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Potential impacts to unknown resources, if any, will be reduced to a less than significant level through the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 outlines criteria for determining the historical significance of a resource. While the Project site has not been formally designated as a historical resource by the City of Atwater under this section, undiscovered tribal cultural resources, potentially meeting the criteria of PRC 5024.1, could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

As discussed previously, a CHRIS record search, formal tribal consultation notices, and a Sacred Lands File check were conducted. These efforts did not identify any known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, the possibility of encountering undiscovered resources, potentially meeting the significance criteria of PRC Section 5024.1, remains.

To address this possibility, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3. This measure would protect any inadvertently discovered cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. Specifically, this measure outlines a stop-work and assess procedure during the construction phases of the project including stop work, expert consultation, City notification, resource evaluation and protection, and long-term preservation to avoid or minimize potential impacts.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 125
Therefore, considering the negative findings of the record search and tribal consultation regarding known resources, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3 to address potential impacts to undiscovered resources that might meet the criteria of PRC Section 5024.1, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Potential impacts to unknown resources, if any, will be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL1 through Mitigation CUL-3. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 126

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:

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

5.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site was previously developed and is within City limits and thus, is connected to water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and solid waste services are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.

Water
Water supply, usage, and services are described in Section 5.10.

Wastewater
The City of Atwater Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s municipal wastewater collection and treatment system, which includes a network of pipelines, pump stations, and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility. The City’s new WWTP, constructed in 2012, is located west of State Route 99 on Bert Crane Road.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 127
The facility has an average permitted treatment capacity of six (6) million gallons per day (mgd). Although the WWTP is owned by the City, it is operated under contract by Veolia Water North America West. In 2020, the facility treated an average daily flow of 3.3 mgd, which represents approximately 54 percent of its permitted capacity. In addition to serving the City of Atwater, the WWTP also receives and treats wastewater flows from the United States Penitentiary Atwater, the Winton Water and Sanitary District (WWSD), and Castle Airport.45 Solid Waste
The City of Atwater Public Works Department contracts solid waste to a private contractor, Mid Valley Disposal.

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

Stormwater
Stormwater services are described in Section 5.10.

Natural Gas and Electricity
According to the Atwater General Plan, MID is the electricity and natural gas provider. Power is provider through major electrical transmission lines running through the northern and southern portions of the city. State Route 99 contains a major natural gas main and crude oil pipeline. The gas main pipeline has an offshoot line running directly north through down, beginning approximately at Atwater Boulevard and First Street.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications providers in the area incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand. Upon request, the site would be connected to existing broadband infrastructure and subject to applicable connection and service fees.

5.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would connect to existing municipal water infrastructure located along Third Street. The existing mains would not require upgrading or relocation to facilitate the proposed development.

New water mains will be extended internally throughout the site to service the new building. The water system improvements for the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and requirements, as verified through the building permit process. As discussed in criterion (b), the Project’s estimated 45 City of Atwater (2022). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Final-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 128
water demand would fall within the projected supplies for all normal and dry years under the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Further, the Project's adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of water conservation measures, and payment of capacity and connection fees would ensure its water demand remains within acceptable limits, thus minimizing its impact on groundwater supplies and resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Project would also connect to existing municipal sanitary mains located along Third Street. The existing mains would not require upsizing or relocation to facilitate the proposed development. New sewer lines would be extended internally through the site to service each of the proposed buildings. The sewer system improvements for the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and requirements, as verified through the building permit process. As discussed in criterion (c), wastewater flows generated by the Project would represent a minimal percentage of the City’s wastewater treatment plant capacity, which currently operates well below its permitted treatment limit of 6 mgd. The Project would also be subject to sewer facilities development and connection fees, contributing to the funding of adequate sewer infrastructure. Accordingly, no new or expanded off-site wastewater facilities would be required, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would connect to existing storm drain facilities in adjacent roadways. The Project would incorporate storm water drainage infrastructure designed in compliance with all applicable codes and standards to manage stormwater runoff effectively, as ensured through City reviewed and approved grading and drainage plans. As discussed in Section 5.10, the Project’s compliance with approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of BMPs would control and direct runoff. The existing facilities would not require relocation or expansion of new facilities to facilitate the proposed development. Impacts would be less than significant.

MID would provide natural gas and electricity, and a telecommunications provider would serve the site. The Project would relocate and underground the utilities on the site. The construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable energy efficiency regulations including CALGreen, Title 24, and CARB. No new expanded facilities would be required for electric, gas, or telecommunications facilities. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. Water supply reliability is assessed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) based on the City’s water supplies during various water year types, including Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Five-Year Consecutive Drought period. The supply, demand, and surplus for the three hydrologic conditions are shown in Table 5-11. As shown, water supply is assumed to match with demand total because the groundwater pumping will operate to meet the demand through the three (3) hydrologic conditions over the timeframe.

Table 5-11 City of Atwater Water Supply and Demand Comparison, Hydrologic Conditions, 2025 - 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Total Supply 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838
Total Demand 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 129
Single Dry Year
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Multiple Dry Year
Year 1
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 2
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 3
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 4
Total Supply 7,713 8,260 8,844 9,471
Total Demand 7,713 8,260 8,844 9,471
Year 5
Total Supply 8,677 9,292 9,950 10,655
Total Demand 8,677 9,292 9,950 10,655
Source: City of Atwater 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Project water use was estimated using CalEEMod methodology (Appendix A). Based on default land use factors, the Project would require approximately 2,069,188 gallons of potable water annually, equivalent to 6.35 AFY. This estimate reflects operational (post-construction) demand only and represents a conservative scenario. Given that actual Project activities are limited to medical clinic and office, long-term water consumption is expected to be lower. The Project’s projected annual demand of 6.35 AFY represents less than one percent of the City’s projected 2040 supply and would be well within the available groundwater capacity under normal, single-dry, and multipledry year conditions. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project and planned future demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Temporary water use during construction for dust control, soil compaction, and worker needs would be short-term and minor relative to the City’s annual supply and existing demand. Construction water would be obtained under standard City permitting processes and would not affect groundwater availability for municipal or other users.

Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project and planned future demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, as discussed under Section 5.10, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s conservation efforts (e.g., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact water supply or impede water management. In particular, the proposed Project would be required to be built accordance with all mandatory outdoor water use requirements as outlined in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Section 4.304 – Outdoor Water Use and verified through the building permit process. As a commercial development that would contain landscaping pursuant to AMC regulations, future development shall comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Division 2), as implemented and enforced through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 130
Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP, the Project would not generate significantly greater water demand that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Additionally, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to water conservation efforts as well as compliance with applicable California Green Building Standards Code and MWELO would reduce water demand and reduce the potential for the Project to substantially decrease water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the 2020 UWMP, the City of Atwater owns a citywide wastewater collection and treatment system, which is operated by Veolia Water North America, West. The City’s existing sewer collection system consists of pipelines 10 inches or larger in diameter connected to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on Bert Crane Road south of the previous facility on State Route 99. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 6.0 mgd and currently treats an average of approximately 3.3 mgd.

The Project involves the construction of a new medical clinic. A conservative, worst-case scenario estimate using the CalEEMod model and default wastewater generation rates for the designated land uses at maximum buildout yields a projected demand of approximately 1,857,112 gallons per day (0.050 mgd) (Appendix A). This worst-case estimate accounts for less than one percent (approx. 0.8%) of the WWTP's permitted capacity.

While the CalEEMod estimate above provides a conservative ceiling, it utilizes a default percentage of water usage converted to wastewater that may not accurately reflect the actual generation profile of a museum complex. The majority of the Project site consists of aircraft display areas and a parking lot that generate no wastewater.

Wastewater generation would be limited almost entirely to the restrooms and food preparation/cleanup facilities within the new café/gift shop building. Given that the actual primary source of wastewater is limited to a small commercial/institutional component (café/gift shop and public restrooms), the actual wastewater generation is expected to be substantially minimal and far less than the conservative 0.047 mgd maximum estimate.

The existing WWTP has a significant available capacity of approximately 2.7 mgd. Even under the extremely conservative, worst-case estimate of 0.050 mgd, the Project's demand represents a negligible fraction of the remaining capacity. Given that the wastewater load will primarily come from a single café/gift shop, the actual load will be even lower. Therefore, the WWTP has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's projected demand, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 131
Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste services are subject to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50% of its waste stream away from landfills either through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. The City contract with Mid Valley Disposal for solid waste, recycling, and composting services. In addition, Mid Valley Disposal complies with SB 1383, which requires a reduction of organic waste disposal by 75% by 2025. 46 Solid waste generated in the City is disposed of at the SR 59 Landfill (formerly the Merced County Landfill; SWIS No. 24-AA-0001). The facility received 23,570.87 tons of solid waste in 1990 and has since expanded to approximately 200 acres, allowing for additional disposal capacity. Based on available capacity, the SR 59 Landfill is anticipated to be able to accommodate the incremental solid waste generated by the Project. Merced County Landfill is permitted to receive a max of 1,500 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 28,025,334 cubic yards. 47 Construction
CALGreen mandates locally permitted new commercial building construction and demolition to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated during the Project. Further, the recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building or demolition permit that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume. Therefore, the Project would be required to implement techniques to reduce and recycle waste during construction activities in accordance with mandatory requirements under CALGreen as implemented through the building permit process. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, solid waste generated through construction activities is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Operations
The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 160 tons of solid waste per year as estimated by CalEEMod (Appendix A). The estimation accounts for compliance with AB 939. Solid waste generated through Project operations would account for less than 0.1 percent of the daily permitted throughput capacity of the landfill. As such, Project operations are not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
46 Mid Valley Disposal. Compliance Regulation. Accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.midvalleydisposal.com/sustainability/compliance-and-regulation/ 47 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2023). “SWIS Facility/Site Search.” Accessed on April 8, 2026. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 132
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d), Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with AB 939 and CALGreen regulations related to solid waste. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the Project would comply with laws and regulations that would ensure impacts related to solid waste are reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 133

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose Project
occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?

X

c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

5.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to the Atwater General Plan, grass and brush lands are the most likely places for wildlands in Merced County; however, Atwater lies outside of these areas and as a result, the risk of wildland fire is low. 48 Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Atwater as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ); rather, the site is within an “area of local responsibility” as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk. 49 Lastly, the Project would be required to be developed and operated in compliance with all regulations of the current California Building Code and Fire Code.

5.20.2 Impact Assessment
If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the Project:
48 City of Atwater. (2000). City of Atwater 2000 General Plan. Accessed April 7, 2026, https://atwater.generalplan.org/documents-maps
49 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed on April 7, 2026, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 134
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area and is not situated in a wildland area or within a Cal Fire-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The site is also within “an area of local responsibility”. The Project does not include any features that would obstruct, alter, or interfere with existing emergency access routes, nor would it require changes to adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area of the City of Atwater and is not situated in or adjacent to wildland areas or a Cal Fire-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The site is relatively flat and surrounded by existing urban development, which limits exposure to wildfire ignition sources and spread. There are no significant slopes, wildland fuels, or prevailing wind-driven wildfire pathways that would increase wildfire risk at the site. As such, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire hazards or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or uncontrolled wildfire spread. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located within city limits and is served by existing, maintained urban infrastructure, including roads and utility systems. The Project would include minor onsite improvements such as parking reconfiguration, pedestrian pathways, landscaping modifications, lighting, and a trash enclosure, as well as continued use and connection to existing water, sewer, power, and stormwater systems. These improvements are limited in scope and would connect to an established urban infrastructure network.

The Project does not involve the construction of wildfire-related infrastructure such as fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or new utility corridors that could increase fire risk. In addition, the proposed improvements would not introduce new ignition sources or substantially alter existing conditions in a manner that would exacerbate fire hazards. All onsite improvements would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable City codes, including fire safety and building code requirements. Therefore, the Project would not require infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 135
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area on relatively flat terrain and is not located within or adjacent to state responsibility areas, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or watercourses that would be susceptible to landslides or post-fire slope instability. The site is not subject to steep slopes or geologic conditions that would increase the risk of downslope hazards.

The Project includes minor onsite improvements and would continue to be served by existing stormwater infrastructure. Any proposed grading or drainage improvements would be required to comply with applicable City standards and building code requirements, including preparation and approval of grading and drainage plans. These requirements ensure that stormwater runoff is adequately managed and that no adverse drainage conditions are created.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to flooding, landslides, or drainage changes, including risks associated with runoff or post-fire slope instability. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 136

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:

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

5.21.1 Impact Assessment
a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CULPage 187 of 571

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 137
1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 138
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in the checklist, as well as the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a Project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Atwater is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey.

Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol-level burrowing owl surveys in accordance with CDFG's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation no more than 14 days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected, the applicant shall immediately notify CDFW and prepare and implement a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which may include avoidance buffers, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation for permanent habitat loss, consistent with CESA requirements
Project
Applicant
Prior to issuance
of Construction
Permit
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal, tree trimming, demolition, or other ground-disturbing activities are proposed during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of such activities. If an active nest is identified, a Project
Applicant
Prior to issuance
of Construction
Permit
City of Atwater

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 139
no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest by the qualified biologist, and all construction activities within the buffer shall be suspended until the nest is confirmed inactive by the biologist. Buffer distances shall be determined in coordination with CDFW, consistent with standard protocols.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:

If previously unknown historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist, shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. Notification of discovery shall be provided to the City Community Development Department.

The qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist shall make recommendations to the project proponent on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and City’s policies and procedures related to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources.

Notification of the measures shall be provided to the City Community Development Department.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 140
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the project proponent, who shall notify the City Community Development Department. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archeological resting, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Community Development Department approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement in the event of discovery of human remains at the direction of the county coroner.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater
Geology and Soils

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 141
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The Applicant will incorporate into the construction contract(s) a provision that in the event a fossil or fossil formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities for the proposed Project (i.e., trenching, grading), all excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the Applicant, who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Applicant shall implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Project
Applicant
During
Construction
City of Atwater
Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 142
7 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency
City of Atwater
1350 Broadway Avenue
Atwater, CA 95301
(209) 357-6201
Chris Hoem, City Manager
Jonnie Hanson Lan, Community Development Director
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of Planning
Jenna Chilingerian, AICP, Principal Planner
Shin Tu, AICP, Senior Planner
Ruby Rafeeque, Senior Planner
Sonia Ho, Assistant Planner

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 143
8 APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
1 / 5
Castle Family Health Center Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

5. Activity Data

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
2 / 5

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Castle Family Health Center
Construction Start Date 9/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80000
Precipitation (days) 23.4000
Location 37.35212044852483, -120.60641141835067
County Merced
City Atwater
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2329
EDFZ 14
Electric Utility Merced Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.41

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Medical Office
Building

14.8000 1000sqft 1.63000 14,800.0 14,700.0 — — —

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
3 / 5

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.00374 6.97963 11.0647 12.1558 0.01986 0.50687 6.32104 6.82791 0.46633 3.01728 3.48360 — 2,127.52 2,127.52 0.08704 0.02499 0.36002 2,135.65 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74413 1.46957 12.8999 14.4763 0.02266 0.57894 7.15925 7.73819 0.53263 3.44271 3.97533 — 2,529.53 2,529.53 0.10463 0.02499 0.00818 2,539.07 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.66792 0.58820 3.36043 4.13184 0.00796 0.10623 0.12169 0.17907 0.09776 0.05639 0.10920 — 764.887 764.887 0.03072 0.01001 0.05051 768.687 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12190 0.10735 0.61328 0.75406 0.00145 0.01939 0.02221 0.03268 0.01784 0.01029 0.01993 — 126.636 126.636 0.00509 0.00166 0.00836 127.265

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.66004 2.52054 2.26688 14.0616 0.03097 0.04091 2.35361 2.39452 0.03898 0.59939 0.63837 89.7026 3,631.52 3,721.22 9.15026 0.20973 10.5682 4,023.04

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
4 / 5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.33695 2.19666 2.52986 11.9538 0.02883 0.03981 2.35361 2.39342 0.03815 0.59939 0.63755 89.7026 3,415.42 3,505.12 9.17382 0.22149 0.64240 3,801.12 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.91698 1.80934 1.84619 9.22818 0.02235 0.03295 1.74817 1.78111 0.03156 0.44533 0.47689 89.7026 2,749.52 2,839.22 9.12583 0.16533 3.69545 3,120.33 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.34985 0.33020 0.33693 1.68414 0.00408 0.00601 0.31904 0.32505 0.00576 0.08127 0.08703 14.8513 455.214 470.065 1.51088 0.02737 0.61182 516.606

5. Activity Data

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Medical Office Building 302,745 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 475,394

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Medical Office Building 1,857,112 212,076

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
5 / 5
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Medical Office Building 159.840 0.00000

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 144

8.2 Appendix B: Biological Resources Database Results

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

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

General:

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Atwater (3712035)) Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

Location:

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

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

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

General:

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Ecological:

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

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19120
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

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

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

General:

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

State:

None
Candidate Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_LC-Least Concern, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOWGROWING VEGETATION.

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

Habitat:

Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Ecological:

General: 9 INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED ON 16 JUL 2007.

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

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_EN-Endangered, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

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

Habitat:

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

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

Location:

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

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

Ecological:

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

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN, PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

State:

Endangered
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4T2
S3
Other:

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

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

Habitat:

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

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

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

General:

Owner/Manager: MER COUNTY
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 8 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle
Element Code: ARAAD02031
Federal:

State:

Proposed Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2
SNR
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable, USFS_S-Sensitive General:

Micro:

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 721 Map Index: 67349 EO Index: 67517 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36083 / -120.55443
UTM: Zone-10 N4137708 E716581
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: CANAL CREEK, 0.3 MILE WEST OF FOX ROAD AND 0.3 MILE NORTH OF BRADSHAW ROAD, CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

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

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

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

State:

Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

Location:

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

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

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

General:

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

Location:

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

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

Ecological:

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

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 10 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
Element Code: ICBRA06010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

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

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

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

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 11 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
Element Code: PDCHE042P0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

Micro: ALKALINE VERNAL POOLS. 3-115 M.

Habitat:

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

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

Detailed Location:

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

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

Ecological:

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

General:

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

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

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

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 12 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

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

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

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

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

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

Ecological:

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

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 13 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
Element Code: PMPOA4C010
Federal:

State:

Threatened
Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

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

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

Habitat:

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

Location:

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

Detailed Location:

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

Ecological:

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

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 14 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Merced County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 1/9

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

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

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
1 2

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 2/9

Insects
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed Threatened
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Colusa Grass Neostapfia colusana
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5690
Threatened
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their nests, should follow appropriate regulations and implement required avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page.

The data in this location indicates that no eagles have been observed in this area. This does not mean eagles are not present in your project area, especially if the area is difficult to survey. Please review the 'Steps to Take When No Results Are Returned' section of the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document to determine if your project is in a poorly surveyed area. If it is, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if eagles may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).

Additional information can be found using the following links:
2 1
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 3/9

Bald & Golden Eagles FAQs
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply).

Proper interpretation and use of your eagle report
On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort line or no data line (red horizontal) means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide you in knowing when to implement avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities or get the appropriate permits should presence be confirmed.

How do I know if eagles are breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If an eagle on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Migratory birds
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standardconservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
1 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 4/9

Measures for Proactively Minimizing Migratory Bird Impacts Your IPaC Migratory Bird list showcases birds of concern, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), in your project location. This is not a comprehensive list of all birds found in your project area. However, you can help proactively minimize significant impacts to all birds at your project location by implementing the measures in the Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds document, and any other project-specific avoidance and minimization measures suggested at the link Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds for the birds of concern on your list below.

Ensure Your Migratory Bird List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

Review the FAQs
The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources.

BREEDING SEASON
Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Spinus lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 5/9

probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding's Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Lawrence's Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Nuttall's Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Santa Barbara Song
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Yellow-billed Magpie
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Migratory Bird FAQs
Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 6/9

Nationwide Avoidance & Minimization Measures for Birds describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location yearround. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is one of the most effective ways to minimize impacts. To see when birds are most likely to occur and breed in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and those species marked as “Vulnerable”.

See the FAQ “What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?” for more information on the levels of concern covered in the IPaC migratory bird species list.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) with which your project intersects. These species have been identified as warranting special attention because they are BCC species in that area, an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, and to verify survey effort when no results present, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

Why are subspecies showing up on my list?
Subspecies profiles are included on the list of species present in your project area because observations in the AKN for the species are being detected. If the species are present, that means that the subspecies may also be present. If a subspecies shows up on your list, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if that subspecies may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go to the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially BCC species. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts, please see the FAQ “Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds”.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Proper interpretation and use of your migratory bird report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list does not represent all birds present in your project area. It is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 7/9

present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about avoidance and minimization measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds".

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.

A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 8/9

boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 9/9

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 145

8.3 Appendix C: CHRIS Search Results

Date: 4/7/2026 Records Search File #: 13711I
Project: 23-326.13 Castle Family Health
Center (Atwater Clinic), CEQA, 1775
Third Street, Atwater, CA 93721
Ruby Rafeeque, Senior Planner
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
559-449-4500 [email protected]
We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Atwater USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Merced County.

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

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

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The area does fall within the proposed overall boundary of the Merced Irrigation District (P-24-001909), listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource

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

Directory (BERD) with an evaluation rating of 6Y, determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for Local Listing. No contributing element water features for this proposed district appear to fall within the project area. • The General Land Office survey plat for T7S R12E (dated 1855) shows Section 1 divided into various parcels, with the SW ¼ shown as a 160-acre parcel. • The 1918 and 1948 editions of the Atwater USGS quadrangle reference street alignments with the City of Atwater in the SW ¼ of Section 1, T7S R12E. The 1960 edition of the Atwater quadrangle shows the growth of the City of Atwater throughout Section 1 and beyond.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

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

Previous investigations within the project area: No project-specific investigation has been conducted, but the project area does fall within the overall boundary of one overview document prepared for the City of Atwater, referenced as follows:

Holman, M. and R. Hellmann (Holman & Associates, for Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, Berkeley, CA)
2008 An Archival Study to Identify Potential Cultural Resources Located in the City of Atwater General Plan and Program EIR Project Area, Merced County, California.

CCaIC Report ME-06858
Recommendations/Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 146

8.4 Appendix D: NAHC Correspondence

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

April 9, 2026
Ruby Rafeeque
Precision Civil Engineering Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Tribal Consultation Under CEQA, Castle Family Health Center (“Atwater Clinic”) Project, Merced County
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to your request, attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Additionally, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed based on the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. Be aware that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. As such, an SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with all tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Please contact all of the listed tribes as they may have information about sacred sites within the project area that is not listed with the NAHC.

Additionally, the NAHC recommends that agencies include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the Area of Potential Effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

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

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

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Andrew Alejandre
Paskenta Band of
Nomlaki Indians

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

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

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

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

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. If consultation is requested, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the process.

If you receive notification of a change of address or phone number from a tribe, please inform the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected] Sincerely,
Mathew Lin, MPP
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC}. The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in the checklist, as well as the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a Project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Atwater is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 810-1: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey. I Project . . . . . . . . . _ A licant Prior to any ground-dtsturbmg actraties, a qualified b1olog1st shall PP conduct protocol-level burrowing owl surveys in accordance with CDFG's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation no more than 14 days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected, the applicant shall immediately notify CDFW and prepare and implement a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which may include avoidance buffers, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation for permanent habitat loss, consistent with CESA requirements
Prior to issuance I City of Atwater
of Construction
Permit
Mitigation Measure 810-2: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation I Project . . . . . . licant
removal, tree trimminq, demolition. or other ground-d1sturbmg App activities are proposed during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of such activities. If on active nest is identified, a Prior to issuance I City of Atwater
of Construction
Permit
)>
-I
~
(")
:c
s:
m
z
-I
u,
s:
!:!':
cc
I»
!:!':
0 :l
s:
0 :l
....
0 ::::!.
:l
cc
I»
:l
a.
;;o
(D
"O
0 a
:l
cc
"'tJ .,
0 cc .,
I»
3 - s:
s:
;;o
"'tJ
-
""CJ
O.l
(0
co
N
.j::,.
0 --+,
N
~

INITIAL STU DY/ MITI GATE D NEGATIVE OECLA AATION
Ap ril 202 6
no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest by the qualified biologist, and all construction activities within the buffer shall be suspended until the nest is confirmed inactive by the biologist. Buffer distances shall be determined in coordination with CDFW, consistent with standard protocols.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In order to avoid the potential for I Project Applicant impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:

If previously unknown historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archeo/ogist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist, shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. Notification of discovery shall be provided to the Qty Community Development Department.

The qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist shall make recommendations to the project proponent on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEOA Guidelines and City's policies and procedures related to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources.

Notification of the measures shall be provided to the Qty Community Development Department.

During
construction
City of Atwater
-0
Q)
co
Cl)
I\.)
CJ1
0 -.J
I\.) -

INITI AL STU DY/ MITI GA TED NEGATIVE DECLA RA TION
Ap ril 2026
""CJ
!lJ
co
Cl)
N
0)
0 ---+,
N
-.J
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If the resources are determined to be I Project unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the Applicant CEOA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the project proponent, who shall notify the Oty Community Development Department. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archeological resting, incorporation of the site in green space, porks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Community Development Department approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

During
construction
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If human remains are discovered during I Project construction or operational activities, further excavation or Applicant disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5{c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement in the event of discovery of human remains at the direction of the county coroner.

During
construction
City of Atwater
Geology and Soils

INITIAL ST UDY/ MITI GATE D NEGATIVE DECLAAA TION
April 2026
Mitigation Measure GE0-1: The Applicant will incorporate into the Project During City of Atwater
construction contract(s) a provision that in the event a fossil or fossil Applicant Construction formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities for the proposed Project (i.e., trenching, grading), all excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the Applicant, who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Applicant shall implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources
lJ
Q)
cc
(1)
N
-.J
a
N
-.J

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

July 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City Project (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Accept work done under the contract for Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City Project, City Project 26-04; and authorize and direct City Manager to sign a Notice of Completion and have it recorded on behalf of the City;
I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

At their regular meeting of April 13, 2026, the City Council awarded a contract to Consolidated Engineering Inc. of Valley Springs, California for Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City Project. Improvements are on Mitchell Ave between Willow St and the Atwater Canal, Carter Way between Winton Way and Springwood, Cedar Ave between Winton Way and First St, and Shaffer Rd between Atwater Blvd and Juniper Ave. The work consists of a wedge grind, installation of an asphalt paving mat, and an overlay of 1 ½” of asphalt concrete over the mat. This also included approximately 50 feet of overlay on intersection streets that do not have a valley gutter.

The work was satisfactorily completed in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The total amount of the contract is $913,850.00. Staff has inspected the work and finds it acceptable.

The Notice of Completion has been prepared (EXHIBIT “A”) for this project.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding to pay the retention amount is contained in the project retention liability accounts.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item was reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson
John Cale Brian Raymond
Danny Ambriz Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Notice of Completion of Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City Project (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item consists of goals number one (1) and two (2) of the City's Strategic Plan; to ensure the City's continued financial solvency and to promote safety, stability, and quality of life, respectively.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

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

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

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

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

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is Categorically Exempt (CE) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Section 15301, “Existing Facilities” Class1(c): Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon City Council approval, the City Manager will execute the Notice of Completion and the City Clerk’s office will record the Notice. Acceptance of the Contract begins the 1- year guarantee period, during which staff monitors the completed improvements for any required corrective work. Contract bonds remain in place for 1 year or until the completion of any required corrective work.

Submitted by:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Attachments:

1. Notice of Completion

Agenda Report - Notice of Completion of Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City Project (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 3

Recorded at the request of:

CITY CLERK
Return to

CITY OF ATWATER
1160 FIFTH STREET
ATWATER, CA 95301

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION)
Notice is Hereby Given That:

1. The work of improvement as a whole was completed upon the hereinafter described real property on: July 14,2026.

2. The name and address of the owner giving and filing this notice:

Name Street and No. City State
CITY OF ATWATER 1160 FIFTH STREET ATWATER CALIFORNIA
The interest of said owner was acquired subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvement from:

Name Street and No. City State
N/A
The names and addresses of all other co-owners, if any, who own an estate or interest in said real property, whether as joint tenants or tenants in common, or otherwise, are:

Name Street and No. City State
N/A

3. That the nature of the interest or estate of the owner in and to said real property is in fee: _______yes________

4. That the name of the original contractor for the work of improvement referred to above is: Consolidated Engineering Inc. of Valley Springs, CA

5. That the street address of said property is: Mitchell Ave, Carter Way, Cedar Ave, and Shaffer Rd, Atwater, CA 95301.

6. That the real property herein referred to is situated in the City of Atwater, County of Merced, State of California, and particularly described as follows:

Overlaying Various Streets Throughout the City
City Project No. 26-04
Verification for CORPORATE owner: _______________________________________

JANELL MARTIN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

July 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of Castle Sewer Interceptor Rehabilitation/Replacement Project (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Accept work done under the contract for the Castle Sewer Interceptor Rehabilitation/Replacement Project, City Project 19-09; and authorize and direct City Manager to sign a Notice of Completion and have it recorded on behalf of the City; I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

At their regular meeting of January 13, 2025, the City Council awarded a contract to Mountain Cascade, Inc. of Livermore, California for the Castle Sewer Interceptor Rehabilitation/Replacement Project. The project was located near 2377 Shuttle Dr, in the Castle Commerce Center . The work consisted of the installation of a new aboveground dry prime pump station. The station included three pumps, an automatic transfer switch to run off a generator in case of a power failure, and a new flow meter to accurately determine the flow coming from the Castle Commerce Center.

The work was satisfactorily completed in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The total amount of the contract is $1,866,371.22. Staff has inspected the work and finds it acceptable.

The Notice of Completion has been prepared (EXHIBIT “A”) for this project.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding to pay the retention amount is contained in the project retention liability accounts.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item was reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson
John Cale Brian Raymond
Danny Ambriz Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Notice of Completion of Castle Sewer Interceptor Rehabilitation/Replacement Project (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item consists of goals number one (1) and two (2) of the City's Strategic Plan; to ensure the City's continued financial solvency and to promote safety, stability, and quality of life, respectively.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

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

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

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

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

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is Categorically Exempt (CE) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Section 15301, “Existing Facilities” Class1(c): Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon City Council approval, the City Manager will execute the Notice of Completion and the City Clerk’s office will record the Notice. Acceptance of the Contract begins the 1- year guarantee period, during which staff monitors the completed improvements for any required corrective work. Contract bonds remain in place for 1 year or until the completion of any required corrective work.

Submitted by:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Attachments:

1. Notice of Completion

Recorded at the request of:

CITY CLERK
Return to

CITY OF ATWATER
1160 FIFTH STREET
ATWATER, CA 95301

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION)
Notice is Hereby Given That:

1. The work of improvement as a whole was completed upon the hereinafter described real property on: July 14,2026.

2. The name and address of the owner giving and filing this notice:

Name Street and No. City State
CITY OF ATWATER 1160 FIFTH STREET ATWATER CALIFORNIA
The interest of said owner was acquired subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvement from:

Name Street and No. City State
N/A
The names and addresses of all other co-owners, if any, who own an estate or interest in said real property, whether as joint tenants or tenants in common, or otherwise, are:

Name Street and No. City State
N/A

3. That the nature of the interest or estate of the owner in and to said real property is in fee: _______yes________

4. That the name of the original contractor for the work of improvement referred to above is: Mountain Cascade, Inc. of Livermore, CA

5. That the street address of said property is: near 2377 Shuttle Dr, Atwater, CA 95301.

6. That the real property herein referred to is situated in the City of Atwater, County of Merced, State of California, and particularly described as follows:

Castle Sewer Interceptor Rehabilitation/Replacement Project City Project No. 19-09
Verification for CORPORATE owner: _______________________________________

JANELL MARTIN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

July 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approving Specifications and Authorizing and Calling for Bids for the East Broadway Overlay Project (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Approval of specifications and authorizing advertising and calling for bids for East Broadway Overlay Project, Project No. 26-01, Bid Call Number 737-26 I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

All pavements deteriorate with the passage of time and application of traffic loads. The rate of deterioration is based on a complex interaction of many factors including, amount of traffic, pavement structure, materials used in construction, subgrade conditions and localized factors. Over the years, the deterioration of the roadway on Olive Avenue has been caused by a combination of climate and load-related distress.

Climate-related distress in particular is due to weathering of asphalt concrete pavement and load-related distress such as rutting and alligator cracking.

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

The specifications and scope of work included in the overlay of E. Broadway Ave, between Mogliotti Ave and east of Manchester Rd, will consist of • mobilizing all required resources to complete the work; • providing temporary traffic control;
• providing erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control; • removing existing pavement by wedge grind;

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson
John Cale Brian Raymond
Danny Ambriz Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Approving Specifications and Authorizing and Calling for Bids for the East Broadway Overlay Project (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

• removing existing pavement markers;
• removing existing traffic striping and pavement markings by grinding; • disposing and/or recycling of all removed and excess materials; • handling and disposing of any and all hazardous materials; • repairing and filling existing pavement cracks, potholes, and boils; • leveling low/depressed areas of existing pavement;
• raising existing utility covers to finish grade;
• cleaning loose sand, dirt, debris, and other contaminants from existing pavement; • applying asphalt binder tack coat and sealant;
• installing geosynthetic pavement fabric;
• placing and compacting 1.5” Type A HMA pavement overlay with 1/2" max. aggregate size; and
• replacing thermoplastic traffic striping and pavement markings, and pavement markers.

This is approximately 141,250 square feet of pavement overlay. This will also include approximately 50 feet of overlay on intersecting streets that do not have a valley gutter.

See Exhibit-A for a map of the estimated areas included in the Project. The estimated cost of construction is $550,000. The actual construction cost will be determined after bids are received and staff returns to Council with its recommendation about awarding a construction contract.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding for this Call for Bids is available in the SB 1 Fund.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

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

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

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

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Agenda Report - Approving Specifications and Authorizing and Calling for Bids for the East Broadway Overlay Project (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 3

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

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

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

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon City Council approval, staff will advertise the Notice Inviting Bids in a local newspaper, on the City's website, and with one or more regional Builders Exchange.

Staff anticipates returning to the City Council with a recommendation to award the General Construction Contract for the project.

Submitted by:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Attachments:

1. 26-01 E. Broadway Ave-Overlay_bid-book_1-of-2

2. 26-01 E. Broadway Overlay_bid-book_2-of-2

______________________________
Janell Martin
City Manager
______________________________
Date
BID BOOK 1 OF 2

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
AND

SPECIAL PROVISIONS
for
East Broadway Avenue Overlay Project
For use in conjunction with the STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, 2024 Edition, and the STANDARD PLANS, 2024 Edition, of the State of California Department of Transportation, and the LABOR SURCHARGE AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES in effect on the date the work is accomplished.

BID CALL NO.: XXX-26 CITY PROJECT NO.: 26-01
BID OPENING: Thursday, August 13, 2026 @ 2:00 P.M. PDT

CITY PROJECT NO. 26-01
The special provisions contained herein have been prepared by or under the direction of the following Registered Persons.
________________________________ Spencers Stamp Here
Spencer Supinger, PE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS ................................................................................................................................ NTB-1 COPY OF BID ITEM LIST ........................................................................................................................... NTB-4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................................SP-1 DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................SP-2 1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................................SP-2 2 BIDDING ....................................................................................................................................................SP-3 3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION.......................................................................................................SP-8 5 CONTROL OF WORK................................................................................................................................SP-10 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC .......................................................................SP-12 8 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS...............................................................................................................SP-14 9 PAYMENT ................................................................................................................................................SP-14 DIVISION II GENERAL CONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................SP-16 12 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ...........................................................................................................SP-16 13 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL .............................................................................................................SP-16 14 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.........................................................................................................SP-17 15 EXISTING FACILITIES ..............................................................................................................................SP-18 DIVISION III EARTHWORK AND LANDSCAPING....................................................................................SP-19 17 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................SP-19 DIVISION IV SUBBASES AND BASES.......................................................................................................SP-20 23 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................SP-20 DIVISION V SURFACINGS AND PAVEMENTS..........................................................................................SP-21 37 SEAL COATS...........................................................................................................................................SP-21 39 ASPHALT CONCRETE..............................................................................................................................SP-21 DIVISION VIII MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................SP-23 77 LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................SP-23 DIVISION IX TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ............................................................................................SP-24 84 MARKINGS.............................................................................................................................................SP-24 DIVISION XI MATERIALS.............................................................................................................................SP-25 96 GEOSYNTHETICS....................................................................................................................................SP-25

NTB-1

CITY OF ATWATER

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
Bids open Thursday, August 13, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific DST Scope of Work:

The Work generally consists of a 1.5-inch pavement overlay located on E. Broadway Ave between Mogliotti Ave and approximately 400 feet east of Manchester Rd, including approximately 50 lineal feet of conform overlay paving on each intersecting street (unless intersection street has a valley gutter, then conform will stop at valley gutter). Work includes approximately 141,250 square feet of existing surfaced roadway or approximately 4,600 linear centerline feet of roadway, including side street conforms measured to the centerline of E. Broadway Avenue. All roads included in the project are to be paved “current” to Caltrans standard specifications. Project is anticipated to start in September 2026.

The Work is described in more detail in the following paragraphs and shall be performed by the Contractor pursuant to current Caltrans standard specifications.

All materials and construction methods shall conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications and all applicable material and performance standards therein referenced for hot mix asphalt and other bid items for the intended use and application. Material delivery shall conform to the recommended delivery standards and quality control regarding temperature of materials.

The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools, incidentals, permits, services, and construction required to complete the Work, which includes:
• mobilizing all required resources to complete the Work; • providing temporary traffic control;
• providing erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control; • removing existing pavement by wedge grind;
• removing existing pavement markers;
• removing existing traffic striping and pavement markings by grinding; • disposing and/or recycling of all removed and excess materials; • handling and disposing of any and all hazardous materials; • repairing and filling existing pavement cracks, potholes, and boils; • leveling low/depressed areas of existing pavement;
• raising existing utility covers to finish grade;
• cleaning loose sand, dirt, debris, and other contaminants from existing pavement; • applying asphalt binder tack coat and sealant;
• installing geosynthetic pavement fabric;
• placing and compacting 1.5” Type A HMA pavement overlay with 1/2" max. aggregate size; and • replacing thermoplastic traffic striping and pavement markings, and pavement markers.

The newly placed asphalt overlay shall tie in smoothly with the existing road surface and shall be applied to improve or correct any existing drainage issues. Contractor shall maintain the integrity of existing curbs, gutters, drainage inlets, culverts, or any drainage apparatus. Apply the “STOP” word marking and a stop bar line at all existing Stop signs, including where none currently exists.

Contractor shall post notice of the project work schedule at all entrances to the Project work area at least one (1) week prior to commencement of any work. “NO PARKING” signs shall be posted at least 72 hours prior to beginning work. Contractor shall arrange for towing of cars, if necessary, in coordination with City.

NTB-2
Traffic through the active construction zones shall not be delayed more than ten (10) minutes. One travel lane shall be maintained in each direction with a minimum width of 10 feet (10’). Temporary traffic markers shall be used where required and removed completely prior to completion of the Work. Trained flaggers shall be used when required. The project work area shall be cleaned daily of all construction debris, leaving the area safe and ready for traffic.

The City will receive sealed bids for the EAST BROADWAY AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT.

Project Number: 26-01
Bid Call Number: XXX-26
Bid forms for this work are included in a separate book titled:

CITY OF ATWATER, CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

BID BOOK

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF

EAST BROADWAY OVERLAY PROJECT
No bid will be received unless it is made on a bid form furnished by the CITY OF ATWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. Copies or facsimiles of the bidder's completed and executed bid forms submitted as a bid will be rejected. Each bid must be accompanied by a certified check, cashier's check, or bidder's bond made payable to the CITY OF ATWATER for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of bid, such guaranty to be forfeited should the bidder to whom the contract is awarded fail to enter into the contract.

The Contractor must have a valid California license of Classification A – General Engineering Contractor, or C-12 – Earthwork and Paving, to perform this work.

The successful bidder will be required to obtain a City of Atwater Business License at his/her own expense before execution of the contract.

Bids must be on a unit price basis. All bids are to be compared on the basis of the CITY OF ATWATER’S estimated quantities of work to be done.

Complete work within 30 working days.

The estimated cost of construction is $550,000.

Copies of plans, special provisions and proposal forms may only be obtained at the office of the City of Atwater, Engineering Division, located at 1350 Broadway Avenue, Atwater, CA, (209) 357-6233, upon request and payment of $50.00 per set, which is nonrefundable and includes sales tax. Bidders can use electronic copies to bid. Bidders are not required to purchase a hardcopy set of plans and specifications.

Electronic copies of the plans and specifications (Adobe PDF file format) for this project are available upon request. Said electronic copies are made available solely for the convenience of the prospective bidders (whether as a prime contractor or sub-contractor) on the Project, and are not considered part of the contract documents. No representation or warranty is made, either expressed or implied, with regard to the accuracy or suitability of said electronic copies for any purpose whatsoever. Utilization or viewing of said electronic copies shall constitute implicit acknowledgement and acceptance of the provisions of this paragraph.

The City will receive sealed bids until 2:00 p.m. PDT on the bid open date at the City of Atwater, Council Chambers located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301. Bids received after this time will not be accepted.

NTB-3
The City will immediately open and publicly read the bids at the mentioned location after the specified closing time.

Present bidders' inquires in writing to Justin Vinson at the City of Atwater, Public Works Department, 470 Aviator Dr, Atwater, CA 95301; email: [email protected].

Prevailing wages are required on this Contract. The Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations determines the general prevailing wage rates. Obtain the wage rates at the DIR Web site, https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides a toll-free hotline to report bid rigging activities. Use the hotline to report bid rigging, bidder collusion, and other fraudulent activities. The hotline number is (800) 424-9071. The service is available 24 hours 7 days a week and is confidential and anonymous. The hotline is part of the DOT’s effort to identify and investigate highway construction contract fraud and abuse and is operated under the direction of the DOT Inspector General.

Bidders shall provide certification regarding debarment, suspension, ineligibility and voluntary exclusion.

The General Services Administration System for Award Management (SAM) provides a complete, current list of all individuals and firms who are excluded or disqualified from covered transactions by the Federal Government. Visit https://sam.gov/content/exclusions for more information.

The CITY OF ATWATER reserves the right to reject any or all bid proposals and to waive any informalities or irregularities in any bid or in the bidding.

City of Atwater
Justin Vinson
Public Works Director

NTB-4

CITY OF ATWATER

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
* * * * * *

EAST BROADWAY AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT
Project Number: 26-01

COPY OF BID ITEM LIST
(NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING PURPOSES)
ITEM
NO. ITEM UNIT OF MEASURE

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1
2 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1
3 EROSION, SEDIMENTATION, AND POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1
4 REMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT
MARKINGS LS 1
5 REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT (WEDGE GRIND) LF 9,450
6 REPAIR EXISTING AC PAVEMENT SF 141,250
7 RAISE EXISTING UTILITIES COVERS TO FINISH GRADE LS 1
8 1.5” TYPE A HMA OVERLAY WITH PAVEMENT FABRIC SF 141,250 9 REPLACE TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS LS 1

UNITS OF MEASURE
LS = LUMP SUM
LF = LINEAL FEET
SF = SQUARE FEET

SP-1

CITY OF ATWATER

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
***********************************

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

EAST BROADWAY AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT

ORGANIZATION
This section includes proposed additions, amendments, removals, and revisions to the Standard Specifications that are specific to this Contract. They are to be considered a part of the Construction Documents and Project Specifications.

Special provisions are under headings that correspond with the main-section headings of the Standard Specifications. A main-section heading is a heading shown in the table of contents of the Standard Specifications.

Each special provision begins with a revision clause that describes or introduces a revision to the Standard Specifications as revised by any revised standard specification.

Any paragraph added or deleted by a revision clause does not change the paragraph numbering of the Standard Specifications for any other reference to a paragraph of the Standard Specifications. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SP-2

DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 GENERAL
Add to section 1-1.07B:

Contract Documents: Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions, Bid Book, Caltrans Standard Specifications, Project Specifications, Caltrans Standard Plans, Project Plans, and Contract.

Office Engineer: City Engineer
Replace the following definitions in section 1-1.07B:

Department/Department of Transportation: City of Atwater Director: The Director of Public Works for the City of Atwater acting either directly or through properly authorized agent or consultants.

District Director of Transportation: The Director of Public Works for the City of Atwater acting either directly or through properly authorized agent or consultants.

Engineer: City Engineer
Specifications: Standard specifications, Special Provisions, and Project Specifications

1. Standard Specifications: Specifications standard to Department construction projects. These specifications are in a book titled Standard Specifications. (Also be referred to as “State Specifications”). The 2024 edition of the Standard Specifications shall apply to this contract.

2. Special Provisions: Proposed amendments, deletions, or additions to the Standard Specifications, included as part of the Bid Book.

3. Project Specifications: Specifications specific to this Project, included as part of the Bid Book.

State: City of Atwater
Replace “The Department" in the paragraph 1 of section 1-1.08 with:

Caltrans
Replace section 1-1.12 with:

Make checks and bonds payable to the City of Atwater.

SP-3
2 BIDDING
Replace section 2-1.06A with:
2-1.06A General
Locations for obtaining and viewing Contract documents are listed in the Notice to Bidders.

The City will receive sealed bids until 2:00 p.m. PDT on the bid open date at the City of Atwater, Council Chambers located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301. Bids received after this time will not be accepted.

The City will immediately open and publicly read the bids at the above location after the specified bid opening time.

The Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions includes the Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions, to be used together with the Standard Specifications and the Standard Plans.

The Contract Documents contain the provisions required for the construction of the Project. Information obtained from an officer, agent, or employee of the City or any other person will not affect the risks or obligations assumed by you or relieve you from fulfilling any of the conditions of the Contract.

A Non-Collusion Affidavit is included in the Bid Book (Public Contract Code § 7106). Signing the bid also constitutes signature of the Non-Collusion Affidavit.

Add to section 2-1.07:

Examine all of the various parts of these Documents if contemplating the submission of a bid, and should there be any doubt as to the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents, you must request an interpretation, in writing, by Tuesday, August 4, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Any interpretation or change in the Contract Documents will be made, in the form of addenda to the Documents and will be furnished to all Bidders receiving a set of the Documents. Addenda will be issued by Friday, August 7, 2026 at 5:00 pm. The City is not responsible for any other explanation or interpretations of the Documents.

Request for interpretation must be submitted in writing to:

Justin Vinson
City of Atwater
Public Works Department
470 Aviator Dr
Atwater, California 95301
Email: [email protected]
Replace section 2-1.08 with:

Section 2-1.08 BID ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
Work under this contract will be paid on a unit price or lump-sum basis as outlined on the Bid Form for the quantity of work constructed or installed.

The unit prices and lump sum prices shall include full compensation for furnishing the labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals and doing all the work involved to complete the work included in the contract documents.

The bids for the work are intended to establish a total cost for the work in its entirety. Should the Contractor feel that the cost for the work has not been established by specific items in the Bid Form, include the cost for that work in some related bid item so that the Proposal for the project reflects the total cost for completing the work in its entirety.

SP-4
Bid Item 1 - Mobilization
This is a lump sum bid item for preparatory work and operations including, but not limited to, those necessary for the movement of personnel, equipment, tools, supplies, and incidentals to the project site; for the establishment of all Contractor’s offices, buildings, and other facilities necessary for work on the project; for obtaining permits, bonds, and insurance; and for all other work, operations, and overhead that must be performed and/or costs incurred prior to beginning work on the various contact items on the project site. This item also includes demobilization, including removal of all personnel, equipment, tools, supplies, and incidentals from the project at the end of construction, including final cleanup of the project work area.

Payment shall be Progress Payment per Section 9-1.16A and Section 9-1.16D. Payment for mobilization shall be made with the first pay estimate and shall not exceed 80% of the bid amount. Payment for demobilization shall be made with the last (final) pay estimate and shall not exceed 20% of the bid amount.

Bid Item 2 – Temporary Traffic Control
This is a lump sum bid item for all costs for preparing and furnishing temporary traffic control plans in accordance with latest edition of Part 6 “Temporary Traffic Control” of the California Manual of Uniform traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and for furnishing and installing all materials, labor, and equipment necessary to provide traffic regulation in public streets and public alleys and traffic control/access to private properties during construction in accordance with Sections 7-1.03 and 7-1.04 and the special provisions and these Contract Documents. Payment for traffic control/regulation shall be made on a lump sum basis, and no additional payment will be made therefor. Payments shall be prorated over the term of the construction project.

Bid Item 3 – Erosion, Sedimentation, and Pollution Control This is a lump sum bid item for all costs for preparing and furnishing the project Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) and for furnishing and installing all materials, labor, tools, equipment, and incidentals necessary for compliance with the provisions of the project WPCP in accordance with Section 13 and the special provisions. Payment for this item shall be made on a lump sum basis, and no additional payment will be made therefor. Payments shall be prorated over the term of the construction project. Initial payment shall include the cost for preparing and furnishing the project WPCP.

Bid Item 4 –Remove Existing Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings This is a lump sum bid item for all costs for removal and disposal of existing traffic striping, pavement markings, and pavement markers complete within the project work area. This item will include costs for preparation of a Lead Compliance Plan per Section 7-1.02K(6)(j)(ii) Lead Compliance Plan and for testing and disposal of hazardous waste due to lead and/or metals concentrations in existing traffic striping, pavement markings, and pavement markers. Removal of traffic striping and pavement markings shall be by grinding. Payment for this item shall be made on a lump sum basis and no additional payment shall be due therefor.

Bid Item 5 – Remove Existing AC Pavement (Wedge Grind)
This is a unit price bid item for cold planning a wedge grind per Section 39-3.04 at all perimeters of the project work area to provide for a smooth transition of the pavement overlay to meet and match the existing elevations of existing curbs, gutters, and pavements at the edges of the work. The wedge grind shall be one and one quarter inches (1.25”) deep adjoining existing gutters and one and one half inches (1.5”) deep at the outer perimeter of all other locations and shall taper over a width of 42 inches (42”) where parallel to travelled ways and over a width of ten feet (10’) where transverse to travelled ways to match existing pavement elevations of the roadways. This item includes the removal and disposal/recycling of existing asphalt pavement as shown in the plans and described in the specifications and scope of work per all applicable sections of the standard specifications and special provisions. This items shall be bid per the units and quantities shown and shall conform to all applicable portions of the plans, specifications, special provisions, and scope of work.