Agenda packet — Hughson City Council, April 14, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

City Council Agenda April 14, 2025
1 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT/CALIFORNIA BROWN ACT

NOTIFICATION FOR THE CITY OF HUGHSON
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54954.2).

Disabled or Special needs Accommodation: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting and/or if you need assistance to attend or participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (209) 883-4054. Notification at least 48-hours prior to the meeting will assist the City Clerk in assuring that reasonable accommodations are made to provide accessibility to the meeting.

City of Hughson

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hughson City Hall – 7018 Pine Street Hughson, California MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2025 – 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor George Carr
ROLL CALL: Mayor George Carr
Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
Councilmember Alan McFadon
Councilmember Julie Ann Strain
Councilmember Susana Vasquez
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor George Carr
INVOCATION: Hughson Ministerial Association
AGENDA

HUGHSON CITY COUNCIL
How to participate in, or observe the Meeting:
• In person in the City Council Chambers and submit public comment when invited during the meeting. • Observe only via YouTube live, by accessing this link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-PwkdIrKoMmOJDzBSodu6A?view_as=subscriber If a technical issue arises with any streaming option, the City Council meeting will continue unless the meeting is being held pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449. • In addition, recorded City Council meetings are posted on the City’s website the second business day following the meeting. Recorded videos can be accessed with the following link:

Upcoming Meetings | Hughson CA
1 City Council Agenda April 14, 2025
2 1. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR (No Action Can Be Taken):

Please limit presentations to three minutes. If you wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda, you may be asked to defer your remarks until the Council addresses the matter. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(3), no action or discussion may be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that the City Council, or its staff, may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, or direct staff to place the issue on a future agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS:

2.1: Proclaim April 21-25, 2025, as Administrative Professionals Week.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR:

All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an audience member, or individual Councilmember, for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by roll call vote.

3.1: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 24, 2025.

3.2: Approval of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 7, 2025.

3.3: Approval of the Warrants.

4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.

5. PUBLIC HEARING:

5.1: Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. USE23-0112.

6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE.

7. CORRESPONDENCE: NONE.

8. COMMENTS:

A brief report on notable attendance at a meeting, or conference, or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council during this time.

8.1: Staff Reports and Comments:

City Manager
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Community Development Director
Police Services
City Attorney
2 City Council Agenda April 14, 2025
3 8.2: Council Comments:

9. CLOSED SESSION: NONE.

10. ADJOURNMENT:

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2025, at 6:00 pm.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk at Hughson City Hall during normal business hours. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on the agenda.

Notice Regarding Non-English Speakers:

Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Hughson City Council shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

UPCOMING EVENTS:

April 14  City Council Meeting, City Council Chambers/YouTube Live Stream, 6:00PM April 15  Planning Commission Meeting, City Council Chambers, 6:00PM - Cancelled April 19  Community Breakfast & Easter Egg Hunt, Odd Fellowes Lodge/Ross Middle School, 7:30AM
April 23  Administrative Professionals Day
April 28  City Council Meeting, City Council Chambers/YouTube Live Stream, 6:00PM

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
Date: April 10, 2025 Time: 1:15PM
Name: Ashton Gose Title: City Clerk
3 Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Subject: Proclaim April 21-25, 2025, as Administrative Professionals Week Presented By: George Carr, Mayor
Recommended Council Action:

Proclaim April 21-25, 2025, as Administrative Professionals Week in the City of Hughson.

Background and Overview:

Administrative Professionals Week is celebrated each April to honor and recognize administrative professionals: receptionists, secretaries, administrative assistants, executive assistants, customer support, and office support staff. Administrative Professionals play an essential role in coordinating the office operations of businesses, government, educational institutions, and other organizations.

Administrative Professionals are vital contributors in today's team-oriented work environment and are key front-line public relations ambassadors for their organizations.

The City of Hughson Administrative staff includes employees Danielle Perez, Fabian Ramos, Kristina Rossi, Sarah Chavarin, and Ashton Gose.

Recognition and appreciation of the City’s administrative staff is scheduled for Administrative Professionals Day on Wednesday, April 23, 2025.

Fiscal Impact:

Costs associated with the recognition of the City of Hughson Administrative staff will be covered with the approved budget for the City Employee Appreciation and Recognition Program.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1
SECTION 2: PRESENTATIONS
4 Proclamation CITY OF HUGHSON

National Administrative Professionals Week
April 21-25, 2025
WHEREAS, administrative professionals play an essential role in coordinating the office operations of businesses, government, educational institutions, and other organizations; and WHEREAS, administrative professionals are vital contributors in today's team- oriented work environment and are key front-line public relations ambassadors for their organizations; and WHEREAS, the work of administrative professionals today requires advanced knowledge and expertise in communications, computer software, office technology, project management, organization, customer service and other vital office management responsibilities, and most importantly, have the willingness to learn and accept new challenges; and
WHEREAS, Administrative Professionals Week is observed annually in workplaces around the world to recognize the important contributions of administrative support staff and is sponsored by the International Association of Administrative Professionals; and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and City Council that we recognize and extend appreciation to our dedicated and skilled staff and hereby proclaim April 21-25, 2025, as “National Administrative Professionals Week”.

AND BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Hughson City Council does hereby recognize the outstanding service that the City Administrative staff provides to the citizens of the City of Hughson. ______________________________

GEORGE CARR

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUGHSON
APRIL 14, 2025
5 Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Subject: Approval of the City Council Minutes
Presented By: Ashton Gose, City Clerk
Approved By:
____________________________
City Manager
______________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action:

Approve the Minutes of the regular Meeting of March 25, 2025.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1
SECTION 3: CONSENT CALENDAR
6 City Council Minutes March 25, 2025
1 MINUTES
City of Hughson

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hughson City Hall – 7018 Pine Street
Hughson, California
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2025 – 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor George Carr
ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor George Carr
Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
Councilmember Alan McFadon
Councilmember Susana Vasquez
Councilmember Julie Ann Strain
Staff Present: Dominique Romo, City Manager
Andy Pinasco, City Attorney
Ashton Gose, City Clerk
Carla Jauregui, Community Development Director
Sarah Chavarin, Accounting Manager
Jose Vasquez, Public Works Superintendent
Kim Weimer, Director of Finance and Admin Services
Brock Dias, Chief of Hughson Police Services
________________________________________________________________

1. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR (No Action Taken):

Turlock Mosquito Abatement District Hughson Representative Michael Mitchell provided an update regarding the Turlock Mosquito Abatement District. The presentation has been attached to be kept on file as part of the official record of this meeting.

2. PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

HUGHSON CITY COUNCIL
7 City Council Minutes March 25, 2025
2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR:

3.1: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 10, 2025.

3.2: Approval of the Warrants.

3.3: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2024 Annual General Plan Report and the 2024 Annual Housing Element Progress Report.

3.4: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Small Public Park Located in the Parkwood Subdivision and Waiving the 90-Day Maintenance Period.

CARR/McFADON 5-0-0-0 motion passes to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented, with the following roll call vote:

CROOKER VASQUEZ STRAIN McFADON CARR

AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.

5. PUBLIC HEARING: NONE.

6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE.

7. CORRESPONDENCE: NONE.

8. COMMENTS:

8.1: Staff Reports and/or Comments:

City Manager Romo updated the Council on her attendance at the Chamber of Commerce Board and the Economic Development Committee meetings. She then provided an update on the City’s Movie Night and the Stanislaus County Landfill MOU.

Director Jauregui provided an update regarding a collaboration with the Hughson Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Committee, and the Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Commission.

Chief Dias informed the City Council that Deputy Lehikainen completed his SWAT Certification.

He also provided an update regarding safety at the Hughson Fruit and Nut Festival.

8.2: Council Member/Mayor Comments
8 City Council Minutes March 25, 2025
3 Councilmember McFadon thanked staff for pursuing economic development opportunities. He thanked Public Works staff for their continued hard work. He attended the City of Modesto State of the City Address.

Councilmember Vasquez attended the Movie in the Park on March 21, 2025.

Councilmember Strain attended the Movie in the Park on March 21, 2025. She attended an Economic Development Committee meeting on March 24, 2025. She thanked City staff and Hughson Police Services for their continued hard work.

Mayor Pro Tem Crooker attended an Economic Development Committee meeting on March 24, 2025. He also completed the Modesto Marathon on March 23, 2025.

Mayor Carr provided a reminder regarding Hughson Youth Baseball and Softball Opening Day Ceremony on March 29, 2025. He thanked City staff and Hughson Police Services for their continued hard work.

Mayor Carr adjourned the regular meeting into closed session at 6:41PM.

9. CLOSED SESSION:

9.1: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957
Title: City Manager

9.2: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957 Agency Negotiator: Mayor George Carr
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
The City Council returned from the Closed Session at 7:25PM.

All Councilmembers were present for the duration of the session.

No reportable action was taken.

10. ADJOURNMENT:

STRAIN/CROOKER 5-0-0-0 motion passes to adjourn the March 24, 2025, meeting at 7:25PM, with the following roll call vote:

CROOKER VASQUEZ STRAIN McFADON CARR

AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

9 City Council Minutes March 25, 2025
4 APPROVED:
_____________________
GEORGE CARR, Mayor

ATTEST:
________________________
ASHTON GOSE, City Clerk
10 Turlock Mosquito Abatement District
11 District Staff and Contact Information
Administrative:

Dave Heft
General Manager
Ana Rodriquez
Administrative Assistant / Clerk of the Board
Surveillance & Public Outreach:

Monica Patterson
Vector Biologist
Operations:

Richard Oberholtzer
Mosquito Control Supervisor
Brandon Barker
Assistant Mosquito Control Supervisor
There are currently 12 full time and 7 seasonal employees Website: turlockmosquito.org
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 209-634-1234

12 District History
The Turlock Mosquito Abatement District was formed on
January 28, 1946, to protect the health of residents from the transmission of mosquito borne viruses and provide
relief from the nuisance of mosquitoes. Originally, the District was established to control mosquitoes within a 342-square mile area; however, over time the area of
service expanded to include all of Southern Stanislaus
County (south of the Tuolumne River) which covers 966-
square miles. The District provides service to cities such as Ceres, Hughson, Grayson, Newman, Patterson and
Turlock. The District also serves the unincorporated areas within the southern portion of the county.

The District was organized as a mosquito abatement
district under Chapter 1, Division 3 of the Health and
Safety Code (commencing with Section 2000). Under the
code, the District has the authority to conduct effective programs for the surveillance, prevention, abatement, and control of mosquitoes
13 Turlock Mosquito Abatement District Service Area
14 Funding Source
The District is funded by 2 sources:
1) Property Tax Revenue
2) Voter approved Special Tax
15 Cash & Investments $ 4,483,483
Accts. Rec. & Inventory 934,383
Deposit, non-current 22,074
TOTAL ASSETS $ 5,439,940
Total Liabilities $ 30,173
Total Fund Balance 5,409,767
TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 5,439,940
Property Taxes $ 3,196,223
Other Governmental Revenues 216,357
Interest & Miscellaneous 192,559
TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,605,139
Salaries & Benefits $ 1,440,719
Services & Supplies 740,149
Debit, Principal & Interest 229,569
Capitol Outlay 99,777
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,510,214
Statement of Finances: FY 2023 -24 (June 30, 2024)
ASSETS

LIABILITIES & FUNS BALANCES

REVENUE

EXPENDITURES
16 Stanislaus County Mosquito Districts
Eastside Mosquito
Abatement District
Turlock Mosquito
Abatement District
Laboratory:
• Mosquito Surveillance
• Mosquito Identification
• Mosquito Virus Testing
o WNV, SLE, WEE
• WNV Wild Dead Bird Program
• Invasive Species Surveillance
• Resistance and Efficacy Testing
Operations:
• Mosquito Surveillance
• Mosquito Control:
o Source reduction
o Larviciding
o Adulticiding
o Planting Mosquito Fish
Public Outreach
• Presentations
• Street Fairs
• County Fair
• Radio Campaign
• Theatre Ad
• Press Releases
• Website and Social Media
17 Service Requests
• Residents may contact the District for service
• Staff will inspect property for potential mosquito breeding sources, place traps, identify where property owner may need to remove water and treat if necessary.
• TMAD anticipates this will be a heavy service request year. • Potential areas of concern
• Flooding and seepage
• Catch basins and drains
• Swimming pools
• Items around yards- buckets, tarps, trash cans, trash, etc. • Increased irrigation
18 Service Requests
The District received (913) requests for
services in 2024.

Typically, a trap will be placed to ascertain
the level of mosquito abundance and to help
determine what species of mosquito is
causing the problem. Depending on the trap
and inspection results, follow-up larvicide
and/or adulticide applications may be
warranted.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Ceres Crows
Landing
Denair Hickman Hughson La Grange Modesto Newman Patterson Turlock Vernalis Westley 2024 Service Requests
19 Surveillance
Native Mosquito Trap
Aedes aegypti Trap
Larva Surveillance
• Surveillance results determine the next step in
mosquito management.
• The District began surveillance early in 2024
• Both adult and larva surveillance indicated low
mosquito activity throughout most of the
season.
• Aedes aegypti surveillance indicated low,
widespread populations
• Disease activity was very low during 2024.
• The District is also expecting 2024 to be more active due to spring rains and continued establishment of
Aedes aegypti. Virus activity may also be higher
than 2024.
20 TMAD
Virus Activity
Hughson
2023
Hughson
2024
TMAD
2024
Humans
WNV 0 0 4
Dead
Birds
WNV
0 0 0
Mosquito
Samples
WNV
10 1 48
Mosquito
Samples
SLEV
0 0 0
21 2024 Hughson Virus Activity
Hughson
2023
Hughson
2024
Humans
WNV 0 0
Dead
Birds
WNV
0 0
Mosquito
Samples
WNV
10 1
Mosquito
Samples
SLEV
0 0
22 Chemical Expenses Inventory at Year End June 30, 2024 23 Source Reduction / MOU Program
24 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
25 26
27 Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Subject: Approval of the City Council Minutes
Presented By: Ashton Gose, City Clerk
Approved By:
____________________________
City Manager
______________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action:

Approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 7, 2025.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2
SECTION 3: CONSENT CALENDAR
28 City Council Minutes April 7, 2025
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda will be made available at the City Clerk’s counter at City Hall located at 7018 Pine Street, Hughson, CA. 2 City of Hughson

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hughson City Hall – 7018 Pine Street Hughson, California MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2025 – 5:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor George Carr
ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor George Carr
Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
Councilmember Julie Ann Strain
Councilmember Alan McFadon
Councilmember Susana Vasquez
Staff Present: Dominique Romo, City Manager
Carla Jauregui, Community Development Director

1. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR (No Action Can Be Taken):

NONE.

2. NEW BUSINESS:

2.1: Approve the request by the Hughson Chamber of Commerce to Hold a Public Event and Sell Alcohol at the 2025 Hughson Fruit and Nut Festival Event that Will be Held April 26-27, 2025.

CARR/STRAIN 5-0-0-0 motion passes to approve Item 2.1, as presented, with the following roll call vote:

HUGHSON CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
29 City Council Minutes April 7, 2025
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda will be made available at the City Clerk’s counter at City Hall located at 7018 Pine Street, Hughson, CA. 3 CROOKER VASQUEZ STRAIN McFADON CARR

AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

3. ADJOURNMENT:

STRAIN/MCFADON 5-0-0-0 motion passes to adjourn the April 7, 2025, special meeting at 5:34PM, with the following roll call vote:

CROOKER VASQUEZ STRAIN McFADON CARR

AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

APPROVED:
_____________________
GEORGE CARR, Mayor

ATTEST:
________________________
ASHTON GOSE, City Clerk
30 Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Subject: Approval of Warrants Register
Presented By: Kim Weimer, Director of Finance
Approved By: ___________________________
City Manager
Recommended Council Action:

Approve the Warrants Register as presented.

Background and Overview:

The warrants register presented to the City Council is a listing of all expenditures paid from March 19, 2025, through April 10, 2025.

Fiscal Impact:

There are reductions in various funds for payment of expenses.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.3
SECTION 3: CONSENT CALENDAR
31 4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 1 of 6
Check Report
Hughson By Check Number
Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount Bank Code: Payable Bank-Payable Bank
00323 COCO'S TAQUERIA 03/24/2025 Regular 0.00 51.78 59247 INV0013187 Invoice 03/24/2025 Dinner for 3/24 EDC Meeting 0.00 51.78 00016 ABS DIRECT INC 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 1,871.40 59248 138893 Invoice 03/14/2025 BILL PRINTING- MARCH 0.00 1,871.40 01532 Adrian Luna 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 60.00 59249
INV0013202 Invoice 03/26/2025 Distribution Cert Renewal 0.00 60.00 01603 Amazon Capital Services, Inc. 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 1,289.08 59250 1FYG-MR7X-C9KG Invoice 03/20/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 10.95 1GTK-XF9Q-CCXL Invoice 03/20/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 7.54 1HCP-9FDQ-FFRV Invoice 02/13/2025 chairs for corp yard 0.00 1,006.74 1J6J-796V-CQ4V Invoice 03/17/2025 Clock for Council Chambers 0.00 62.56 1J96-749R-DMCR Invoice 02/13/2025 pump for corp yard ac 0.00 85.44 1MGM-PLXL-74… Invoice 03/24/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 75.95 1RQH-LDHQ-MYL6 Invoice 03/18/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 39.90 02033 Anahi Martinez 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 500.00 59251 INV0013180 Invoice 03/18/2025 Damage Deposit - Martinez 0.00 500.00 00123 BAY ALARM CO 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 488.73 59252 22068115 Invoice 03/03/2025 fire monitoring fee 4/1/25 to 6/30/25 0.00 488.73 00183 C.H. WILLIAMS & SONS INC. 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 140.00 59253 174667 Invoice 02/28/2025 gas cylinder rental 0.00 140.00 01538 Colonial Life 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 190.98 59254 54059070301461 Invoice 03/01/2024 Colonial Life 0.00 190.98 00387 DEHART PLUMBING HEATING 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 104.50 59255 INV0013183 Invoice 03/05/2025 Cancelled Permit 0.00 104.50 00475 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 976.00 59256 532739A Invoice 03/14/2025 FGL blanket po WW 0.00 204.00 533010A Invoice 03/19/2025 FGL blanket po WW 0.00 235.00 533012A Invoice 03/19/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 155.00 533014A Invoice 03/19/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 129.00 533449A Invoice 03/20/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 105.00 533450A Invoice 03/18/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 83.00 533451A Invoice 03/20/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 65.00 00528 GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGE 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 79,310.87 59257 INV0013179 Invoice 03/24/2025 GARBAGE SERVICE- FEB 0.00 79,310.87 02003 Jackson Petroleum Inc. 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 100.00 59258 9081598 Invoice 03/20/2025 highway diesel blanket po 0.00 100.00 01748 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 293.44 59259 45158563 Invoice 03/05/2025 asphalt for 4th st/ tully 0.00 293.44 01886 Mercedes Wallace 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 500.00 59260 INV0013182 Invoice 03/19/2025 Damage Deposit - Wallace 0.00 500.00 00822 NESTLE WATERS 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 115.53 59261 05C6703905050 Invoice 03/24/2025 WATER FOR WWTP 0.00 115.53 01884 PACIFIC STORAGE COMPANY 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 80.04 59262 32 Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 2 of 6
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 2224105 Invoice 02/28/2025 RECORDS STORAGE - FEB 0.00 80.04 01907 Ripon Print Studio 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 420.23 59263 INV0013178 Invoice 03/24/2025 Banners for Summer Park After Dark Series 0.00 420.23 01009 SHRED-IT USA LLC 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 99.60 59264 8009214306. Invoice 12/03/2024 Shredding 0.00 99.60
01090 SUTTER HEALTH PLUS 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 22,414.45 59265 3676594 Invoice 04/01/2025 MEDICAL INSURANCE- APR 0.00 22,414.45 01149 TURLOCK IRRIGATION DIST. 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 24,138.47 59266 INV0013188 Invoice 03/25/2025 ELECTRIC 0.00 24,138.47
01176 USA BLUE BOOK 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 179.05 59267 INV00656552 Invoice 03/19/2025 WW USA bluebook blanket 0.00 44.23 INV00656574 Invoice 03/19/2025 WW USA bluebook blanket 0.00 134.82 01192 VISION SERVICE PLAN 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 602.67 59268 822510717 Invoice 04/01/2025 MEDICAL INSURANCE WITHHELD- APRIL 0.00 602.67 02034 Waterford High Ag Boosters 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 330.00 59269 INV0013181 Invoice 03/19/2025 Damage Deposit - Waterford Ag Boosters 0.00 330.00 01225 WILLDAN ENGINEERING 03/26/2025 Regular 0.00 1,500.00 59270 010-61525 Invoice 03/19/2025 User Fee Study for the City 0.00 1,500.00 01420 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 03/28/2025 Regular 0.00 40.12 59271 INV0013215 Invoice 03/26/2025 INCOME WITHHOLDING FOR CHILD SUPP… 0.00 40.12 01603 Amazon Capital Services, Inc. 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 82.18 59272 1P6F-F9M1-PXVP Invoice 02/14/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 26.84 1XXG-LNVL-VWYD Invoice 03/26/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 55.34 02036 Andy Fontana 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 100.00 59273 INV0013232 Invoice 03/28/2025 Damage Deposit - Fontana 0.00 100.00 00153 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 316.00 59274 90281067 Invoice 03/17/2025 Engineering Support for Project at Whitmo… 0.00 316.00 01940 Cindy Newsome 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 325.00 59275 INV0013233 Invoice 03/24/2025 Damage Deposit Newson - Minus Mopping… 0.00 325.00 00302 CITY OF WATERFORD 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 3,040.17 59276 Feb 2025 Invoice 03/03/2025 Code Enforcement Officer 0.00 3,040.17 01538 Colonial Life 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 190.98 59277 5405907-0301461 Invoice 03/01/2025 Colonial Life 0.00 190.98 00332 CONDOR EARTH TECHNOLOGIES 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 630.70 59278 91876 Invoice 02/28/2025 Professional Services Jan - Feb 0.00 630.70 01570 CSG Consultants 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 5,371.00 59279 60336 Invoice 03/12/2025 Professional Services for Feb 0.00 4,335.00 B242367 Invoice 01/02/2025 Building Plan Review Services 0.00 814.00 B250066 Invoice 02/03/2025 Building Plan Review Services 0.00 222.00 01969 Dominique Romo 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 2,641.58 59280 INV0013230 Invoice 03/31/2025 Polymer Pump ordered for WWTP 0.00 2,641.58 00462 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 219.92 59281 25145929 Invoice 03/12/2025 Ewing irrigation Blanket 0.00 467.91 25214350 Credit Memo 03/19/2025 Ewing irrigation Blanket 0.00 -247.99 00475 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 1,246.20 59282 532740A Invoice 03/27/2025 FGL blanket po WW 0.00 134.00 33 Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 3 of 6
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 533448A Invoice 03/21/2025 FGL blanket po WW 0.00 134.00 533724A Invoice 03/26/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 105.00 533725A Invoice 03/26/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 65.00 533726A Invoice 03/27/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 57.00 533727A Invoice 03/26/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 185.20 533728A Invoice 03/27/2025 FGL blanket po WW 0.00 134.00 534000A Invoice 03/27/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 335.00 534178A Invoice 03/28/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 97.00 00528 GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGE 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 1,895.07 59283 HUGHSS-104 Invoice 03/31/2025 STREET SWEEPING 0.00 1,895.07 00548 GRAYBAR 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 8,182.32 59284
9341235503 Invoice 03/13/2025 downtown light poles 0.00 8,182.32 00755 MCR ENGINEERING, INC 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 7,845.00 59285 20654 Invoice 02/28/2025 Services rendered through 1/31/25 0.00 7,845.00 00611 Mid Valley Publications 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 155.40 59286 355888 Invoice 04/02/2025 Notice of Public Hearing 0.00 155.40 00775 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 1,655.03 59287 523411646 Invoice 03/03/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 152.97 523411648 Invoice 03/03/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 208.22 523411649 Invoice 03/03/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 85.55 523447338 Invoice 03/10/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 91.26 523447339 Invoice 03/10/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 99.65 523447340 Invoice 03/10/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 85.55 523489110 Invoice 03/17/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 96.21 523489111 Invoice 03/17/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 99.65 523489112 Invoice 03/17/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 85.55 523531412 Invoice 03/24/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 91.26 523531413 Invoice 03/24/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 139.36 523531415 Invoice 03/24/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 85.55 523577619 Invoice 03/31/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 134.76 523577620 Invoice 03/31/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 113.94 523577621 Invoice 03/31/2025 uniform service blanket 0.00 85.55 00879 PG & E 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 987.10 59288
INV0013234 Invoice 04/01/2025 UTILITIES 0.00 987.10
01599 SMILE BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 243.12 59289 1266233 Invoice 03/21/2025 COPIES 0.00 243.12
02035 Veronica Ramos 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 150.00 59290 INV0013231 Invoice 03/27/2025 Cancelled due to weather 0.00 150.00 01225 WILLDAN ENGINEERING 04/02/2025 Regular 0.00 2,055.77 59291 00628859 Invoice 10/23/2024 Professional Services rendered through 9/… 0.00 2,055.77 01257 1ST SECURITY & SOUND INC 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 179.85 59297 0256385 Invoice 04/07/2025 MONITORING 0.00 179.85
01603 Amazon Capital Services, Inc. 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 29.30 59298 1RDD-XJ3V-C6Q3 Invoice 04/07/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 29.30 00104 AYERA TECHNOLOGIES INC. 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 99.00 59299 659549 Invoice 04/01/2025 Ayera Blanket PO 0.00 99.00
00109 BADGER METER, INC 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 2,513.62 59300 80189080 Invoice 04/03/2025 Badger cell service blanket PO 0.00 2,513.62 01817 Black Castle Construction 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 8,385.00 59301 INV-0567 Invoice 03/14/2025 bathroom cabinets 0.00 3,225.00 34 Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 4 of 6
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INV-0568 Invoice 03/14/2025 kitchen cabinets 0.00 5,160.00 00210 California Building Standards Commission 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 375.30 59302 INV0013266 Invoice 04/07/2025 Green Building Fee's 1st QTR 2025 0.00 375.30 00258 CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 680.80 59303 9856365 Invoice 03/12/2025 Community Service Center Supplies 0.00 680.80 00310 CLARK'S PEST CONTROL 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 441.00 59304 36932990 Invoice 04/03/2025 WWTP pest control Banket PO 0.00 210.00 37266848 Invoice 04/07/2025 PEST CONTROL 0.00 143.00
37266980 Invoice 04/03/2025 PEST CONTROL 0.00 88.00
00406 Department of Conservation 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,129.93 59305 INV0013268 Invoice 04/01/2025 SMIP Fees - 1st Qtr 2025 0.00 1,129.93 01340 DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 70.00 59306 INV0013324 Invoice 04/08/2025 Disability Access & Education Fee 1ST Qtr … 0.00 70.00 00464 EZ NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC. 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 8,195.52 59307 45652 Invoice 04/02/2025 IT SERVICES - FEB 0.00 1,665.50 TS45735 Invoice 04/02/2025 IT SERVICES 0.00 6,530.02
00475 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 130.00 59308 534110A Invoice 04/01/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 65.00 534179A Invoice 04/01/2025 FGL blanket po DW 0.00 65.00 02038 Francisco Montes 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 826.25 59309 INV0013267 Invoice 04/02/2025 Encroachment Refund ENCR24-1460 0.00 826.25 00527 GIBBS MAINTENANCE CO 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,400.00 59310 16556 Invoice 03/31/2025 JANITOR SERVICES - March 0.00 1,400.00 00546 GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATION 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,813.31 59311 692048444 Invoice 04/01/2025 PHONES 0.00 1,813.31
00614 HUGHSON FARM SUPPLY 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,309.32 59312 H519055 Invoice 03/03/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 48.83 H519214 Invoice 03/04/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 26.72 H519401 Invoice 03/06/2025 Hughson farm DW/WW Blanket 0.00 10.35 H519711 Invoice 03/10/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 44.84 H520058 Invoice 03/13/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 80.97 H520106 Invoice 03/14/2025 Hughson farm DW/WW Blanket 0.00 3.29 H520119 Invoice 03/14/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 46.11 H520410 Invoice 03/18/2025 Hughson farm DW/WW Blanket 0.00 31.14 H520512 Invoice 03/19/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 40.86 H520525 Invoice 03/19/2025 Hughson farm DW/WW Blanket 0.00 9.89 H520528 Invoice 03/19/2025 Hughson farm DW/WW Blanket 0.00 5.40 H520529 Invoice 03/19/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 72.32 H521092 Invoice 03/25/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 3.67 H521124 Invoice 03/25/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 50.90 H521255 Invoice 03/26/2025 pole saw 0.00 688.44
H521258 Invoice 03/26/2025 PW hughson farm blanket 0.00 145.59 00627 HUGHSON NAPA AUTO & TRUCK 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 64.41 59313 402549 Invoice 03/10/2025 Napa parts blanket PO 0.00 35.47 402749 Invoice 03/13/2025 Napa parts blanket PO 0.00 18.21 402852 Invoice 03/14/2025 Napa parts blanket PO 0.00 10.73 01583 Hunt & Sons, Inc. 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,336.01 59314 427325 Invoice 04/02/2025 unleaded fuel blanket 0.00 1,336.01 02037 Janet Vargas 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 200.00 59315 INV0013263 Invoice 04/04/2025 Damage Deposit - Vargas 0.00 200.00 35 Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 5 of 6
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 01572 KB Home North Bay LLC 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 3,591.00 59316 INV0013264 Invoice 04/03/2025 Refund of Park Development Fee billed in … 0.00 1,600.00 INV0013265 Invoice 04/03/2025 Refund of Park-in-Lieu Fee billed in error 0.00 1,991.00 01884 PACIFIC STORAGE COMPANY 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 88.61 59317 2224694 Invoice 03/31/2025 RECORDS STORAGE - March 0.00 88.61 01509 Sanjay Prasad 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 500.00 59318 INV0013262 Invoice 04/04/2025 Damage Deposit - Prasad 0.00 500.00 01009 SHRED-IT USA LLC 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 321.78 59319 8010432410 Invoice 04/03/2025 Shredding 0.00 321.78
00005 United Site Services of California, Inc. 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 80.78 59320 114-14039905 Invoice 03/31/2025 Fence Rental - March 0.00 80.78 01176 USA BLUE BOOK 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 2,620.12 59321 INV00669186 Invoice 04/02/2025 WW USA bluebook blanket 0.00 2,620.12 01264 VERIZON WIRELESS 04/09/2025 Regular 0.00 456.12 59322 6109362592 Invoice 04/07/2025 MIFI DEVICES/ CAMERAS 0.00 152.04 6109362593 Invoice 04/07/2025 MIFI DEVICES/ CAMERAS 0.00 228.06 6109362594 Invoice 04/07/2025 TABLETS FOR SCADA 0.00 76.02 Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Discount
Payment
Payment Type Count
Bank Code Payable Bank Summary
Bank Drafts
EFT's
71 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
71 0.00
Payment
209,966.51

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
209,966.51
Payable
Count
135
0 0
0 0
135
36 Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2025 - 04/10/2025
4/10/2025 11:50:49 AM Page 6 of 6
All Bank Codes Check Summary
Payment Type Discount
Payment
Count Payment
Payable
Count
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
71 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
71 0.00
209,966.51

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
209,966.51
135
0 0
0 0
135
Fund Name Period Amount
Fund Summary
999 POOLED CASH/CONSOLIDATED CASH 3/2025 135,796.94
999 POOLED CASH/CONSOLIDATED CASH 4/2025 74,169.57
209,966.51
37 4/10/2025 11:51:54 AM Page 1 of 1
Refund Check Register
Hughson Refund Check Detail
UBPKT04086 - Refunds 01 UBPKT04077 Regular
Account Name Date Check # Amount Code Receipt Amount Type 13-0140-012 LLC, F & R Development 4/4/2025 59292 56.73 56.73 Deposit 16-1920-003 MENDOZA, GEORGINA 4/4/2025 59293 177.92 177.92 Generated From Billing 18-3380-000 Homes, KB 4/4/2025 59294 89.10 89.10 Deposit 18-3640-000 Homes, KB 4/4/2025 59295 11.78 11.78 Deposit 18-3690-000 Homes, KB 4/4/2025 59296 137.71 137.71 Deposit Total Refunds: 5 Total Refunded Amount: 473.24
Revenue Code Summary
Revenue Code Amount
996 - UNAPPLIED CREDITS 473.24
Revenue Total: 473.24
General Ledger Distribution
Account Number Account Name Posting Amount IFT
Posting Date: 04/02/2025
Fund: 510 - WATER/SEWER DEPOSIT
510-10001 CLAIM ON CASH-WATER/SEWER DEPOSIT -473.24 Yes 510-11040 CUSTOMER CREDITS 473.24
510 Total: 0.00
Fund: 999 - POOLED CASH/CONSOLIDATED CASH
999-10010 CASH IN BANK-MONEY MARKET -473.24
999-20000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS (POOLED CASH) 473.24 Yes
999 Total: 0.00
Distribution Total: 0.00
38 Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Subject: USE23-0112: Consider Resolutions Approving the Planning Commission’s Recommendation to Approve USE23-0112 (Tully Road Industrial Subdivision) and the Associated CEQA Compliance Documents
Presented By: Mark Niskanen, Contract Planner
Approved: _________________________
City Manager
Planning Commission Recommended Council Action:

The Hughson Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the following:

1. Approve a Resolution, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024100622) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and authorize Staff to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Statute and Guidelines.

2. Approve a Resolution, authorizing approval of the Tully Road Subdivision Map (USE23-0112), subject to the Conditions of Approval contained within the Resolution.

Background:

The Applicant isrequesting a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide three (3) legal parcels consisting of 46.44-acres into thirty-four (34) lots within property zoned and designated for industrial land uses (hereinafter referred to as the “Proposed Project”).

Lots created by the VTSM will generally be one (1) acre in size and allow forfuture industrial development consistent with Table 17.02.032 (Allowed Usesis Zoning Districts) ofthe City’s Zoning Ordinance. Access to the Proposed Project will be provided via Tully Road and Roeding Road.

Location Tully Road
Assessor Parcel No. 018-048-040 and 009 and 018-052-043 Acreage 46.44-acres
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.1
SECTION 5: PUBLIC HEARING
39 The Project site is located on Tully Road, south of the Tully Road/Whitmore Avenue intersection. The Project site is bounded by existing industrial uses to the north (California Truss), Roeding Road and agricultural uses to the south, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the east, and Tully Road to the west.

A Location Map of the Proposed Project is provided below.

Discussion:

As previously noted, the Proposed Project consists of the subdivision of 46.44-acresinto 34 industrial lots. Lot specific development is not proposed at this time and future development of the Proposed Project’s lots will be reviewed and considered by the City as specific applications are filed.

Primary access to the Proposed Project is provided via Tully Road as well as Roeding Road improvements to be installed as a Condition of Approval. Internal streets will be installed (Streets A, B, C, and D) connecting to both Tully Road and Roeding Road.

Domestic utilities will be provided by the City of Hughson. Water, sewer, and storm drain lines will be installed and connected to existing lines located in Tully Road. Because the Proposed Project includes the extension and improvement of Roeding Road, utility lines will be installed in Roeding Road and connect to the Proposed Project in Street D. The 40 Proposed Project also includes a storm drainage basin (Lot A) which will serve the Project site. The storm drainage basin will be maintained by the City, and access for maintenance activities will be provided via an access easement, twenty-five (25) feet in width, through Lot 11.

Perimeter wall treatment will consist of a masonry block wall where the Proposed Project abuts the railroad corridor and Santa Fe Avenue, and chain link with viny slats for the remainder. There is an existing masonry block wall where the Proposed Project abuts APN No. 018-048-41 and an existing chain link fence where it abuts Lots 26 and 27.

Roadway improvements will include frontage improvements to Tully Road and the extension of Roeding Road along the Project site’s frontage easterly of the Tully Road/Roeding Road intersection. These improvements will be installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Proposed Project. The exhibits below provide illustrations of these roadway improvements.

Tully Road
Roeding Road
41 Within the Project site there is also an existing communications tower, located in Lot 9.

The Proposed Project will be required to allow for continued accessto this communications tower via a fifteen (15) access easement along the eastern boundary of the Project site.

The Hughson General Plan
Existing Land Use Designation
The Project site is designated for Industrial land uses per the City’s General Plan. Refer to the General Plan Land Use Diagram provided below:

To clarify the General Plan land use diagram above, the Project site is shown outside of the city limits but within the adopted Sphere of Influence. The Project site was annexed into the City after the current General Plan was adopted in 2005.

Based on staff’s review of the Proposed Project, it has been determined that the Proposed Project is consistent with the Industrial land use designation and the following General Plan Policies:

LU-3.1 New development should be compatible with physical site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure. 42 C-3.1 Where sound walls are allowed, they should be built of high-quality materials and provide visual relief through the use of a mixture of materials, landscaping and walkways and greenbelts.

Title 17 (Zoning) of Hughson Municipal Code
Existing Zoning
As noted previously, the Proposed Project is located within the I, Industrial, Zone District.

The Proposed Project does not directly result in any development, as it proposes to subdivide the parcels only. Future development within the Proposed Project will be required to comply with Table 17.02.012 (Commercial and Industrial Development Standards) as well as Section 17.02.016 (I-Industrial zone) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

The Proposed Project is consistent with Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Planning Commission Public Hearing
On March 18, 2025, the Hughson Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to considerthis application. There were no public hearing comments or concerns expressed to the Planning Commission. Upon conducting the public hearing, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-0, approved Resolutions 2025-03 and 2025-04, thereby recommending to the City Council approval of the Proposed Project.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Proposed Project is considered a “Project” subject to review and compliance with CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). This IS/MND included the following technical studies:
• Air Quality Modeling;
• Cultural Records Request;
• Environmental Noise Assessment; and,
• Traffic Impact Analysis.

For the environmental review of the Proposed Project, staff’s primary concerns were Proposed Project related impacts to noise and traffic, especially given the Project site’s proximity to existing/planned residential uses and nearby roadways and intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report concluded that the Proposed Project would have significant impacts on the following roadways and intersections:
• Tully Road;
• Intersection of Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road; and,
• Intersection of Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue.
43 These significant impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant by incorporating mitigation measures into the Proposed Project. These measures include roadway improvement to Tully Road along the Project site’s frontage, and the Project Proponent financially contributing to the Proposed Project’s “fair share” towards the overall costs of the intersection improvements for the intersections referenced above. For further detail regarding the Proposed Project’s traffic impacts, refer to Attachment A.

The Environmental Noise Assessment concluded that impacts created by the Proposed Project would be in conformance with General Plan standards subject to mitigation measure implementation during project construction.

The public review Draft IS/MND was released for public review on October 15, 2024, and comments were due by November 14, 2024. Notices of the document’s availability were published with the State Office of Planning and Research, the County Clerk, the Hughson Chronicle, and on the City’s website.

As a result of the public review, the received one (1) comment letter, from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Comments within this letter provided information on the regulations the Proposed Project will need to adhere to with regard to surface and groundwater supplies. Based on staff’s review of the comment letter, no further revisions are necessary to the IS/MND.

The Proposed Project’s IS/MND is provided in this Staff Report as Attachment 1.

Public Hearing Notice
In accordance with Chapter 17.04.004(F) of the Hughson Municipal Code, a public hearing notice was published in the Hughson Chronicle and mailed to properties within a 300-foot radius. At the time of writing this Staff Report, no comments (written or verbal) were received.

Attachments

1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2025-08

2. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2025-09

3. Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-03 and 04.

4. VTSM USE23-0112.
44 CITY OF HUGHSON

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-08

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGHSON AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024100622) VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. USE23-0112 (TULLY ROAD INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION) PROPERTY LOCATED ON TULLY ROAD, APN NO. 018-048-040 AND 009, AND 018-052-043 WHEREAS, Mr. W. David Hendley (6413 Keyes Road, Hughson, CA 95326), on behalf of the Property Owner (Hendley Family LTD Partnership) has filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) to allow for the subdivision of 46.44-acres into thirty-four (34) industrial lots, property located on Tully Road, APN No. 018-048-040 and 009, and 018-052-043; and, WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is considered a “Project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may involve potentially significant effects on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency has prepared and circulated for public and agency review an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addressing the potential environmental effects of the Project in accordance with the requirements set forth in CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the IS/MND public review period began on October 15, 2024, and concluded on November 14, 2014. During this review period, the City received one (1) comment letter, from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND also identifying the date of this meeting was published in the Hughson Chronicle; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and independently considered the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND, and has recommended to the City Council approval of the IS/MND; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the IS/MND is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan reflecting the analysis and mitigation recommendations contained in the IS/MND, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the notice of the public hearing on the Project was published in the Hughson Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation; and,
WHEREAS, notices of the public hearing on the Project were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor rolls; and, WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hughson finds that VTSM No. USE23-0112 (Exhibit B) will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) provided below.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hughson at the regularly scheduled meeting on this 14th day of April, 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_____________________
GEORGE CARR, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
ASHTON GOSE, City Clerk
46 EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2024100622) 47 Public Review DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration VTSM USE23-0112: Tully Road Subdivision
prepared by
City of Hughson
Community Development Department
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, California 95326
Prepared with the assistance of
J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, California 95366
■ J.B. ANDERSON ■ October 2024
- -

LA DUSE PLANN I G
48 This page intentionally left blank.
49 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1
INITIAL STUDY 5

1. Project Title 5

2. Lead Agency Name and Address 5

3. Contact Person and Phone Number 5

4. Project Location 5

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address 5

6. Existing Setting 5

7. Existing General Plan Designation 6

8. Existing Zoning 6

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 6

10. Description of the Project 6

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required 7

12. California Native American Tribes Consultation 7

13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 14

14. Lead Agency Determination 15
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 18

1. Aesthetics 18

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 20

3. Air Quality 23

4. Biological Resources 28

5. Cultural Resources 31

6. Energy 33

7. Geology and Soils 35

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 38

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 42

10. Hydrology and Water Quality 45

11. Land Use and Planning 48

12. Mineral Resources 49

13. Noise 50

14. Population and Housing 55

15. Public Services 56

16. Recreation 59

17. Transportation/Traffic 61

18. Tribal Cultural Resources 69

19. Utilities and Service Systems 72

20. Wildfire 75

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 77
REFERENCES 79
50 TABLES

1. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings 6
FIGURES 8

1. Location Map 9

2. Existing General Plan 10

3. Existing Zoning 11

4. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (1 of 2) 12

5. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (2 of 2) 13

APPENDICES
A. CalEEMod Air Quality Modeling Summary Report
B. Central California Information Center (CCIC) Records Search, dated September 6, 2023 C. Environmental Noise Impact Assessment, prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated September 13, 2023 D. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by GHD, dated March 4, 2024 51 1 | P a g e

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency:

City of Hughson
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, California 95326
PROJECT NAME:

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. USE23-0112 – Tully Road Subdivision PROJECT PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY:

Project Proponent: Mr. W. David Hendley
6413 E. Keyes Road
Hughson, CA 95326
Lead Agency: City of Hughson
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, CA 95326
PROJECT LOCATION:

The Proposed Project is located on three parcels equaling approximately 46.44 acres and is bounded by existing industrial development to the north, the future extension of Roeding Road and agricultural lands to the south, Santa Fe Avenue and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the east, and Tully Road to the west.

The Stanislaus County Assessor’s Office has assigned the Proposed Project parcels as APN No.’s 018-052- 043, 018-048-009, and 040.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Proposed Project consists of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the subdivision of approximately 46.44 acres into thirty-four (34) industrial lots, and a parcel set aside for a future storm drain basin. Physical development of the individual lots is not proposed at this time, but it can be assumed that future development within the Project site will conform to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including Section 17.02.032 (Uses allowed in each district) and Section 17.02.061 (I-Industrial Zone). Ultimately, the Proposed Project will consist of uses consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and specifically, permitted uses within the I-Industrial Zone district.

New parcels created as part of the Proposed Project are approximately one (1) acre in size. Primary access to the Project site will be provided via access to Tully Road and Roeding Road. The Project Proponent will be required to install frontage improvements to Tully Road, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and 52 2 | P a g e
Roeding Road, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, roadway improvements allowing for two (2) travel lanes.

Roeding Road improvements will be installed along the Proposed Project’s frontage extending east to Street D.

The Proposed Project will be served domestic utilities by the City of Hughson. Connections to existing water, sewer, and storm drain lines located in Tully Road will be installed, along with the extension of said lines within Streets A, B, C, and D. Wet utility lines will also be installed in the Roeding Road extension and looped through Street D. Stormwater will be routed through the Proposed Project into the storm drain basin, which will be developed with a French drain system.

Lot 9 of the Proposed Project also consists of an existing communications tower. Access to this tower for maintenance, etc. will be provided via an existing easement which is located on the eastern perimeter of the Proposed Project.

The proposed VTSM can be found in this Initial Study as Figure 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Lead Agency has prepared an Initial Study, the following, which considers the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the Proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment, provided that the following mitigation measures are included in the Proposed Project.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation Measure Air-1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities for each phase of construction, the Project Proponent shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan that meets all of the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021, Section 6.3.

Mitigation Measure Air-2: During all construction activities, the project proponent shall implement the following dust control practices identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (San Joaquin Valley APCD, 2002):

1. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.

2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.

4. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
53 3 | P a g e

5. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

6. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

7. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph.

8. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction-period noise impacts:

Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following language shall be included, verbatim, in the general notes section of all the civil plan construction documents.

1. The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

2. The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of five (5) minutes) is prohibited.

3. The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

4. At all times during project grading construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences.

5. The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

6. The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, or demolition work, are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

Mitigation Measure Transportation-1: A southbound left-turn lane should be installed on Tully Road at the proposed project intersection with Street A. Based on Caltrans guidelines and projected left-turn volumes, the left-turn lane should be designed to provide the maximum storage (to the extent possible) given project frontage and available ROW (100-125 feet) of storage (4 vehicles and/or combination of heavy vehicles.

Mitigation Measure Transportation-2: Install a signal at the intersection of East Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, widen and/or re-stripe the eastbound E. Whitmore Avenue approach to include a separate left54 4 | P a g e
turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Under Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, the intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant #3). Based on Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations; or construction of a single/multi-lane modern roundabout could be given consideration.

Mitigation Measure Transportation-3: Install a signal at the intersection of E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours.

The signal should be coordinated with existing automated railroad crossing gates located approximately 75-feet west of Santa Fe Avenue. Since unacceptable intersection LOS and vehicle delay is an existing deficient condition, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations. Please refer to Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions for a discussion of Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share methodology and proposed project fair share contribution.

Mitigation Measure Utility and Service Systems-1: Prior to the approval of any specific development projects within the Proposed Project, the City Engineer shall review the respective development project and determine, in writing, that the specific development project complies with the maximum water demand of 3,600 gallons per day per acre.
l
Date
55 5 | P a g e

INITIAL STUDY

1. PROJECT TITLE
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. USE23-0112 – Tully Road Subdivision

2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Hughson
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, CA 95326

3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Ms. Carla Jauregui, Community Development Director
(209) 883-4054

4. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located on Tully Road, and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 018-048-009 and 040, and 018-052-043. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the Project site’s location.

5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Mr. W. David Hendley
6413 E. Keyes Road
Hughson, CA 95326

6. EXISTING SETTING
The Tully Road Subdivision Project site is comprised of three (3) parcels equaling 46.44 acres located at the northeastern corner of the Tully Road and Roeding Road intersection in the City of Hughson, Stanislaus County. The Project site has previously been used for agricultural uses and is presently being utilized as an Almond orchard. The Project site sits at the southern end of the City of Hughson’s city limits. Surrounding uses are made up of a mixture of light-industrial and commercial uses to the north including California Trus (sic) Company, Santa Fe Avenue and BNSF Railroad to the east, Grossi Fabrication Inc. and the future extension of Roeding Road to the south, Tully Road and Almond orchards to the west. See Figure 1 below for an aerial view of the Project site and surrounding area.
56 6 | P a g e

7. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Project site is designed for Industrial land uses per the City’s General Plan, dated December 12, 2005.

8. EXISTING ZONING
The Project site is located within the I-Industrial zone district.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The Project is bounded by existing industrial development to the north, agricultural lands and the future extension of Roeding Road to the south, Santa Fe Avenue and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the east, and Tully Road to the west. Table 1, below, provides the Project site’s surrounding uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning districts. In addition, Figures 1 and 2 provide illustrations of the Project site and surrounding area’s General Plan and Zoning designations.

Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Existing Use General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning Classification
North Industrial – California
Trus (sic) Company
Industrial (I) Industrial (I)
South Orchard w/ SingleFamily DwellingIndustrial (I) Industrial (I) East Santa Fe Ave. w/
abutting SFDs
Industrial (I) Industrial (I)
West Tully Rd. w/ abutting
orchards
Industrial (I) Industrial (I)

10. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Proposed Project consists of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the subdivision of approximately 46.44 acres into thirty-four (34) industrial lots, and a parcel set aside for a future storm drain basin. Physical development of the individual lots is not proposed at this time, but it can be assumed that future development within the Project site will conform to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including Section 17.02.032 (Uses allowed in each district) and Section

17.02.061 (I-Industrial Zone). Ultimately, the Proposed Project will consist of uses consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and specifically, permitted uses within the I-Industrial Zone district. 57 7 | P a g e
New parcels created as part of the Proposed Project are approximately one (1) acre in size.

Primary access to the Project site will be provided via access to Tully Road and Roeding Road. The Project Proponent will be required to install frontage improvements to Tully Road, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and Roeding Road, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, roadway improvements allowing for two (2) travel lanes. Roeding Road improvements will be installed along the Proposed Project’s frontage extending east to Street D.

11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
There are no other public agencies whose approval is required for the Proposed Project.

12. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY AND CULTURALLY AFFILIATED

WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1?
Under Assembly Bill (AB) 52, when a California Native American Tribe requests notification from a CEQA lead agency on projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated geographical area, the lead agency must provide the tribe with notice of a Proposed Project within 14 days of a project application being deemed complete or when the lead agency decides to undertake the project if it is the agency’s own project. The tribe has up to 30 days to respond to the notice and request formal consultation; if consultation is requested, then the local agency has up to 30 days to initiate consultation. Matters which may be subjects of AB 52 consultation include the type of CEQA environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, and project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation of the tribal cultural resource that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency.

The consultation process ends when either the resource in question is not considered significant, the parties agree to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. regardless of the outcome, a lead agency is still obligated to under CEQA to mitigate any significant environmental effects, as explicitly noted in AB 52. 58 8 | P a g e
For the Proposed Project, no California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Proposed Project site have requested consultation. 59 9 | P a g e
Figure 1 – Location Map
 

60 10 | P a g e
Figure 2 – Existing General Plan
Data Source: Stanislaus Coutty GIS: Oty Of l-luth,son
Residential Oesii"a.tions Commercial Oesignadons
• Low Oen.sity Residential - Downtown Commei-ciaJ
• Medium Density Residential - Neigl'lborhood Commercial • H igh Oens-ity Residential General Commercial
- Service Commercial
Urban Reserve
FIGURELU-4
Industrial Designations
• lndllStl"ial
: : Sphere of Infl uence i::i CityLimits
PublidQuasi-Public Designations
• Parle/Open Space
• Public Facility

LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS

CITY OF HUGHSON

GE N ERA L PLA N
61 11 | P a g e
Figure 3 – Existing Zoning
~
0 ~ ___,_~l~-----+-+- Re<ldential Oe<lgnadons: ~ -~~= I ~---~~-~-~ D R-1 Low Density Resldentlal
R-1 Medium Density Residential
- R-·J H igh Density Resldentlal
Commercial DHignadons:

D C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
- C-2 Gcmeral Commt!rdal
- C-l 5'1-rvlce Commerclal
Industrial Des:lgnation:s:

D I Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Designations:
- 0 -5 Park/Open Space
- P-F Public Facility
D City Limits
•••.• ; Sphere of Influence 0 0.25 05 Mil
62 12 | P a g e
Figure 4 – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

TULLY ROAD SUBDIVISION

VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

HUGHSON, CALIFORNIA
..,..., ....... .....
"
t
11 , 1
... !'rl1:o.C1 11
G.E:NERAL MOTES
...
<
:I: ~ z
Q Z"
!/.l Qu
~ Ill
5 Q
Ill Q ::::, Ill Ill ::::, .~ ... w Ill
~ C
I- c3 ~ Cl:
w >- ..I I- ..I C) ::::,
~,-
-- z 1- 5! ..... F .... .A.I• Ill B ... w
> :c
TM-1
63 13 | P a g e
--- -----
1--::-
1 I
I '
0TULl'fllO,AD a ~ Dnt
0~EET!IA,9tCAJmD
-<m--
•
64 14 | P a g e

13. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Materials
Hazards and Hazardous
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
65 15 | P a g e

14. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the Project Proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
r ,
evelopment Director Date
66 16 | P a g e
SECTION 2.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
67 17 | P a g e
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 68 18 | P a g e

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix "G" Environmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines.

1. AESTHETICS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings. (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? According to the City’s 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), due to the City’s relatively flat topography and distance from both the Sierra and Coastal Ranges, there are limited opportunities for views other than the surrounding agricultural lands. As a result, the scenery around Hughson is characterized by the surrounding active agricultural lands, which include fruit and nut orchards, and row crops. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? 69 19 | P a g e
The Project site and surrounding area is not identified as a scenic resource. Per the City’s 2005 General Plan EIR, there are no official State-designated scenic routes in or near Hughson. Consequently, the Proposed Project will have No Impact under this threshold. c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Proposed Project is located in the Industrial (I) area of the City of Hughson. Although the City does not have any adopted design guidelines for development of industrial buildings, the Project would be consistent with the development surrounding the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Outdoor lighting for safety and security could potentially be added to future structures on resultant parcels. Land Use Policy LU-3.12 states that lighting on private and public property should be designed to provide safe and adequate lighting while minimizing light spillage to adjacent properties. In an effort to combat substantial light or glare spillage, the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires Industrial uses to ensure that lighting is directed and shielded so as not to illuminate neighboring properties in the area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
70 20 | P a g e

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 71 21 | P a g e
According to the California Department of Conservation – 2020 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Stanislaus LAFCO (City Limits & Spheres of Influence), May 2020, the project site is within the City of Hughson’s city limits. Despite the Proposed Project location being within the city limits, development of the Proposed Project would convert Prime Farmland, to non-agricultural use.

In an effort to curb the loss of farmland resulting from urban development, the City of Hughson established a Farmland Preservation Program. The program establishes standards for the acquisition and long-term oversight of agricultural conservation easements purchased in accordance with the Farmland Preservation Program. It is purposely patterned after the Farmland Mitigation Program adopted by Stanislaus County for ease of future coordination between each jurisdiction. The guidelines apply to development projects which will convert agricultural land over one (1) acre in size to residential land use. As such, the Farmland Preservation Program is not applicable to the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project site is designated as Industrial by the Hughson General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report anticipated development of the Proposed Project site as part of the overall buildout of the city. The General Plan EIR addressed the conversion and loss of agricultural land that would result from the build out of the General Plan; it determined that even with the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Because conversion of the Proposed Project site from agricultural to nonagricultural uses was previously analyzed in the city’s General Plan EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The Proposed Project site is zoned Industrial (I). It is not zoned for agriculture use nor is it restricted by a Williamson Act contract; a Notice of Non-Renewal California Land Conservation Contract was recorded April 27, 2007, which expired December 31, 2016. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The project site is not located in a timber resource zone. The project site is also not classified as forest land, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, a timber resource zoning designation. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. 72 22 | P a g e
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not considered forest land; and therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project site is not designated for agricultural or forest use. There are no known changes to the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
73 23 | P a g e

3. AIR QUALITY -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X

REGULATORY SETTING
The Proposed Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders. Having primary responsibility for compliance with both the federal and state standards and ensuring that air quality conditions are maintained, SJVAPCD accomplishes this through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues.

As noted, the SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing regulations designed to attain ambient air quality standards. SJVAPCD regulations that are potentially applicable to the project are summarized below:

Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions)
Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions - predominantly dust/dirt - generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.

Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
This rule prohibits emissions visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.
74 24 | P a g e
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Rule 9510, also known as the Indirect Source Rule, is intended to reduce or mitigate construction and operational emissions of NOx and PM10 generated by new development, either directly and/or by payment of off-site mitigation fees. Construction emissions of NOx and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20% and 45%, respectively. Operational emissions of NOx and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3% and 50%, respectively. All projects subject to Rule 9510 are required to submit an Air Impact Assessment to the SJVAPCD. Rule 9510 applies to projects of land use not otherwise identified in the rule that is 9,000 square feet of space or greater. However, development projects that have a mitigated baseline below two tons per year of NOx and two tons per year of PM10 are exempt from the requirements in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of the rules, which involve general mitigation requirements and the off-site emission reduction fee.

ASSUMPTIONS
In an effort to produce the most accurate Emissions Model for the Proposed Project and to provide the most accurate impact analysis possible, the following assumptions were made while utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model:

1. The Floor Area Ration (FAR) requirement per table 17.02.012 of the Hughson Municipal Code is

0.6. 2. Building square footage is estimated based on assumption of one (1) story buildings.

3. Default traffic counts were utilized for CALEEMOD.

4. Landscaping square footage is assumed to be 10% of net site area.

5. Limit Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling.

6. Exposed surfaces shall be watered on a regular basis.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? In 2015, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) adopted an updated Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The guide establishes a method for analysis, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for the assessment of air quality impacts for development projects within SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction. The table below shows the thresholds for significance for pollutant emissions of the SJVAPCD and the mitigated construction emissions for the Proposed Project.

SJVAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS AND PROPOSED PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Note: Figures are in tons per year.

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance
Thresholds
100 10 10 27 15 15
Construction
Emissions
[Mitigated]

4.07 2.17 2.14 0.01 0.56 0.18
75 25 | P a g e
Source: CALEEMOD Analysis; SJVAPCD, March 2015.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD) was used to estimate the sum pollutant emissions which would result from the Proposed Project’s construction. The full CALEEMOD results are shown in Appendix A of this document. As is indicated in the table above, the construction emissions resulting from the Proposed Project will be substantially less than the significance threshold established by SJVAPCD for criteria pollutant emissions. As a significant threshold was established to ensure consistency with the objectives of air quality attainment plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, the Proposed Project construction emissions will not conflict with these plans.

While the construction emissions resulting from the Proposed Project will not be significant, the Proposed Project will still be required to comply with the applicable rules and regulations which will further reduce potential air quality impacts. To that point, SJVAPCD regulations contains measures to reduce dust emissions produced during construction activities. Dust control provisions are routinely included in site improvement plans and specifications in order to curtail the impacts resulting from construction activities. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
As discussed, the SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for ensuring that air quality conditions are attained, and where non-attainment is determined, this agency develops strategies to achieve attainment in the future. This effort to achieve attainment is documented in the SJVAPCD’s many air quality plans (i.e., 2007 Ozone Plan, 2008 PM2.5 Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan), which are updated periodically to accommodate changes. While the scope of the SJVAPCD’s strategies to achieve attainment is wide ranging, the agency has established thresholds of significance for individual new projects and if a project exceeds the threshold of significance, then it would also be a significant contribution to a cumulative impact.

The SJVAPCD’s air quality significance thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to conflict with the District’s air quality plans and are not expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. These are developed based on the ambient concentrations of the pollutant for each source. Similar to the project related construction emissions displayed above, the operational emissions resulting from the Proposed Project are significantly lower than the threshold established by the SJVAPCD as can be seen in the table below.
76 26 | P a g e
Note: Figures are in tons per year.

Source: CALEEMOD Analysis; SJVAPCD, March 2015.

Because the Proposed Project will not exceed the air quality significance threshold during construction and operation and would not otherwise conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans, the cumulative emissions resulting from the Proposed Project will not be a significant contribution to a cumulative impact and therefore the emissions will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive Receptors, as defined in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, include residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals (SJVAPCD March 2015). Potential sensitive receptors near the Proposed Project site include the single-family residence along Tully Road, south of Roeding Road, and the single-family residence adjacent to the Proposed Project site, west of Tully Road.

Construction related emissions could affect the above-mentioned residences adjacent to the Proposed Project site; however, potential exposure of any individual residence to these emissions would be temporary and cease once construction work has been completed. Additionally, assumptions utilized in the CALEEMOD analysis provided mitigation measures to limit the impact to surrounding receptors by 1) limiting any heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling, and 2) ensuring exposed surfaces are watered on a regular basis.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not be anticipated to result in an increase in exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of criteria pollutants that would exceed the relevant standards or thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Proposed Project would not generate objectionable odors. People in the immediate vicinity of construction activities may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with construction CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance
Thresholds
100 10 10 27 15 15
Operation
Emissions
[Mitigated]

20.6 3.77 6.28 0.04 3.24 0.93
77 27 | P a g e
activities (engine exhaust, new asphalt, etc.). However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and temporary in nature and duration.

Some examples of known producers of operational odors include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, dairies, etc. Further, if a development project placed sensitive receptors and known odor sources in relatively close proximity to each other, more analysis would be warranted. Conversely, if a development project does not locate sensitive receptors near known odor sources, further analysis is not warranted.

The Proposed Project does not propose to include any of the aforementioned uses. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.

7. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and

8. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
78 28 | P a g e

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
79 29 | P a g e
The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Figure 4.4-1 of the 2005 General Plan EIR identifies the project site as Orchard Crop; while the project site was historically used and is presently used for agricultural production as an Almond orchard, the lack of protective cover in the agricultural fields generally limits their suitability as habitat for wildlife. Further, Policy COS-3.2 requires new development to meet all federal, State, and regional regulations for habitat and species protection. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Tuolumne River supports the last remnant of native vegetation and sensitive natural community in the Hughson vicinity, serves an important movement corridor for fish and wildlife, and is considered to be of regional and State-wide significance both hydrologically and biologically. However, the riparian habitat associated with the Tuolumne River is technically outside the city limits and SOI. The nearby lands are either agricultural or marginally developed and the project site is not adjacent to or near the Tuolumne River. Thus, impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities with the project site are not anticipated. The Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season. Based on the existing topography and aerial imagery, the project site does not have any wetlands that would be impacted by existing and any future development. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No major migratory routes have been designated through the project site nor would the project interfere substantially with the movement of native residents or migratory fish. The existing developed components of the project site, for example, roads and agriculture, impede use of the project area as a migratory wildlife corridor for large mammals. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
80 30 | P a g e
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
According to the City of Hughson 2005 General Plan EIR, the city has adopted a Street Tree Ordinance that addresses the removal of trees by new development in the city’s Standard Conditions of Approval. The Ordinance addresses the protection of street trees and trees within other public areas from unauthorized removal and/or damage. The Proposed Project would also have to adhere to Policy COS-3.1 where new development shall preserve, protect, and incorporate established native trees into the site design. Therefore, the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As the Hughson area is primarily characterized by agricultural and urban development, there are no active Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other natural resource conservation plans in the Hughson area. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of other regional or state habitat conservation plans because no such plans are applicable to this project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
81 31 | P a g e

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to '15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? x

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
In order to protect cultural resources, the city of Hughson established Policy COS-4.2 which requires developers to provide an assessment by appropriate professionals regarding the presence and condition of on-site historical resources on and adjacent to the project site as well as the potential for adverse impacts on these resources and appropriate mitigation measures. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
According to the 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Central California Information Center (CCIC) conducted a detailed search for prehistoric and historic resources within the Hughson city limits, Sphere of Influence (SOI) and immediate vicinity in 2005. No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project area or its vicinity, nor resources that would have value to local cultural groups have been reported to the CCIC. As a safeguard, should archaeological sites and resources be uncovered during construction or other similar activities, Policy COS-4.3 outlines the City’s commitment to require an immediate halt to these activities until appropriate mitigation is implemented. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
82 32 | P a g e
Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials as being “any evidence of human activity.” Additionally, Public Resources Code section 5097.98 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during project implementation. While some activities have the potential to impact cultural resources in Hughson and the SOI, 2005 General Plan policies and compliance with federal and state regulations reduce the project-specific impact to a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
83 33 | P a g e

6. ENERGY -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and, b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
While the Proposed Project consists of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the subdivision of approximately 46.44 acres into thirty-four (34) industrial lots, it can be assumed that future physical development and build out of the industrial sites will occur. Thus, the current Proposed Project and future development would consume energy primarily in one of two ways: first, future construction activities would consume energy via various heavy equipment, machines, trucks, and worker traffic; and, secondly, future industrial uses would cause long-term energy consumption from electricity and propane gas consumption, energy used for water conveyance, and motor vehicle operations to and from the project site, etc.

The City of Hughson’s 2005 General Plan includes policies and actions to help reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas by new development; for example, Policy COS-5.1 states that new development would be required to comply with State Title 24 energy conservation standards. Combining the City’s policies and actions with increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency in conjunction with local, state, and federal regulations limiting engine idling times and recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during future construction.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact during project operation. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a potential significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable state or local plans for renewable energy because it would be required to conform to current federal, state, and local 84 34 | P a g e
energy conservation standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
85 35

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
86 36

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a.1, a.2, a.3, a.4):
a.1.Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2.Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3.Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4.Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structure for human occupancy. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to issue appropriate maps. Active faults are defined as a fault that has surface displacement within the last 11,000 years*. Per the City of Hughson’s 2005 General Plan, the closest fault line to Hughson is the San Joaquin Fault, which runs approximately 20 miles west of the city. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone†. Therefore, fault rupture through the site is not anticipated, and the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture. Therefore, under this threshold the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Since Hughson is relatively flat and the soil in Hughson is fairly stable, there is a limited potential for landslides, erosion and expansion. While the Project site is presently utilized as an orchard, the Proposed Project would result in the creation of new impervious surface areas throughout the Project site. Additionally, development of the Project site would cause ground disturbance of topsoil due to grading and excavating activities; thus, the potential for wind and water erosion to occur does exist.

Since the Proposed Project would disturb more than one acre, it would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requirement includes preparation and implementation of a Storm Water * State of California. 2023. Department of Conservation. Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist‐priolo
† California Geological Survey. 2021. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website:
htpps://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app
87 37
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at curbing soil erosion. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria c and d:
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Expansive soils contain higher levels of clay and present hazards for development since these soils expand and shrink depending on water content, damaging structures that were not appropriately engineered. Since all of the soil in the Hughson area is mainly comprised of sand, it poses a very low risk of expansion. The 2005 General Plan includes several policies and actions to minimize risks to life and property. For example, Policy S-1.1 requires that new development would be subject to adequate professional geological and engineering studies while Policy S-1.2 requires the City to enforce building codes adopted by the State of California for all new construction and renovations. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The City of Hughson requires all new development to connect with the municipal wastewater system, so there would be No Impact associated with the local soil capacity to support septic systems. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Based on a review of the 2005 General Plan EIR, the project site is not known or identified to contain any unique paleontological or geologic features. Therefore, it is not likely that unique paleontological resources would be found in the project area during future development of the project. Should the discovery of fossils occur during future construction or grading activities, implementation of the City’s Policy COS-4.3 would require the immediate cessation of these activities until appropriate mitigation occurs. Thus, this Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
88 38 | P a g e

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
REGULATORY SETTING:

California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the State’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below:

Assembly Bill 1943
Assembly Bill (AB) 1943 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley, I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016.

The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emission Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, the governor issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA]). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) (CalEPA 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty 89 39
truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. In April 2015 the governor issued EO B-30-15, calling for a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05) and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.

California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020, as established by AB 32.

Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.

CARB Resolution 07-54
CARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 MT of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005 percent of California’s total inventory of GHG emissions for 2004.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed into law in September 2008, builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035; these regional targets will help achieve the goals of AB 32 and the Scoping Plan through changed land use patterns and improved transportation systems. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted a Sustainable Community Strategies in July 2013 that meets greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Plan Bay Area is the SCS document for the Bay Area, which is an integrated long-range plan that discusses climate protection, housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic vitality, and transportation system effectiveness within the San Francisco Bay Area. The document is updated every four years and most recently, the update, Plan Bay Area 2040 was adopted on July 26, 2017.

I
90 40
Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of tis population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “…first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaption strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Senate Bill 2X
In April 2011, the governor signed SB2X requiring California to generate 33 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020.

Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, which requires the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 is an extension of AB 32. The other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged. CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update on December 14, 2017, for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during the construction and operation of residences, when developed. Construction related emissions during development may be generated from numerous sources, but construction related emissions would occur over a short duration and consist primarily of equipment exhaust emissions.

The City of Hughson’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted December 9, 2013, and includes strategies and associated actions related to public education and outreach efforts regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions and administrative actions to monitor progress. The Proposed Project’s construction activities and operations are consistent with the City of Hughson’s General Plan.

I
91 41
The Proposed Projects consistency with the City of Hughson’s General Plan ensures compliance with the GHG emission reduction strategies in the City of Hughson’s Climate Action Plan, which in turn, support City-wide efforts to meet statewide GHG emission reduction goals consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

I
92 42

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project 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?
93 43
The Proposed Project consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create thirty-four (34) industrial lots. Thistype of project does not typically result in creating significant hazards to the public or environment through upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials.

Nor do they result in the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the physical development and build out of the individual lots will have a higher probability of incidents that include hazardous materials, i.e., gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, etc. Should the release of hazardous materials occur, the Project Proponent shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to hazardous materials. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? No existing or proposed schools have been identified within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the project site is Hughson Elementary School, located at 7201 East Whitmore Avenue, which is approximately 4,200-feet northeast from the project site. Therefore, under this threshold the project will have No Impact.
d. Would the project be located on a site 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?
The Proposed Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code §65962.5. A review of the State hazardous material site databases* found one record near the project site: Santa Fe Railway Case #2 AKA Dairy Farmers, 2331 Tully & Santa Fe, Hughson, CA 95326; considered a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site. The case was opened 12/18/1995 and the case was completed and closed as of 6/30/2000. As a result, the Proposed Project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment; therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. 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?
The closest airport to Hughson is the Modesto City-County Airport, located approximately six miles west of Hughson. General aviation facilities are also located about 15 miles south of Turlock and about 15 miles north in Oakdale. Since the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Proposed Project will have No Impact. * https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0609900380 94 44
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Proposed Project would design, construct, and maintain roads and driveways in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access allowing for adequate emergency access and evacuation. The project would not pose a unique or unusual use that would impair the effective and efficient implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. To minimize risks posed by construction of new development Standard No. 59 of the Standard Conditions of Approval requires that all commercial and industrial projects include a hazardous materials management plan.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. g. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Since Hughson is primarily surrounded by agricultural land, the danger from wildland fire is considered low. The City of Hughson has identified the lone remaining wildlands which are found in limited amounts along the Tuolumne River to the north. Goal PSF-2 of the 2005 General Plan aims at minimizing the loss of life and property from all fires by ensuring the Hughson Fire Protection District firefighters quick and easy access to all areas within the Hughson Planning Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

I
95 45

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
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:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
96 46
The Proposed Project would be required to meet all water quality standards and requirements. During construction related activities, specific erosion control and surface water protection methods for each construction activity would be implemented on the project site. The type and number of measures implemented would be based upon location specific characteristics (slope, soil type, weather conditions, etc.). Additionally, new development is required to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize grading and control runoff, which pollutes storm drains and can eventually lead to the pollution of groundwater sources. Applicants are also required to submit a grading and drainage plan for review as part of the development approval process. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The City of Hughson depends on the Turlock groundwater basin (approximately 540 square miles in area) for all of its potable water. Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater has been a hallmark of water management in the Turlock Subbasin. Future development of the Proposed Project could potentially interfere with groundwater recharge by increasing the area covered by impervious surfaces. However, the Proposed Project includes a 148,845 square foot storm water retention basin along the eastern portion of the Project site. This proposed stormwater basin will detain stormwater runoff onsite and drain into the subbasin, thereby allowing for groundwater recharge. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project 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 on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
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 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The Proposed Project will not alter the course of a stream or river, as it is not located near a stream or river. The project site is located south of the Tuolumne River and is located on a site that is currently utilized as agriculture. Compliance with construction and operation-phase storm water requirements would ensure that development of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
I
97 47
The Proposed Project is not located adjacent to the ocean or other large body of water; the city of Hughson is not at risk from tsunami due to its inland location. The project site, therefore, is not susceptible to flooding or seiches, and as a result, the Proposed Project would not result in a risk of pollutant release during a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche event. Therefore, the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Proposed Project will connect to and be provided domestic water from the city of Hughson. The City of Hughson is located within the Turlock Groundwater Basin, which is governed by Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and the Turlock Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In addition, the City of Hughson also has an adopted Urban Water Management Plan (2005). The Proposed Project will be required to comply with both Plans. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

I
98 48

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Proposed Project is located within the city limits of Hughson, but it would not physically divide an established community as it is located at the southern end of the city limits. Per the 2005 General Plan EIR, most industrial lands are located southwest of the railroad and Santa Fe Avenue—in a wellplanned, orderly fashion, the project area would continue the extension of industrial uses from the north to the south. Therefore, this project will have No Impact. b. Would the project 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? All impacts to the environment resulting from the Proposed Project are subject to applicable mitigation and local, State and/or federal regulations, which would reduce said impacts to a Less Than Significant level. Consequently, impacts related to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the Proposed Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
99 49

12. MINERAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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 locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project 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? Per the 2005 General Plan EIR, no portion of the Hughson city limits, or SOI, is designated by the California Department of Conservation as having the potential for being a significant source of composite minerals or industrial minerals. Additionally, there are no known economically viable sources of rock materials in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The only significant mineral resources in the area are the MRZ-3a SG(C14) aggregate resources throughout most of the city limits, and the MRZ-3a SG(C17) aggregate resources along the Tuolumne River near the City’s wastewater treatment plant. However, neither of these mineral categories have a great potential for significant mineral resources due to the type and quantity of resource. Consequently, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact under this threshold.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
100
50 13. NOISE -- WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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 other applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne 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
The following is based on the Environmental Noise Assessment that was completed for the Proposed Project by First carbon Solutions (September 2023).

FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
Sound can be described in terms of its loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel, abbreviated dB. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted scale (dBA) is used to reflect the normal hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. Table 1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sources.

Although the terms “sound” and “noise” are often used synonymously, noise is commonly defined as sound that is either loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. Because decibels are logarithmic units, they cannot be simply added or subtracted. For example, two cars each producing 60 dBA of noise would not produce a combined 120 dBA.

Generally speaking, noise levels decrease, or “attenuate,” as distances from noise sources to receivers increase. For each doubling of distance, noise from stationary or small, localized sources, commonly referred to as “point sources,” may attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. This attenuation is referred to as the inverse square law. For example, if a point source emits a noise level of 80 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet, its noise level would be approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, 68 dBA at a distance of 200 feet, etc. Noise emitted by “line” sources, such as highways, attenuates at the rate of 3 dBA for each doubling of distance. 101
51 Factors such as ground absorption and atmospheric effects may also affect the propagation of noise. In particular, ground attenuation by non-reflective surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, may contribute to increased attenuation rates of up to an additional 8–10 dBA per doubling of distance. A characteristic of noise is that the lowest audible increase in noise levels generally refers to a change of 3 dBA, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered a readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Furthermore, a doubling of sound sources with equal strength is required to result in a perceptible increase (defined to be a 3 dBA or greater) in noise levels.

Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line of sight, an unobstructed visual path between a noise source and a receiver. Barriers that break the line of sight between noise sources and receivers, such as walls and buildings, can greatly reduce source noise levels by allowing noise to reach receivers by diffraction only. Barriers can reduce source noise levels by up to 20 dBA, though it is generally infeasible for temporary barriers to reduce source noise levels by more than 15 dBA. In cases where the noise path from source to receiver is direct but grazes the top of a barrier, noise attenuation of up to 5 dBA may still occur.

Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity was documented through ambient noise monitoring.

Three short-term noise measurements (15 minutes each) were taken on Tuesday, September 5, 2023. The laible 1: A.:W,eiglhted Decibel Sea e
Common flloise Sources So und Level, dB
no
Rock and Roll !Band no
[email protected] 90
Food IBl@n d@r 80
Ltving Room Music 70
H uma111 Vo c@ at 3 fe@t 60
~ !d@11tlal Air Condltf.011er a,t 50 f@et
Bird Call!; 40
Qu et L v n,g Room 30
Averag@ Whisper 20
Rus1!ll11g L@aV!!S 10
Notes:
dliA ■ A-weighted deC!ibel
These noise le'lels a re apprnxima~ions in~ru:ted forge neral reference am! i nforma~ion use. They do, mot meet. the sla ndard required for detailed noiSE analysis but a re provided for · he reader to ,gain a rw:limentary rnn(ept of ...-a ricus noise levels.

Sou~ce: Cowan, James P. 1993. Handbook of Environmental Arnu!>tics. 102
52 short-term noise measurements taken at the project site are summarized in Table 3. The noise measurement data sheets are attached to this document.

The noise measurements indicate that daytime ambient noise levels average from 64.8 dBA to 67.8 dBA Leq along the Proposed Project’s western boundary adjacent to Tully Road; and 75.4 dBA Leq at the Proposed Project’s eastern boundary adjacent to the railroad. The noise technician observed that the dominant noise sources in the project vicinity are traffic on local roadways and train activity on the railroad.

One long-term, 24-hour noise measurement was also conducted at the project’s eastern border adjacent to the railroad. The resulting noise level was 82.5 dBA CNEL as measured at 75 feet from the railroad line, along the project’s eastern property line. The nighttime average noise level was 76.3 dBA Leq.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project result in the 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? The City of Hughson’s Noise Ordinance is enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Restricting construction activity to daytime hours in conjunction with the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI1, restricting construction activity to daytime hours and implementing best management noise reduction measures would ensure future construction noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise level as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor land use.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Jab1te 3: Existing Ambient: Noise Levels in the Project Vic nity· Stte Location Location Description I dSA Primary Noise Sources ST'-!1 Norl!hw'est comer oftll@ pro ttt site 167.8 lrrafflc on Tully Road adjacent to T1.1l&y Road
ST'-2 South·wes.t oomer oftll@ proj,ro site I 64.SL..._ Trail'tlc on Tully Road adjacent to Tulliy Ro.ad
ST~3 !Eastern boo ndary of tile pro e.ct s te I 7.5.A L,... I Traffic on Santa Fe Avenue and raJlrood adjacent to the rallroad a.eilvlty
!
LT-1 IEast@rn boundary oftlle pro ect s te 82.50N l jTrail'frc on Santa Fe Avimue and railroad ad.iacent to th@ railroad a.etlvlty
Notes:
dBA ■ A-weighted cfeoillel
~ ·• equivalent sound level
C EL (o ity Nois,e Eiq;uivalent Level. a .24" h_ourwei~hted average_ Source: Fii-stearbo n Solutions {FCSI- 20!23_
103
53 b. Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and roadway construction occur.

Since the City of Hughson has not adopted criteria for groundborne vibration impacts for industrial projects, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for construction vibration impacts were used to determine potential significant construction-related impacts. The FTA has established construction vibration damage criteria of 0.3 peak particle velocity (PPV); for the Proposed Project, large vibratory rollers are anticipated to be utilized in the site preparation phase of construction and produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. To fully realize the impact of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, it is important to recognize the many factors which influence the level of impact including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Considering these impacts, it is also important to note that the nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the Proposed Project would be the single-family residential dwelling located across Tully Road. It is estimated that this dwelling is approximately 100 feet from the nearest construction area where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate.

At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.03 PPV, well below the FTA’s established threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. 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? The Project site is not located within the vicinity of 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. The closest airport to Hughson is the Modesto City-County Airport, located approximately six miles west of Hughson.

General aviation facilities are also located about 15 miles south in Turlock and about 15 miles north in Oakdale. Since the Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Proposed Project would not expose persons residing or working in the Project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following Mitigation Measures shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:

Mitigation Measure NOI -1 – Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction-period noise impacts:

Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following language shall be included, verbatim, in the general notes section of all the civil plan construction documents.

I
104
54 • The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of five (5) minutes) is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences. • The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, or demolition work, are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

I
105
55 | P a g e

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial 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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project induce substantial population in one area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning and General Plan Land Use designation.

The property is presently zoned Industrial (I) and is currently used as an agriculture orchard. The Proposed Project does not have a residential element, the project site is not zoned residential, thus the Proposed Project will not have a direct effect on spurring population growth; however, consistent with the 2005 General Plan EIR, the project may have an indirect impact on employment opportunities for residents in the long run, thus the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As stated, the Project site is presently functioning as an almond orchard with no structures currently existing, residential or otherwise. Thus, the Proposed Project would not displace existing individuals or housing as none exist. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
106
56 | P a g e

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
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 fire protection? The City of Hughson provides fire protection services primarily via Hughson Fire Protection District (HFPD) in conjunction with, and assistance from, surrounding fire protection agencies. The HFPD works closely with neighboring fire departments that border the City’s district by way of mutual aid agreements. These departments include Denair Fire Protection District, Keyes Fire Protection District, Turlock Rural Fire Protection District, and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District; consequently, if the HFPD is unable or unavailable to answer a call in Hughson, a neighboring fire department or fire district will respond to the call.

The HFPD is made up of three paid staff, and approximately 25 volunteer firefighters. HFPD has a single fire station located at 2316 3rd Street that serves approximately 10,000 residents within its 35 square miles district boundaries.
107
57 The Proposed Project does not propose physical development at this time and would not result in adverse environmental impacts associated with the need for construction of new, or alteration of the existing, fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Further, Project Proponents for Industrial-type developments currently pay a development impact fee of $.30 per square foot to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for facilities, apparatus, vehicles and other equipment (capital assets) used by the Hughson FPD to serve development in the district. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. 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 police protection? The City of Hughson experiences a relatively low level of crime where emergency calls and complaints are typically related to traffic accidents or vehicle-related problems, per Hughson 2005 General Plan.

The city of Hughson contracts with the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department to supply the residents and businesses of Hughson with law enforcement and protection services. Contracted law enforcement services are based upon a philosophy of community-oriented policing which is the foundation to ensure and maintain a safe community for the residents and visitors to Stanislaus County.

The Department operates a single base station which is attached to City Hall, centrally located in the city at 7018 Pine Street. Per the 2005 General Plan, the calculated ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents is 0.85 officers. The Department reviews new development proposals for crime prevention design and general safety and keeps abreast of population increases which might trigger a need for additional staff or facilities. As such, it is anticipated that project implementation would not require any new law enforcement facilities or the alteration of existing facilities to maintain acceptable performance objectives. Additionally, response time would not be affected by the Proposed Project as existing infrastructure would provide adequate transportation routes to reach the project site in the event of an emergency. Further, development impact fees are collected from Project Proponents in order to offset future costs for capital assets in order to maintain the current level of services.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. 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 schools? The Proposed Project is not expected to have a significant impact on schools or generate a demand for new school facilities. Due in part because the Proposed Project is not expected to generate  Hughson Fire Protection District Draft Development Impact Fee Study, April 14, 2023. 108
58 population growth and as such would not generate an increase in demand for school services. No new buildings or residences are proposed with this project, so no new students would be generated.

However, Public school facilities and services are partially supported through the assessment of development impact fees. The Project Proponent would be expected to pay an established amount of development impact fees to offset any potential impact the Proposed Project may have. Therefore, under this threshold the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. 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 parks? The Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on parks because it would not generate a need for additional park land or create an additional impact on existing parks in the region. This project would not result in any new residences which require parking services. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact on parks citywide. e. 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 other public facilities? The Proposed Project is not anticipated to impact other public facilities because the project would not result in the need for additional or new public facilities. No new buildings or residences are proposed with this project that would generate a demand for other public services. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact on public facilities.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

I
109
59 | P a g e

16. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project 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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or accelerated? 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? The Proposed Project will not 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. The Proposed Project consists of a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the development of industrial land uses, of which do not typically increase the use of existing parks or require the expansion or construction of parking facilities. The Proposed Project would not result in residential development, which would generate demand for recreational facilities such that new or expanded facilities would be required. There are no existing neighborhood or regional parks in the project vicinity that would be potentially affected. However, the City of Hughson’s Parks Master Plan directs the establishment of appropriate development of impact fees in order that the City might pass along land acquisition and construction costs to project proponents. The Proposed Project will pay the applicable park impact fees as building permits are issued within the Project site. These fees are intended to provide funding for park capital improvements within the City of Hughson. Thus, under this threshold the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
110
60 I
111
61 17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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 section 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
Background
The network of roadways in and around Hughson consists of arterials, collectors and local streets. The closest major highway, SR 99, is approximately 4.5 miles west of Hughson, where it passes through the community of Ceres, connecting through Modesto and Stockton to points north, and through Merced and Fresno to points south. Many of Hughson’s streets have existed since the earliest days of the City’s development. The roadway system is comprised of arterials, collectors and local streets; all of which are two-lane with one lane in each direction.

The following is based on the Traffic Analysis Impact Report that was completed for the Proposed Project by GHD (March 2024).

Roadway Classifications
Major - The function of a Major road is to carry moderate- to high-volume traffic to and from collectors to other Majors, Expressways, and Freeways with a secondary function of land access. Majors located within areas zoned for heavy or light industrial or that are expected to carry large or heavy trucks shall be constructed to Industrial Major standards. Limited direct access is provided to abutting property. Onstreet parking will be permitted only where the Department of Public Works has determined that traffic flow and safety conditions allow on-street parking. The typical right-of-way is 110 feet (up to 6 lanes, ultimately). On limited rights-of-way, Majors may be 100 feet.

Santa Fe Avenue, within the communities of Empire and Denair, and within the City of Hughson, is planned to be an 85-foot Major measured from the railroad right-of-way. 112
62 Collector - Collectors serve a dual function by providing both access to abutting property and movement of moderate volumes of people and goods for medium length trips. Collectors serve as transition facilities, carrying traffic from lower to higher level roads. Most Collectors are two-lane roads with a typical rightof-way of 60 feet. On-street parking will be permitted only where the Department of Public Works has determined that traffic flow and safety conditions allow on-street parking. In urban residential subdivisions, roads not shown on the General Plan Circulation Diagram or as an Official Plan Line that will serve more than 50 dwelling units, when the maximum density and full extent of the development is considered, shall be deemed Collectors. In some instances, the Department of Public Works may determine that project design features dictate that a road serving as few as 20 urban dwelling units be deemed a Collector. Under certain circumstances, 80 feet of right of-way may be required to provide additional capacity to provide two additional through lanes to accommodate projected traffic demand, to facilitate the movement of large trucks, or to improve safety due to limited visibility or other safety hazards.

City of Hughson (Excerpts from Hughson General Plan Transportation Element) Roadway Classifications
Arterials - Hughson’s arterial streets are the primary movers of traffic, providing the main routes within and through the city, and also carrying traffic to and from the regional highways and other communities.

Santa Fe Avenue is an arterial that runs northwest-southeast through Hughson, parallel to the railroad.

Santa Fe Avenue’s alignment cuts across the orthogonal grid that characterizes Hughson’s roadway system complicating circulation patterns since all roadway intersections with Santa Fe Avenue have a skewed configuration. Intersection improvements along Santa Fe Avenue are also limited due to the presence of the adjoining railroad and canals.

Other existing arterials follow a grid pattern. Geer Road runs north south along Hughson’s eastern SOI boundary, ultimately connecting Hughson to Turlock to the south and Oakdale to the north. Hatch Road, Whitmore Avenue and Service Road are east-west arterials that connect Hughson to Ceres and SR-99.

Collectors - The backbone of the City’s roadway system consists of its collector streets, which connect arterial streets to local streets. The collector street system is also oriented around a grid. Existing collector streets include Tully Road, Charles Street, 7th Street and Euclid Avenue, which run north-south, and Fox Road and Hughson Avenue that run east-west.

Study Area Roadway Network
Tully Road extends in a north-south direction primarily between E. Hatch Road and E. Keys Road and would provide direct access to the Proposed Project site. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, Tully Road extends between E. Whitmore Avenue through Roeding Road to Service Road. In this area, Tully Road is a two-lane facility with unimproved shoulders serving agricultural uses and more improved areas (curb and gutter) as it approaches commercial/light industrial areas south of E. Whitmore Avenue. The posted speed limit on Tully Road is 40 mph in the project study area.

I
113
63 East Whitmore Avenue extends in an east-west direction approximately one-half mile north of the Proposed Project site. A major arterial street, E. Whitmore Avenue provides access to downtown Hughson as well as agricultural areas both east and west of the City. A two-lane facility, E. Whitmore Avenue widens to two travel lanes and a two-way-left turn lane immediately east of Tully Road for approximately 450- feet before transitioning back to two-travel lane as it extends across the existing railroad tracks to Santa Fe Avenue. As with Service Avenue, E. Whitmore Avenue is a regional route that provides access west to Smyrna and State Route 99 and east to more agricultural areas and Montpeller Road. In the project study area. The posted speed limit on E. Whitmore Avenue is 35 mph.

Santa Fe Avenue is located east of the project site and extends in a northwest-southeast direction paralleling the railroads tracks on the east side. A major arterial and regional route, Sante Fe Avenue provides access along the west side of downtown Hughson as well as regionally to Modesto (north) and Merced (south). In the project study area, Santa Fe Avenue is a two-lane arterial street with striped shoulders. The posted speed limit on Santa Fe Avenue is 45 mph.

Service Road extends in an east-west direction approximately one-half mile south of the Proposed Project site. Similar to E. Whitmore Avenue, Service Road is a two-lane facility that provides access west to Smyrna and State Route 99 and east to Downie Road. Service Road primarily serves primarily agricultural and residential areas and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

Roeding Road extends in an east-west direction between 6th Street (in Smyrna) and Tully Road and would provide direct access to the Proposed Project site. In the project study area, Roeding Road is an unimproved, two-lane road that provides access to agricultural and residential areas.

Study Intersections & Roadway Segments
Four primary intersections and one future intersection adjacent to and providing access to the project site were selected for evaluation in coordination with the City of Hughson staff for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The study intersections for the project are listed below:

1. E. Whitmore Avenue / Tully Road

2. Tully Road / Street A (future)

3. Tully Road / Roeding Road

4. Tully Road / Service Road

5. E. Whitmore Avenue / Santa Fe Avenue
I
114
64 Level of Service Methodologies
In an effort to maintain consistency with the County of Stanislaus and City of Hughson policies for transportation facilities (Hughson GP, Transportation, 2005), the following level of service methodologies for intersections will be used to determine if the project causes an increase in traffic that is substantial and adverse in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the existing street system. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS "A" represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS "F" represents over-capacity conditions. Levels of Service will be calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2016 (HCM 6).

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Hughson’s General Plan land use designation and is located within the City of Hughson and is zoned for Industrial uses. Based on the analysis provided, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 312 weekdays AM peak hour trips and 312 weekday PM peak hour trips. Consistent with the September 2005 City of Hughson General Plan Circulation Element and 2015 County of Stanislaus Circulation Element, various traffic scenarios were analyzed including but not limited to existing conditions, existing conditions plus Project conditions, near and long-term conditions.

To reduce potential vehicle conflicts to and from Tully Road, the Proposed Project will have two (2) primary access streets. Given the number of trips generated during peak hours, both Proposed Project intersections would meet the minimum volumes for installation of southbound left-turn lanes. With the Proposed Project development, transportation mitigation has been recommended for both the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road and E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersections. The Traffic T8bla4.2 LOS Summary Table: AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Lavei-af-Service TUiiy Road & SlrHt A AM 2 (Future) D PM this scenarlo_ this scenario,_ this scenario.

AM 7-7 A 7_8 A 8_3 A 3 Tully Road & Roedlng Road D AWSC AWSC AWSC PM 7-7 A 7_8 A 8_3 A 4 Tully Road & Se™ce Road D AM AWSC 8_6 A AWSC
8_8 A AWSC 10_2 B
PM 8_8 A 9_, A ,u B
5 Santa Fe Asen.us & East D AM AWSC 23_6 C AWSC 27.7 D AWSC 57.5 F Whitmore Awnue PM 43.6 E 50.8 F 112.2 F
l'tltB, Bold _, ndic;a1Bs tMQ1!1 level of service (LOS) k exoeede<l 1 AWSC • AI-Way-Stop-Cootrol
2 Baseclon Synchro-Slntrafli: (Version 11.0), Hghway Oopaclty MloJal (to..6), Operations,lit!ilgnalzed --lion•, 2019. 115
65 Impact Analysis recommends the installation of a signal at each intersection to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. As such, the Proposed Project development would represent its share of overall cumulative traffic growth at each intersection as defined by Caltrans methodology for equitable mitigation. The Proposed Project’s equitable share is calculated using the measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The Proposed Project’s pro rata fair share for the E. Whitmore Avenue and Tully Road intersection is 30.03% while the pro rata fair share for the E. Whitmore Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue is 15.2%
From the existing Roeding Road/Tully Road intersection, Roeding Road would be extended east into the Proposed Project site approximately 1,000 feet to an internal drive (Street D). A second street (Street A) would extend into the site approximately 1,000 feet north of Roeding Road. Street A would connect to Tully Road and extend east into the Proposed Project approximately 1,500 feet ending in a cul-de-sac just prior to the BNSF railroad tracks and Santa Fe Avenue. Hence, off-site improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalks will be installed through the Project site as the build out of the Proposed Project occurs. Thus, there will be no conflict between the Proposed Project and the existing circulation system.

Further, transit facilities in the Hughson area are provided by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). Bus service is provided by Route 61 between Modesto, Ceres, and Hughson with headways every hour operating between 6:45 a.m. and 7:55 p.m. In the Hughson area, Route 61 access is available via E. Whitmore Avenue extending east past Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue to Charles Street. In the Proposed Project area, a bus stop is located on the north side of E. Whitmore Avenue just east of Tully Road. Route 61 extends east on E. Whitmore Avenue through Santa Fe Avenue to Charles Street before turning onto Hughson Avenue east to 7th Street. The route then circles around Hughson High School on 7th Street, Fox Road, Euclid Avenue, and Whitmore Avenue before extending west via the same roadways. Thus, there will be no conflict between the Proposed Project and existing Transit services available.

Consequently, the Proposed Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a) defines VMT as the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. This means that for a proposed industrial park, only trips associated with employees are evaluated in terms of VMT, as heavy trucks are not considered.

Because Stanislaus County does not currently have adopted VMT guidelines, no specific methodology has been mandated. As a result, analysis for VMT is based off US Census data due to it being considered the most reliable source of commute data available. Journey-to-work data is available from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program; the LEHD data provides a I
116
66 nearly complete enumeration of home-to-work flows covering over 90% of all workers and employers in the United States. The LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data provides employer-based work destinations and home origins, which were used to approximate weighted average trip lengths to and from Stanislaus County.

The LODES data was used to calculate trip lengths and associated VMT for the census tract where the Proposed Project is located. Because Stanislaus County does not currently have adopted VMT thresholds, the VMT threshold used for this analysis was based on SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For Stanislaus Council of Governments, the threshold is 16% below the regional average.

The above-mentioned data was used to determine the countywide regional average travel distances for employees who work in the county and the average distance of the Proposed Project’s employees, located in Hughson. As the figure below illustrates, a larger portion of employees countywide travel longer distances than those employed in the City of Hughson. Similarly, the table below presents the jobs, estimated VMT (jobs x average distance), the VMT per job for the City of Hughson and Stanislaus County, and the associated -16% threshold.

Figure 9.1 L,O.DES Jot»r by Dlstal'l'Ce (Worlt ,to Ho.me) for Hughson• (lefl) and Stanislaus Coun~ as a whole (right) Job Counts by Distance/Direction lo 2020
Alt Wo"k rs
N
w E
s
v, ~ A d r Ch rt •
Jobs by Distance - Work Census Block to
Home Census Block
2020
Count
1 50
762
179
101
108 9
Job Counts by Distance/Direction In 2020
All Work rs
N
w E
s
View as Radar Ch rt ·
Jobs by Distance - Work Census Block to
Home Census Block
2020
Count Sh.are
ToUI AIIJobs 18J 916 100
■ !H 91 -185 49 5.
•
36920 20.0%
D 9960 10 8
D 3655 98
Table 9.1 Estimated Jobs ,and 'VMT tor Hughson ,and' S,tanisJaus County 117
67 The VMT per job for Hughson (16.3 VMT/job) is lower than the countywide threshold of 20.7 VMT/job (16% below the countywide average VMT per job). Because the Proposed Project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan designations for the City of Hughson, its contribution toward VMT is considered in the LODES analysis for the City of Hughson. As discussed, the City of Hughson’s VMT is far below the targeted 16% threshold for the region. Therefore, the Project site is considered to be in a “low-VMT” area; as such, the Proposed Project will not conflict with the CEQA guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b). Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (c) and (d):
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project will have two (2) primary access driveways (streets) to reduce potential vehicle conflicts on Tully Road. On an internal basis, overall circulation will be acceptable with wide travel lanes and large turning radii—specifically, all internal streets will have a 70-foot improvement width, including lanes, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Large turning radii will be provided at the intersection of Streets B and C as well as at the cul-de-sac at the end of Street D (49-foot radius).

Both Proposed Project street connections of Street A and the Roeding Road extension at Tully Road were evaluated for adequate turning radii to and from Tully Road. Adequate turning radii were analyzed using the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Design Vehicle as defined by Caltrans and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO). Both inbound and outbound turning movements of large trucks were evaluated for left-turn movements and rightturn movements and based off the analysis provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, large truck turning paths to and from Tully Road into the Proposed Project Street A and the Roeding Road extension will be adequate.

Additionally, no site circulation or access issues would cause a traffic safety problem, hazard or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. Emergency vehicles arriving to and departing from the Proposed Project site would be able to enter via the newly expanded Roeding Road and Proposed Street A. This Less tlhan 10
m[les
10 to 24 miles
25 to 50 miles
Greater than 50
m[les
Total
VMT per Job
Assumed
Average
Distance (mi)
5 17

37.5 75
762
179
101
108
1,150

16.3 3,810
3,043
3,788
8,100
18,741
Countywide Ulreshold (16% below oounty average)
. ,- • ••
91 ,485 457,425
36,920 627,640
19,960 748,500
36,551 2,74 1,325
184,916 4,574,890

24.7 20.7
118
68 multiple entry and exit points provide a measure of flexibility for emergency vehicles to access and or evacuate from multiple directions during an emergency. There are no safety, capacity, or sight distance issues identified with the Proposed Project site plan. Therefore, impacts associated with design features and emergency access will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following Mitigation Measures shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:

Mitigation Measure Transportation-2: Install a signal at the intersection of East Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, widen and/or re-stripe the eastbound E. Whitmore Avenue approach to include a separate leftturn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Under Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, the intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant #3). Based on Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations; or construction of a single/multi-lane modern roundabout could be given consideration.

I
119
69 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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:
i) 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)?
X
ii) 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?
X
Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether or not the Proposed Project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
120
70 c. 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria A and B also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA (see Section 5 of this document), a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional (and separate) consideration as a Historical Resource. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their Tribal Cultural Resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Consultation is concluded when either the lead agency and tribes agree to appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, or when a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached, whereby the lead agency uses its best judgement in requiring mitigation measures that avoid or minimize impact to the greatest extent feasible.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a significant 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:

1. 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)?

2. 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?
A Records Search was conducted for the Project site and surrounding area through the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CCIC file No.:12638N). The record search indicates that the Project site does not contain any recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings. Additionally, with the regular disturbance associated with the agricultural operations it is anticipated that any buried resources would have been found over time.

Based on the above information, the Project site has a low potential for the discovery of prehistoric, ethnohistoric, or historic archaeological sites that may meet the definition of Tribal Cultural Resources.

I
121
71 Although no Tribal Cultural Resources have been documented in the Project site, the Proposed Project is located in a region where cultural resources have been recorded and there remains a potential that undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resources definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities. If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and worked 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 or disturb cultural resources. Based on the CCIC official records search and recommendations provided, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

I
122
72 | P a g e

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
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 that 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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? This Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Proposed Project includes the installation of a storm drainage basin that will accommodate stormwater 123
73 generated by the Proposed Project. The storm drainage basin is located on Lot A as shown in Figure 4 (Tentative Subdivision Map) and will be installed in accordance with City standards. Future development of the Project site would require the installation of a stormwater management system.

A new retention basin is proposed to be constructed on-site located northeast of the future extension of Roeding Road and Tully Road intersection. The applicant is required to obtain coverage via a State Construction General Permit, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes BMPs to control runoff, erosion, and sedimentation from the site. No additional mitigation is required. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Development of the Project site with industrial uses would be consistent with the General Plan; according to the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan may increase water demand for new and existing development. Policy PSF-6.1 of the 2005 General Plan ensures that the city of Hughson will continue to expand its water treatment and distribution facilities to provide good quality water to meet the needs of current and future businesses. Expansion may include the construction of additional storage facilities and/or additional wells. The Proposed Project proposes connecting to the City’s water system to allow for domestic and potable water services to be provided to individual lots.

The Project Proponent will install a looped water system, connecting to existing lines located in Tully Road. Water lines will then be extended through Roeding Road, and Streets A, B, C, and D. To allow for a looped system, a water line will be installed through Lots 12, 13, and 14 and easements will be established to allow for future maintenance. At this time, the City has the water capacity to allow for a maximum demand of 3,600 gallons per day per acre. To implement and monitor water supply for the Proposed Project, City staff will evaluate specific development projects as they are formally proposed to ensure their respective water demand complies with the maximum demand allowed by the City for the Proposed Project.

Based on the above, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure No. Utility and Service Systems - 1, defined below, will be incorporated into the Proposed Project.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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?
The Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments because all new development within the city is required to connect to the wastewater collection system. Policy PSF-7.2 of the 2005 General Plan explains that approval of new development shall be conditioned on the availability of adequate long-term capacity for wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal sufficient to service the proposed development.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

I
124
74 The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (d) and (e):
d. Would the project 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? e. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The Proposed Project will be provided solid waste services by Gilton Solid Waste. Per the 2005 General Plan EIR, solid waste is transported to a transfer station in Modesto, where it is sorted to remove items that can be recycled. Remaining refuse which cannot be recycled is sent to Stanislaus County’s Fink Road Landfill, located on Crows Landing Road. The Fink Road Sanitary Landfill is operated by the Department of Environmental Resources and has been providing municipal solid waste services since it opened in 1973. Disposal of project solid waste into that facility would comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would not cause solid waste providers to be out of compliance with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the Proposed Project:

I
125
75 20. WILDFIRE -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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 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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a), (b), (c), and (d):
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Would the project, 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?
c. Would the project require the installation 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?
d. Would the project 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? Compared to many communities in California, Hughson faces a low risk of many of the natural hazards that threaten many California cities. For example, Hughson is relatively flat, far from fault lines and is 126
76 outside the floodplain. Further, according to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection* and the Office of the State Fire Marshal‡, there are no state responsibility areas nor are there any lands classified as Very High, High, or Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in or around the project site. The Proposed Project would not be subject to any wildfire hazards. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.
* https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/ ‡ https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022 127
77 | P a g e

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, 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? This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes analysis of the Proposed Projects potential impacts associated with agricultural and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, and various other potential impacts. The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the potential for the Proposed Project to have an environmental impact; this includes the potential for the Proposed Project 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 species or animal community, and more.

The analysis found that the Proposed Project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. For the reasons presented throughout this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade 128
78 the quality of the environment. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
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 the connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As described in this IS/MND, the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project will either be less than significant, or the Proposed Project will have no impact at all, when compared to baseline conditions. Where the Proposed Project involves potentially significant effects, these effects would be reduced to a less than significant level with proposed mitigation measures and compliance with required permits and applicable regulations.

The potential environmental effects identified in this IS/MND have been considered in conjunction with each other as to their potential to generate other potentially significant effects. The various potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project would not combine to generate any potential significant cumulative effects. There are no other known, similar projects with which the Proposed Project might combine to produce adverse cumulative impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
This Initial Study has considered the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project in the discrete issue areas outlined in the CEQA Environmental Checklist. During the environmental analysis, the potential for the Proposed Project to result in substantial impacts on human beings in these issue areas, as well as the potential for substantial impacts on human beings to occur outside of these issue areas, were considered. Potential adverse effects on human beings were discussed in Section 3, Air Quality; Section 13, Noise; and Section 17, Transportation/Traffic. No significant adverse effects were identified in these sections that could not be mitigated to a level that would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project impacts related to potential adverse effects on human beings will be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

I
129
79 REFERENCES
In accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following expert opinion, technical studies, and substantial evidence has been referenced and/or cited in the discussion included in the Initial Study Checklist:
• Bureau of Land Management, USGS. Retrieved from: maps.conservation.ca.gov:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide, Version 2013.2.
• CAL FIRE (2023). Stanislaus County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map.

Retrieved from:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/bk3jcxqp/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_stanislaus_2.pdf and https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/. • Central California Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System; Records Search File Number: 12638N.
• City of Hughson – Hughson Fire Protection District Draft Development Impact Fee Study, April 14, 2023.
• City of Hughson – City of Hughson General Plan (2005). • City of Hughson – City of Hughson General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2005). • City of Hughson - City of Hughson Urban Water Management Plan (Carollo Engineers; November 2006).
• Department of Conservation – California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
• Department of Conservation – California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. • Noise Impact Assessment for the Proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park Project – First carbon Solutions, FCS International, Inc., September 13, 2023. • State Water Resources Control Board, Contaminated Site Map Report for Public Noticing.

Retrieved from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0609900380. • Tully Road Subdivision – Traffic Impact Analysis Report. GHD, March 4, 2024. • United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov.
130
80 APPENDIX A

CALEEMOD AIR QUALITY MODELING SUMMARY REPORT
I
131
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
1 / 7
Tully Road Subdivision Summary 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

7. Health and Equity Details

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
132
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
2 / 7

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tully Road Subdivision
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location 37.58986620534712, -120.8681849652331
County Stanislaus
City Hughson
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2226
EDFZ 14
Electric Utility Turlock Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.20

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
133
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
3 / 7
Industrial Park 918 1000sqft 45.1 917,825 196,000 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
Area Sources AS-1 Use Low-VOC Cleaning Supplies
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

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. 4.43 77.8 36.0 35.5 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 8,958 8,958 0.33 0.65 21.8 9,181 Mit. 4.43 77.8 36.0 35.5 0.06 1.60 7.80 9.40 1.47 3.97 5.44 — 8,958 8,958 0.33 0.65 21.8 9,181 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 61% 56% — 61% 53% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.28 77.7 34.4 31.1 0.06 1.45 9.36 10.8 1.33 3.69 5.02 — 8,622 8,622 0.28 0.65 0.57 8,822 Mit. 4.28 77.7 34.4 31.1 0.06 1.45 3.84 5.19 1.33 1.46 2.79 — 8,622 8,622 0.28 0.65 0.57 8,822 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 59% 52% — 60% 44% — — — — — — —
-------------------
134
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
4 / 7
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.35 11.8 11.9 22.3 0.03 0.41 3.46 3.87 0.38 1.55 1.94 — 6,195 6,195 0.18 0.46 6.62 6,342 Mit. 2.35 11.8 11.9 22.3 0.03 0.41 2.70 3.05 0.38 0.66 0.99 — 6,195 6,195 0.18 0.46 6.62 6,342 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 22% 21% — 57% 49% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.43 2.14 2.17 4.07 0.01 0.08 0.63 0.71 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 1,026 1,026 0.03 0.08 1.10 1,050 Mit. 0.43 2.14 2.17 4.07 0.01 0.08 0.49 0.56 0.07 0.12 0.18 — 1,026 1,026 0.03 0.08 1.10 1,050 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 22% 21% — 57% 49% — — — — — — —

2.4. 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. 23.5 42.3 21.5 162 0.29 0.89 19.7 20.6 0.86 5.02 5.88 1,020 66,354 67,374 118 20.3 336 76,684 Mit. 23.5 40.8 21.5 162 0.29 0.89 19.7 20.6 0.86 5.02 5.88 1,020 66,354 67,374 118 20.3 336 76,684 %
Reduced
— 3% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 14.9 34.2 23.1 105 0.27 0.82 19.7 20.5 0.81 5.02 5.83 1,020 64,295 65,315 118 20.3 241 74,562 Mit. 14.9 32.7 23.1 105 0.27 0.82 19.7 20.5 0.81 5.02 5.83 1,020 64,295 65,315 118 20.3 241 74,562 %
Reduced
— 4% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
135
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
5 / 7
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.7 35.9 20.6 113 0.24 0.83 16.9 17.7 0.81 4.31 5.12 1,020 61,991 63,011 117 20.2 275 72,228 Mit. 16.7 34.4 20.6 113 0.24 0.83 16.9 17.7 0.81 4.31 5.12 1,020 61,991 63,011 117 20.2 275 72,228 %
Reduced
— 4% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.05 6.55 3.77 20.6 0.04 0.15 3.09 3.24 0.15 0.79 0.93 169 10,263 10,432 19.4 3.34 45.6 11,958 Mit. 3.05 6.28 3.77 20.6 0.04 0.15 3.09 3.24 0.15 0.79 0.93 169 10,263 10,432 19.4 3.34 45.6 11,958 %
Reduced
— 4% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 2 1
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 5 1 1 4
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
136
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
6 / 7
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 2 1
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 2 1
Drought 1 1 2 1
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 5 1 1 4
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

7. Health and Equity Details

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 60.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 30.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. 137
Tully Road Subdivision Summary Report, 10/23/2023
7 / 7
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
138
81 APPENDIX B
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER (CCIC) RECORDS SEARCH, DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 I
139
Date: 9/6/2023 Records Search File #: 12638N
Project: Tully Road Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map No. USE23-0112-Project
Hughson, CA
Michael Arroyo, Contract Planner
J. B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, CA 95366
209-599-8377 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Arroyo:

We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on portions of the Ceres and the Denair USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Stanislaus 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 buildings or structures within the project area.
• The General Land Office survey plat for T4S R10E (dated 1854) shows a historic road traversing Section 16 from northwest to southeast.

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties 140
• The Official Map of the County of Stanislaus, California (1906) references H. H.

Hughson as the landowner in Sections 15 and 16.
• The 1916 edition of the Denair USGS quadrangle shows the alignment of Whitmore Road.
• The 1916 edition of the Ceres USGS quadrangle shows the alignment of Tully Road.

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: A one-acre investigation has been conducted within the project area, referenced as follows:

CCaIC Report No. ST-08578
Jensen, S. M.
2013 Archaeological Inventory, Hughson Well Project, ca. 1-acre, Stanislaus County, California. Genesis Society.

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 entire 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
141
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. Please sign and return the attached 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
142
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 143
82 APPENDIX C

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, PREPARED BY FIRST CARBON SOLUTIONS, DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
I
144
Memorandum
Date: September 13, 2023
To: Corey Walker, PE, LSIT, QSD/QSP
NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.

From: Philip Ault, Director Noise and Air Quality
Subject: Noise Impact Assessment for the Proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park Project in Hughson, California
The proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park Project (proposed project) is located on the east side of Tully Road, south of East Whitmore Avenue, in the City of Hughson (City), in Stanislaus County, California, and consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTM) to allow for the subdivision of approximately 46.44 acres into 34 industrial lots and a parcel set aside for a future storm drain basin.

The proposed project does not include physical development of the individual lots at this time, but future development within the project site would conform to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including Section 17.02.032 (Uses Allowed in Each District) and Section 17.02.061 (I-Industrial Zone). The new parcels that would be created as part of the proposed project are approximately 1 acre in size. Access to the proposed project would be provided by driveways from Tully Road and Roeding Road. The proposed project would also install frontage improvements to Tully Road and Roeding Road, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and roadway improvements.

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) has prepared this report to evaluate the proposed project’s noise and groundborne vibration impacts with respect to applicable City’s standards.

Based on FCS’s evaluation, when assuming reasonable worst-case conditions, future construction of the proposed project may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels if construction activities are not limited to daytime hours. However, with the incorporation of FCS’s recommendations, potential construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant. All other project-related potential noise impacts are identified as being “less than significant” or “no impact” without mitigation.

INTRODUCTION
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound can be described in terms of its loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel, abbreviated dB. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted scale (dBA) is used to reflect the normal hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. Table 1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sources.

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
145
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

Table 1: A-Weighted Decibel Scale
Common Noise Sources Sound Level, dBA
Near Jet Engine 130
Rock and Roll Band 110
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100
Power Motor 90
Food Blender 80
Living Room Music 70
Human Voice at 3 feet 60
Residential Air Conditioner at 50 feet 50
Bird Calls 40
Quiet Living Room 30
Average Whisper 20
Rustling Leaves 10
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
These noise levels are approximations intended for general reference and information use. They do not meet the standard required for detailed noise analysis but are provided for the reader to gain a rudimentary concept of various noise levels.

Source: Cowan, James P. 1993. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics.

Table 2 briefly defines common noise measurement descriptors and other sound terminology used in this analysis.

Table 2: Sound Terminology
Term Definition
Sound A vibratory disturbance created by a vibrating object which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a
medium such as air, can be detected by a receiving
mechanism such as the human ear or a microphone.
146
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

Term Definition
Noise Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
otherwise undesirable.

Ambient Noise The composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment.

Decibel (dB) A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale which represents the squared ratio of sound pressure
amplitude to a reference sound pressure. The reference
pressure is 20 micropascals, representing the threshold of human hearing (0 dB).

A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average sound energy occurring over a specified time period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level that in a stated period would contain the same
acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that
actually occurs during the same period.

Maximum and Minimum Noise Levels (Lmax and Lmin) The maximum or minimum instantaneous sound level measured during a measurement period.

Source: Data compiled by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023.

Factors such as ground absorption and atmospheric effects may also affect the propagation of noise. In particular, ground attenuation by non-reflective surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, may contribute to increased attenuation rates of up to an additional 8–10 dBA per doubling of distance.

A characteristic of noise is that the lowest audible increase in noise levels generally refers to a change of 3 dBA, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered a readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Furthermore, a doubling of sound sources with equal strength is required to result in a perceptible increase (defined to be a 3 dBA or greater) in noise levels. 147
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

Noise Standards and Guidelines
The City’s noise ordinance is contained in Chapter 9.30 of the City of Hughson Municipal Code (Municipal Code). Chapter 9.30 defines noise as “excessive undesirable sound” generated by people, animals, vehicles, or equipment. The Ordinance states that it is unlawful to make “unnecessary or unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any zone classified R-A, R-1, R-2, R-3 C-1, C-2, or C-3, which causes discomfort or annoyance” to an average person within those zones, and which is audible without amplification 50 feet or more from the source of the noise. Additionally, the City enforces the Noise Ordinance from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends and holidays.

The Hughson General Plan (General Plan) contains goals, policies, and actions regarding noise impacts within the City. The applicable goals, policies, and actions from the General Plan are listed below:

Goal N-1 Minimize the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.

Policy N-1.1 The City will utilize the noise/land use compatibility standards in Figure N-1 as a guide for future planning and development decisions, as well as the projected future noise contours for the buildout of the General Plan, shown in Figure N-2 and detailed in Table N-2.

Policy N-1.2 The City will maintain a pattern of land uses that separates noise-sensitive land uses from major noise sources, to the extent feasible.

Policy N-1.4 The City should require new development deemed to be noise generators to minimize noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation and other techniques.

Policy N-1.5 During all phases of construction activity, the City will require project developers to incorporate mitigation measures that minimize the exposure of neighboring properties to excessive noise levels.

Action N-1.1 Enforce the Hughson Noise Ordinance to avoid unnecessary and unusual noise during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.
148
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 5 ends

Action N-1.2 Require acoustical analyses for proposed sensitive land uses to be located within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contour, or in the vicinity of existing and proposed commercial and industrial areas. Acoustical analyses will also be required for commercial and industrial uses proposed in the vicinity of existing or proposed sensitive land uses. Where the noise analyses indicate that the noise compatibility standards contained in the Noise Element will be exceeded, require noise control measures to be incorporated into the proposed development to reduce noise levels to the extent feasible.

Action N-1.3 Require construction techniques for noise buffering, barriers, or setbacks in development subject to high noise levels, such as the railroad and major roadways, to reduce noise to a level within the noise/land use compatibility standards, as shown in Figure N-1. Sound walls are discouraged unless there is no other feasible design available to minimize noise impacts along major roadways and the railroad.

Goal N-2 Reduce noise levels from traffic and railroad operation.

Policy N-2.3 The City will seek to reduce impacts from ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that habitable buildings are sited at least 100-feet from the centerline of the tracks, whenever feasible.

Action N-2.2 Require development of habitable buildings within 100-feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks to provide a study demonstrating that ground borne vibration issues associated with rail operations have been adequately addressed (i.e., through building siting or construction techniques).

Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity was documented through ambient noise monitoring. Three short-term noise measurements (15 minutes each) were taken on Tuesday, September 5, 2023. The short-term noise measurements taken at the project site are summarized in Table 3. The noise measurement data sheets are attached to this document.

The noise measurements indicate that daytime ambient noise levels average from 64.8 dBA to 67.8 dBA Leq along the proposed project’s western boundary adjacent to Tully Road; and 75.4 dBA Leq at the proposed project’s eastern boundary adjacent to the railroad. The noise technician observed that the dominant noise sources in the project vicinity are traffic on local roadways and train activity on the railroad.

Page 6 ends

Table 3: Existing Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Site Location Location Description dBA Primary Noise Sources ST-1 Northwest corner of the project site
adjacent to Tully Road

67.8 Leq Traffic on Tully Road
ST-2 Southwest corner of the project site
adjacent to Tully Road

64.8 Leq Traffic on Tully Road
ST-3 Eastern boundary of the project site
adjacent to the railroad

75.4 Leq Traffic on Santa Fe Avenue and railroad
activity
LT-1 Eastern boundary of the project site
adjacent to the railroad

82.5 CNEL Traffic on Santa Fe Avenue and railroad
activity
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent sound level
CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level, a 24-hour weighted average.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2023.

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, to determine whether impacts related to noise and vibration are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated.

Would the proposed plan:
a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Substantial Noise Increase in Excess of Standards
Construction Noise Impacts
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s applicable noise 150
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 7 ends

standards. The City’s Noise Ordinance is enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Therefore, any construction activity during these hours would be required to not result in a substantial temporary increase above ambient noise levels for receiving land uses. A characteristic of noise is that the lowest audible increase in noise levels generally refers to a change of 3 dBA, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered a readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause the Leq(h) to increase by 5 dBA or greater.

Construction-related Traffic Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. One type of short-term noise impact that could occur during project construction would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Project-related construction trips would not be expected to double the hourly or daily traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. For this reason, short-term intermittent noise from construction trips would not be expected to result in a perceptible increase in hourly- or daily-average traffic noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with the transportation of workers and equipment to the project site would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment Operational Noise
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Impact equipment, such as impact pile drivers, are not expected to be used during construction of this proposed project.

The loudest phase of construction is typically the site preparation and grading phase, as that is when the loudest pieces of heavy construction equipment would operate. For example, the maximum noise level 151
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 8 ends

generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment. Each bulldozer would also generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

A conservative but reasonable assumption is that this equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least a 1-hour period in the vicinity of the closest existing residential receptors but would move linearly over the project site as they perform their earth-moving operations, spending a relatively short amount of time adjacent to any one receptor. A characteristic of sound is that each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. The acoustical center reference is used because construction equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site, and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from the sources (acoustic center) would be the worst-case maximum noise level. These operations would be expected to result in a reasonable worstcase hourly average of 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area.

These worst-case construction noise levels would only occur during the site preparation phase of development.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed parking areas of the proposed project would be the single-family residential home located across Tully Road. The closest residence would be located approximately 130 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate at the project site. At this distance, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 77 dBA Lmax, intermittently, and could have an hourly average of up to 71 dBA Leq, at the façade of the nearest single-family residential home. The calculation sheet is attached to this document.

Existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the closest sensitive receptor are documented by noise measurement ST-1 to be 67.8 dBA Leq, as shown in Table 3. Therefore, these construction noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase of more than 5 dBA above existing daytime ambient noise levels as measured at this nearest sensitive receptor.

Documented nighttime noise levels adjacent to the railroad line along the project’s eastern border are

76.3 dBA Leq. The property line of the nearest residential receptor west of the project site across Tully Road is 1,500 feet from the rail line. At this distance, average nighttime noise levels from railroad activity at this nearest sensitive receptor would be below 50 dBA Leq. Therefore, if construction were to occur during nighttime hours, reasonable worst-case construction noise levels could exceed documented existing nighttime background ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA, resulting in a significant impact as measured at the closest sensitive receptor.

Therefore, a mitigation measure limiting construction activities to the daytime hours should be implemented to reduce the effects of noise levels produced by these activities on longer-term (hourly or 152
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 9 ends

daily) ambient noise levels and reduce the potential for noise-related annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby sensitive receptors.

The City’s Noise Ordinance is enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Therefore, restricting construction activity to daytime hours, as well as implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI-1, would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors and would ensure construction activity noise levels would not exceed the City’s nighttime noise level standard. Therefore, with implementation of MM NOI-1, temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the proposed project. As noted in the fundamentals of noise discussion above, a characteristic of noise is that the lowest audible increase in noise levels generally refers to a change of 3 dBA, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered a readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause hourly or daily average traffic noise levels to increase by 5 dBA or greater. Another characteristic of noise is that a doubling of sound sources with equal strength is required to result in a perceptible increase (defined to be a 3 dBA or greater) in noise levels.

GHD traffic consultants prepared a traffic analysis for the proposed project that included near-term without project and near-term with project peak-hour traffic volumes at various intersections in the project vicinity. The near-term peak-hour traffic volume data sheets are attached to this report. The near-term scenario assumes the earliest year that the proposed project could be built out, generating full project trips.

This near-term peak-hour traffic data shows that traffic along Tully Road adjacent to the project site, north of Roeding Road, would average 215 AM peak-hour trips and 234 PM peak-hour trips, without implementation of the proposed project.

The traffic data also shows that near-term traffic conditions with implementation of the proposed project would result in an average of 264 AM peak-hour trips and 329 PM peak-hour trips. This represents an increase of only 49 trips in the AM peak-hour and an increase of 95 PM peak-hour trips with implementation of the proposed project compared to conditions that would exist without implementation of the proposed project.

Thus, plus-project trips would not result in a doubling of trips on access roadway segments in the project vicinity and would therefore result in a less than 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels compared to traffic 153
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 10 ends

noise levels that would exist without the proposed project. Therefore, project-related traffic would result in a less than significant permanent increase in traffic noise levels.

Stationary Source Operational Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established in the City’s Noise Ordinance.

As noted previously, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, an increase of more than 5 dBA above the applicable noise performance thresholds would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

The proposed project does not include any specific development proposal at this time, and therefore, no project-specific development is known at this time. However, future development on the project site would include new stationary noise sources, including mechanical ventilation equipment and parking lot activities.

Mechanical Ventilation Equipment
Implementation of the proposed project would include operation of new rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment. The proposed project does not include any project-specific development at this time, thus, specific details of rooftop mechanical ventilation systems were not available; therefore, a reference noise level for typical rooftop mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical commercial-grade mechanical ventilation equipment systems range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet.

The reasonable worst-case operational noise level of these mechanical ventilation systems would be 48 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest off-site residential property line (for the single-family residential home located across Tully Road). The noise calculation sheet is attached to this document.

Existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the closest sensitive receptor are documented by noise measurement ST-1 to be 67.8 dBA Leq, as shown in Table 3. Therefore, mechanical ventilation equipment noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase of more than 5 dBA above existing daytime ambient noise levels as measured at this nearest sensitive receptor.

Therefore, operational mechanical equipment noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of existing ambient noise levels and would represent a less than significant impact.
154
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 11 ends

Parking Lot Activities
Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, and vehicles idling which generate noise levels ranging from approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The proposed project does not contain any specific development proposals, and thus, no project-specific development is known at this time. However, future development on the project site would contain on-street parking for employees and guests. Therefore, the project site would include parking areas that would experience parking activities sporadically throughout the day as cars and trucks arrive and leave parking lot areas on the project site.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed parking areas of the proposed project would be the single-family residential home located across Tully Road, approximately 100 feet from the nearest parking areas on the project site. Assuming a minimum of one parking movement per stall per hour, reasonable worst-case hourly average noise levels associated with daily parking lot activities would be approximately 44 dBA Leq at the exterior of the nearest residential receptor. The noise calculation sheet is attached to this document.

Existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the closest sensitive receptor are documented by noise measurement ST-1 to be 67.8 dBA Leq, as shown in Table 3. Therefore, these operational parking lot activity noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase of more than 5 dBA above existing daytime ambient noise levels as measured at this nearest sensitive receptor.

Therefore, operational parking lot activity noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of existing ambient noise levels and would represent a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Project construction activity noise impacts, which could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors and exceed the established nighttime noise standard, would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure.

MM NOI-1 Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction-period noise impacts:

Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following language shall be included, verbatim, in the general notes section of all the civil plan construction documents.  The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
 The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. 155
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 12 ends

 The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences.
 The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site.  The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, or demolition work, are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

Groundborne Vibration/Noise Levels
This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts.

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Groundborne noise is generated when vibrating building components radiate sound, or noise generated by groundborne vibration. In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

The City has not adopted criteria for groundborne vibration impacts for industrial projects. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for construction vibration impacts are used to determine potential significant construction-related impacts.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of the above levels established by the City.

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the large vibratory rollers that are anticipated to be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed parking areas of the proposed project would be the single-family residential home located across Tully Road. The façade of this building would be located approximately 100 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction 156
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 13 ends

equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to

0.03 PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s construction vibration damage criteria of 0.3 PPV for this type of structure, a building of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) construction. Therefore, the impact to off-site receptors of short-term groundborne vibration associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. Existing sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity include railroad activity along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, located approximately 50 feet east of the project boundaries.

According to the City’s General Plan Noise Element, approximately 33 train movements take place each day with approximately 54 percent daytime operations (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 11 percent evening operations (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and 35 percent nighttime operations (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

According to the FTA’s vibration impact assessment guidelines,1 train passing frequency in the range of 30 to 70 events per day are categorized as occasional events. The FTA’s groundborne vibration impact criteria for Category 3, institutional land uses with primarily daytime use, exposed to occasional rail events is 78 VdB. The FTA’s generalized ground surface vibration equation is as follows:

Lv = 92.28 + 14.81 log(D)–14.17log(D)2 + 1.65Log(D)3
Where Lv is the velocity level (VdB), and D is the distance in feet.

The proposed project has a required 15-foot access easement along the eastern project boundary adjacent to the railroad. Therefore, the minimum distance from any future structure on the project site to the railroad would be 65 feet.

The above formula is for trains traveling at 50 miles per hour (mph), so the FTA adjustment for trains traveling at 40 mph is -1.9. The FTA guidelines provide a further adjustment of -5.0 for coupling to a building foundation for wood-frame structures.

Utilizing the FTA’s vibration impact screening methodology, the calculated vibration level at 65 feet from the rail line for the projected rail by-pass events (including freight train passings), with trains traveling up to 50 mph, would be 76.7 VdB.
1 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. 157
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 14 ends

Therefore, projected groundborne vibration levels from rail activity adjacent to the project site would be less than the FTA’s vibration impact screening criteria of 78 VdB as measured at the nearest potential future structure on the project site. Therefore, the impact of groundborne vibration levels from rail activity on proposed on-site receptors would be less than significant.

Noise Levels from Airport Activity
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 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 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Additionally, there is not a private airstrip located within a 5-mile radius of the project site. The nearest public airport to the project site is Modesto City-County Airport, located approximately 5.26 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is also not located within a 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contour of any private or public use airport.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur.

SUMMARY
Based on FCS’s review of the proposed project, implementation of MM NOI-1 restricting construction activity to daytime hours and implementing best management noise reduction measures would ensure future construction noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor land use.

The analysis also identifies that project-related mobile and stationary noise sources would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor land use, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Future development construction activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration levels that would exceed the FTA’s screening thresholds, and future development on the project site would not be exposed to groundborne vibration levels from railroad activity in excess of the FTA’s screening levels for Category 3 land use development, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Finally, the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur. 158
Corey Walker
September 13, 2023

Page 15 ends

Sincerely,
Philip Ault, Director of Noise and Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Attachment A: Noise Monitoring and Modeling Data
159
Attachment A:

Noise Monitoring and Modeling Data

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
◄
160

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Project Number: 3413 . 000 2 Sheet ~f ~ Project Name: lz'.@ 1 3 ; ·; 11A (J 8 mi Tvll,.Y fbad Svfx;;/;ttStab Test Personnel: TsoBf-J (Lop f:f?

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY
Site Number: ST- I Date: qJ5/ 2023 Time: From 3: 51 To 4: (JI si;~;io~a-1 'anc'~'ss ng;;,~fi"~~:,~~~c::'o"' 9
·5;~1t~r¼~t:::1~~'!:;a
Measurement Results
I.min
I.peak
Ls
dBA
-7 Lio . \ r---.---~ ~2-~
Lso 4----=-=--·--=----11
Lgo
SEL j
Observed Noise Sources/Events
Tlme Noise Source/Event
:51_ _w, 11 ~ t t.L_{fWrl ms_t)
-
dBA
Comments: _________________________ _
Equipment: __________ _ Measured Difference: -0. OJ dBA Settings: A-Weighted O Other□ ____ _ Slow□ Fast □ Windscreen'i! Atmospheric Conditions:

Maximum Wind
Velocity (mph)
-- f
Average Wind j
Velocity (mph) Temperature (F) Relative H~mldlty ~) J
3 yY)()Y\ ao 6 - I zq P/,
~--+--~----~_, __ - 1
Comments:

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRlt,4. I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
I
I
7 161

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Photos Taken: I Photo Number Location/Description
;_sr-\ (:;as+- +cH:B,V1 QC,1"0$$ w(y_Rmd -~~k'.1%-e-cr lV\tt,_ orch~d ----1 L s T -1 Ni>rlli ~ \t)QY!:b ™-O~___TuUJg_gQCL'-"-----------1 f--ST- \ So=:1:: f-_GLe,,~_ s.mk.k1-C\;LOJ11<3_IuJ1½- ~ - I -1 WQfil fa,c,,~- W~.J.£- ho.fue_ ll.DLQSS Till I ff &a_ . ..,,~ ----< Traffic Description:

I Roadway # lanes Posted Speed Average $peed NB/EB Counts SB/WB Counts I Tvlf ~ IZo__ad ~ _A_()_ moh I
I r- 1
J
Diagram/Further Comments:

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
162

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

U<T-Devfa . of/
Project Number: 3:1 J 3 . 000 Z. Sheet Lot i
ProjectName: ,vii~ IZoocl S11lxl1 v1,s1 o h
Test Personnel: I $ob-ej C mp..e,r

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY
Site Number: ..51.=..l- Date: C, I 512oz 3 Time: From 3 : z....z.. To 3 : 3Z Sitelocation: ST-2 : SOJt\ri l,.A){?,$:\:: ( J)[ Y)(?V of 9 rojee+- Si1k , Ci t101a~ Iv\ I \:j Q..o a cl
Measurement Results Observed Noise Sources/Events
dBA [ Tlme__l Noise Source/Event ___ I J.._
--- dBA
-
i 4q --- ,---
I.mu +-- ~
I.min
' ~
Ls
L10
_ 3g_q_ _
_ _Ji :__1'_
---
Lso - ~5-4~-'-- 1.9()~ 40-1
SEL
r--r -,-----
C
- -
~ Comments: __________________________ _
Equipment: __________ _ Measured Difference: CJ .IJ J dBA Settings: A-Weighted □ Other□. ____ _ Slow□ Fast □ Windscreenih Atmospheric Conditions:

Maximum Wind
Velocity (mph)
Comments:

Average Wind
Velocity (mph)
3 mph

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
r Temperature (Fl
- qo-·
I
Relative Humidity (%) I 2. qr~
----;
___J
~
163

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL. INC.

Photos Taken:

Photo Number
ST-Z.

I--.S_1:.2
Location/Description
ta.~h cte.KCS6 LLLUy 12-ca.cL-fu.ul"l easl-tri tv_ or-e,ha,rcl - a,__c.,~_na r tb Cllo_v-1--CJ 11 , 14_ S-r-
__s-1=-l.-
f-eu,, VL9 sou\:vi ctl on~ Tvrl 11 /ZoCLCj_ _ _
-~-~vt~n~~-_g,s t- o,e,ross- rvll~ (2d;t tawa_ni o ~ ~--=-;'- rd Traffic Description:

Roadway # Lanes Posted Speed Average Speed NB/EB Counts SB/WB Counts - {/ -4 mp_ -- -- -- ---- - -~ 0 h I
I
I - --
-- -- L_ --
Diagram/Further Comments:

NO RTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
164

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Project Number: 341-3 -000 2
Project Name: Tv~C<d ~W1iv'S IOIO
Test Personnel: :t: C
Sheet .2,_of ~

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY
Site Number: L-1-) Date: q/ 5 / ~ 3 Time: From 4 ~ t l, To 4 ; 2 (,? Site Location: L-T-1 ( & hor r tum VY\RJ21S \tYQ /y\Q ,Vl:t) ~ I oCC;<Jed Y~tiT~:Lll~id~l:-~w, -t!o~ttr '~;;f Ck ~ Primary Noise Sources: tya,1 h tr::£;LG le- <;; ) SQ,k] t-0 Fe Av-e a oro s:s t-ta 1b ::\::ra C ~ ±:n € ClS+
Measurement Results Observed Noise Sources/Events
dBA Time 1 Noise Source/Event dBA
L,eq
I.ma. -----'-+-'--'---
7 --------------------
------- ------t--l
Comments:
------------------------
Equipment: __________ _
Settings: A-Weighted □ Other□ ____ _
Atmospheric Conditions:

Maximum Wind
Velocity (mph)
Comments:

Average Wind
Vel,Pzl!Y (mph)
/ Wlp \,-.

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
Measured Difference: - 0 . o 1- dBA
Slow □ Fast □ Windscreengil
Relatlve Humidity (%} l 21% -- f----
165

FIRSTCARBON

SOLUTIONS
FCS INTERNATIONAL. INC.

Photos Taken:

Photo Number
Traffic Description:

Roadway # Lanes
Diagram/Further Comments:

NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA
FIRSTCARB0NS0LUTI0NS.C0M
Location/Description
Posted Speed I Average Spee~ NB/EB Counts j SB/WB Counts I
r -r ,-----~--- ----,-------
--,--
J_
166
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.014.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0004397
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User
Location
Job Description
Note
Measurement
Description
Start 2023-09-05 16:52:50
Stop 2023-09-06 16:55:21
Duration 24:02:31.0
Run Time 24:02:31.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2023-09-05 16:44:42
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight Z Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier Direct
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Exponential
OBA Range Low
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting Z Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 226.2 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 182.4 179.4 184.4 dB
Under Range Limit 118.3 116.8 121.1 dB
Noise Floor 109.2 107.7 112.0 dB
First Second Third
Instrument Identification
Results
LASeq 75.1 dB
LASE 124.5 dB
EAS 311.193 mPa²h
EAS8 103.550 mPa²h
EAS40 517.750 mPa²h
LZpk (max) 2023-09-06 05:33:13 128.5 dB
LASmax 2023-09-06 00:52:02 110.2 dB
LASmin 2023-09-06 02:40:35 39.1 dB
SEA 147.4 dB
Exceedance Counts
LAS > 85.0 dB 77 1248.5 s
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0.0 s
LZpk > 135.0 dB 0 0.0 s
LZpk > 137.0 dB 0 0.0 s
LZpk > 140.0 dB 0 0.0 s
Community Noise LDN LDay 07:00-22:00 LNight 22:00-07:00 LDEN LDay 07:00-19:00 LEvening 19:00-22:00 LNight 22:00-07:00

82.4 74.2 76.3 82.5 74.5 72.3 76.3
LCSeq 79.2 dB
LASeq 75.1 dB
LCSeq - LASeq 4.1 dB
LAIeq 78.2 dB
LAeq 75.1 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 3.1 dB
dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp dB Time Stamp
Leq 75.1
LS(max) 110.2 2023/09/06 0:52:02
LS(min) 39.1 2023/09/06 2:40:35
Lpk(max) 128.5 2023/09/06 5:33:13
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
OBA Overload Count 57
OBA Overload Duration 231.3 s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exchange Rate 5 5 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration 8 8 h
Results
Dose 3.06 5.47 %
Projected Dose 1.02 1.82 %
TWA (Projected) 56.9 61.1 dB
TWA (t) 64.8 69.0 dB
Lep (t) 79.9 79.9 dB
Statistics
LAS 5.00 62.6 dB
LAS 10.00 59.6 dB
LAS 33.30 54.7 dB
LAS 50.00 52.2 dB
LAS 66.60 49.4 dB
LAS 90.00 45.5 dB
Duration
A C Z
LxT_0004397-20230905 165250-LxT_Data.014.ldbin
-
-
167
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
4 (9)
105 (155)
20 (39)
3 (2)
Q
62 (56)12 (13)
Q
9 (8)
147 (119)
22 (15)68 (64)14 (9)
Tully Rd
Or
27 (26)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
18 (20)
8 (5)
92 (114)
8 (6)
Q
7 (5)
Q
0 (2)
Roeding Rd
0 (0)
12 (13)90 (86)3 (0)
0 (0)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
2 (1)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Tully Rd/Street A
318 (247)
153 (237) 141 (184)
10 (8)
40 (100)
17 (27)
70 (104)
38 (50)
18 (44)
QQ
53 (46)
12 (13) 32 (46)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
30 (26)
244 (358)39 (40)
Santa Fe Ave
10 (17)
197 (203) 168 (186)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
119 (57)74 (62)7 (27)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
19 (24)
Q
11 (14) 46 (38)
Near Term
Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE X.X
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
8/15/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Intersection does not exist
in this scenario.

Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
ra:M i rt
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
c:::::J
,. .,
Streets
Project Site
Hughson City
Limits
168
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
4 (9)
105 (155)
34 (42)
3 (2)
Q
89 (64)12 (13)
Q
9 (8)
147 (119)
26 (28)75 (90)27 (63)
Tully Rd
Or
80 (40)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
21 (21)
8 (5)
102 (116)
Q
95 (30)
7 (5)
Q
23 (8)
Roeding Rd
5 (22)
13 (15)92 (96)17 (5)
19 (76)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
5 (14)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr 114 (148)
13 (4)
rrrrrrN Street A 130 (104) 133 (37)
4 (12)
Tully Rd
P
31 (129)
Tully Rd/Street A
Tully Rd
rrrL
318 (247)
153 (237) 144 (196)
10 (8)
40 (100)
30 (80)
83 (156)
47 (89)
21 (56)
QQ
65 (49)
63 (27) 34 (58)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
67 (36)
244 (358)39 (40)
Santa Fe Ave
10 (17)
197 (203) 180 (190)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
119 (57)128 (77)7 (27)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
32 (27)
Q
11 (14) 46 (38)
Near Term Plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes FIGURE X.X
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
8/15/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
ra:M i rt
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
c:::::J
,. .,
Streets
Project Site
Hughson City
Limits
169
Mobile Construction Activity Noise Calculation
Receptor: Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements No. Equipment Description Lmax Lmax Leq
1 Grader 85 1 40 130 1 0 76.7 68.6 7196808.512
2 Excavator 85 1 40 180 1 0 73.9 64.3 2711143.399
3 Dozer 85 1 40 180 1 0 73.9 64.3 2711143.399
4 Front End Loader 80 1 40 230 1 0 66.7 56.1 410947.6453 5 Backhoe 80 1 40 230 1 0 66.7 56.1 410947.6453
6 7
8 9
10 Notes: Lmax[4] 77 Leq 71
[1] Percentage of time activity occurs each hour
[2] Soft ground terrain between project site and receptor. [3] Shielding due to terrain or structures
[4] Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Receiving residential property line
Shielding
(dBA)[3]
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Reference
(dBA) 50 ft
Quantity
Usage
factor[1]
Distance to
Receptor
Ground
Effect[2]

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I
170
Mechanical Equipment Noise Calculation
Receptor: Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements No. Equipment Description Lmax Lmax Leq
1 Commercial grade mechanical ventilation equipment 60 1 100 100 0.5 0 48.0 44.9 31250 2 Commercial grade mechanical ventilation equipment 60 1 100 150 0.5 0 44.4 40.5 11340.23029 3 Commercial grade mechanical ventilation equipment 60 1 100 150 0.5 0 44.4 40.5 11340.23029 4 Commercial grade mechanical ventilation equipment 60 1 100 200 0.5 0 41.9 37.4 5524.271728 5 6
7 8
9 10
Notes: Lmax[4] 48 Leq 48
[1] Percentage of time activity occurs each hour
[2] Soft ground terrain between project site and receptor. [3] Shielding due to rooftop parapet or soundwall shielding [4] Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Receiving residential property line
Reference
(dBA) 25 ft
Quantity
Usage
factor[1]
Distance to
Receptor
Ground
Effect[2]
Shielding
(dBA)[3]

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I
171
Parking Lot Activity Noise Calculation
Receptor:

No. Equipment Description Lmax Lmax Leq
1 parking lot activity 70 1 1 100 1 0 64.0 41.0 12500
2 parking lot activity 70 1 1 125 1 0 62.0 38.1 6400
3 parking lot activity 70 1 1 150 1 0 60.5 35.7 3703.703704 4 parking lot activity 70 1 1 175 1 0 59.1 33.7 2332.361516 5 parking lot activity 70 1 1 200 1 0 58.0 31.9 1562.5
6 7
8 9
10 Notes: Lmax[4] 64 Leq 44
[1] Percentage of time activity occurs each hour
[2] Soft ground terrain between project site and receptor. [3] Shielding due to terrain or structures
[4] Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Receiving residential property line
Reference
(dBA) 50 ft
Quantity
Usage
factor[1]
Distance to
Receptor
Ground
Effect[2]
Shielding
(dBA)[3]

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I
172
83 APPENDIX D
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, PREPARED BY GHD, DATED MARCH 4, 2024 I
173
Tully Road
Subdivision
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc.

March 04, 2024
The Power of Commitment

n w
➔
174
The Power of Commitment
GHD 380-
Contact: Peter Galloway, Senior Transportation Planner | GHD 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 920
Concord, California 94520, United States
T +1 925 262 1903 | | E [email protected] | ghd.com [Compliance statement]
© GHD 2024
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorized use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
175
➔
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report ii Executive Summary
The following report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) prepared by GHD for the proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park project in the City of Hughson, Stanislaus County.

The term “Project” as used in this study will refer to the proposed Tully Road subdivision industrial park development on the parcel(s) located one-quarter mile south E. Whitmore Avenue and east of Tully Road. The proposed development consists of the following:

Main Development Parcel(s)
- Industrial Park – 45.15 Net Acreage (includes streets, basin, infrastructure) - Net Density—35.11 acres (less streets, basin, infrastructure) - Total Square Feet – 35.11 acres x 43,560 sf/acre = 1,529,392 square feet - 60 Percent Coverage Rate —1,529,392 sf x 60% = 917,635 square feet - Proposed Project Net Square Feet – 917,635 square feet The proposed project is consistent with the City of Hughson’s General Plan land use designation and is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence zoned for Industrial uses. The proposed site is located along the east side of Tully Road one-quarter mile south of E. Whitmore Avenue extending east and north of Roeding Road in Hughson, CA. (Stanislaus County).

The proposed project site would generate approximately 312 weekday AM peak hour trips and 312 weekday PM peak hour trips.

The traffic analysis considered potential impacts (selected in coordination with City of Hughson staff) along the following corridors:
 Tully Road (between E. Whitmore Avenue and Service Road)  E. Whitmore Avenue (between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue) Consistent with the September 2005 City of Hughson General Plan Circulation Element and 2015 County of Stanislaus Circulation Element, the following traffic scenarios were analyzed as a part of this TIAR:
 Existing Conditions
 Existing Plus Project Conditions
 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) Conditions
 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project Conditions
 Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions
 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions
The traffic analysis determined that all significant project impacts could be mitigated. The following is a summary of the proposed project’s mitigations for significant traffic impacts:
176
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report iii Study Intersections:

Intersection #1—E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road
Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions
 Consider installation of a traffic signal
 Widen and/or re-stripe the eastbound E. Whitmore Avenue approach to provide a separate left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane;
 With a signal, overall intersection operation would improve from LOS F (51.7 seconds of delay) to LOS B (12.0 seconds of delay) during the PM peak hour.

OR
 Consider construction of a single/multi-lane modern roundabout.

The proposed project’s impact at this intersection is significant under the “cumulative year 2043 plus project” scenario. The project’s fair-share for the improvement(s) is 30%.

Intersection #5—E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue
Existing Plus Project Conditions
 Consider installation traffic signal. A signal at this location would need to be coordinated with existing railroad automated crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue approximately 75-feet west of the intersection and with any future signal at the E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road intersection.  With a signal, overall intersection operation would improve from LOS F (74 0 seconds of delay AM & 128.5 seconds of delay PM) to LOS B (11.1 seconds of delay AM & 13.0 seconds of delay PM).

The proposed project’s impact at this intersection is significant under the “existing plus project” scenario. The project’s fair-share for the improvement(s) is 15%.

Site Access/Circulation
Based on Cumulative Plus Project AM peak hour volumes at the Street A intersection at Tully Road, the proposed project intersection would meet the minimum volume for installation of a southbound left-turn lane. The Roeding Road/Tully Road intersection would not meet the left-turn lane warrant given its lower southbound left-turn volumes.

Please note, proposed project volumes represent build-out of the entire industrial park. As described, proposed industrial uses would develop over a period of time (10-20 years) and southbound left-turn project volumes may remain low for a number of years as infrastructure is developed. However, heavy vehicles (trucks) would be utilizing the facility given the nature of the industrial park.

The proposed Tully Road subdivision industrial park project is anticipated to have a lower VMT based on journey-towork data for the City of Hughson when compared to the same VMT average for Stanislaus County. Based on US Census data associated journey-to-work data for Hughson, the VMT per job for Hughson (16.3 VMT/job) is lower than the countywide threshold of 20.7 VMT/job (16% below the countywide average VMT per job). Since the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the City of Hughson, its contribution toward VMT is considered in the LODES analysis for the City of Hughson. As noted, the City of Hughson’s VMT is far below 177
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report iv the targeted 16% threshold for the region. Therefore, the proposed project is in a “low-VMT” area and has a less-thansignificant impact on VMT.

Please refer to Section 9 (Vehicle Miles Traveled Results) for a comprehensive VMT analysis and Appendix G. 178
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report v Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose and Need 4

1.2 Assumptions 4

2. Technical Analysis Parameters & Methodologies 5

2.1 Senate Bill (SB) 743 5

2.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 5

2.2 Level of Service Methodologies 6

2.2.1 Intersection Operations 6

2.2.2 Technical Analysis Parameters 8

3. Development Guidelines/Level of Service Policies 9

3.1 Stanislaus County (Excerpts from General Plan Circulation Element) 9

3.2 City of Hughson (Excerpts from Hughson General Plan Transportation Element) 10

4. Setting 11

4.1 Preface 11

4.1.1 Study Area Roadway Network 11

4.1.2 Study Intersections & Roadway Segments 12

4.1.3 Data Collection 12

4.1.4 Multimodal Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Facilities 14

4.1.5 Railroad Activity 14

4.1.6 Collision Analysis 14

4.1.7 Existing Intersection Operation 15

4.1.8 Roadway Segment LOS 16

5. Near-Term (No Project) Conditions 17

5.1 Methodology 17

5.1.1 Intersection Operation 17

5.1.2 Vehicle Queuing 19

5.1.3 Roadway Segment LOS 19

6. Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions 20

6.1 Methodology/Future Volume Forecasts 20

6.1.1 Intersection Operation 20

6.1.2 Vehicle Queuing 22

6.1.3 Roadway Segment LOS 23

7. Project Impacts 23

7.1 Project Description 23

7.1.1 Planned Project Circulation Improvements 23

7.1.2 Project Trip Generation 24

7.1.3 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment 24

7.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions 27

7.2.1 Intersection Operation 27

7.2.2 Vehicle Queuing 30
179
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report vi

7.2.3 Roadway Segment LOS 31

7.3 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project Conditions 31

7.3.1 Intersection Operation 31

7.3.2 Vehicle Queuing 33

7.3.3 Roadway Segment LOS 34

7.4 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions 34

7.4.1 Intersection Operation 34

7.4.2 Vehicle Queuing 36

7.4.3 Roadway Segment LOS 37

8. Site Access & Circulation 38

8.1 Project Access Driveways/Streets 38

8.2 Truck Off-Tracking Analysis 38

8.3 Left-Turn Channelization 41

9. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 42

9.1 Methodology 42

9.2 VMT Analysis Results 42

10. Proposed Project Fair Share Contributions 44

10.1 Methodology 44

10.2 Proposed Project Pro Rata Share 44
Table index
Table 2.1 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Intersections 7 Table 2.2 LOS Threshold for Roadway Segments 8
Table 2.3 Transportation Technical Parameters 8
Table 4.1 Study Intersection Collision Analysis 15
Table 4.2 LOS Summary Table: AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Level-of-Service 15 Table 4.3 Existing Conditions Vehicle Queues 16
Table 4.4 Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes & Level of Service 17 Table 5.1 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) Vehicle Queuing 19 Table 5.2 Neat-Term Year 2026 (No Project) ADT Volumes & Level of Service 20 Table 6.1 Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Vehicle Queues 22 Table 6.2 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) ADT Volumes & Level of Service 23 Table 7.1 Proposed Project Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation 24 Table 7.2 “With Project” LOS Summary Table; AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 29 Table 7.3 Existing Plus Project Vehicle Queues 30
Table 7.4 Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes 31
Table 7.5 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project Vehicle Queues 33 Table 7.6 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project ADT Volumes 34 Table 7.7 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Vehicle Queues 37 Table 7.8 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project ADT Volumes 38 Table 9.1 Estimated Jobs and VMT for Hughson and Stanislaus County 43 180
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report vii Table 10.1 Summary of Fair Share Calculations for Project Impacted Study Intersections 45 Figure index
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map 2
Figure 1.2 Project Site Plan 3
Figure 4.1 Existing Conditions—Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Lane Geometries & Traffic Control 13 Figure 5.1 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes 18 Figure 6.1 Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 21 Figure 7.1 AM/PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution 25 Figure 7.2 AM and PM Peak Hour Project Trips 26
Figure 7.3 Existing Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 28 Figure 7.4 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project AM & PM Volumes 32 Figure 7.5 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 35 Figure 8.1 Left-Turn Truck Turning Templates 39
Figure 8.2 Right-Turn Truck Turning Templates 40
Figure 9.1 LODES Jobs by Distance (Work to Home) for Hughson (left) and Stanislaus County as a whole (right) 43
Appendices
Appendix A. Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B: Synchro Level-of-Service Reports
Appendix C: Signal Warrant Sheets
Appendix D: Queueing Reports
Appendix E: StanCOG Model Output
Appendix F: Left-Turn Warrant Worksheets
Appendix G: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix H: Fair Share Calculations
181
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 1

1. Introduction
This technical document has been prepared to present the results of a TIAR and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis at the request of Alpine Pacific Nut Company, Inc. The term “project,” as used in this report refers to the proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park project in Hughson, CA. with the following land uses:

Land Use Quantities:

The project site plan and proposed land uses are shown in Figure 1.2 Included in this TIAR are analyses and discussions of the following items:
 Quantification of proposed project trip generation is based on accepted Industrial Park trip rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition).  The trip distribution was estimated using existing intersection counts adjacent to the project site and detailed demographic analyses on the City of Hughson work trips from the United States Census Bureau;
 Resulting proposed project impacts on existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations along E. Whitmore Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, and Tully Road study intersections;  The projected Cumulative (Year 2043) weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations with and without the development of the proposed project based on StanCOG transportation model AM and PM peak hour projections;
 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis related to the SB 743 and the trip characteristics of the proposed project associated with location, size, and screening criteria;  Planned project circulation improvements and project-related mitigation measures that, if necessary, alleviate unacceptable traffic operations.

Consistent with the County of Stanislaus and City of Hughson guidelines, the following traffic scenarios were evaluated for overall project analyses:
182
0 750 1,500
US Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
12611837
Date 6/9/2023
Alpine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet DRAFT
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: World Topographic Map - labelless: Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS; World Imagery: Maxar; World Hillshade: Esri, CGIAR, USGS; Streets, City Limits: Stanislaus County Open Data, 2023. Created by: ppeel \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Concord\Projects\561\12611837\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\12611837_TullySubTIA_TrafficGraphics\12611837_TullySubTIA_TrafficGraphics.aprx - VICINITY_ANSIA_PORTRAIT_20230601 Print date: 09 Jun 2023 - 11:57 Vicinity Map

WHITMORE AVE WHITMORE AVE

SANTA FE AVE

TULLY RD

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD

SERVICE RD SERVICE RD

ROEDING RD
1 2
3 4
5 STANISLAUS
COUNTY
99 99
49 108
140
132
33 108
59 33
120
130
26 4
165
120
108 99
4 99
132
5 580
5 5
Modesto
Newman
Oakdale
Patterson
Riverbank
Salida
Turlock
Ceres
Legend
Study
Intersections
Existing
Location
Future
Location
Project Site
Hughson City
Limits
Streets
#
#
@!11 b d
183

EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
EXISTING 6' FENCE (CHAINLINK)
EXISTING 6' FENCE (CHAINLINK) EXISTING 6' FENCE (CHAINLINK) EXISTING 6' FENCE (CHAINLINK)

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING PAVEMENT

EXISTING

MASONRY

WALL TULLY RD

EXISTING PARCEL LINE

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING 10' PUE

EXISTING PARCEL LINE
EXISTING 10' PUE

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/SECTION LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PARCEL LINE/SECTION LINE

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING CENTERLINE

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING 6' FENCE (CHAINLINK) EXISTING PAVEMENT
EXISTING 20' PUE
EXISTING 25' PIPELINE EASEMENT
EXISTING 6' FENCE
(CHAINLINK)
148,845 SF
44003 SF 43645 SF 43645 SF 43645 SF 43645 SF 43645 SF
43645 SF 43642 SF
43587 SF
43560 SF
43567 SF 43565 SF 43561 SF
44056 SF
49604 SF
43570 SF 43679 SF 43566 SF
47643 SF 47427 SF 57777 SF
43613 SF 43580 SF
43561 SF
43562 SF 43561 SF
43560 SF
56266 SF
43578 SF
43906 SF
43972 SF
488'
47970 SF
44338 SF
43564 SF
208' 205' 205' 205' 205' 205' 205' 207' 122'
205' 205' 205' 205' 205' 205' 207' 194'213' 213' 213' 213' 213' 213' 213' 206'
255'
130'
223'
198'
242'
128'
147' 241' 375' 376' 376'
129' 117' 117' 287'
89'
85'
137' 117' 117' 135'
737' 370' 247'
177' 245'
177' 121'
158'
111'
218' 217'
218' 217' 201'202' 199'
150' 150' 180' 155' 164'
140'
156' 150' 150' 192' 318' 317' 315' 318' 208'
128' 268' 230'
184'
222'
73'
176' 240'
202'
204' 215' 215' 125'
215' 215' 215' 214'
216'
219' 203' 203' 203' 203' 203' 203'
215'
214'
215'
214'
215'
215'
215' 214' 214' 193' 85'
123'
84'

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED 10' PUE
87'
59'
120' 203'

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED 10' PUE

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED 10' PUE
PROPOSED 25'

UTILITY AND

ACCESS EASEMENT
481'

FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
70'
70'
70' 70' 70' 70'

PROPOSED CENTERLINE
R=90'
R=55'
R=49'
R=80'
60'
40' 80'40'
PROPOSED 20'

UTILITY AND
ACCESS EASEMENT 203' 203' 213'
15' ACCESS

EASEMENT
PROPOSED 12.5' UTILITY

AND ACCESS EASEMENT
PROPOSED 30' UTILITY

AND ACCESS EASEMENT APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION PLOTTED: 07/20/2023 17:17 PLOTTED BY: Corey DWGNAME: F:\22-3166 Tully Road Subdivison\Planning\TM\TM-1.dwg TM-1
COPYRIGHT © 2023 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
22-3166
NB
TG
TG
07/07/2023

HUGHSON, TULLY ROAD SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AS SHOWN

TULLY ROAD SUBDIVISION

VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

HUGHSON, CALIFORNIA
A. REGULATORY AGENCY:

B. APPLICANT:

1. TM-1 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

2. TM-2 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP UTILITIES AND DETAILS 0 1" =
100 50 100
100'
L
N
..,
0 I
~ 0
I
110
-
0 •• z
a..
-c
~ 0
I
~ 0
I
110
-
0 •• z
a..
-c
N
-
0 I
~ 0
I
CX)
-
0 •• z
a..
-cc
·F ---------
' I
I
I
I
I 1
----------------..,
I
30 29
28 :.r I I
I,
------103.o------- .--- --.....
2 3 4
----------------- 7
I
I
I
I
I

I ---I- I
I
I
. I
APN:018-052-042
-----~------------------------------- '
I ------ ---------- \_--------- ------ ----
5 6
_____________ [[ __
1 I
I
7 ---
8 ---4-----------------------------,.,/-
STREET A ----..._
-
:·• ,,------------------
18 19
I
0 8
-I
20 I
I
I
---------·
16 21
-----------------1 .. ,
15 22 I
I
J --- --103.o--------,
J
I
~
I
14 I
I
I
I
13 __ _[_ ,........-- - - - - - ~ ~ --~ - ~ - ~ 102.0 ~ - -=-- ---l -=----~ - _____ / ------------------ ------------------- - -102.0-- - ~ _____ .J '----------------- J I
I
-103.0- - -
--STREET B
---------~-
27 26 25 24
396'
\----102.0-- --~
31 ' , I
I rl-----------------
~-- ·-
----------------)
23 32
I
J
I
J
J
J
J
I
I
J
_________________ _) - j
-,- -102.0-..
/ )
/ \
' I
/ I
/ \
,' I
' I • I
!0 ~ IQ
I
I
Li-+---------t I
I
33 .. I____ ____________ _
I
I
I;
I
12 -------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
11 102:S

LOT 'A'
BASIN

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
'
lHE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED IN lHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDUITTIOF STANISLAUS, CITY DF HUGHSON AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCELS 01 B-048-009, 018-052-043, 018-048-040. 46.44 ACRES ± ROEDi G ROAO

VICINITY MAP

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT INFORMATION
C. ENGINEER:

D. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
E. EXISTING LAND USE:

F. PROPOSED LAND USE:

G. EXISTING ZONING/GP:

H. PROPOSED ZONING/GP:

I. TOTAL PROJECT SIZE:

J. NET ACREAGE:

K. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS:

L. NET DENSITY
M. TYPICAL LOT SIZE:

N. MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT COVERAGE

0. PAR~NG:

P. CONTOURS
Q. UTILITIES

GENERAL NOTES

CITY OF HUGHSON
7018 PINE STREET
HUGHSON, CA 95326
T: (209) 883-4055
CONTACT: RACHEL WYSE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ALPINE PACIFIC NUT CO., INC.
6413 E. KEYES ROAD
HUGHSON.CA 95326
T: (209) 667-8688
CONTACT: CATHERINE MUNDT. PARTNER

NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
620 12th STREET
MODESTO CA, 95354
T: (209) 524-3525
CONTACT: NATHAN BRAY
018-048-040, 018-048-009, 018-052-043

AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRIAL

INDUSTRIAL/ INDUSTRIAL

46.44± ACRES

45.15± ACRES
34 + BASIN LDT

0.78 UNITS/AC
VARIES - 1 ACRE MINIMUM
60%
AS REQUIRED PER MUNICIPAL CODE FOR lHE USE.

1.0-FOOT INTERVALS

WATER SYSTEM -

SANITARY SEWER -

STORM DRAINAGE -
GASELECTRIC -

TELEPHONE -

SCHOOL DISTRICT -

CITY OF HUGHSON

PRIVATE RETENTION SYSTEM
PG&E
TID
AT&T

HUGHSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE CITY OF HUGHSON IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS NOTED.

2. STORM DRAINAGE TD BE CONVEYED TO AN ON-SITE STORM DRAIN RETENTION BASIN. ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE CITY OF HUGHSON STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

3. ALL STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS PLANS AND STUDIES SHALL

CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT 2013-0001-DWQ AND THE MULTI-AGENCY POST-CONSTRUCTION STDRMWATER STANDARDS

MANUAL APPROVED OR ADOPTED PRIOR TD THE TIME OF THIS TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION BEING DEEMED COMPLETE.

4. SANITARY SEWER TD BE CONSTRUCTED TD THE CITY OF HUGHSON STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

5. WATER SYSTEM TD BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE CITY OF HUGHSON STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

6. STREET LIGHTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE CITY OF HUGHSON STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

7. PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE TD BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND IN EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

8. THE SUBDIVIDER HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE "MULTIPLE SUBDIVISION MAPS" AS SET FORTH BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66456.1., AND FILE PARCEL MAPS FOR REASON OF SALE. ALL PARCEL LINES SHALL CONFORM TO lHIS TENTATIVE MAP.
9 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL STREET IN-TRACT FRONTAGES.

10. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY ARE TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

11. ALL LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND LOT SIZES ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE 111TH lHE CITY OF HUGHSON ZONING CODE TABLE 17.02.012.1 (INDUSTRIAL ZONE).
~
z
0::
0 LL
-...J
~
7 184
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 4  Existing Conditions
 Existing plus Project Conditions
 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) Conditions
 Near-Term Year 2026 plus Project Conditions
 Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions
 Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project Conditions
Existing Conditions (Year 2023) quantify the current traffic operations at project study intersections; Existing Plus Project Conditions refers to the analysis scenario in which traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are investigated in comparison to the Existing Conditions scenario. Within this scenario, the project generated peak hour traffic volumes have been added to the Existing Conditions volumes to obtain the Existing Plus Project volumes.

Near-Term (Year 2026) No-Project Conditions refer to a short period (2-3 years) that would typically reflect the conditions when project development is under construction (if approved). The scenario includes any approved/pending projects and/or background regional growth rate based on StanCOG model projections but excludes the development of the proposed project.

Near-Term (Year 2026) Plus Project Conditions refers to the analysis scenario in which traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are investigated in comparison to the Near-Term (Year 2026) No Project Conditions scenario. Within this scenario, the project generated peak hour traffic volumes have been added to the Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) volumes to obtain the Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project volumes.

Cumulative Year 2043 Conditions refer to the analysis scenario that would exist following approximately twenty years of development in the Hughson area as well as regional growth but excludes the development of the proposed project.

Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions is the analysis scenario in which traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are investigated in comparison to the Year 2043 Conditions scenario. Within this scenario, the project generated peak hour traffic volumes that have been added to the Year 2043 Conditions volumes to obtain the Year 2043 Plus Project volumes.

The above traffic scenarios are described in further detail and evaluated in subsequent sections of this report.

1.1 Purpose and Need
The purpose of this development is to provide additional and expanded Industrial Park opportunities (light industrial & R&D) in the City of Hughson and Stanislaus County. The proposed project is consistent with the County of Stanislaus General Plan land use and regional transportation model zoned for Industrial Uses. The proposed project site is located along Tully Road south of E. Whitmore Avenue and east of Roeding Road and compliments existing lightindustrial and commercial uses located just north of the site.

1.2 Assumptions
A technical memorandum (referred to as the Memorandum of Assumptions (MOA), was prepared to initiate the transportation impact analysis and serve as technical documentation to obtain concurrence from the City of Hughson and Stanislaus County on the technical data and information contained herein. Please note, the City of Hughson has reviewed and approved the proposed transportation scope-of-work for the development based on recent coordination through J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning and NorthStar Engineering (Mark Niskanen, J.B. Anderson Land Use 185
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 5 Planning, May 18, 2023 ) The data and assumptions in the MOA was used in the preparation of administrative draft TIAR and VMT analysis as follows:1
• Technical analysis parameters and methodologies
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• Level-of-Service (LOS) methodologies
• Study locations, data collection, existing conditions • Project description, site plan, and site access
• Project trip generation and distribution
• Near-Term and Cumulative (No Project) methodology (3 & 20-Year StanCOG forecasts) • Impact Determination and Mitigation Measures
The Tully Road Subdivision Transportation MOA is available (upon request).

2. Technical Analysis Parameters &
Methodologies

2.1 Senate Bill (SB) 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law in 2013, with the intent to better align CEQA practices with statewide sustainability goals related to efficient land use, greater multimodal choices, and greenhouse gas reductions. The provisions of SB 743 became effective Statewide on July 1, 2020.

Under SB 743, automobile delay, traditionally measured as level of service (LOS), are no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. Instead, impacts are determined by changes to VMT. VMT measures the number and length of vehicle trips made on a daily basis. VMT is a useful indicator of overall land use and transportation efficiency, where the most efficient system is one that minimizes VMT by encouraging shorter vehicle trip lengths, more walking and biking, or increased carpooling and transit. In recognition that the character of communities, availability of travel modes options and geographic areas all differ throughout the State, each jurisdiction, from regional agency, to County, to City, have been given the opportunity to establish their own VMT thresholds consistent with the State’s guidelines and regulatory framework. Still, LOS will be utilized as a metric outside of CEQA, within agency policies for development approval. The following section outlines the analysis parameters and methodologies that will be used in the transportation impact study to quantify potential project impacts for the analysis scenarios.

The following section outlines the analysis parameters and methodologies that will be used in the transportation impact study to quantify the measures of effectiveness for the analysis scenarios. impact study to quantify the measures of effectiveness for the analysis scenarios.

2.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Caltrans recently published an update for their Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (TISG, May 20, 2020). The Caltrans’ TISG is intended for use in preparing a transportation impact analysis of land use projects or plans they may impact of affect the State Highway System and replaces the prior 2002 Guidelines. The TISG heavily references OPR’s Technical Advisory as a basis for its guidance. The TISG recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds 1 GHD Inc., Tully Road Subdivision Industrial Park Project, Hughson CA, Memorandum of Assumptions, Transportation, Technical Memorandum to Rob Marler, City Engineer, Hughson CA, June 20, 2023
186
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 6 for land use projects (15% below existing city or regional VMT per capita or per employee). As each lead agency develops and adopts its own VMT thresholds for land use projects, Caltrans will review them for consistency with OPR’s recommendations, and with the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan. Caltrans identifies possible mitigation framework for projects found to have a potentially significant impact on VMT. These include the following programmatic measures:
 Impact fee programs that contain a demonstrated nexus and proportionality between a fee and capital projects that result in VMT reduction;
 VMT mitigation bank programs; and,
 VMT mitigation exchange programs.

Caltrans also indicates that additional future guidance will include the basis for requesting transportation impact analysis that is not based on VMT, but rather a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces risk to all road users and focuses on multimodal analysis as well as access management issues.

Understanding Caltrans requirements for VMT, GHD will provide professional engineering services to analyze the transportation impacts of the Project in terms of vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) to fulfill the requirements of SB-743 and to provide inputs to the air and noise analysis.

For industrial uses, GHD will focus exclusively on commute trips by workers at the site, since SB-743 limits the VMT analysis to light-duty vehicles (i.e., it excludes truck VMT). GHD will use Big Data from the United States Census Bureau to compare the average commute distance for the Census tract or block group that the Project is located to the average commute distance for Stanislaus County as a whole. GHD will then describe why the county average is the correct comparison for CEQA analysis and describe an appropriate VMT threshold based on the county average and guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). GHD will use this threshold to determine whether the Project will have significant VMT impacts and document this analysis.

2.2 Level of Service Methodologies
In an effort to maintain consistency with the County of Stanislaus and City of Hughson policies for transportation facilities (Hughson GP, Transportation, 2005), the following level of service methodologies for intersections will be used to determine if the project causes an increase in traffic that is substantial and adverse in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the existing street system. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS "A" represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS "F" represents over-capacity conditions. Levels of Service will be calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2016 (HCM 6).

2.2.1 Intersection Operations
The Synchro 11.0 (Trafficware) software program will be used to implement the HCM 6 analysis methodologies for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Synchro 11.0 takes into account intersection signal timing and queuing constraints when calculating delay and the corresponding LOS. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) will be calculated for all control types using the methods documented in HCM 6. For signalized or all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, an LOS determination is based on the calculated averaged delay for all approaches and movements.

For two-way or side-street stop controlled (TWSC) intersections, an LOS determination is based upon the calculated average delay for all movements of the worst performing approach. The vehicular-based LOS criteria for different types of intersection controls are presented in Table 2.1 Vehicles queue lengths at project driveways and intersection turn pockets will be evaluated using microsimulation.

Simtraffic traffic simulation software was used in capturing real world queuing conditions. An average of five (5) microsimulation runs were used in capturing 95th percentile queue. 187
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 7 Table 2.1 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Intersections Level of
Service
Type
of
Flow
Delay Maneuverability Stopped Delay/Vehicle
Signalized Un-signalized
A
Stable Flow
Very slight delay. Progression is very
favorable, with most vehicles arriving during
the green phase not stopping at all.

Turning movements are
easily made, and nearly all
drivers find freedom of
operation.
≤10.0 ≤10.0
B
Stable Flow
Good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing
higher levels of average delay.

Vehicle platoons are
formed. Many drivers
begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of
vehicles.
>10.0 >10.0
and and
≤20.0 ≤15.0
C
Stable Flow
Higher delays resulting from fair progression
and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures may begin to appear at this level. The
number of vehicles stopping is significant,
although many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.

Back-ups may develop
behind turning vehicles.

Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted
>20.0 >15.0
and and
≤35.0 ≤25.0
D
Approaching Unstable Flow
The influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from
some combination of unfavorable progression,
long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion
of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual
cycle failures are noticeable.

Maneuverability is
severely limited during
short periods due to
temporary back-ups.
>35.0 >25.0
and and
≤55.0 ≤35.0
E
Unstable Flow
Generally considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay. Indicative of poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occurrences.

There are typically long
queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the
intersection.
>55.0 >35.0
and and
≤80.0 ≤50.0
F
Forced Flow
Generally considered to be unacceptable to
most drivers. Often occurs with over
saturation. May also occur at high volume-tocapacity ratios. There are many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle
lengths may also be major contributing
factors.

Jammed conditions. Backups from other locations
restrict or prevent
movement. Volumes may
vary widely, depending
principally on the
downstream back-up
conditions.
>80.0 >50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual Sixth Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2016 (HCM 6) To determine whether “significance” should be associated with unsignalized intersection operations, a supplemental traffic signal “warrant” analysis will also be completed. The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This study will employ the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of California’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for specific study intersections impacted by proposed project traffic. The signal warrant criteria are based upon several factors including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, location of school areas etc. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. The ultimate decision to signalize an intersection should be determined after careful analysis of all intersection and area characteristics.

This traffic operations analysis will specifically utilize the Peak-Hour-Volume based Warrant 3 as one representative type of traffic signal warrant analysis. Warrant 3 provides the option to use the lower threshold criteria (CA MUTCD 188
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 8 Figure 4C-4) if the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000. In addition Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume), Warrant 9 (Intersection Near Grade Crossing) has specifically been used for the East Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. Warrant 9 thresholds are based on proximity to railroad tracks and intersection approach volumes.

Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Two-lane roadway segments will be analyzed using methodologies based on the daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element. Specifically, Level-of-Service (LOS) thresholds for both collector and arterial streets and lane capacity have been established consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan. The LOS criteria for two-lane highways are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 LOS Threshold for Roadway Segments

2.2.2 Technical Analysis Parameters
This traffic study focuses on a “planning level” evaluation of traffic operating conditions, which is considered sufficient for CEQA/NEPA purposes. The planning level evaluation incorporates appropriate heavy vehicle adjustment factors, peak hour factors, and signal lost time factors and reports the resulting operational analysis as estimated using the HCM 6 based analysis methodologies. Assessments of some “design level” parameters (including queuing on intersection lane groups, stacking length requirements, etc.) have also been included in this study.

Table 2.3 presents the technical parameters that will be utilized for the evaluation of the study intersection for the analysis scenarios. All parameters not listed should be assumed as default values or calculated based on parameters listed. It is noted that the study intersection’s AM and PM peak hours varied during the data collection process. For the AM peak hour, the peak hour typically occurred between 7:30-8:30 or 7:45-8:45 a.m. However, PM peak hours ranged from 4:00-5:00 to 4:45-5:45 p.m. Looking at the study locations, intersections located along Tully Road south of E. Whitmore Avenue tended to peak during the earlier time periods during the AM and PM peak hour. Study intersections along E. Whitmore Avenue peak during the later time periods. In all cases, the most conservative peak hour volumes were analyzed for operations and queuing.

Table 2.3 Transportation Technical Parameters
Technical Parameter Assumption
1 Intersection Peak Hour Factor 0.92 and/or field counts 2 Intersection Heavy Vehicle % Based on counts, intersection overall, minimum 5% 3 Grades 3% or less, flat terrain
Lanes Control C D E
Collector 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Arterial 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
4 divided 20,100 30,200 33,200
Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan Street Classification Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Total of Both Directions -
189
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 9

3. Development Guidelines/Level of Service
Policies

3.1 Stanislaus County2 (Excerpts from General Plan
Circulation Element)
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a standard measure of traffic service along a roadway or at an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with LOS A being best and LOS F being worst. In very general terms, LOS A, B and C indicate conditions where traffic can move relatively freely. LOS D describes conditions where delay is more noticeable and average travel speeds are more unstable. LOS E indicates significant delays and average travel speeds vary greatly and are unpredictable; traffic volumes are generally at or close to capacity. Finally, LOS F characterizes traffic flow at very slow speeds (stop-and-go) and significant delays with queuing at unsignalized intersections; in effect, traffic demand on the roadway exceeds the roadway's capacity. As a matter of policy, Stanislaus County strives to maintain LOS C or better on all roadways. When measuring levels of service, Stanislaus County uses the criteria established in the Highway Capacity Manual published and updated by the Transportation Research Board.

Traffic Analysis
To confirm the need for transportation improvements identified in the Circulation Element, a forecast of traffic volumes and Level of Service is prepared based upon the level of growth anticipated by the year 2030, the planning horizon for the General Plan. The forecast is based on the latest population, housing and employment projections prepared by StanCOG; the agency designated by the State to prepare these forecasts. These forecasts were adjusted to reflect additional growth anticipated by the cities or the County since the adoption of the StanCOG forecast.

Roadway Classifications
Major. The function of a Major road is to carry moderate- to high-volume traffic to and from collectors to other Majors, Expressways, and Freeways with a secondary function of land access. Majors located within areas zoned for heavy or light industrial or that are expected to carry large or heavy trucks shall be constructed to Industrial Major standards.

Limited direct access is provided to abutting property. On-street parking will be permitted only where the Department of Public Works has determined that traffic flow and safety conditions allow on-street parking. The typical right-of-way is 110 feet (up to 6 lanes, ultimately). On limited rights-of-way, Majors may be 100 feet.

Santa Fe Avenue, within the communities of Empire and Denair, and within the City of Hughson, is planned to be an 85-foot Major measured from the railroad right-of-way.

Collector. Collectors serve a dual function by providing both access to abutting property and movement of moderate volumes of people and goods for medium length trips. Collectors serve as transition facilities, carrying traffic from lower to higher level roads. Most Collectors are two-lane roads with a typical right-of-way of 60 feet. On-street parking will be permitted only where the Department of Public Works has determined that traffic flow and safety conditions allow on-street parking. In urban residential subdivisions, roads not shown on the General Plan Circulation Diagram or as an Official Plan Line that will serve more than 50 dwelling units, when the maximum density and full extent of the development is considered, shall be deemed Collectors. In some instances, the Department of Public Works may determine that project design features dictate that a road serving as few as 20 urban dwelling units be deemed a Collector. Under certain circumstances, 80 feet of right of-way may be required to provide additional capacity to provide two additional through lanes to accommodate projected traffic demand, to facilitate the movement of large trucks, or to improve safety due to limited visibility or other safety hazards. 2 Stanislaus County General Plan, Chapter 2, Circulation Element, 2015. 190
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 10 Policy Two
Implementation Standards
The County shall maintain LOS C or better for all County roadways and intersections, except, within the sphere of influence of a city that has adopted a lower level of service standard, the City standard shall apply. The County may adopt either a higher or lower level of service standard for roadways and intersections within urban areas such as Community Plan areas, but in no case shall the adopted LOS fall below LOS D.

3.2 City of Hughson3 (Excerpts from Hughson General
Plan Transportation Element)
Roadway Classifications
Arterials. Hughson’s arterial streets are the primary movers of traffic, providing the main routes within and through the city, and also carrying traffic to and from the regional highways and other communities. Santa Fe Avenue is an arterial that runs northwest-southeast through Hughson, parallel to the railroad. Santa Fe Avenue’s alignment cuts across the orthogonal grid that characterizes Hughson’s roadway system complicating circulation patterns since all roadway intersections with Santa Fe Avenue have a skewed configuration. Intersection improvements along Santa Fe Avenue are also limited due to the presence of the adjoining railroad and canals.

Collectors. The backbone of the City’s roadway system consists of its collector streets, which connect arterial streets to local streets. The collector street system is also oriented around a grid. Existing collector streets include Tully Road, Charles Street, 7th Street and Euclid Avenue, which run north-south, and Fox Road and Hughson Avenue that run east-west.

Level-of-Service Criteria
a. Roadway Level of Service Standards
The proposed 2005 General Plan would establish LOS D as the threshold below which roadways are considered to be operating unacceptably; however, the 2005 General Plan would also recognize that LOS D may not always be feasible in areas that are constrained by existing development.
b. Intersection Level of Service Standards
Like other roadway facilities, intersections are evaluated using a LOS system. For this EIR and for preparation of the 2005 General Plan, this evaluation is based on methodologies provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. At signalized intersections, the LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle.

To evaluate unsignalized intersections, the operations method of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual was utilized.

When the intersection is controlled with one or two-way stop signs this methodology determines the LOS based on delay for the worst approach. When the intersection is controlled with all-way stop signs, the delay is an average for all approaches. As with roadway segments, this EIR uses LOS D as the acceptable operating threshold for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

As noted in Section 2.1 (VMT Analysis), while LOS policies may apply to the findings of consistency for the proposed project, LOS may not be used to determine a significant transportation impact under CEQA. However, as noted previously, the City and County’s transportation policies do include related LOS thresholds for roadways and 3 Design, Community, Environment (DCE), Hughson 2005 General Plan EIR, Transportation, June 30, 2005 191
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 11 intersections. For the purpose of this analysis (when evaluating the operational characteristics of intersections and roadways), a target LOS of D will be the threshold.

To determine whether “significance” should be associated with unsignalized intersection operations, a supplemental traffic signal “warrant” analysis has also been completed and is included in Appendix C: Peak Hour Signal Warrant Output. The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection.

This study has employed the signal warrant criteria in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for all study intersections. The signal warrant criteria are based upon several factors including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, location of school, etc. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. The ultimate decision to signalize an intersection should be determined after careful analysis of all intersection and area characteristics.

This traffic study will specifically utilize the Peak-Hour-Volume based Warrant 3 as one representative type of traffic signal warrant analysis. Since Warrant 3 provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 mph), the study intersection will be evaluated with this specialized criteria.

4. Setting

4.1 Preface
The following sections describe the roadway network, study intersections, data collection, multi-modal pedestrian/transit facilities, railroad activity, Collision History, and existing intersection LOS, delay, and vehicle queuing.

4.1.1 Study Area Roadway Network
The following provides a description of the primary highway and roadways within the study area:

Tully Road extends in a north-south direction primarily between E. Hatch Road and E. Keys Road and would provide direct access to the proposed project site. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, Tully Road extends between E.

Whitmore Avenue through Roeding Road to Service Road. In this area, Tully Road is a two-lane facility with unimproved shoulders serving agricultural uses and more improved areas (curb and gutter) as it approaches commercial/light industrial areas south of E. Whitmore Avenue. The posted speed limit on Tully Road is 40 mph in the project study area.

East Whitmore Avenue extends in an east-west direction approximately one-half mile north of the proposed project site. A major arterial street, E. Whitmore Avenue provides access to downtown Hughson as well as agricultural areas both east and west of the City. A two-lane facility, E. Whitmore Avenue widens to two travel lanes and a two-way-leftturn lane immediately east of Tully Road for approximately 450-feet before transitioning back to two-travel lane as it extends across the existing railroad tracks to Santa Fe Avenue. As with Service Avenue, E. Whitmore Avenue is a regional route that provides access west to Smyrna and State Route 99 and east to more agricultural areas and Montpeller Road. In the project study area. The posted speed limit on E. Whitmore Avenue is 35 mph.

Similar to E. Whitmore Avenue, Service Road is a two-lane facility that provides access west to Smyrna and State Route 99 and east to Downie Road. Service Road primarily serves primarily agricultural and residential areas and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

Roeding Road extends in an east-west direction between 6th Street (in Smyrna) and Tully Road and would provide direct access to the proposed project site. In the project study area, Roeding Road is an unimproved, two-lane road that provides access to agricultural and residential areas.

4.1.2 Study Intersections & Roadway Segments
Four primary intersections and one future intersection adjacent to and providing access to the project site were selected for evaluation in coordination with the City of Hughson staff for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The study intersections for the project are listed below:

1. E. Whitmore Avenue / Tully Road

2. Tully Road / Street A (future)

3. Tully Road / Roeding Road

4. Tully Road / Service Road

5. E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue
In addition to key intersection analyses, the following roadway segments were evaluated for volume capacities adjacent to the proposed project site:
 Tully Road between Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue  Tully Road between Roeding Road and Service Road
 E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue

4.1.3 Data Collection
For the purposes of proposed project analysis, new intersection turning movement counts for the four existing intersections were collected on Tuesday May 16, 2023 during the weekday AM peak and PM peak periods based on City direction. The traffic data collection was conducted to capture peak commute traffic when schools were in session during the weekday conditions. The AM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM under typical weekday conditions (see Turning Movement Count Data— Appendix A).

Figure 4.1 presents the turning movement volumes and lane geometry/control at the study intersections under Existing Conditions, based on the turning movement counts discussed above.

All project study intersections on Tully Road, Service Road, E. Whitmore Avenue, and Santa Fe Avenue are all-waystop-controlled (AWSC). E. Whitmore Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Service Road are classified as arterial roadways in the City’s Transportation element. Tully Road is classified as a collector street. All roadways have two travel lanes.

The intersection of E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue is slightly skewed, with Santa Fe Avenue paralleling the railroad on the east side of the tracks extending in a northwest-southeast direction.

Field observations indicate that the Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue study intersections at E. Whitmore Avenue can experience vehicle queuing during peak hour operations. Vehicle queuing is related to somewhat higher east-west traffic volumes, all-way-stop-control, and train activity along the BNSF and AmTrak tracks immediately west of the intersection.
193
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
3 (8)
97 (144)
18 (36)
2 (1)
Q57 (52)11 (12)
Q
8 (7)
140 (113)
20 (13)62 (58)12 (8)
Tully Rd
Or
25 (24)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
17 (19)
7 (4)
84 (104)
7 (5)
Q
6 (4)
Q
0 (1)
Roeding Rd
0 (0)
11 (12)84 (81)2 (0)
0 (0)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
2 (1)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Tully Rd/Street A
313 (243)
9 (7)
150 (233) 138 (181)
39 (98)
15 (25)65 (96)35 (46)
17 (43)
QQ52 (45)
11 (12) 31 (45)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
29 (25)
236 (347)37 (38)
Santa Fe Ave
9 (16)
194 (200) 165 (183)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
110 (53)68 (57)6 (25)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
18 (23)
Q
10 (13) 45 (37)
Existing Conditions
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,
Lane Geometries & Traffic Control FIGURE 4.1
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Intersection does not exist
in this scenario.

4.1.4 Multimodal Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Facilities
The City of Hughson’s General Plan defines bicycle facilities consistent with Caltrans classifications associated with Class 1 (Multimodal Off-Street Path), Class II (Bike Lane), and Class III (Bike Route) facilities. Bicycle facilities in the project study area are few due to the primarily rural nature of roadways, agriculture uses, and lack of roadway frontage improvements. Where more recent development has occurred, frontage improvements along Tully Road and E.

Whitmore Avenue have provided sidewalks and limited striped shoulder lanes. However, these striped lanes are not designated as Class II bike facilities. In addition, commercial and industrial development along Tully Road and E.

Whitmore Avenue is discontinuous and not linked. The City’s General Plan indicates that bicycle facilities have not been prioritized due to relatively low traffic volumes on surface streets. However, surveyed traffic volumes on Tully Road, E. Whitmore Avenue, and Santa Fe Avenue would be considered moderate during peak commute periods and where newer developments have occurred, improvements have been installed (curb, gutter, and sidewalks).

Transit for the Hughson area is provided by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). Bus service is provided by Route 61 between Modesto, Ceres, and Hughson with headways every hour operating between 6:45 a.m. and 7:55 p.m. In the Hughson area, Route 61 access E. Whitmore Avenue extending east past Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue to Charles Street. In the project study area, a bus stop is located on the north side of E. Whitmore Avenue just east of Tully Road. Route 61 extends east on E. Whitmore Avenue through Santa Fe Avenue to Charles Street before turning onto Hughson Avenue east to 7th Street. The route then circles around Hughson High School on 7th Street, Fox Road, Euclid Avenue, and Whitmore Avenue before extending west via the same roadways. Bus stops are located on 7th Street, Fox Street, and Euclid Avenue Saturday and Sunday schedules typically are reduced between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with one-hour headways.

4.1.5 Railroad Activity
As noted, existing railroad track(s) extend in a northwest-southeast direction east of the proposed project site and parallel Santa Fe Avenue on the west side of the roadway. The railroad tracks accommodate both passenger rail (Amtrak) service and freight (BNSF) service. An at-grade rail crossing is located approximately 75-feet west of Santa Fe Avenue on East Whitmore Avenue. The at-grade crossing has automated crossing gates with flashing warning lights to alert east-west motorists when trains are approaching. Based on the California Rail Network information website, the BNSF freight operations are based out of Stockton. Amtrak operations serve the San Joaquin Valley network. Freight operations are continuous 24-hour with Amtrak operating multiple passenger trains between the Turlock-Denair platform and Modesto daily with four trains southbound and four trains northbound.

4.1.6 Collision Analysis
A collision analysis was conducted for the study area to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue at adjacent intersections and roadways in the study area. Collision rates are calculated based on records provided by the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five (5) year period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022 was analyzed.

As presented in Table 4.1, three of the four primary intersections are experiencing collision rates below the State average for similar facilities. However, the Santa Fe Avenue/E. Whitmore Avenue intersection has experienced 10 collisions over the past five years with a collision rate approximately twice the State average (0.45 compared to 0.21).

The majority of the collisions involved “rear-end” (2) and “broadside” (6). Broadside collisions typically occur when vehicles do not yield the right of way or violate the stop signs. There were no pedestrian/bicycle collisions. 195
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 15 Table 4.1 Study Intersection Collision Analysis

4.1.7 Existing Intersection Operation
LOS Summary Table 4.2 for all “No Project” Conditions summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour at Existing Conditions.

As presented in Table 4.2, all unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections are operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue location. During the PM peak hour, the intersection is operating at LOS E (43.6 seconds of delay).

The Santa Fe Avenue/E. Whitmore Avenue intersection experiences fairly high north-south through volumes on Santa Fe Avenue (600+ vehicles) during this time period and has single-lane approaches that contribute to overall vehicle delays (see Synchro LOS Reports---Appendix B)
Table 4.2 LOS Summary Table: AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Level-of-Service Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would qualify for signalization under Warrant 9 criteria under Existing (No Project) Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria (see Signal Warrant Worksheets—Appendix C).

Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS
AM 11.4 B 11.9 B 16.1 C
PM 14.2 B 15.1 C 27.1 D
AM
PM
AM 7.7 A 7.8 A 8.3 A
PM 7.7 A 7.8 A 8.3 A
AM 8.6 A 8.8 A 10.2 B
PM 8.8 A 9.1 A 11.1 B
AM 23.6 C 27.7 D 57.5 F
PM 43.6 E 50.6 F 112.2 F
Note: Bold text indicates target level of service (LOS) is exceeded. 1 AWSC = All-Way-Stop-Control
2 Based on Synchro-Simtraffic (Version 11.0), Highw ay Capacity Manual (HCM 6), Operations,Unsignalized Intersections, 2019.

Cumulative
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore
Avenue D AWSC AWSC
Target
LOS
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road AWSC AWSC
2 Tully Road & Street A
(Future) D
D
This intersection does not exist in
this scenario.

This intersection does not exist in
this scenario.

Near Term
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East
Whitmore Avenue AWSC AWSC
4 Tully Road & Service Road AWSC AWSC D
D
AWSC
This intersection does not exist in
this scenario.

AWSC
AWSC
AWSC
0 C
0 ~ ~ a,
c Intersection
TullyRd / E. Whitmore A~
3 Tully Rd / Roe<ling Rd
4 Tully Rd / Ser.1ce Rd
By Severity By Type By Year
- "' C C 0
ro >- Q_ c iii
"' 0 0 C :0 "' ro iii c 0) .:::
> ro ro -;;;
c'.' ci E ,1)
ni ro D :::, .c E 0 "' c 0 D "' "' t, Q_ - 0 ~ ~ C 0. C D "' oi "' 0 ~ w iii fl - - Q) c'.' c'.' "' -6 "' D 0 0. '--' ni co a, 0 ~ N "' ro ro I: ro > :::, :::, 0 ro D 0 .c ci ci N N N ro "' c c ct (l) (jj (l) m :f (l) 0 0 0 0 u_ (/) - - I Q'.'. > N N N N N 0 u
D
(l)
>
0 > C
~ u
>- u
di
0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Santa Fe / E. Whitmore Ave 0 0 0 4 6 0 2 6 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 i i a, u ., u E .i:'. ~ .i:'. ::, Q) Q)
D 0 > C > "' g, > 0 g, <II > 0 C C) § ~ § i." 0 C C: 0 C: ·u; ., ·;:: (.) Ni w w C a, C: ., C: ro "' 0 N c a: (:;) C) 0 .::: C 0 C :!! U> 0 u N w 0 ~ ., iii ~ ,..._
~ ~ a, > D ~ < ci Q) Q) (l) 0 0 ,,¼ 0 < Q_ u I- ~ N u e:, u e:, 0 5 9010 0.30 0.59
0 2310 0.24 0.59
0 0 4760 0.00 0.59
0 10 12080 0.45 0.21
196
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 16 In addition to intersection LOS and delay, vehicle queuing at each study intersection was evaluated. For vehicle queuing analyses, the Synchro Suite microsimulation component, Sim Traffic, was used in capturing real world queuing conditions. An average of 5 microsimulations runs were used in capturing the 95th percentile queue (see Vehicle Queuing Reports---Appendix D).

As shown in Table 4.3, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for existing conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road currently exceeds the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately two vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

Table 4.3 Existing Conditions Vehicle Queues

4.1.8 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue are operating at acceptable conditions based on current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 4.4.

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 90 115 2500
Westbound Left 40 35 85
Westbound Thru/Right 60 55 705
Northbound Left/Thru 45 60 370
Northbound Right 45 45 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 70 65 295
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 35 40 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 15 10 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 50 55 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 50 50 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 60 55 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 60 60 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 50 50 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 55 50 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 70 110 70
Westbound Left/Thru 85 95 330
Westbound Right 45 55 125
Northbound Left/Thru 135 120 570
Northbound Right 25 30 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 105 180 310
Available
Storage
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Existing No Project 95th
Percentile Queue (ft)
197
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 17 Table 4.4 Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes & Level of Service

5. Near-Term (No Project) Conditions

5.1 Methodology
Based on a review of the transportation memorandum of assumptions (MOA) for the proposed Tully Road Subdivision project, no approved/pending projects were identified by City and/or County staff. Typically, short-term growth from approved/pending projects provide for a 2-3 year development window (Year 2026) to account for proposed project completion and/or infrastructure development for future industrial pads (should the project gain approval).In the absence of approved/pending projects in the Tully Road study area, traffic growth rates were developed using the StanCOG transportation model AM and PM peak hour base model year 2019 and horizon year 2046 (see Section 6:

Cumulative Year 2043 No Project Conditions). Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection approach volumes were increased by 0.5-4% (dependent on intersection approach) per year for the three-year period to account for near-term (no project) conditions.

Figure 5.1 presents the turning movement volumes and lane geometry/control at the study intersections under NearTerm Year 2026 (No Project) Conditions.

5.1.1 Intersection Operation
LOS Summary Table 4.2 summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour for Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) Conditions.

As presented in LOS Summary Table 4.2, all unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections are operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue location. During the PM peak hour, the intersection is operating at LOS F (50.6 seconds of delay). As noted, the Santa Fe Avenue/E. Whitmore Avenue intersection experiences fairly high northsouth through volumes on Santa Fe Avenue (600+ vehicles) and has single-lane approaches that contribute to overall vehicle delays.

Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would qualify for signalization under Warrant 9 criteria under NearTerm Year 2026 (No Project) Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria.

Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 Existing ADT 2,330
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 Existing ADT 3,130
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 Existing ADT 6,505
Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan Classification/Location Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Total of Both Directions 198
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
Near Term
Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE 5.1
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
119 (57)74 (62)7 (27)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
19 (24)
Q
11 (14) 46 (38)
197 (203) 168 (186)
30 (26) 10 (17)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave 244 (358) 39 (40) Santa Fe Ave 153 (237) 141 (184)
40 (100)
17 (27)
70 (104)
38 (50)
18 (44)
QQ53 (46)
12 (13) 32 (46)
318 (247)
10 (8)
Tully Rd/Street A
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
2 (1)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
12 (13)90 (86)3 (0)
Tully Rd
Or
0 (0)
0 (0)
Q Roeding Rd
0 (2)
18 (20)
8 (5)
92 (114)
8 (6)
Q
7 (5)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
22 (15)68 (64)14 (9)
Tully Rd
Or
27 (26)
147 (119)
9 (8)
Q
20 (39)
3 (2)
Q62 (56)12 (13)
4 (9)
105 (155)
Intersection does not exist
in this scenario.

5.1.2 Vehicle Queuing
As shown in Table 5.1, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for near-term year 2026 (no project) conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road would exceed the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately two vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

Table 5.1 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) Vehicle Queuing

5.1.3 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue would be operating at acceptable conditions based on near-term year 2026 (No Project) ADT volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 5.2.

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 85 115 2500
Westbound Left 40 35 85
Westbound Thru/Right 65 60 705
Northbound Left/Thru 55 65 370
Northbound Right 40 45 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 80 60 295
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 35 40 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 20 10 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 50 50 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 55 45 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 60 60 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 65 60 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 55 50 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 55 55 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 65 95 70
Westbound Left/Thru 95 100 330
Westbound Right 50 45 125
Northbound Left/Thru 135 125 570
Northbound Right 30 25 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 120 245 310
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage Available
Storage

AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC
Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Near Term No Project 95th
Percentile Queue (ft)
200
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 20 Table 5.2 Neat-Term Year 2026 (No Project) ADT Volumes & Level of Service

6. Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project)
Conditions

6.1 Methodology/Future Volume Forecasts
Cumulative (No Project) conditions refer to the analysis scenario which reflects future conditions represented by local and regional growth in approximately 20 years or Year 2043 (see below). Based on County direction, Cumulative (No Project) conditions analyzed the scenario that considers the projected 20-Year development forecast, including any planned and/or approved developments, but without the proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial project. The Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project condition is the analysis scenario in which traffic impacts associated with the proposed Tully Road Subdivision Industrial development are investigated in comparison to the Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) conditions.

GHD recently obtained the Stanislaus County Transportation Model Programming for baseline and future horizon year output to determine an appropriate growth rate for Service Road, Tully Road, E. Whitmore Avenue, and Santa Fe Avenue. Baseline model Year 2019 and future horizon Year 2046 were generated and reviewed for AM and PM peak hour volume projections. The proposed project site is located within the City of Hughson’s sphere of influence on the border of the City/County (TAZ #242). AM and PM peak hour volume projections are specific to each study intersection’s approach in these areas compared to other TAZ’s located more centrally within the context of the StanCOG’s model output. Therefore, it was determined that the StanCOG’s peak hour model volume projection would be used to develop more consistent traffic growth ratios in the project study area (see StanCOG model AM and PM peak hour volume projections for baseline year 2019 and future year 2046 Appendix E) Based on the delta between baseline year 2019 and future year 2046 daily volumes, traffic growth for intersection approaches ranged from 0.5% to 4.0%. A yearly growth rate of 4% is somewhat conservative in nature and was typically limited to a few intersection approaches along E. Whitmore Avenue.

Figure 6.1 presents the turning movement volumes and lane geometry/control at the study intersections under Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions.

6.1.1 Intersection Operation
LOS Summary Table 4.2 summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour for cumulative year 2043 (No Project) Conditions.

As presented in LOS Summary Table 4.2, all unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections would be operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the Santa Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 N-T (NP) ADT 2,555
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 N-T (NP) ADT 3,385
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 N-T (NP) ADT 6,685
Classification/Location Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Total of Both Directions Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan 201
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
5 (12)
146 (216)
27 (54)
3 (2)
Q86 (78)17 (18)
Q
11 (10)
182 (147)
32 (21)100 (93)20 (13)
Tully Rd
Or
33 (32)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
23 (25)
12 (7)
135 (167)
Q
12 (8)
8 (6)
Q
0 (2)
Roeding Rd
0 (0)
16 (17)118 (114)3 (0)
0 (0)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
2 (1)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Tully Rd/Street A
345 (268)
165 (257) 152 (200)
10 (8)
43 (108)
23 (38)
98 (144)
53 (69)
19 (48)
QQ58 (50)
13 (14) 35 (50)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
32 (28)
284 (417)45 (46)
Santa Fe Ave
10 (18)
214 (220) 182 (202)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
165 (80)102 (86)9 (38)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
22 (28)
Q
11 (15) 50 (41)
Cumulative
Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE 6.1
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Intersection does not exist
in this scenario.

Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
re:M
► e
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
Streets
Project Site
202
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 22 Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue location. During both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection would be operating at LOS F (57.5 seconds AM & 112.2 seconds PM of delay).

Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would qualify for signalization under Warrant 9 criteria under Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria.

6.1.2 Vehicle Queuing
As shown in Table 6.1, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for cumulative year 2043 (no project) conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road would continue to exceed the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately 3-4 vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). In addition, the southbound Santa Fe Avenue approach would have significant queuing of 620-feet with 310-feet of capacity. All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

Table 6.1 Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Vehicle Queues AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 90 155 2500
Westbound Left 40 40 85
Westbound Thru/Right 65 70 705
Northbound Left/Thru 60 75 370
Northbound Right 50 55 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 105 90 295
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 40 40 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 10 10 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 60 55 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 60 55 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 70 80 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 75 65 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 65 55 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 75 65 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 95 150 70
Westbound Left/Thru 100 110 330
Westbound Right 55 55 125
Northbound Left/Thru 275 170 570
Northbound Right 60 40 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 170 620 310
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage Available
Storage

AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC
Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Cumulative No Project
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
203
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 23

6.1.3 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue would be operating at acceptable conditions based on cumulative year 2043 (No Project) ADT volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) ADT Volumes & Level of Service

7. Project Impacts

7.1 Project Description
The term “Project” as used in this study will refer to the proposed Tully Road Subdivision industrial park development (Project) on the parcel(s) located one-quarter mile south E. Whitmore Avenue and east of Tully Road. The proposed development consists of the following:

7.1.1 Planned Project Circulation Improvements
The proposed development would have two (2) primary access streets to reduce potential vehicle conflicts to/from Tully Road. From the existing Roeding Road/Tully Road intersection, Roeding Road would be extended east into the project site approximately 1,000 feet to an internal drive (Street D). A second street (Street A) would extend into the site approximately 1,000 feet north of Roeding Road. Street A would connect to Tully Road and extend east into the project approximately 1,500-feet ending in a cul-de-sac just prior to the BNSF railroad tracks and Santa Fe Avenue.

The project site plan is shown in Figure 1.2.

Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 C (NP) ADT 3,575
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 C (NP) ADT 4,550
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 C (NP) ADT 7,525
Classification/Location Cumulative Year 2043 No Project (ADT) – Total of Both Directions Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan 204
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 24

7.1.2 Project Trip Generation
Project site trip generation has been estimated for the proposed Tully Road subdivision industrial park project based on the overall gross leasable area (per 1,000 square feet). These estimations were achieved by subtracting out all acreage related to roadways, infrastructure, basins, and ROW (10.04 acres) from the “net acreage” of 45.15 yielding

35.11 acres.4 Based on the City’s maximum coverage rate for Industrial uses of 60 percent, the proposed project would yield 917,635 square feet of gross floor area based on 35.11 acres industrial park development.

Daily and peak hour project trip generation has been based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Publication Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed.) based on trip rates for industrial parks. It is noted that for ITE land use code #130, trip generation research is based on over 27-34 industrial park development sites ranging in size from 762,000-956,000 square feet. Therefore, applying the average trip generation rates for proposed land uses (lacking logarithmic rates) is reasonable. .

Table 7.1 presents the project trip generation for daily and AM/PM peak hours. As calculated, the proposed project would be expected to generate 3,092 daily trips with 312 AM peak hour trips and 312 PM peak hour trips.

Table 7.1 Proposed Project Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation

7.1.3 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
Assignment of project-generated industrial trips were estimated using detailed demographic analyses on City of Hughson work trips from the United States Census Bureau. Specifically, all job distances and directions from work-tohome employment for the past five (5) surveyed years (2016-2020) were analyzed.5 In addition, project trip distribution was also based on intersection counts and vehicle flows along E. Whitmore Avenue and Service Road, local demographics, and StanCOG model output.

Figure 7.1 presents the trip distribution for the Project-generated primary trips inbound/outbound during the AM and PM peak hours. AM and PM peak hour project trips are shown in Figure 7.2.

During the AM and PM peak hours, an estimated 35% of the external project primary trips would be to/from the west via E. Whitmore Avenue, Roeding Road, and Service. An additional 30% of the project trips would be to/from the south via Santa Fe Avenue and Tully Road (south of Service Road). Finally, the remaining 35% of the project trips would be to/from the north and east via Tully Road (north of E. Whitmore Avenue) and E. Whitmore Avenue via Santa Fe Avenue as follows:
4 Tom Geiss, NorthStar Engineering Group, Personal communication, Net gross floor area (Tully Road Subdivision), June 8, 2023. 5 United States Census Bureau, OnTheMap, City of Hughson, Work-to-home, Distance/Direction, 2106-2020, Total In % Out % Total In % Out %
Industrial Park (130) KSF 3.37 0.34 81% 19% 0.34 22% 78% Total In Out Total In Out
Project Trips
Industrial Subdivision 917.63 3,092 312 253 59 312 69 243 Net New Project Trips 3,092 312 253 59 312 69 243
Land Use Category (ITE Code) Unit1 Daily Trip
Rate/Unit2
AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit Notes:

1. KSF = 1,000 square feet

2. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th edition average rates Description Quantity
(Units) Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 205
0 750 1,500
US Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
12611837
Date 7/21/2023
Alpine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision
Traffic Impact Analysis
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet DRAFT
Paper Size ANSI A
o Data source: World Imagery: Maxar; Streets, City Limits: Stanislaus County Open Data, 2023. Created by:
edarke
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Concord\Projects\561\12611837\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\12611837_TullySubTIA_TrafficGraphics\12611837_TullySubTIA_TrafficGraphics.aprx - TRIPDIST_ANSIA_PORTRAIT_20230721 Print date: 21 Jul 2023 - 09:35 Trip Distribution

SANTA FE AVE

SERVICE RD

TULLY RD

WHITMORE AVE

ROEDING RD

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
1 2
3 4
5 Legend
Study
Intersections
Existing
Location
Future
Location
Project Site
Hughson City
Limits
Streets
#
#
5% 55% 45%
5%
5%
20%
20% 15% 5% 20% 10%
10%55% 35%
FIGURE 7.1
drni b d
206
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (3)
0 (0)
25 (7)
0 (0)
Q
Q
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (12)6 (24)12 (49)
Tully Rd
Or
51 (14)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
3 (1)
0 (0)9 (2)
Q80 (22)
0 (0)
Q
22 (6)
Roeding Rd
5 (22)
1 (2)2 (9)14 (4)
19 (76)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
3 (13)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr 3 (13)
12 (3)
rrrrrrN Street A 14 (4) 125 (34)
3 (11)
Tully Rd
P
29 (121)
Tully Rd/Street A
Tully Rd
rrrL
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0) 3 (12)
0 (0)
12 (49)12 (49)
8 (36)
3 (12)
QQ
12 (3)
51 (14) 2 (12)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
37 (10)
0 (0)0 (0)
Santa Fe Ave
0 (0)
0 (0) 12 (4)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
0 (0)51 (14)0 (0)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
13 (3)
Q
0 (0) 0 (0)
Project Trips
FIGURE 7.2
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

7.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions

7.2.1 Intersection Operation
LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour for Existing plus Project Conditions.

As presented in LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions, all unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections would be operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue location. With proposed project trips, the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels during the PM peak hour changing from LOS E (43.6 seconds of delay) to LOS F (50.2 seconds of delay).

Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would qualify for signalization under Warrant 9 criteria with Existing plus Project Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria.

Based on proposed project trips adding to an existing, deficient condition, the following mitigation measures are recommended to improve overall vehicle delays and operations:
 Install a signal at the intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. The signal should be coordinated with existing automated railroad crossing gates located approximately 75-feet west of Santa Fe Avenue. Under Existing plus Project conditions, the all-way-stop-control intersection meets the intersection near grade crossing warrant (Warrant #9). Since unacceptable intersection LOS and vehicle delay is an existing deficient condition, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations. Please refer to Cumulative Year 208
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
Existing Plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes FIGURE 7.3
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q 110 (53) 119 (71) 6 (25)Tully Rd CrrrrrLrrrr 31 (26)Q 10 (13) 45 (37)
194 (200) 177 (187)
66 (35) 9 (16)
E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave 236 (347) 37 (38) Santa Fe Ave 150 (233) 141 (193)
39 (98) 27 (74) 77 (145) 43 (82) 20 (55)
QQ64 (48)
62 (26) 33 (57) 313 (243) 9 (7)
Tully Rd/Street A Tully Rd
rrrL 122 (98) 125 (34) Tully Rd P
29 (121)
3 (11)
rrrrrrN Street A 106 (137) 12 (3)
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
5 (14)
Roeding Rd Tully Rd
Orr 12 (14) 86 (90) 16 (4)Tully Rd Or
5 (22)
19 (76)
Q Roeding Rd
22 (7)
20 (20) 7 (4) 93 (106) Q87 (27)
6 (4)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd 23 (25) 68 (82) 24 (57)Tully Rd Or
76 (38)
140 (113)
8 (7)
Q
31 (39) 2 (1) Q82 (59) 11 (12)
3 (8)
97 (144)
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
ra:11
§ *
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
Streets
209
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 29 Table 7.2 “With Project” LOS Summary Table; AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Control Delay LOS AM 11.4 B 13.4 B 11.9 B 14.5 B 16.1 C 28.4 D
PM 14.2 B 17.6 C 15.1 C 19.8 C 27.1 D 51.7 F
AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 10.5 BPM 10.0 A 10.2 B 11.5 B
A M 7.7 A 8.4 A 7.8 A 8.5 A 8.3 A 9.7 A
P M 7.7 A 8.4 A 7.8 A 8.5 A 8.3 A 9.3 A
AM 8.6 A 9.2 A 8.8 A 9.5 A 10.2 B 12.0 B
PM 8.8 A 8.4 A 9.1 A 9.9 A 11.1 B 13.6 B
AM 23.6 C 28.4 D 27.7 D 32.9 D 57.5 F 74.0 F
PM 43.6 E 50.2 F 50.6 F 58.7 F 112.2 F 128.5 F
Note: Bold text indicates target level of service (LOS) is exceeded.1 AWSC = All-Way-Stop-Control2 Based on Synchro-Simtraffic (Version 11.0), Highw ay Capacity Manual (HCM 6), Operations,Unsignalized Intersections, 2019.

Cumulative Plus Project
AWSC
Cumulative
ID Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project 1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue D AWSC AWSC AWSC
Target
LOS
TWSC
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC2 Tully Road & Street A (Future) D D
This intersection does not exist in
this scenario.

This intersection does not exist in
this scenario. TWSC
Near Term
AWSC
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC 4 Tully Road & Service Road AWSC AWSC D AWSC
D
Near Term Plus Project

AWSC AWSC
This intersection does not exist in
this scenario. TWSC

AWSC AWSCAWSC AWSCAWSC AWSC
210
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 30 2043 Plus Project Conditions for a discussion of Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share methodology and proposed project fair share contribution.

7.2.2 Vehicle Queuing
As shown in Table 7.3, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for existing plus project conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road would continue to exceed the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately 1-2 vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

Table 7.3 Existing Plus Project Vehicle Queues
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 95 125 2500
Westbound Left 50 40 85
Westbound Thru/Right 60 60 705
Northbound Left/Thru 50 80 370
Northbound Right 45 60 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 85 60 295
2 Tully Road & Street A (Future)
Westbound Left/Right 55 65 200
Northbound Thru/Right 0 0 1150
Southbound Left/Thru 45 25 1050
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 45 40 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 45 60 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 60 55 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 65 50 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 55 65 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 75 60 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 65 50 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 65 65 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 65 95 70
Westbound Left/Thru 95 95 330
Westbound Right 50 50 125
Northbound Left/Thru 185 105 570
Northbound Right 40 20 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 115 205 310
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage Available
Storage

TWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC
Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Existing Plus Project 95th
Percentile Queue (ft)
211
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 31

7.2.3 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue would be operating at acceptable conditions based on existing plus project ADT volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes

7.3 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project Conditions

7.3.1 Intersection Operation
Proposed project AM and PM peak hour trips were added to Near-Term Year 2026 (No Project) volumes are shown in Figure 7.1
LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour for Near-Term Year 2026 plus Project Conditions.

As presented in LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions, all unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections would be operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hour with the exception of the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue location. With proposed project trips, the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels during the PM peak hour changing from LOS F (50.6 seconds of delay) to LOS F (58.7 seconds of delay).

Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would qualify for signalization under both Warrant 3 and Warrant 9 criteria under Near-Term Year 2026 plus Project Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E.

Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria.

Based on proposed project trips adding to an existing, deficient condition, the same mitigation measures are recommended as part of “Existing Plus Project” Conditions to improve overall vehicle delays and operations as follows:
 Install a signal at the intersection of East Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. The signal should be coordinated with existing automated railroad crossing gates located approximately 75-feet west of Santa Fe Avenue. Under Near-Term Year 2026 plus Project conditions, the intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant.

Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 Exist+Project 3,650
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 Exist+Project 5,195
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 Exist+Project 7,055
Classification/Location Existing Plus Project (ADT) – Total of Both Directions Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan I
I
212
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
Near Term Plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes FIGURE 7.4
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
119 (57)128 (77)7 (27)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
32 (27)
Q
11 (14) 46 (38)
197 (203) 180 (190)
67 (36) 10 (17)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave 244 (358) 39 (40) Santa Fe Ave 153 (237) 144 (196)
40 (100)
30 (80)
83 (156)
47 (89)
21 (56)
QQ65 (49)
63 (27) 34 (58)
318 (247)
10 (8)
Tully Rd/Street A
Tully Rd
rrrL
130 (104)133 (37)
Tully Rd
P
31 (129)
4 (12)
rrrrrrN Street A 114 (148) 13 (4)
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
5 (14)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
13 (15)92 (96)17 (5)
Tully Rd
Or
5 (22)
19 (76)
Q Roeding Rd
23 (8)
21 (21)
8 (5)
102 (116)
Q95 (30)
7 (5)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
26 (28)75 (90)27 (63)
Tully Rd
Or
80 (40)
147 (119)
9 (8)
Q
34 (42)
3 (2)
Q89 (64)12 (13)
4 (9)
105 (155)
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
re:M
► e
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
Streets
Project Site
213
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 33 (Warrant #3 and #9). Since unacceptable intersection LOS and vehicle delay is an existing deficient condition, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations. Please refer to Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions for a discussion of Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share methodology and proposed project fair share contribution.

7.3.2 Vehicle Queuing
As shown in Table 7.5, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for near-term year 2026 plus project conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road would continue to exceed the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately 1-2 vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

Table 7.5 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project Vehicle Queues AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 90 140 2500
Westbound Left 50 40 85
Westbound Thru/Right 65 65 705
Northbound Left/Thru 55 85 370
Northbound Right 45 60 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 85 65 295
2 Tully Road & Street A (Future)
Westbound Left/Right 50 65 200
Northbound Thru/Right 0 0 1150
Southbound Left/Thru 40 20 1050
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 45 40 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 50 65 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 70 50 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 65 55 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 60 70 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 80 60 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 60 50 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 65 70 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 70 100 70
Westbound Left/Thru 90 100 330
Westbound Right 50 60 125
Northbound Left/Thru 240 135 570
Northbound Right 50 30 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 140 245 310
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage Available
Storage

TWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC
Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Near Term Plus Project
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
214
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 34

7.3.3 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue would be operating at acceptable conditions based on existing plus project ADT volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 7.6 Table 7.6 Near-Term Year 2026 Plus Project ADT Volumes

7.4 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions

7.4.1 Intersection Operation
Proposed project AM and PM peak hour trips were added to Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) volumes and are shown in Figure 7.4
LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions summarizes the intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hour for Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project Conditions.

As presented in LOS Summary Table 7.2 “With Project” Conditions, the three unsignalized all-way-stop-controlled study intersections of Tully Road/Street A, Tully Road/Roeding Road, and Tully Road/Service Road would be operating at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better). However, the E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road intersection would change from LOS D (27.1 seconds of delay) to LOS F (51.7 seconds of delay) during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the AM and PM peak hour the Santa Fe Avenue/East Whitmore Avenue intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels at LOS F.

Based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3) and/or intersections near grade crossing (Warrant 9), the E.

Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road intersection would qualify for signalization under Warrant 3. The E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersection would quality for signalization under both Warrant 3 and Warrant 9 criteria with Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project Conditions. Coordination with at-grade crossing gates on E. Whitmore Avenue would be required should a signal be installed at this location. All remaining study intersections would not qualify for signalization due to not meeting minimum volume criteria.

In response to Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project impacts, the following intersection improvements are recommended:

Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 N-T+Project 3,970
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 N-T+Project 5,580
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 N-T+Project 7,270
Classification/Location Near-Term Year 2023 No Project (ADT) – Total of Both Directions Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan I
I
215
1 5
2 3
4 Project No.

Report No.

Date
5 (13)
156 (231)
50 (63)
4 (2)
132 (95)
Q18 (20)
Q
13 (10)
224 (159)
37 (40)109 (132)39 (92)
Tully Rd
Or
122 (54)
Tully Rd/Service Rd
Service Rd
Tully Rd
Orr
Service Rd
32 (28)
12 (7)
149 (170)
Q
140 (44)
10 (6)
Q
36 (10)
Roeding Rd
8 (22)
20 (20)138 (126)26 (6)
31 (76)
Tully Rd
Or
Tully Rd/Roeding Rd
8 (14)
Roeding Rd
Tully Rd
Orr 170 (220)
20 (5)
rrrrrrN Street A 196 (138) 200 (48)
5 (16)
Tully Rd
P
47 (170)
Tully Rd/Street A
Tully Rd
rrrL
501 (292)
240 (280) 226 (232)
15 (9)
63 (118)
44 (119)
124 (232)
69 (132)
32 (66)
QQ
103 (58)
100 (32) 53 (69)
E Whitmore Ave
Santa Fe Ave
rrrKrrE
E Whitmore Ave E Whitmore Ave
106 (42)
378 (417)60 (46)
Santa Fe Ave
15 (20)
311 (240) 284 (225)
Tully Rd/E Whitmore Ave Santa Fe Ave/E Whitmore Ave rrrKrrE Q
176 (85)191 (114)10 (40)
Tully Rd
CrrrrrLrrrr
50 (32)
Q
16 (16) 72 (45)
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes FIGURE 7.5
Altine Pacific Nut Company, Inc.

Tully Road Subdivision TIAR
12611837
001
9/1/23
E Whitmore Ave
Tully Rd
rrrKrrE
Legend
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turn Lane Stop Sign
Traffic Signal Roundabout
C
re:M
► e
Legend
Study Intersections
Existing Location
Future Location
Streets
Project Site
216
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 36  Install a signal at the intersection of East Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, widen and/or re-stripe the eastbound E. Whitmore Avenue approach to include a separate left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane. Under Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, the intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant #3). Based on Cumulative Year 2043 plus Project conditions, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations;
Or)
Construction of a single/multi-lane modern roundabout could be given consideration  Install a signal at the intersection of E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue to improve vehicle delays and reduce overall vehicle queuing during the AM and PM peak hours. The signal should be coordinated with existing automated railroad crossing gates located approximately 75-feet west of Santa Fe Avenue. Since unacceptable intersection LOS and vehicle delay is an existing deficient condition, it is recommended that the proposed project contribute a “proportional share” of the costs to improve the intersection based on Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share calculations. Please refer to Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Conditions for a discussion of Caltrans “pro-rata” fair share methodology and proposed project fair share contribution.

7.4.2 Vehicle Queuing
As shown in Table 7.7, the 95th percentile queues are displayed for cumulative year 2043 plus project conditions and rounded to the nearest 5’ increment. The all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of East Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road would exceed the storage capacity for the northbound right-turn movement on Tully Road by approximately 2 vehicles (assuming 25-feet per vehicle). All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes.

In addition, the all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection of Santa Fe Avenue/Tully Road would continue to exceed the storage capacity for the eastbound left/through/right-turn movement on E. Whitmore Avenue by approximately 7-8 vehicles queuing behind the BNSF railroad track crossing during the PM peak hour. In addition, the southbound left/through/right-turn lane would experience significant queuing of 735 feet. Given projected intersection operations of LOS F during the peak hours, vehicle queuing is not unexpected under cumulative year 2043 plus project conditions.

All remaining study intersections have adequate storage capacity with existing traffic volumes. 217
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 37 Table 7.7 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project Vehicle Queues

7.4.3 Roadway Segment LOS
The two-lane roadway segments of Tully Road north and south of Roeding Road and E. Whitmore Avenue between Tully Road and Santa Fe Avenue would be operating at acceptable conditions based on cumulative year 2043 plus project ADT volumes. Using daily volume thresholds consistent with City of Hughson General Plan Transportation Element, all three segments are operating at LOS C or better based on collector and arterial streets for two-lane capacity thresholds consistent with the Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan shown in Table 7.8 AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Tully Road & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 130 475 2500
Westbound Left 50 40 85
Westbound Thru/Right 70 80 705
Northbound Left/Thru 75 195 370
Northbound Right 60 105 65
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 165 110 295
2 Tully Road & Street A (Future)
Westbound Left/Right 55 80 200
Northbound Thru/Right 0 0 1150
Southbound Left/Thru 60 35 1050
3 Tully Road & Roeding Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 50 45 2600
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 50 65 1030
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 80 60 2600
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 60 55 1150
4 Tully Road & Service Road
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 80 90 2560
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 95 80 1295
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 70 60 5245
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 80 80 2600
5 Santa Fe Avenue & East Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 90 260 70
Westbound Left/Thru 110 140 330
Westbound Right 60 65 125
Northbound Left/Thru 445 235 570
Northbound Right 70 40 50
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 195 735 310
Note: Bold text indicates queues that exceed available storage Available
Storage

TWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC AWSC
Int. # Intersection/Approach Control Type
Cumulative Plus Project
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
218
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 38 Table 7.8 Cumulative Year 2043 Plus Project ADT Volumes

8. Site Access & Circulation

8.1 Project Access Driveways/Streets
The proposed Tully Road subdivision industrial park project would have two (2) primary access driveways (streets) to reduce potential vehicle conflicts on the Tully Road as shown in Figure 1.2. From the existing Roeding Road/Tully Road intersection, Roeding Road would be extended east into the project site approximately 1,000 feet to an internal drive (Street D). A second east-west street (Street A) would be located approximately 1,000 feet north of Roeding Road. Specifically, Street A would connect to Tully Road and extend east into the project approximately 1,500-feet ending in a cul-de-sac just prior to the BNSF railroad tracks and Santa Fe Avenue.

Internal project streets would be labeled Streets A, B, C, and D extending in a mostly grid pattern to serve the various parcels. As noted, Street A and Roeding Road would extend directly east into the project site from Tully Road.

Another internal street (Street D) would extend north-south and connect Roeding Road with Street A. Finally, Streets B and C would intersect south of Street A and west of Street D. At the intersection of Streets B and C, there would be a large radius corner (80-foot radius) for large trucks/vehicles.

On an internal basis, overall circulation would be acceptable with wide travel lanes and large turning radii.

Specifically, all internal streets would have a 70-foot improvement width (includes travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks). Large turning radii would be provided at the intersection of Streets B and C as well as at the cul-de-sac at the end of Street D (49-foot radius).

Tully Road would be widened along the entire project frontage. From the new project curb along Tully Road, there would be 40-feet to the roadway centerline with a 60-foot ROW. Pedestrian sidewalks with ADA ramps would be present along all project streets and the entire Tully Road frontage.

8.2 Truck Off-Tracking Analysis
Both proposed project street connections of Street A and the Roeding Road extension at Tully Road were evaluated for adequate turning radii to/from Tully Road. Adequate turning radii were analyzed using the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Design Vehicle as defined by Caltrans and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO).6 Using accept software (AutoTURN 11.0), inbound/outbound turning movements of large trucks has been evaluated for left-turn movements in Figure 8.1 and right-turn movements in Figure 8.2. 6 Caltrans, Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400 Intersections At-Grade, Section 404.4, Design Vehicles and Related Definitions, July 1, 2020., Lanes Control C D E
Collector Street 2 undivided 7,700 11,600 12,900
Tully Rd. s/o Roeding Rd. 2 C+Project 5,870
Tully Rd. n/o Roeding Rd. 2 C+Project 7,610
Arterial Street 2 undivided 9,200 13,700 15,450
E. Whitmore e/o Tull Rd. 2 C+Project 9,025
Classification/Location Cumulative Year 2043 No Project (ADT) – Total of Both Directions Source: kdAnderson, Stanislaus County Congestion Management Plan I
I
219
Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time Articulating Angle
WB-67
Trailer Track Tractor Track Trailer Width Tractor Width

4.00 19.50
feet 8.50

8.50:

8.00 8.00
:
:
:

0.00 3.00 45.50

15.00 53.00
:
:
: 6.0

28.4 75.0
FIGURE 8.1
WB-67 Left Turning Movements
Date
Project No.

Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Concord\Projects\561\12611837\Digital_Design\ACAD\Figures\12511837TG001.dwg Plot Date: 28 August 2023 1:36 PM
Atline Pacific Nut Company, Inc. 12511837
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR 8/28/2023
Cl
a:
~ ...J
::,
IEXISTING B FENCE (CHAJNLINK)

EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
I-!,; _______ 208' _ _
lw
I:,;
:~
IQ.

J Cl o,Z
~t5
: 1.l I
!z
~
cl:

Cl
z
~
44003 SF
30 43560SF
202
29 43567 SF
049-011
,..~'°':o,sEX1snNG ~ FENCE (CHAINLINK) -------------------------, lBl' ____ / 205' ------,oa.o--
2 43645 SF ~
----~----
3 43645SF
205'
4 43645SF
------- 205' ------- ------- 205' -------
27 ~~,. I 'l?.o.

I ..._
26 49604 SF
I 268'
LINE
150
218'
31 43570SF

EXISTING LOT LINE ----------
1 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
___ ____ 205'____ --
21'
32 43679 SF
100
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------- 21' _______ )
6BJ'
'"' ''° I
I
I
I
I
I
I
33 43566 SF
.. '-. _______ 17T ___ _
220
Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time Articulating Angle
WB-67
Trailer Track Tractor Track Trailer Width Tractor Width

4.00 19.50
feet 8.50

8.50:

8.00 8.00
:
:
:

0.00 3.00 45.50

15.00 53.00
:
:
: 6.0

28.4 75.0
FIGURE 8.2
WB-67 Right Turning Movements
Date
Project No.

Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Concord\Projects\561\12611837\Digital_Design\ACAD\Figures\12511837TG001.dwg Plot Date: 28 August 2023 1:37 PM
Atline Pacific Nut Company, Inc. 12511837
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR 8/28/2023

EXISTING B FENCE (CHAJNLINK)
I-!,; _______ 208' _ _
lw
=-<.
- '11
I:,;
:~
IQ.

J Cl o,Z
~t5
: 1.l I
ta
Cl I "
a: j: I ~
~ 1' } 1JJl\1 s l ~ I- r
44003 SF
I
I
I
. I
~: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
049-011
,..~'°':o,sEX1snNG ~ FENCE (CHAINLINK) -------------------------, lBl' ____ / 205' ------,oa.o-- ----~ ----
2 43645 SF ~ 3 43645SF
------- 205' ------- ------- 205' -------
i
J
e
~
~ E-\
I
,------ 215' --------
1 I
I
I
I
I
:~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
27 ~~,.
18 43613SF
215'
I 'l?.o.

I ..._
/ 268'
26 49604 SF
205'
4 43645SF
16 1 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
___ ____ 205'____ --
-------- 2,.,------) ••
15 I
I
I
I
I
I
43562 SF 43561 SF "' I<' I
215'
31 43570SF

EXISTING LOT LINE ------
32 43679 SF
216'
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------- 21' _______ )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"' ''° I
I
I
I
I
I
I
33 43566 SF
,. '-. _______ 17T ___ _
221
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 41 As shown in Figure 8.1, truck turning paths to/from Tully Road into proposed project Street A and the Roeding Road extension would be adequate.

8.3 Left-Turn Channelization
Consideration has been given to the provision of southbound left-turn lanes from Tully Road into the proposed project site. Based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) guidelines for the provision of left-turn lanes, the project access points have been investigated for potential satisfaction of left-turn requirements.7
Left-turn installation warrants are based on four factors:

1. The number of lanes;

2. Design and operating speeds;

3. Left-turn volumes;

4. Opposing traffic volumes.

Selected ASSHTO guidelines for the installation of a left-turn lane indicate that these parameters are “suggested.” Volume guidelines are provided from Table 9-23 “Guide for Left-Turn Lanes on Two-Lane Highways” as well as Table 9-25 and Figure 9-36 “Suggested Left-Turn Treatment Guidelines Based on Results from Benefit-Cost Evaluations for Intersections on Two-Lane Highways in Rural Areas”. (Left-Turn Warrant Table 9-25 & Figure 9-36 sheets are provided in Appendix F). The minimum left-turn volume warrants found in Table 9-25 and Figure 9-36 are very conservative in nature, indicating the left-turn lane warrant would potentially be met with just 5 left-turn movements and an overall intersection volume of 100 vehicles. As such, AASHTO provides the following guidance associated with these specific warrants:

ASSHTO indicates prudence when considering the left-turn volume warrants stating, “The volume-based guidelines or warrants presented Table 9-25 and Figure 9-36 indicate situations where a left-turn lane may be desirable, not necessarily situations where a left-turn lane is definitely needed." Based on the above recommendations, AASHTO volume guidelines from Table 9-23 has been utilized to analyze southbound left-turn access from Tully Road into Street A and Roeding Road (Left-Turn Warrant Table 9-23 sheets are provided in Appendix F). The left-turn lane warrant is based on the overall percentage of left-turn movements in the advancing volume versus the opposing volume.

Based on Cumulative Plus Project AM peak hour volumes at the Street A intersection at Tully Road, the proposed project intersection would meet the minimum volume for installation of a southbound left-turn lane. The Roeding Road/Tully Road intersection would not meet the left-turn lane warrant given its lower southbound left-turn volumes.

Based on the associated AASHTO left-turn guidelines and warrant requirements, the following mitigation is recommended for the proposed project access at Tully Road:
 A southbound left-turn lane should be installed on Tully Road at the proposed project intersection with Street A. Based on Caltrans guidelines and projected left-turn volumes, the left-turn lane should be designed to provide the maximum storage (to the extent possible) given project frontage and available ROW (100-125 feet of storage [4 vehicles and/or combination of heavy vehicles]) 7 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Section 9.7.3.1, Guideline for Provision and Design of Left-Turn and Bypass Lanes, 7th Edition, 2018. 222
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 42

9. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), defines VMT as the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. This means that for a proposed industrial park, only trips associated with the employees are evaluated in terms of VMT, as heavy trucks are not considered.

9.1 Methodology
Stanislaus County does not currently have adopted VMT guidelines, so no specific methodology has been mandated for VMT analysis in the county. The study team elected to estimate the VMT for the Project’s employees using US Census data, because it is considered the most reliable source of commute data available. Journey-to-work data is available from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program via a website called “On the Map8.” The primary source of data used in the LEHD program is the enhanced Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) microdata files obtained from each participating Local Employment Dynamics (LED) state. The employerbased QCEW data is merged with additional worker-based administrative data collected by the US Census Bureau to create integrated employer-worker data, available through two different databases, Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES).

Unlike sample-based surveys, such as the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey, the LEHD data provides a nearly complete enumeration of home-to-work flows covering over 90% of all workers and employers in the United States9. The LEHD data does not contain details on the work trips such as mode choice, route, or travel times. The LEHD data does not include federal workers, self-employed or the military, and workplace location is assigned algorithmically for people who work for a business with multiple locations in a county. The LODES data provides employer-based work destinations and home origins, which were used to approximate weighted average trip lengths to and from the County. The LODES data provides many more origin-destination pairs than collected through sampled data and provides sufficient data for home-to-work flows.

The LODES data was used to calculate trip lengths and associated VMT for the census tract where the Project is located. Since Stanislaus County does not currently have adopted VMT thresholds, the VMT threshold used for this analysis was based on the SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets10 set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For Stanislaus Council of Governments, the threshold is 16% below the regional average (i.e., the average for Stanislaus County).

9.2 VMT Analysis Results
The LODES data from “On the Map” was used to determine the countywide regional average travel distances for employees who work in the county and the average distance of the Project’s employees, located in Hughson. The two were then compared. Figure 9.1 presents the travel distance for employees in Hughson (left) compared to Stanislaus County (right). As shown, a larger proportion of employee’s countywide travel longer distances than those employed in Hughson. Table 9.1 presents the jobs, estimated VMT (jobs x average distance), the VMT per job for Hughson and Stanislaus County, and the associated -16% threshold.
8 https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
9 “Improving Employment Data for Transportation Planning”, NCRHP 08-36, Task 098. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. September 2011. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(98)_FR.pdf 10 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets 223
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 43 Figure 9.1 LODES Jobs by Distance (Work to Home) for Hughson (left) and Stanislaus County as a whole (right) Table 9.1 Estimated Jobs and VMT for Hughson and Stanislaus County LODES Distance
Interval
Assumed
Average
Distance (mi)
Hughson Stanislaus County
Number of Jobs VMT Number of Jobs VMT
Less than 10
miles
5 762 3,810 91,485 457,425
10 to 24 miles 17 179 3,043 36,920 627,640
25 to 50 miles 37.5 101 3,788 19,960 748,500
Greater than 50
miles
75 108 8,100 36,551 2,741,325
Job Counts by Distance/Direction In 2020
All Workers
N
w E
s
View as Radar Chart y
Jobs by Distance - Work Census Block to
Home Census Block
2020
Count Share
Total All Jobs 1,150 100.0%
Less than 10 miles 762 66.3%
0 10 to 24 miles 179 15.6%
0 25 to so miles 101 8.8%
Gtfate[ tha □ 5Q miles 108 9.4%
Job Counts by Distance/Direction in 2020
All Workers
N
NW
s
View as Radar Chart •
Jobs by Distance - Work Census Block to
Home Census Block
2020
Count Share
Total All Jobs 184,916 100.0%
Less t!]an 10 miles 91 ,465 49.5%
0 10 to 24 miles 36,920 20.0%
0 25 to 50 miles 19,960 10.8%
0 !;;reate[ than 50 miles 36,551 19.8%
224
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 44 LODES Distance
Interval
Assumed
Average
Distance (mi)
Hughson Stanislaus County
Number of Jobs VMT Number of Jobs VMT
Total 1,150 18,741 184,916 4,574,890
VMT per Job 16.3 24.7
Countywide threshold (16% below county average) 20.7
As shown, the VMT per job for Hughson (16.3 VMT/job) is lower than the countywide threshold of 20.7 VMT/job (16% below the countywide average VMT per job). Since the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the City of Hughson, its contribution toward VMT is considered in the LODES analysis for the City of Hughson. As noted, the City of Hughson’s VMT is far below the targeted 16% threshold for the region.

Therefore, the project site is in a “low-VMT” area and has a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

10. Proposed Project Fair Share Contributions

10.1 Methodology
With proposed project development, transportation mitigation has been recommended for both the E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road and E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue intersections. In the case of the E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road intersection, the proposed project would impact the intersection when added to Cumulative Year 2043 (No Project) Conditions. With the E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road intersection, the proposed project would be adding to an existing, deficient condition that is present regardless of proposed project development. Therefore, proposed project development would represent its share of overall cumulative traffic growth at each intersection as defined by Caltrans methodology for equitable mitigation. Specifically, the proposed project’s equitable share is calculated using the method for calculating equitable mitigation measures outlined in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California, DOT, December 2002), which is shown below:11 P=T/(TB - TE )
Where:

P = The equitable share for the proposed project’s traffic impact.

T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour of adjacent State highway facility in vehicles per hour (vph).

TB = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of general plan build-out (e.g., 20-year model or the furthest future model date feasible), vph.

TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other approved projects that will generate traffic that has yet to be constructed/opened, vph.

10.2 Proposed Project Pro Rata Share
Table 10.1 below is a listing of the study intersections warranting improvements, the corresponding improvements that the proposed project would be required to pay a Fair-Share of Improvement cost towards, and the proposed project’s equitable share of these improvements. Note that the percent Fair-Share calculated using the above formula is 11 Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002). 225
GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 45 reported based upon the highest fair share percentage from the AM and/or PM peak hour scenarios, whichever proportional share was higher (see Appendix H—Fair Share Calculations).

Table 10.1 Summary of Fair Share Calculations for Project Impacted Study Intersections # Intersection T TB TE P
1 E. Whitmore Avenue/Tully Road 172 1,450 883 30.03%
5 E. Whitmore Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue 46 1511 1,208 15.20% Please note, the methodology described in Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Table 10.1 is neither intended as nor does it establish a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility and cost of the project’s traffic impact. However, the intent is to provide the following:

1. A starting point for early discussions to address traffic mitigation equitably;

2. A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts; and

3. A means for establishing rough proportionality [Dolan vs. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)].

I
226
ghd.com GHD | Alpine Pacific Nut Co., Inc. | 12611837 | Traffic Analysis Impact Report 46 227
The Power of Commitment
Attachment A: Turning Movement Counts
228
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles - Large 2 Axle Vehicles - 3 Axle Vehicles - 4+ Axle Trucks Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 11 21 34 6 32 1 39 3 5 3 11 3 18 3 24 108
07:15 AM 2 16 22 40 11 57 1 69 1 11 1 13 2 21 2 25 147
07:30 AM 1 15 31 47 9 57 1 67 4 16 9 29 10 27 3 40 183
07:45 AM 1 20 31 52 7 50 3 60 2 21 3 26 6 24 3 33 171
Total 6 62 105 173 33 196 6 235 10 53 16 79 21 90 11 122 609 08:00 AM 2 15 26 43 4 47 2 53 6 18 10 34 12 51 5 68 198 08:15 AM 2 21 22 45 9 48 4 61 4 11 13 28 12 57 0 69 203 08:30 AM 2 19 17 38 8 61 0 69 5 11 8 24 8 31 3 42 173
08:45 AM 3 7 7 17 5 29 1 35 2 7 5 14 5 27 5 37 103
Total 9 62 72 143 26 185 7 218 17 47 36 100 37 166 13 216 677 Grand Total 15 124 177 316 59 381 13 453 27 100 52 179 58 256 24 338 1286 Apprch % 4.7 39.2 56 13 84.1 2.9 15.1 55.9 29.1 17.2 75.7 7.1 Total % 1.2 9.6 13.8 24.6 4.6 29.6 1 35.2 2.1 7.8 4 13.9 4.5 19.9 1.9 26.3 Passenger Vehicles 15 120 174 309 58 363 13 434 25 95 52 172 57 242 21 320 1235 % Passenger Vehicles 100 96.8 98.3 97.8 98.3 95.3 100 95.8 92.6 95 100 96.1 98.3 94.5 87.5 94.7 96 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 0 0 3 3 1 10 0 11 0 3 0 3 1 6 3 10 27 % Large 2 Axle Vehicles 0 0 1.7 0.9 1.7 2.6 0 2.4 0 3 0 1.7 1.7 2.3 12.5 3 2.1 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 7
% 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.4 3.7 0 0 0.6 0 1.6 0 1.2 0.5 4+ Axle Trucks 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 6 1 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 17
% 4+ Axle Trucks 0 3.2 0 1.3 0 1.6 0 1.3 3.7 2 0 1.7 0 1.6 0 1.2 1.3 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 1 15 31 47 9 57 1 67 4 16 9 29 10 27 3 40 183
07:45 AM 1 20 31 52 7 50 3 60 2 21 3 26 6 24 3 33 171
08:00 AM 2 15 26 43 4 47 2 53 6 18 10 34 12 51 5 68 198 08:15 AM 2 21 22 45 9 48 4 61 4 11 13 28 12 57 0 69 203 Total Volume 6 71 110 187 29 202 10 241 16 66 35 117 40 159 11 210 755 % App. Total 3.2 38 58.8 12 83.8 4.1 13.7 56.4 29.9 19 75.7 5.2 PHF .750 .845 .887 .899 .806 .886 .625 .899 .667 .786 .673 .860 .833 .697 .550 .761 .930 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
229
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
110
Thru
71 Left
6 Out In Total
116 187 303
Right
10 Thru
202
Left
29 Out Total In
200 241 441
Left
16 Thru
66 Right
35 Out In Total
111 117 228
Left
40 Thru
159
Right
11 Total Out In
328 210 538
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Passenger Vehicles
Large 2 Axle Vehicles
3 Axle Vehicles
4+ Axle Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 1 15 31 47 11 57 1 69 4 16 9 29 12 51 5 68
+15 mins. 1 20 31 52 9 57 1 67 2 21 3 26 12 57 0 69
+30 mins. 2 15 26 43 7 50 3 60 6 18 10 34 8 31 3 42
+45 mins. 2 21 22 45 4 47 2 53 4 11 13 28 5 27 5 37
Total Volume 6 71 110 187 31 211 7 249 16 66 35 117 37 166 13 216 % App. Total 3.2 38 58.8 12.4 84.7 2.8 13.7 56.4 29.9 17.1 76.9 6 PHF .750 .845 .887 .899 .705 .925 .583 .902 .667 .786 .673 .860 .771 .728 .650 .783 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
► ◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
230
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 11 20 33 6 29 1 36 3 4 3 10 3 16 1 20 99
07:15 AM 2 15 22 39 10 57 1 68 1 10 1 12 2 20 2 24 143
07:30 AM 1 14 31 46 9 54 1 64 4 16 9 29 10 27 3 40 179
07:45 AM 1 19 31 51 7 48 3 58 2 20 3 25 5 21 3 29 163
Total 6 59 104 169 32 188 6 226 10 50 16 76 20 84 9 113 584 08:00 AM 2 15 26 43 4 44 2 50 5 18 10 33 12 48 5 65 191 08:15 AM 2 20 22 44 9 48 4 61 4 11 13 28 12 54 0 66 199 08:30 AM 2 19 15 36 8 57 0 65 4 10 8 22 8 30 3 41 164
08:45 AM 3 7 7 17 5 26 1 32 2 6 5 13 5 26 4 35 97
Total 9 61 70 140 26 175 7 208 15 45 36 96 37 158 12 207 651 Grand Total 15 120 174 309 58 363 13 434 25 95 52 172 57 242 21 320 1235 Apprch % 4.9 38.8 56.3 13.4 83.6 3 14.5 55.2 30.2 17.8 75.6 6.6 Total % 1.2 9.7 14.1 25 4.7 29.4 1.1 35.1 2 7.7 4.2 13.9 4.6 19.6 1.7 25.9 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 1 14 31 46 9 54 1 64 4 16 9 29 10 27 3 40 179
07:45 AM 1 19 31 51 7 48 3 58 2 20 3 25 5 21 3 29 163
08:00 AM 2 15 26 43 4 44 2 50 5 18 10 33 12 48 5 65 191 08:15 AM 2 20 22 44 9 48 4 61 4 11 13 28 12 54 0 66 199 Total Volume 6 68 110 184 29 194 10 233 15 65 35 115 39 150 11 200 732 % App. Total 3.3 37 59.8 12.4 83.3 4.3 13 56.5 30.4 19.5 75 5.5 PHF .750 .850 .887 .902 .806 .898 .625 .910 .750 .813 .673 .871 .813 .694 .550 .758 .920 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
231
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
110
Thru
68 Left
6 Out In Total
114 184 298
Right
10 Thru
194
Left
29 Out Total In
191 233 424
Left
15 Thru
65 Right
35 Out In Total
108 115 223
Left
39 Thru
150
Right
11 Total Out In
319 200 519
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Passenger Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 1 14 31 46 9 54 1 64 4 16 9 29 10 27 3 40
+15 mins. 1 19 31 51 7 48 3 58 2 20 3 25 5 21 3 29
+30 mins. 2 15 26 43 4 44 2 50 5 18 10 33 12 48 5 65
+45 mins. 2 20 22 44 9 48 4 61 4 11 13 28 12 54 0 66
Total Volume 6 68 110 184 29 194 10 233 15 65 35 115 39 150 11 200 % App. Total 3.3 37 59.8 12.4 83.3 4.3 13 56.5 30.4 19.5 75 5.5 PHF .750 .850 .887 .902 .806 .898 .625 .910 .750 .813 .673 .871 .813 .694 .550 .758 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
232
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Large 2 Axle Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2
Total 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 5 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 4 12
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2
08:30 AM 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
Total 0 0 2 2 0 6 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 6 15
Grand Total 0 0 3 3 1 10 0 11 0 3 0 3 1 6 3 10 27
Apprch % 0 0 100 9.1 90.9 0 0 100 0 10 60 30
Total % 0 0 11.1 11.1 3.7 37 0 40.7 0 11.1 0 11.1 3.7 22.2 11.1 37 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 5 11
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 20 80 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 .000 .417 .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .500 .000 .625 .688 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
233
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
2 0 2
Right
0 Thru
5 Left
0 Out Total In
4 5 9
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Out In Total
0 1 1
Left
1 Thru
4 Right
0 Total Out In
5 5 10
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Large 2 Axle Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 5
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 20 80 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 .000 .417 .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .500 .000 .625 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
234
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 4
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 7
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 28.6 0 28.6 14.3 0 0 14.3 0 57.1 0 57.1 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .375 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
235
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
1 Left
0 Out Total In
2 1 3
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
2 Right
0 Total Out In
1 2 3
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
3 Axle Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
236
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
07:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
07:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
Total 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 10
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 7
Grand Total 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 6 1 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 17
Apprch % 0 100 0 0 100 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 100 0
Total % 0 23.5 0 23.5 0 35.3 0 35.3 5.9 11.8 0 17.6 0 23.5 0 23.5 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
08:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total Volume 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 9
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .375 .000 .375 .563 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
237
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
3 Left
0 Out In Total
0 3 3
Right
0 Thru
2 Left
0 Out Total In
3 2 5
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
3 1 4
Left
0 Thru
3 Right
0 Total Out In
3 3 6
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
4+ Axle Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
+45 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total Volume 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3
% App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .375 .000 .375 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
238
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles - Large 2 Axle Vehicles - 3 Axle Vehicles - 4+ Axle Trucks Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 4 17 15 36 6 48 6 60 5 22 12 39 17 64 2 83 218 04:15 PM 7 21 17 45 6 52 1 59 2 16 7 25 19 37 6 62 191
04:30 PM 7 17 12 36 7 53 3 63 12 28 11 51 22 63 2 87 237 04:45 PM 6 14 12 32 10 44 4 58 7 25 11 43 25 54 6 85 218 Total 24 69 56 149 29 197 14 240 26 91 41 158 83 218 16 317 864 05:00 PM 5 14 9 28 6 61 5 72 5 25 11 41 27 55 2 84 225
05:15 PM 7 12 20 39 4 48 1 53 2 18 14 34 25 67 3 95 221 05:30 PM 3 19 24 46 9 39 2 50 1 26 9 36 26 48 5 79 211
05:45 PM 2 19 8 29 4 47 1 52 2 21 9 32 24 59 3 86 199
Total 17 64 61 142 23 195 9 227 10 90 43 143 102 229 13 344 856 Grand Total 41 133 117 291 52 392 23 467 36 181 84 301 185 447 29 661 1720 Apprch % 14.1 45.7 40.2 11.1 83.9 4.9 12 60.1 27.9 28 67.6 4.4 Total % 2.4 7.7 6.8 16.9 3 22.8 1.3 27.2 2.1 10.5 4.9 17.5 10.8 26 1.7 38.4 Passenger Vehicles 40 132 113 285 50 382 23 455 34 178 83 295 184 436 26 646 1681 % Passenger Vehicles 97.6 99.2 96.6 97.9 96.2 97.4 100 97.4 94.4 98.3 98.8 98 99.5 97.5 89.7 97.7 97.7 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 1 1 4 6 0 8 0 8 0 3 0 3 1 9 0 10 27 % Large 2 Axle Vehicles 2.4 0.8 3.4 2.1 0 2 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 1 0.5 2 0 1.5 1.6 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2
% 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 4 10
% 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0 0 0 3.8 0.5 0 0.9 2.8 0 1.2 0.7 0 0.2 10.3 0.6 0.6 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 7 17 12 36 7 53 3 63 12 28 11 51 22 63 2 87 237 04:45 PM 6 14 12 32 10 44 4 58 7 25 11 43 25 54 6 85 218 05:00 PM 5 14 9 28 6 61 5 72 5 25 11 41 27 55 2 84 225
05:15 PM 7 12 20 39 4 48 1 53 2 18 14 34 25 67 3 95 221 Total Volume 25 57 53 135 27 206 13 246 26 96 47 169 99 239 13 351 901 % App. Total 18.5 42.2 39.3 11 83.7 5.3 15.4 56.8 27.8 28.2 68.1 3.7 PHF .893 .838 .663 .865 .675 .844 .650 .854 .542 .857 .839 .828 .917 .892 .542 .924 .950 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
239
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
53 Thru
57 Left
25 Out In Total
208 135 343
Right
13 Thru
206
Left
27 Out Total In
311 246 557
Left
26 Thru
96 Right
47 Out In Total
97 169 266
Left
99 Thru
239
Right
13 Total Out In
285 351 636
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Passenger Vehicles
Large 2 Axle Vehicles
3 Axle Vehicles
4+ Axle Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 4 17 15 36 6 52 1 59 12 28 11 51 22 63 2 87
+15 mins. 7 21 17 45 7 53 3 63 7 25 11 43 25 54 6 85
+30 mins. 7 17 12 36 10 44 4 58 5 25 11 41 27 55 2 84
+45 mins. 6 14 12 32 6 61 5 72 2 18 14 34 25 67 3 95
Total Volume 24 69 56 149 29 210 13 252 26 96 47 169 99 239 13 351 % App. Total 16.1 46.3 37.6 11.5 83.3 5.2 15.4 56.8 27.8 28.2 68.1 3.7 PHF .857 .821 .824 .828 .725 .861 .650 .875 .542 .857 .839 .828 .917 .892 .542 .924 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
► ◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
240
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 4 17 13 34 6 46 6 58 4 21 12 37 17 63 1 81 210 04:15 PM 7 20 17 44 6 52 1 59 2 15 7 24 19 34 5 58 185
04:30 PM 7 17 12 36 7 50 3 60 12 28 11 51 22 61 2 85 232 04:45 PM 6 14 12 32 8 44 4 56 6 25 11 42 25 53 5 83 213 Total 24 68 54 146 27 192 14 233 24 89 41 154 83 211 13 307 840 05:00 PM 5 14 9 28 6 59 5 70 5 25 10 40 26 53 2 81 219
05:15 PM 7 12 20 39 4 47 1 52 2 18 14 34 25 66 3 94 219 05:30 PM 2 19 23 44 9 37 2 48 1 25 9 35 26 48 5 79 206
05:45 PM 2 19 7 28 4 47 1 52 2 21 9 32 24 58 3 85 197
Total 16 64 59 139 23 190 9 222 10 89 42 141 101 225 13 339 841 Grand Total 40 132 113 285 50 382 23 455 34 178 83 295 184 436 26 646 1681 Apprch % 14 46.3 39.6 11 84 5.1 11.5 60.3 28.1 28.5 67.5 4 Total % 2.4 7.9 6.7 17 3 22.7 1.4 27.1 2 10.6 4.9 17.5 10.9 25.9 1.5 38.4 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 7 17 12 36 7 50 3 60 12 28 11 51 22 61 2 85 232 04:45 PM 6 14 12 32 8 44 4 56 6 25 11 42 25 53 5 83 213 05:00 PM 5 14 9 28 6 59 5 70 5 25 10 40 26 53 2 81 219
05:15 PM 7 12 20 39 4 47 1 52 2 18 14 34 25 66 3 94 219 Total Volume 25 57 53 135 25 200 13 238 25 96 46 167 98 233 12 343 883 % App. Total 18.5 42.2 39.3 10.5 84 5.5 15 57.5 27.5 28.6 67.9 3.5 PHF .893 .838 .663 .865 .781 .847 .650 .850 .521 .857 .821 .819 .942 .883 .600 .912 .952 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
241
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
53 Thru
57 Left
25 Out In Total
207 135 342
Right
13 Thru
200
Left
25 Out Total In
304 238 542
Left
25 Thru
96 Right
46 Out In Total
94 167 261
Left
98 Thru
233
Right
12 Total Out In
278 343 621
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Passenger Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 7 17 12 36 7 50 3 60 12 28 11 51 22 61 2 85
+15 mins. 6 14 12 32 8 44 4 56 6 25 11 42 25 53 5 83
+30 mins. 5 14 9 28 6 59 5 70 5 25 10 40 26 53 2 81
+45 mins. 7 12 20 39 4 47 1 52 2 18 14 34 25 66 3 94
Total Volume 25 57 53 135 25 200 13 238 25 96 46 167 98 233 12 343 % App. Total 18.5 42.2 39.3 10.5 84 5.5 15 57.5 27.5 28.6 67.9 3.5 PHF .893 .838 .663 .865 .781 .847 .650 .850 .521 .857 .821 .819 .942 .883 .600 .912 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
242
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Large 2 Axle Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
04:15 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 5
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 6 0 6 14
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
05:30 PM 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
05:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total 1 0 2 3 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 4 13
Grand Total 1 1 4 6 0 8 0 8 0 3 0 3 1 9 0 10 27
Apprch % 16.7 16.7 66.7 0 100 0 0 100 0 10 90 0
Total % 3.7 3.7 14.8 22.2 0 29.6 0 29.6 0 11.1 0 11.1 3.7 33.3 0 37 Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 10
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 20 80 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .625 .000 .625 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .000 .625 .625 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
243
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
1 0 1
Right
0 Thru
5 Left
0 Out Total In
4 5 9
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
1 Thru
4 Right
0 Total Out In
5 5 10
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Large 2 Axle Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 20 80 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .625 .000 .625 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .000 .625 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
244
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 50 0 50
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
245
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out Total In
1 0 1
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
0 Total Out In
0 1 1
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
3 Axle Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
246
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 5
Total 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 9
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 4 10
Apprch % 0 0 0 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 25 75
Total % 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 40 10 0 10 20 0 10 30 40
Tully Road
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 5
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 7
% App. Total 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 50 0 50 0 50 50
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .375 .250 .000 .250 .500 .000 .250 .250 .250 .350 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
247
File Name : 01_HSN_Tul_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Tully Road
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 Out In Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
1 Left
2 Out Total In
2 3 5
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
1 Out In Total
3 2 5
Left
0 Thru
1 Right
1 Total Out In
2 2 4
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
4+ Axle Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2
% App. Total 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 50 0 50 0 50 50
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .375 .250 .000 .250 .500 .000 .250 .250 .250 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
248
File Name : 02_HSN_Tully_Roe AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Roeding Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tully Road
Southbound
Dirt Farm Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Roeding Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 1 0 0 1 27
07:15 AM 1 23 6 30 0 0 0 0 2 13 3 18 3 0 1 4 52
07:30 AM 0 13 6 19 0 0 0 0 4 19 1 24 4 0 0 4 47
07:45 AM 1 26 3 30 0 0 1 1 0 14 0 14 5 0 2 7 52
Total 2 73 15 90 0 0 1 1 6 61 4 71 13 0 3 16 178
08:00 AM 0 18 1 19 0 0 1 1 3 23 5 31 4 0 2 6 57
08:15 AM 1 27 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 29 4 0 2 6 64
08:30 AM 0 20 5 25 1 0 0 1 1 19 0 20 6 0 0 6 52
08:45 AM 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 13 4 0 1 5 34
Total 1 81 7 89 1 0 1 2 6 81 6 93 18 0 5 23 207
Grand Total 3 154 22 179 1 0 2 3 12 142 10 164 31 0 8 39 385 Apprch % 1.7 86 12.3 33.3 0 66.7 7.3 86.6 6.1 79.5 0 20.5 Total % 0.8 40 5.7 46.5 0.3 0 0.5 0.8 3.1 36.9 2.6 42.6 8.1 0 2.1 10.1 Tully Road
Southbound
Dirt Farm Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Roeding Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 1 26 3 30 0 0 1 1 0 14 0 14 5 0 2 7 52
08:00 AM 0 18 1 19 0 0 1 1 3 23 5 31 4 0 2 6 57
08:15 AM 1 27 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 29 4 0 2 6 64
08:30 AM 0 20 5 25 1 0 0 1 1 19 0 20 6 0 0 6 52
Total Volume 2 91 10 103 1 0 2 3 4 84 6 94 19 0 6 25 225 % App. Total 1.9 88.3 9.7 33.3 0 66.7 4.3 89.4 6.4 76 0 24 PHF .500 .843 .500 .858 .250 .000 .500 .750 .333 .750 .300 .758 .792 .000 .750 .893 .879 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

I I I I I
249
File Name : 02_HSN_Tully_Roe AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Roeding Road
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Roeding Road
Dirt Farm Road
Tully Road
Right
10 Thru
91 Left
2 Out In Total
105 103 208
Right
2 Thru
0 Left
1 Out Total In
8 3 11
Left
4 Thru
84 Right
6 Out In Total
98 94 192
Left
19 Thru
0 Right
6 Total Out In
14 25 39
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 1 26 3 30 0 0 1 1 4 19 1 24 5 0 2 7
+15 mins. 0 18 1 19 0 0 1 1 0 14 0 14 4 0 2 6
+30 mins. 1 27 1 29 0 0 0 0 3 23 5 31 4 0 2 6
+45 mins. 0 20 5 25 1 0 0 1 0 28 1 29 6 0 0 6
Total Volume 2 91 10 103 1 0 2 3 7 84 7 98 19 0 6 25
% App. Total 1.9 88.3 9.7 33.3 0 66.7 7.1 85.7 7.1 76 0 24 PHF .500 .843 .500 .858 .250 .000 .500 .750 .438 .750 .350 .790 .792 .000 .750 .893 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
-
C? - c=
I I
+- l ➔
-
-
-
T - _j ...
:{- - -
-
f- -
------t .__ -
~ -
-
7, - -
..... - ~
-
-
+- T ➔
I I
-
- 6 c=
250
File Name : 02_HSN_Tully_Roe PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Roeding Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tully Road
Southbound
Dirt Farm Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Roeding Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 23 5 28 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 28 2 0 1 3 59
04:15 PM 0 25 3 28 1 0 0 1 2 16 1 19 7 0 0 7 55
04:30 PM 0 28 5 33 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 22 5 0 1 6 61
04:45 PM 0 23 5 28 0 0 1 1 1 27 1 29 7 0 1 8 66
Total 0 99 18 117 1 0 1 2 6 90 2 98 21 0 3 24 241
05:00 PM 0 16 2 18 0 0 0 0 1 31 4 36 3 1 0 4 58
05:15 PM 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 4 0 2 6 46
05:30 PM 0 19 5 24 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 18 4 0 1 5 47
05:45 PM 0 30 4 34 1 0 0 1 1 28 0 29 5 0 0 5 69
Total 0 79 11 90 1 0 0 1 3 102 4 109 16 1 3 20 220
Grand Total 0 178 29 207 2 0 1 3 9 192 6 207 37 1 6 44 461 Apprch % 0 86 14 66.7 0 33.3 4.3 92.8 2.9 84.1 2.3 13.6 Total % 0 38.6 6.3 44.9 0.4 0 0.2 0.7 2 41.6 1.3 44.9 8 0.2 1.3 9.5 Tully Road
Southbound
Dirt Farm Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Roeding Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 23 5 28 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 28 2 0 1 3 59
04:15 PM 0 25 3 28 1 0 0 1 2 16 1 19 7 0 0 7 55
04:30 PM 0 28 5 33 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 22 5 0 1 6 61
04:45 PM 0 23 5 28 0 0 1 1 1 27 1 29 7 0 1 8 66
Total Volume 0 99 18 117 1 0 1 2 6 90 2 98 21 0 3 24 241 % App. Total 0 84.6 15.4 50 0 50 6.1 91.8 2 87.5 0 12.5 PHF .000 .884 .900 .886 .250 .000 .250 .500 .750 .833 .500 .845 .750 .000 .750 .750 .913 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

I I I I I
251
File Name : 02_HSN_Tully_Roe PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Roeding Road
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Roeding Road
Dirt Farm Road
Tully Road
Right
18 Thru
99 Left
0 Out In Total
112 117 229
Right
1 Thru
0 Left
1 Out Total In
2 2 4
Left
6 Thru
90 Right
2 Out In Total
103 98 201
Left
21 Thru
0 Right
3 Total Out In
24 24 48
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins. 0 23 5 28 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 22 7 0 0 7
+15 mins. 0 25 3 28 1 0 0 1 1 27 1 29 5 0 1 6
+30 mins. 0 28 5 33 0 0 0 0 1 31 4 36 7 0 1 8
+45 mins. 0 23 5 28 0 0 1 1 0 26 0 26 3 1 0 4
Total Volume 0 99 18 117 1 0 1 2 4 104 5 113 22 1 2 25
% App. Total 0 84.6 15.4 50 0 50 3.5 92 4.4 88 4 8
PHF .000 .884 .900 .886 .250 .000 .250 .500 .500 .839 .313 .785 .786 .250 .500 .781 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
-
C? - c=
I I
+- l ➔
-
-
-
T - _j ...
:{- - -
-
f- -
------t .__ -
~ -
-
7, - -
..... - ~
-
-
+- T ➔
I I
-
- 6 c=
252
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Tully Road Dirt Farm Road Tully Road Roeding Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0 0 0 00
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Tully Road Dirt Farm Road Tully Road Roeding Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0 0 0 00
Hughson
Tully Road
Roeding Road

PEDESTRIANS
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 253
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000100 1
000000000000 0
000000000100 1
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000200 2
Roeding Road
Tully Road
Hughson

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:15 AM
7:00 AM
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
5:15 PM
5:00 PM
4:45 PM
4:30 PM
4:15 PM
4:00 PM
8:45 AM
8:30 AM
8:15 AM
8:00 AM
7:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
5:45 PM
5:30 PM
Tully Road Dirt Farm Road Tully Road Roeding Road
TOTAL VOLUMES:

Tully Road Dirt Farm Road Tully Road Roeding Road
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 II
254
File Name : 03_CSS_Tully_Ser AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
County of Stanislaus
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Service Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tully Road
Southbound
Service Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Service Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 6 5 11 1 23 1 25 1 6 4 11 1 10 0 11 58
07:15 AM 1 17 3 21 1 27 3 31 1 13 1 15 2 24 0 26 93
07:30 AM 6 6 5 17 1 43 4 48 1 14 3 18 3 15 1 19 102
07:45 AM 2 21 7 30 1 40 6 47 0 10 2 12 3 22 1 26 115
Total 9 50 20 79 4 133 14 151 3 43 10 56 9 71 2 82 368
08:00 AM 4 16 4 24 1 22 13 36 0 17 3 20 9 31 0 40 120
08:15 AM 0 19 4 23 5 35 2 42 1 16 3 20 3 29 1 33 118
08:30 AM 2 16 7 25 3 26 5 34 1 10 1 12 2 20 0 22 93
08:45 AM 2 11 1 14 1 23 1 25 0 10 1 11 2 13 1 16 66
Total 8 62 16 86 10 106 21 137 2 53 8 63 16 93 2 111 397 Grand Total 17 112 36 165 14 239 35 288 5 96 18 119 25 164 4 193 765 Apprch % 10.3 67.9 21.8 4.9 83 12.2 4.2 80.7 15.1 13 85 2.1 Total % 2.2 14.6 4.7 21.6 1.8 31.2 4.6 37.6 0.7 12.5 2.4 15.6 3.3 21.4 0.5 25.2 Tully Road
Southbound
Service Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Service Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 6 6 5 17 1 43 4 48 1 14 3 18 3 15 1 19 102
07:45 AM 2 21 7 30 1 40 6 47 0 10 2 12 3 22 1 26 115
08:00 AM 4 16 4 24 1 22 13 36 0 17 3 20 9 31 0 40 120
08:15 AM 0 19 4 23 5 35 2 42 1 16 3 20 3 29 1 33 118
Total Volume 12 62 20 94 8 140 25 173 2 57 11 70 18 97 3 118 455 % App. Total 12.8 66 21.3 4.6 80.9 14.5 2.9 81.4 15.7 15.3 82.2 2.5 PHF .500 .738 .714 .783 .400 .814 .481 .901 .500 .838 .917 .875 .500 .782 .750 .738 .948 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
255
File Name : 03_CSS_Tully_Ser AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
County of Stanislaus
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Service Road
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Service Road
Service Road
Tully Road
Right
20 Thru
62 Left
12 Out In Total
100 94 194
Right
25 Thru
140
Left
8 Out Total In
120 173 293
Left
2 Thru
57 Right
11 Out In Total
73 70 143
Left
18 Thru
97 Right
3 Total Out In
162 118 280
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:45 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 2 21 7 30 1 43 4 48 1 14 3 18 3 22 1 26
+15 mins. 4 16 4 24 1 40 6 47 0 10 2 12 9 31 0 40
+30 mins. 0 19 4 23 1 22 13 36 0 17 3 20 3 29 1 33
+45 mins. 2 16 7 25 5 35 2 42 1 16 3 20 2 20 0 22
Total Volume 8 72 22 102 8 140 25 173 2 57 11 70 17 102 2 121 % App. Total 7.8 70.6 21.6 4.6 80.9 14.5 2.9 81.4 15.7 14 84.3 1.7 PHF .500 .857 .786 .850 .400 .814 .481 .901 .500 .838 .917 .875 .472 .823 .500 .756 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
256
File Name : 03_CSS_Tully_Ser PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
County of Stanislaus
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Service Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tully Road
Southbound
Service Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Service Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 16 4 23 2 23 4 29 0 14 1 15 10 36 2 48 115
04:15 PM 4 18 4 26 2 31 3 36 0 6 2 8 9 36 0 45 115
04:30 PM 5 19 4 28 4 28 9 41 1 9 3 13 9 38 2 49 131
04:45 PM 1 16 4 21 1 29 5 35 0 14 5 19 8 37 3 48 123
Total 13 69 16 98 9 111 21 141 1 43 11 55 36 147 7 190 484 05:00 PM 0 10 3 13 1 30 6 37 0 20 1 21 12 36 2 50 121
05:15 PM 2 13 2 17 1 26 4 31 0 9 3 12 7 33 1 41 101
05:30 PM 6 15 5 26 4 19 4 27 0 17 0 17 4 42 2 48 118
05:45 PM 5 16 4 25 2 18 3 23 2 16 5 23 9 27 2 38 109
Total 13 54 14 81 8 93 17 118 2 62 9 73 32 138 7 177 449 Grand Total 26 123 30 179 17 204 38 259 3 105 20 128 68 285 14 367 933 Apprch % 14.5 68.7 16.8 6.6 78.8 14.7 2.3 82 15.6 18.5 77.7 3.8 Total % 2.8 13.2 3.2 19.2 1.8 21.9 4.1 27.8 0.3 11.3 2.1 13.7 7.3 30.5 1.5 39.3 Tully Road
Southbound
Service Road
Westbound
Tully Road
Northbound
Service Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 4 18 4 26 2 31 3 36 0 6 2 8 9 36 0 45 115
04:30 PM 5 19 4 28 4 28 9 41 1 9 3 13 9 38 2 49 131
04:45 PM 1 16 4 21 1 29 5 35 0 14 5 19 8 37 3 48 123
05:00 PM 0 10 3 13 1 30 6 37 0 20 1 21 12 36 2 50 121
Total Volume 10 63 15 88 8 118 23 149 1 49 11 61 38 147 7 192 490 % App. Total 11.4 71.6 17 5.4 79.2 15.4 1.6 80.3 18 19.8 76.6 3.6 PHF .500 .829 .938 .786 .500 .952 .639 .909 .250 .613 .550 .726 .792 .967 .583 .960 .935 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
257
File Name : 03_CSS_Tully_Ser PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
County of Stanislaus
N/S: Tully Road
E/W: Service Road
Weather: Clear
Tully Road
Service Road
Service Road
Tully Road
Right
15 Thru
63 Left
10 Out In Total
110 88 198
Right
23 Thru
118
Left
8 Out Total In
168 149 317
Left
1 Thru
49 Right
11 Out In Total
78 61 139
Left
38 Thru
147
Right
7 Total Out In
134 192 326
Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins. 3 16 4 23 2 31 3 36 0 20 1 21 9 36 0 45
+15 mins. 4 18 4 26 4 28 9 41 0 9 3 12 9 38 2 49
+30 mins. 5 19 4 28 1 29 5 35 0 17 0 17 8 37 3 48
+45 mins. 1 16 4 21 1 30 6 37 2 16 5 23 12 36 2 50
Total Volume 13 69 16 98 8 118 23 149 2 62 9 73 38 147 7 192 % App. Total 13.3 70.4 16.3 5.4 79.2 15.4 2.7 84.9 12.3 19.8 76.6 3.6 PHF .650 .908 1.000 .875 .500 .952 .639 .909 .250 .775 .450 .793 .792 .967 .583 .960 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
258
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Tully Road Service Road Tully Road Service Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0 0 0 00
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Tully Road Service Road Tully Road Service Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0 0 0 00
Hughson
Tully Road
Service Road

PEDESTRIANS
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 259
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
Service Road
Tully Road
Hughson

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:15 AM
7:00 AM
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
5:15 PM
5:00 PM
4:45 PM
4:30 PM
4:15 PM
4:00 PM
8:45 AM
8:30 AM
8:15 AM
8:00 AM
7:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
5:45 PM
5:30 PM
Tully Road Service Road Tully Road Service Road
TOTAL VOLUMES:

Tully Road Service Road Tully Road Service Road
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 II
260
File Name : 04_HSN_SF_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Santa Fe Avenue
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Fe Avenue
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Santa Fe Avenue
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 30 1 34 3 33 3 39 7 54 1 62 8 16 1 25 160
07:15 AM 5 51 0 56 4 36 7 47 12 61 3 76 6 28 1 35 214
07:30 AM 6 54 5 65 3 43 7 53 15 68 2 85 3 33 10 46 249
07:45 AM 7 62 3 72 1 46 7 54 18 97 0 115 4 22 7 33 274
Total 21 197 9 227 11 158 24 193 52 280 6 338 21 99 19 139 897 08:00 AM 6 55 3 64 2 33 14 49 8 78 6 92 8 34 3 45 250
08:15 AM 18 65 7 90 3 43 17 63 11 70 1 82 2 49 11 62 297 08:30 AM 10 44 6 60 6 50 23 79 5 59 0 64 10 43 4 57 260 08:45 AM 7 47 5 59 4 39 8 51 7 36 0 43 8 27 10 45 198
Total 41 211 21 273 15 165 62 242 31 243 7 281 28 153 28 209 1005 Grand Total 62 408 30 500 26 323 86 435 83 523 13 619 49 252 47 348 1902 Apprch % 12.4 81.6 6 6 74.3 19.8 13.4 84.5 2.1 14.1 72.4 13.5 Total % 3.3 21.5 1.6 26.3 1.4 17 4.5 22.9 4.4 27.5 0.7 32.5 2.6 13.2 2.5 18.3 Santa Fe Avenue
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Santa Fe Avenue
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 7 62 3 72 1 46 7 54 18 97 0 115 4 22 7 33 274
08:00 AM 6 55 3 64 2 33 14 49 8 78 6 92 8 34 3 45 250
08:15 AM 18 65 7 90 3 43 17 63 11 70 1 82 2 49 11 62 297 08:30 AM 10 44 6 60 6 50 23 79 5 59 0 64 10 43 4 57 260 Total Volume 41 226 19 286 12 172 61 245 42 304 7 353 24 148 25 197 1081 % App. Total 14.3 79 6.6 4.9 70.2 24.9 11.9 86.1 2 12.2 75.1 12.7 PHF .569 .869 .679 .794 .500 .860 .663 .775 .583 .784 .292 .767 .600 .755 .568 .794 .910 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
261
File Name : 04_HSN_SF_Whit AM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Santa Fe Avenue
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Santa Fe Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Santa Fe Avenue
Right
19 Thru
226
Left
41 Out In Total
389 286 675
Right
61 Thru
172
Left
12 Out Total In
196 245 441
Left
42 Thru
304
Right
7 Out In Total
263 353 616
Left
24 Thru
148
Right
25 Total Out In
233 197 430
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 6 54 5 65 1 46 7 54 15 68 2 85 8 34 3 45
+15 mins. 7 62 3 72 2 33 14 49 18 97 0 115 2 49 11 62
+30 mins. 6 55 3 64 3 43 17 63 8 78 6 92 10 43 4 57
+45 mins. 18 65 7 90 6 50 23 79 11 70 1 82 8 27 10 45
Total Volume 37 236 18 291 12 172 61 245 52 313 9 374 28 153 28 209 % App. Total 12.7 81.1 6.2 4.9 70.2 24.9 13.9 83.7 2.4 13.4 73.2 13.4 PHF .514 .908 .643 .808 .500 .860 .663 .775 .722 .807 .375 .813 .700 .781 .636 .843 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
262
File Name : 04_HSN_SF_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 1
City of Hughson
N/S: Santa Fe Avenue
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Fe Avenue
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Santa Fe Avenue
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 7 87 6 100 0 35 11 46 15 45 0 60 7 49 8 64 270 04:15 PM 2 106 10 118 7 45 8 60 3 62 2 67 8 50 10 68 313 04:30 PM 11 89 5 105 1 41 11 53 13 60 3 76 10 42 10 62 296 04:45 PM 9 94 6 109 3 45 8 56 9 53 0 62 8 38 10 56 283
Total 29 376 27 432 11 166 38 215 40 220 5 265 33 179 38 250 1162 05:00 PM 12 82 10 104 8 48 10 66 12 48 1 61 10 44 12 66 297 05:15 PM 6 82 2 90 4 49 8 61 11 82 3 96 15 57 13 85 332 05:30 PM 2 89 5 96 4 50 6 60 8 54 2 64 13 57 20 90 310
05:45 PM 9 77 5 91 1 32 4 37 12 55 0 67 11 60 14 85 280 Total 29 330 22 381 17 179 28 224 43 239 6 288 49 218 59 326 1219 Grand Total 58 706 49 813 28 345 66 439 83 459 11 553 82 397 97 576 2381 Apprch % 7.1 86.8 6 6.4 78.6 15 15 83 2 14.2 68.9 16.8
Total % 2.4 29.7 2.1 34.1 1.2 14.5 2.8 18.4 3.5 19.3 0.5 23.2 3.4 16.7 4.1 24.2 Santa Fe Avenue
Southbound
Whitmore Avenue
Westbound
Santa Fe Avenue
Northbound
Whitmore Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 9 94 6 109 3 45 8 56 9 53 0 62 8 38 10 56 283
05:00 PM 12 82 10 104 8 48 10 66 12 48 1 61 10 44 12 66 297 05:15 PM 6 82 2 90 4 49 8 61 11 82 3 96 15 57 13 85 332 05:30 PM 2 89 5 96 4 50 6 60 8 54 2 64 13 57 20 90 310
Total Volume 29 347 23 399 19 192 32 243 40 237 6 283 46 196 55 297 1222 % App. Total 7.3 87 5.8 7.8 79 13.2 14.1 83.7 2.1 15.5 66 18.5 PHF .604 .923 .575 .915 .594 .960 .800 .920 .833 .723 .500 .737 .767 .860 .688 .825 .920 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
263
File Name : 04_HSN_SF_Whit PM
Site Code : 22323476
Start Date : 5/16/2023
Page No : 2
City of Hughson
N/S: Santa Fe Avenue
E/W: Whitmore Avenue
Weather: Clear
Santa Fe Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Whitmore Avenue
Santa Fe Avenue
Right
23 Thru
347
Left
29 Out In Total
315 399 714
Right
32 Thru
192
Left
19 Out Total In
231 243 474
Left
40 Thru
237
Right
6 Out In Total
421 283 704
Left
46 Thru
196
Right
55 Total Out In
255 297 552
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 2 106 10 118 3 45 8 56 13 60 3 76 10 44 12 66
+15 mins. 11 89 5 105 8 48 10 66 9 53 0 62 15 57 13 85
+30 mins. 9 94 6 109 4 49 8 61 12 48 1 61 13 57 20 90
+45 mins. 12 82 10 104 4 50 6 60 11 82 3 96 11 60 14 85 Total Volume 34 371 31 436 19 192 32 243 45 243 7 295 49 218 59 326 % App. Total 7.8 85.1 7.1 7.8 79 13.2 15.3 82.4 2.4 15 66.9 18.1 PHF .708 .875 .775 .924 .594 .960 .800 .920 .865 .741 .583 .768 .817 .908 .738 .906 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
I
I
I I
I I

I I I I
._J l 4
11 ..... -
-
t .....
- -
-
n ~
►
I
◄
- ~ -
n ,j, - -
T
-
..... ◄ ►
I I
I
I
I I
264
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
3000 3
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
3 0 0 03
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
0000 0
0210 3
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0000 0
0010 1
0000 0
0 2 2 04
Hughson
Santa Fe Avenue
Whitmore Avenue

PEDESTRIANS
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 265
Location: Date: 5/16/2023
N/S: Day: Tuesday
E/W:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000001 1
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000010 1
000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000011 2
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 000000000000 0
000000000000 0
000000000010 1
000000000000 0
000020000000 2
000000000200 2
000000000000 0
000010000020 3
000030000230 8
Whitmore Avenue
Santa Fe Avenue
Hughson

BICYCLES
7:30 AM
7:15 AM
7:00 AM
Eastbound
TOTAL VOLUMES:
5:15 PM
5:00 PM
4:45 PM
4:30 PM
4:15 PM
4:00 PM
8:45 AM
8:30 AM
8:15 AM
8:00 AM
7:45 AM
Southbound Westbound Northbound
5:45 PM
5:30 PM
Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue TOTAL VOLUMES:

Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Santa Fe Avenue Whitmore Avenue Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268 II
266
Attachment B: Synchro Level-of-Service Reports

267
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.4
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 150 11 29 194 10 15 65 35 6 68 110 Future Vol, veh/h 39 150 11 29 194 10 15 65 35 6 68 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 42 161 12 31 209 11 16 70 38 6 73 118
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 12.3 11.4 9.7 11.6

HCM LOS B B A B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 19% 0% 20% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 75% 0% 95% 37%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 6% 0% 5% 60%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 80 35 200 29 204 184
LT Vol 15 0 39 29 0 6
Through Vol 65 0 150 0 194 68
RT Vol 0 35 11 0 10 110
Lane Flow Rate 86 38 215 31 219 198
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.152 0.058 0.356 0.055 0.354 0.319
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.349 5.543 5.955 6.349 5.809 5.803 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 564 645 604 564 619 619
Service Time 4.091 3.285 3.99 4.084 3.543 3.842
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.059 0.356 0.055 0.354 0.32
HCM Control Delay 10.2 8.6 12.3 9.5 11.7 11.6
HCM Lane LOS B A B A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.6 1.4
268
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 0 6 0 0 2 7 84 7 2 84 11
Future Vol, veh/h 17 0 6 0 0 2 7 84 7 2 84 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 20 0 7 0 0 2 8 98 8 2 98 13
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.6 6.9 7.8 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 74% 0% 2%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 7% 26% 100% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 98 23 2 97
LT Vol 7 17 0 2
Through Vol 84 0 0 84
RT Vol 7 6 2 11
Lane Flow Rate 114 27 2 113
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.13 0.033 0.003 0.128
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.109 4.49 3.926 4.074
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 868 802 917 875
Service Time 2.153 2.491 1.926 2.119
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.131 0.034 0.002 0.129
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.6 6.9 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.1 0 0.4
269
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 97 3 8 140 25 2 57 11 12 62 20
Future Vol, veh/h 18 97 3 8 140 25 2 57 11 12 62 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 19 102 3 8 147 26 2 60 12 13 65 21
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.8 8.3 8.4

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 15% 5% 13%
Vol Thru, % 81% 82% 81% 66%
Vol Right, % 16% 3% 14% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 70 118 173 94
LT Vol 2 18 8 12
Through Vol 57 97 140 62
RT Vol 11 3 25 20
Lane Flow Rate 74 124 182 99
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.097 0.16 0.227 0.129
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.748 4.639 4.485 4.703
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 754 774 801 762
Service Time 2.781 2.666 2.51 2.734
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.098 0.16 0.227 0.13
HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.6 8.8 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.4
270
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 23.6
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 138 31 9 165 45 52 313 9 37 236 18 Future Vol, veh/h 17 138 31 9 165 45 52 313 9 37 236 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 19 153 34 10 183 50 58 348 10 41 262 20
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 17.3 15 31.8 23.5

HCM LOS C B D C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 0% 9% 5% 0% 13%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 74% 95% 0% 81%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 365 9 186 174 45 291
LT Vol 52 0 17 9 0 37
Through Vol 313 0 138 165 0 236
RT Vol 0 9 31 0 45 18
Lane Flow Rate 406 10 207 193 50 323
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.797 0.017 0.451 0.418 0.098 0.657
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.075 6.286 7.849 7.78 7.033 7.314 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 511 566 457 460 507 491
Service Time 4.851 4.061 5.944 5.569 4.821 5.399
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.795 0.018 0.453 0.42 0.099 0.658
HCM Control Delay 32.4 9.2 17.3 16.1 10.6 23.5
HCM Lane LOS D A C C B C
HCM 95th-tile Q 7.4 0.1 2.3 2 0.3 4.7
271
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 233 12 25 200 13 25 96 46 25 57 53 Future Vol, veh/h 98 233 12 25 200 13 25 96 46 25 57 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 245 13 26 211 14 26 101 48 26 60 56
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 18 12.2 10.9 11.9

HCM LOS C B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 21% 0% 29% 100% 0% 19%
Vol Thru, % 79% 0% 68% 0% 94% 42%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 3% 0% 6% 39%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 121 46 343 25 213 135
LT Vol 25 0 98 25 0 25
Through Vol 96 0 233 0 200 57
RT Vol 0 46 12 0 13 53
Lane Flow Rate 127 48 361 26 224 142
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.238 0.08 0.605 0.048 0.378 0.258
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.732 5.914 6.031 6.613 6.062 6.537 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 531 602 596 540 592 547
Service Time 4.502 3.683 4.083 4.37 3.819 4.61
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.239 0.08 0.606 0.048 0.378 0.26
HCM Control Delay 11.6 9.2 18 9.7 12.5 11.9
HCM Lane LOS B A C A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.3 4 0.2 1.8 1
272
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 1 4 0 0 1 4 104 5 0 81 12
Future Vol, veh/h 19 1 4 0 0 1 4 104 5 0 81 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 22 1 5 0 0 1 5 118 6 0 92 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 6.9 7.8 7.6

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 79% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 92% 4% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 4% 17% 100% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 113 24 1 93
LT Vol 4 19 0 0
Through Vol 104 1 0 81
RT Vol 5 4 1 12
Lane Flow Rate 128 27 1 106
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.145 0.034 0.001 0.118
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.06 4.514 3.884 4.019
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 880 798 927 887
Service Time 2.1 2.514 1.885 2.065
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 0.034 0.001 0.12
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.7 6.9 7.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.1 0 0.4
273
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 144 8 7 113 24 1 52 12 8 58 13
Future Vol, veh/h 36 144 8 7 113 24 1 52 12 8 58 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 40 158 9 8 124 26 1 57 13 9 64 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.2 8.6 8.4 8.5

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 19% 5% 10%
Vol Thru, % 80% 77% 78% 73%
Vol Right, % 18% 4% 17% 16%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 65 188 144 79
LT Vol 1 36 7 8
Through Vol 52 144 113 58
RT Vol 12 8 24 13
Lane Flow Rate 71 207 158 87
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.095 0.261 0.198 0.116
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.809 4.543 4.496 4.817
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 744 791 798 742
Service Time 2.849 2.572 2.528 2.856
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.262 0.198 0.117
HCM Control Delay 8.4 9.2 8.6 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 1 0.7 0.4
274
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 43.6
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 181 45 16 183 37 45 243 7 38 347 23 Future Vol, veh/h 43 181 45 16 183 37 45 243 7 38 347 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 47 199 49 18 201 41 49 267 8 42 381 25
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 30.9 20 31.3 74.5

HCM LOS D C D F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 0% 16% 8% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 84% 0% 67% 92% 0% 85%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 288 7 269 199 37 408
LT Vol 45 0 43 16 0 38
Through Vol 243 0 181 183 0 347
RT Vol 0 7 45 0 37 23
Lane Flow Rate 316 8 296 219 41 448
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.742 0.016 0.714 0.537 0.091 1.011
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.436 7.63 8.701 8.846 8.076 8.117 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 430 470 414 407 442 448
Service Time 6.161 5.354 6.774 6.618 5.848 6.138
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.735 0.017 0.715 0.538 0.093 1
HCM Control Delay 31.8 10.5 30.9 21.5 11.7 74.5
HCM Lane LOS D B D C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 6 0 5.5 3.1 0.3 13.3
275
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.4
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 150 62 66 194 10 27 77 43 6 119 110 Future Vol, veh/h 39 150 62 66 194 10 27 77 43 6 119 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 42 161 67 71 209 11 29 83 46 6 128 118
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 14.9 12.4 10.9 14.4

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 26% 0% 16% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 74% 0% 60% 0% 95% 51%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 25% 0% 5% 47%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 104 43 251 66 204 235
LT Vol 27 0 39 66 0 6
Through Vol 77 0 150 0 194 119
RT Vol 0 43 62 0 10 110
Lane Flow Rate 112 46 270 71 219 253
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.214 0.078 0.472 0.135 0.384 0.443
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.885 6.039 6.297 6.846 6.302 6.31 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 518 589 569 521 568 569
Service Time 4.671 3.824 4.372 4.621 4.077 4.386
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 0.078 0.475 0.136 0.386 0.445
HCM Control Delay 11.6 9.3 14.9 10.7 13 14.4
HCM Lane LOS B A B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.3 2.5 0.5 1.8 2.3
276
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 29 106 12 125 122
Future Vol, veh/h 3 29 106 12 125 122
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 3 32 115 13 136 133
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 527 122 0 0 128 0
Stage 1 122 - - - - -
Stage 2 405 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.45 6.25 - - 4.15 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.45 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.45 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 3.345 - - 2.245 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 506 921 - - 1440 -
Stage 1 896 - - - - -
Stage 2 667 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 454 921 - - 1440 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 454 - - - - -
Stage 1 896 - - - - -
Stage 2 599 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0 3.9

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 840 1440 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.041 0.094 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.5 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.3 -
277
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 22 6 19 5 5 7 93 87 16 86 12
Future Vol, veh/h 20 22 6 19 5 5 7 93 87 16 86 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 23 26 7 22 6 6 8 108 101 19 100 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 8.5 8.3

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 42% 66% 14%
Vol Thru, % 50% 46% 17% 75%
Vol Right, % 47% 12% 17% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 187 48 29 114
LT Vol 7 20 19 16
Through Vol 93 22 5 86
RT Vol 87 6 5 12
Lane Flow Rate 217 56 34 133
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.247 0.075 0.046 0.162
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.095 4.813 4.861 4.406
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 881 746 738 817
Service Time 2.108 2.833 2.883 2.421
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.246 0.075 0.046 0.163
HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.1 0.6
278
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 97 3 8 140 76 2 82 11 24 68 23
Future Vol, veh/h 31 97 3 8 140 76 2 82 11 24 68 23
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 33 102 3 8 147 80 2 86 12 25 72 24
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9 9.5 8.8 9

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 24% 4% 21%
Vol Thru, % 86% 74% 62% 59%
Vol Right, % 12% 2% 34% 20%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 95 131 224 115
LT Vol 2 31 8 24
Through Vol 82 97 140 68
RT Vol 11 3 76 23
Lane Flow Rate 100 138 236 121
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.138 0.186 0.296 0.166
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.971 4.859 4.524 4.93
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 718 735 792 724
Service Time 3.026 2.909 2.569 2.982
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.139 0.188 0.298 0.167
HCM Control Delay 8.8 9 9.5 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.6
4 4 4 4
279
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh28.4
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 141 33 9 177 45 64 313 9 37 236 31 Future Vol, veh/h 20 141 33 9 177 45 64 313 9 37 236 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 22 157 37 10 197 50 71 348 10 41 262 34
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 19.1 16.5 40.8 27.7

HCM LOS C C E D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 17% 0% 10% 5% 0% 12%
Vol Thru, % 83% 0% 73% 95% 0% 78%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 10%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 377 9 194 186 45 304
LT Vol 64 0 20 9 0 37
Through Vol 313 0 141 177 0 236
RT Vol 0 9 33 0 45 31
Lane Flow Rate 419 10 216 207 50 338
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.865 0.018 0.493 0.466 0.102 0.715
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.433 6.627 8.227 8.112 7.364 7.625 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 490 543 438 444 486 473
Service Time 5.133 4.327 6.295 5.875 5.126 5.685
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.855 0.018 0.493 0.466 0.103 0.715
HCM Control Delay 41.5 9.4 19.1 17.8 11 27.7
HCM Lane LOS E A C C B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 9.1 0.1 2.7 2.4 0.3 5.6
280
281
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.6
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 233 26 35 200 13 74 145 82 25 71 53 Future Vol, veh/h 98 233 26 35 200 13 74 145 82 25 71 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 245 27 37 211 14 78 153 86 26 75 56
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 24.3 14.1 14.4 13.7

HCM LOS C B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 34% 0% 27% 100% 0% 17%
Vol Thru, % 66% 0% 65% 0% 94% 48%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 7% 0% 6% 36%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 219 82 357 35 213 149
LT Vol 74 0 98 35 0 25
Through Vol 145 0 233 0 200 71
RT Vol 0 82 26 0 13 53
Lane Flow Rate 231 86 376 37 224 157
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.462 0.152 0.703 0.076 0.429 0.318
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.21 6.321 6.733 7.436 6.881 7.294 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 500 566 537 482 522 492
Service Time 4.957 4.068 4.777 5.186 4.63 5.351
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.462 0.152 0.7 0.077 0.429 0.319
HCM Control Delay 16 10.2 24.3 10.8 14.7 13.7
HCM Lane LOS C B C B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.4 0.5 5.5 0.2 2.1 1.4
282
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 121 137 3 34 98
Future Vol, veh/h 11 121 137 3 34 98
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 12 132 149 3 37 107
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 332 151 0 0 152 0
Stage 1 151 - - - - -
Stage 2 181 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 661 893 - - 1423 -
Stage 1 874 - - - - -
Stage 2 848 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 642 893 - - 1423 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 642 - - - - -
Stage 1 874 - - - - -
Stage 2 824 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10 0 2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 865 1423 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.166 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
283
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 7 4 76 22 14 4 106 27 4 90 14
Future Vol, veh/h 20 7 4 76 22 14 4 106 27 4 90 14
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 23 8 5 86 25 16 5 120 31 5 102 16
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.1 8.6 8.4 8.3

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 65% 68% 4%
Vol Thru, % 77% 23% 20% 83%
Vol Right, % 20% 13% 12% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 137 31 112 108
LT Vol 4 20 76 4
Through Vol 106 7 22 90
RT Vol 27 4 14 14
Lane Flow Rate 156 35 127 123
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.189 0.047 0.166 0.152
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.371 4.788 4.682 4.446
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 822 748 766 808
Service Time 2.392 2.819 2.708 2.469
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.19 0.047 0.166 0.152
HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.1 8.6 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.5
284
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 144 8 7 113 38 1 59 12 57 82 25
Future Vol, veh/h 39 144 8 7 113 38 1 59 12 57 82 25
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 43 158 9 8 124 42 1 65 13 63 90 27
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.8 9.2 8.7 9.7

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 1% 20% 4% 35%
Vol Thru, % 82% 75% 72% 50%
Vol Right, % 17% 4% 24% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 72 191 158 164
LT Vol 1 39 7 57
Through Vol 59 144 113 82
RT Vol 12 8 38 25
Lane Flow Rate 79 210 174 180
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.111 0.282 0.229 0.249
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.032 4.844 4.744 4.965
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 707 737 752 719
Service Time 3.106 2.904 2.805 3.028
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 0.285 0.231 0.25
HCM Control Delay 8.7 9.8 9.2 9.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1.2 0.9 1
4 4 4 4
285
HCM 6th AWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh50.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 193 57 16 187 37 48 243 7 38 347 26 Future Vol, veh/h 55 193 57 16 187 37 48 243 7 38 347 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 60 212 63 18 205 41 53 267 8 42 381 29
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 39.4 21 33.3 87.5

HCM LOS E C D F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 0% 18% 8% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 84% 0% 63% 92% 0% 84%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 291 7 305 203 37 411
LT Vol 48 0 55 16 0 38
Through Vol 243 0 193 187 0 347
RT Vol 0 7 57 0 37 26
Lane Flow Rate 320 8 335 223 41 452
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.754 0.016 0.801 0.551 0.092 1.053
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.775 7.961 8.913 9.202 8.431 8.391 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 416 452 409 395 428 434
Service Time 6.475 5.661 6.913 6.902 6.131 6.391
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.769 0.018 0.819 0.565 0.096 1.041
HCM Control Delay 33.8 10.8 39.4 22.6 12 87.5
HCM Lane LOS D B E C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 6.2 0 7.1 3.2 0.3 14.5
286
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 155 12 30 200 11 17 71 39 7 75 120 Future Vol, veh/h 41 155 12 30 200 11 17 71 39 7 75 120 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 44 167 13 32 215 12 18 76 42 8 81 129
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 12.8 11.9 10 12.2

HCM LOS B B A B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 19% 0% 20% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 75% 0% 95% 37%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 6% 0% 5% 59%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 88 39 208 30 211 202
LT Vol 17 0 41 30 0 7
Through Vol 71 0 155 0 200 75
RT Vol 0 39 12 0 11 120
Lane Flow Rate 95 42 224 32 227 217
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.17 0.066 0.379 0.058 0.375 0.357
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.474 5.665 6.098 6.493 5.949 5.915 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 553 630 590 551 604 608
Service Time 4.226 3.416 4.142 4.235 3.691 3.96
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.172 0.067 0.38 0.058 0.376 0.357
HCM Control Delay 10.6 8.8 12.8 9.6 12.2 12.2
HCM Lane LOS B A B A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.7 1.6
287
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 0 7 0 0 2 8 92 8 3 90 12
Future Vol, veh/h 19 0 7 0 0 2 8 92 8 3 90 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 22 0 8 0 0 2 9 107 9 3 105 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 7 7.9 7.8

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 73% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 0% 86%
Vol Right, % 7% 27% 100% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 108 26 2 105
LT Vol 8 19 0 3
Through Vol 92 0 0 90
RT Vol 8 7 2 12
Lane Flow Rate 126 30 2 122
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.144 0.038 0.003 0.139
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.121 4.53 3.976 4.091
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 865 795 905 871
Service Time 2.171 2.531 1.977 2.142
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.146 0.038 0.002 0.14
HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.7 7 7.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.1 0 0.5
288
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 106 4 9 149 27 3 63 12 14 68 22
Future Vol, veh/h 20 106 4 9 149 27 3 63 12 14 68 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 21 112 4 9 157 28 3 66 13 15 72 23
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.8 9.1 8.5 8.6

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 15% 5% 13%
Vol Thru, % 81% 82% 81% 65%
Vol Right, % 15% 3% 15% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 78 130 185 104
LT Vol 3 20 9 14
Through Vol 63 106 149 68
RT Vol 12 4 27 22
Lane Flow Rate 82 137 195 109
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.11 0.179 0.246 0.145
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.832 4.704 4.551 4.781
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 740 762 789 749
Service Time 2.874 2.74 2.585 2.821
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 0.18 0.247 0.146
HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.8 9.1 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.6 1 0.5
289
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 27.7
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 143 32 10 170 47 54 323 10 39 244 19 Future Vol, veh/h 18 143 32 10 170 47 54 323 10 39 244 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 20 159 36 11 189 52 60 359 11 43 271 21
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 18.8 16 39.4 27.1

HCM LOS C C E D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 0% 9% 6% 0% 13%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 74% 94% 0% 81%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 377 10 193 180 47 302
LT Vol 54 0 18 10 0 39
Through Vol 323 0 143 170 0 244
RT Vol 0 10 32 0 47 19
Lane Flow Rate 419 11 214 200 52 336
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.857 0.02 0.487 0.449 0.106 0.708
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.368 6.576 8.176 8.084 7.333 7.599 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 494 548 440 446 488 476
Service Time 5.068 4.276 6.238 5.841 5.089 5.653
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.848 0.02 0.486 0.448 0.107 0.706
HCM Control Delay 40.2 9.4 18.8 17.3 11 27.1
HCM Lane LOS E A C C B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.9 0.1 2.6 2.3 0.4 5.5
290
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.1
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 240 13 26 206 14 28 105 51 28 63 58 Future Vol, veh/h 101 240 13 26 206 14 28 105 51 28 63 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 106 253 14 27 217 15 29 111 54 29 66 61
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 19.7 12.9 11.4 12.6

HCM LOS C B B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 21% 0% 29% 100% 0% 19%
Vol Thru, % 79% 0% 68% 0% 94% 42%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 4% 0% 6% 39%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 133 51 354 26 220 149
LT Vol 28 0 101 26 0 28
Through Vol 105 0 240 0 206 63
RT Vol 0 51 13 0 14 58
Lane Flow Rate 140 54 373 27 232 157
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.267 0.09 0.64 0.052 0.401 0.292
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.876 6.055 6.187 6.788 6.234 6.693 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 519 587 581 525 574 533
Service Time 4.66 3.838 4.252 4.561 4.006 4.779
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.27 0.092 0.642 0.051 0.404 0.295
HCM Control Delay 12.2 9.4 19.7 9.9 13.2 12.6
HCM Lane LOS B A C A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 0.3 4.5 0.2 1.9 1.2
291
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 2 5 0 0 1 5 114 6 0 86 13
Future Vol, veh/h 21 2 5 0 0 1 5 114 6 0 86 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 24 2 6 0 0 1 6 130 7 0 98 15
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 6.9 7.9 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 75% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 91% 7% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 5% 18% 100% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 125 28 1 99
LT Vol 5 21 0 0
Through Vol 114 2 0 86
RT Vol 6 5 1 13
Lane Flow Rate 142 32 1 112
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.161 0.04 0.001 0.126
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.072 4.544 3.935 4.035
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 876 793 915 882
Service Time 2.118 2.544 1.936 2.089
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.162 0.04 0.001 0.127
HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.7 6.9 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.1 0 0.4
292
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 157 9 8 120 26 2 57 14 9 64 15
Future Vol, veh/h 40 157 9 8 120 26 2 57 14 9 64 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 44 173 10 9 132 29 2 63 15 10 70 16
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.5 8.9 8.6 8.7

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 19% 5% 10%
Vol Thru, % 78% 76% 78% 73%
Vol Right, % 19% 4% 17% 17%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 73 206 154 88
LT Vol 2 40 8 9
Through Vol 57 157 120 64
RT Vol 14 9 26 15
Lane Flow Rate 80 226 169 97
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.109 0.29 0.215 0.132
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.901 4.611 4.575 4.906
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 728 779 782 728
Service Time 2.952 2.648 2.615 2.954
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.11 0.29 0.216 0.133
HCM Control Delay 8.6 9.5 8.9 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.5
293
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 50.6
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 187 47 17 189 39 47 251 8 40 358 24 Future Vol, veh/h 45 187 47 17 189 39 47 251 8 40 358 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 49 205 52 19 208 43 52 276 9 44 393 26
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 33.6 20.9 33.7 91.2

HCM LOS D C D F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 0% 16% 8% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 84% 0% 67% 92% 0% 85%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 298 8 279 206 39 422
LT Vol 47 0 45 17 0 40
Through Vol 251 0 187 189 0 358
RT Vol 0 8 47 0 39 24
Lane Flow Rate 327 9 307 226 43 464
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.763 0.019 0.74 0.555 0.096 1.067
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.658 7.849 8.985 9.129 8.356 8.282 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 419 459 405 398 432 441
Service Time 6.358 5.549 6.985 6.829 6.056 6.282
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.78 0.02 0.758 0.568 0.1 1.052
HCM Control Delay 34.3 10.7 33.6 22.6 11.9 91.2
HCM Lane LOS D B D C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 6.4 0.1 5.9 3.3 0.3 15.1
294
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 155 64 68 200 11 30 84 47 7 130 120 Future Vol, veh/h 41 155 64 68 200 11 30 84 47 7 130 120 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 44 167 69 73 215 12 32 90 51 8 140 129
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 16.3 13.2 11.5 15.9

HCM LOS C B B C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 26% 0% 16% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 74% 0% 60% 0% 95% 51%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 25% 0% 5% 47%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 114 47 260 68 211 257
LT Vol 30 0 41 68 0 7
Through Vol 84 0 155 0 200 130
RT Vol 0 47 64 0 11 120
Lane Flow Rate 123 51 280 73 227 276
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.244 0.089 0.512 0.145 0.416 0.495
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.159 6.309 6.593 7.144 6.597 6.582 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 503 569 551 505 549 550
Service Time 4.89 4.04 4.603 4.854 4.307 4.582
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.245 0.09 0.508 0.145 0.413 0.502
HCM Control Delay 12.2 9.7 16.3 11.1 13.9 15.9
HCM Lane LOS B A C B B C
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.3 2.9 0.5 2 2.7
295
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 31 116 14 133 130
Future Vol, veh/h 4 31 116 14 133 130
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 4 34 126 15 145 141
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 565 134 0 0 141 0
Stage 1 134 - - - - -
Stage 2 431 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.45 6.25 - - 4.15 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.45 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.45 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 3.345 - - 2.245 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 481 907 - - 1424 -
Stage 1 885 - - - - -
Stage 2 649 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 428 907 - - 1424 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 428 - - - - -
Stage 1 885 - - - - -
Stage 2 577 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 4

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 804 1424 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.047 0.102 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.7 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.3 -
296
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 24 7 19 5 5 8 102 95 17 92 13
Future Vol, veh/h 22 24 7 19 5 5 8 102 95 17 92 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 26 28 8 22 6 6 9 119 110 20 107 15
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.2 8.7 8.4

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 42% 66% 14%
Vol Thru, % 50% 45% 17% 75%
Vol Right, % 46% 13% 17% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 205 53 29 122
LT Vol 8 22 19 17
Through Vol 102 24 5 92
RT Vol 95 7 5 13
Lane Flow Rate 238 62 34 142
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.273 0.083 0.046 0.175
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.123 4.875 4.937 4.443
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 875 735 726 809
Service Time 2.137 2.901 2.965 2.46
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.272 0.084 0.047 0.176
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.3 8.2 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.6
297
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 106 4 9 149 81 3 90 12 27 75 26
Future Vol, veh/h 34 106 4 9 149 81 3 90 12 27 75 26
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 36 112 4 9 157 85 3 95 13 28 79 27
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.3 9.9 9.1 9.3

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 24% 4% 21%
Vol Thru, % 86% 74% 62% 59%
Vol Right, % 11% 3% 34% 20%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 105 144 239 128
LT Vol 3 34 9 27
Through Vol 90 106 149 75
RT Vol 12 4 81 26
Lane Flow Rate 111 152 252 135
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.156 0.208 0.322 0.188
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.073 4.95 4.614 5.023
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 702 720 775 709
Service Time 3.144 3.013 2.67 3.091
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.158 0.211 0.325 0.19
HCM Control Delay 9.1 9.3 9.9 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.7
4 4 4 4
298
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh32.9
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 146 34 10 183 47 66 323 10 39 244 32 Future Vol, veh/h 21 146 34 10 183 47 66 323 10 39 244 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 23 162 38 11 203 52 73 359 11 43 271 36
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 20.7 17.6 48.8 32.3

HCM LOS C C E D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 17% 0% 10% 5% 0% 12%
Vol Thru, % 83% 0% 73% 95% 0% 77%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 10%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 389 10 201 193 47 315
LT Vol 66 0 21 10 0 39
Through Vol 323 0 146 183 0 244
RT Vol 0 10 34 0 47 32
Lane Flow Rate 432 11 223 214 52 350
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.911 0.021 0.527 0.497 0.11 0.764
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.588 6.781 8.491 8.349 7.598 7.855 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 475 527 424 431 471 458
Service Time 5.347 4.539 6.563 6.116 5.364 5.92
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.909 0.021 0.526 0.497 0.11 0.764
HCM Control Delay 49.8 9.7 20.7 19.1 11.3 32.3
HCM Lane LOS E A C C B D
HCM 95th-tile Q 10.3 0.1 3 2.7 0.4 6.5
299
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.8
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 240 27 37 206 14 81 159 90 28 78 58 Future Vol, veh/h 101 240 27 37 206 14 81 159 90 28 78 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 106 253 28 39 217 15 85 167 95 29 82 61
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 28.4 15.3 16 14.9

HCM LOS D C C B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 34% 0% 27% 100% 0% 17%
Vol Thru, % 66% 0% 65% 0% 94% 48%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 7% 0% 6% 35%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 240 90 368 37 220 164
LT Vol 81 0 101 37 0 28
Through Vol 159 0 240 0 206 78
RT Vol 0 90 27 0 14 58
Lane Flow Rate 253 95 387 39 232 173
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.521 0.172 0.752 0.084 0.461 0.363
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.418 6.528 6.988 7.722 7.163 7.56 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 485 548 515 463 503 475
Service Time 5.179 4.288 5.045 5.487 4.928 5.634
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.522 0.173 0.751 0.084 0.461 0.364
HCM Control Delay 18 10.7 28.4 11.2 16 14.9
HCM Lane LOS C B D B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 3 0.6 6.5 0.3 2.4 1.6
300
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 129 150 4 37 104
Future Vol, veh/h 12 129 150 4 37 104
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 13 140 163 4 40 113
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 358 165 0 0 167 0
Stage 1 165 - - - - -
Stage 2 193 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 638 877 - - 1405 -
Stage 1 862 - - - - -
Stage 2 837 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 619 877 - - 1405 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 619 - - - - -
Stage 1 862 - - - - -
Stage 2 812 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0 2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 847 1405 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.181 0.029 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.2 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
301
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 8 5 76 22 14 5 116 30 5 96 15
Future Vol, veh/h 22 8 5 76 22 14 5 116 30 5 96 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 25 9 6 86 25 16 6 132 34 6 109 17
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.1 8.7 8.6 8.4

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 63% 68% 4%
Vol Thru, % 77% 23% 20% 83%
Vol Right, % 20% 14% 12% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 151 35 112 116
LT Vol 5 22 76 5
Through Vol 116 8 22 96
RT Vol 30 5 14 15
Lane Flow Rate 172 40 127 132
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.209 0.053 0.168 0.164
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.395 4.84 4.748 4.48
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 817 739 756 801
Service Time 2.419 2.872 2.774 2.505
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.211 0.054 0.168 0.165
HCM Control Delay 8.6 8.1 8.7 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6
302
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 157 9 8 120 41 2 65 14 63 90 28
Future Vol, veh/h 43 157 9 8 120 41 2 65 14 63 90 28
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 47 173 10 9 132 45 2 71 15 69 99 31
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.3 9.6 9 10.1

HCM LOS B A A B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 21% 5% 35%
Vol Thru, % 80% 75% 71% 50%
Vol Right, % 17% 4% 24% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 81 209 169 181
LT Vol 2 43 8 63
Through Vol 65 157 120 90
RT Vol 14 9 41 28
Lane Flow Rate 89 230 186 199
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.127 0.315 0.25 0.28
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.153 4.943 4.855 5.067
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 688 721 732 702
Service Time 3.245 3.018 2.933 3.145
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.319 0.254 0.283
HCM Control Delay 9 10.3 9.6 10.1
HCM Lane LOS A B A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1.3 1 1.1
4 4 4 4
303
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term Plus Project Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh58.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 199 59 17 193 39 50 251 8 40 358 27 Future Vol, veh/h 57 199 59 17 193 39 50 251 8 40 358 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 63 219 65 19 212 43 55 276 9 44 393 30
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 43.7 22.2 36.9 106.9

HCM LOS E C E F

HCM LOS C C B C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 19% 0% 20% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 75% 0% 95% 37%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 6% 0% 5% 60%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 128 56 241 35 245 295
LT Vol 24 0 47 35 0 10
Through Vol 104 0 180 0 233 109
RT Vol 0 56 14 0 12 176
Lane Flow Rate 138 60 259 38 263 317
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.278 0.108 0.505 0.077 0.5 0.581
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.272 6.459 7.009 7.375 6.83 6.589 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 494 554 513 485 527 549
Service Time 5.024 4.211 5.058 5.122 4.576 4.632
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.279 0.108 0.505 0.078 0.499 0.577
HCM Control Delay 12.8 10 17 10.7 16.3 18.4
HCM Lane LOS B A C B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 0.4 2.8 0.2 2.8 3.7
305
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 0 9 0 0 2 12 135 12 3 118 16
Future Vol, veh/h 24 0 9 0 0 2 12 135 12 3 118 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 28 0 10 0 0 2 14 157 14 3 137 19
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8.4 8.2

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 73% 0% 2%
Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 0% 86%
Vol Right, % 8% 27% 100% 12%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 159 33 2 137
LT Vol 12 24 0 3
Through Vol 135 0 0 118
RT Vol 12 9 2 16
Lane Flow Rate 185 38 2 159
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.214 0.051 0.003 0.183
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.163 4.739 4.201 4.146
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 852 760 857 854
Service Time 2.234 2.739 2.203 2.225
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.217 0.05 0.002 0.186
HCM Control Delay 8.4 8 7.2 8.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.2 0 0.7
306
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 156 5 12 196 35 4 92 18 20 100 32 Future Vol, veh/h 29 156 5 12 196 35 4 92 18 20 100 32
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 31 164 5 13 206 37 4 97 19 21 105 34
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 10.2 10.6 9.5 9.9

HCM LOS B B A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 15% 5% 13%
Vol Thru, % 81% 82% 81% 66%
Vol Right, % 16% 3% 14% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 114 190 243 152
LT Vol 4 29 12 20
Through Vol 92 156 196 100
RT Vol 18 5 35 32
Lane Flow Rate 120 200 256 160
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.179 0.281 0.348 0.23
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.356 5.06 4.903 5.182
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 674 702 724 683
Service Time 3.356 3.157 2.994 3.282
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.178 0.285 0.354 0.234
HCM Control Delay 9.5 10.2 10.6 9.9
HCM Lane LOS A B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 1.2 1.6 0.9
307
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 57.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 166 38 11 198 54 63 376 11 45 284 22 Future Vol, veh/h 21 166 38 11 198 54 63 376 11 45 284 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 23 184 42 12 220 60 70 418 12 50 316 24
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 26.6 21 98.4 52.2

HCM LOS D C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 0% 9% 5% 0% 13%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 74% 95% 0% 81%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 439 11 225 209 54 351
LT Vol 63 0 21 11 0 45
Through Vol 376 0 166 198 0 284
RT Vol 0 11 38 0 54 22
Lane Flow Rate 488 12 250 232 60 390
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 1.099 0.025 0.619 0.565 0.134 0.898
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.114 7.316 9.417 9.198 8.44 8.68 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 449 487 385 395 427 421
Service Time 5.898 5.1 7.417 6.898 6.14 6.68
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.087 0.025 0.649 0.587 0.141 0.926
HCM Control Delay 100.6 10.3 26.6 23.2 12.4 52.2
HCM Lane LOS F B D C B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 16.4 0.1 4 3.4 0.5 9.5
308
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 27.1
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 280 15 30 240 16 40 154 74 40 92 85 Future Vol, veh/h 118 280 15 30 240 16 40 154 74 40 92 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 124 295 16 32 253 17 42 162 78 42 97 89
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 44.8 18.7 15.6 18.7

HCM LOS E C C C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 21% 0% 29% 100% 0% 18%
Vol Thru, % 79% 0% 68% 0% 94% 42%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 4% 0% 6% 39%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 194 74 413 30 256 217
LT Vol 40 0 118 30 0 40
Through Vol 154 0 280 0 240 92
RT Vol 0 74 15 0 16 85
Lane Flow Rate 204 78 435 32 269 228
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.454 0.156 0.887 0.071 0.564 0.502
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.006 7.19 7.347 8.101 7.541 7.912 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 449 499 496 444 480 455
Service Time 5.76 4.931 5.364 5.823 5.263 5.971
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.454 0.156 0.877 0.072 0.56 0.501
HCM Control Delay 17.3 11.3 44.8 11.4 19.6 18.7
HCM Lane LOS C B E B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 0.5 9.8 0.2 3.4 2.8
309
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 2 6 0 0 1 7 167 8 0 114 17
Future Vol, veh/h 27 2 6 0 0 1 7 167 8 0 114 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 31 2 7 0 0 1 8 190 9 0 130 19
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8 7.2 8.5 8

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 77% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 92% 6% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 4% 17% 100% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 182 35 1 131
LT Vol 7 27 0 0
Through Vol 167 2 0 114
RT Vol 8 6 1 17
Lane Flow Rate 207 40 1 149
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.236 0.053 0.001 0.17
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.115 4.772 4.168 4.1
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 865 755 863 863
Service Time 2.184 2.772 2.17 2.181
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.239 0.053 0.001 0.173
HCM Control Delay 8.5 8 7.2 8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.2 0 0.6
310
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 231 13 10 159 34 2 84 20 13 93 21 Future Vol, veh/h 58 231 13 10 159 34 2 84 20 13 93 21
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 64 254 14 11 175 37 2 92 22 14 102 23
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 12.4 10.4 9.8 10.1

HCM LOS B B A B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 19% 5% 10%
Vol Thru, % 79% 76% 78% 73%
Vol Right, % 19% 4% 17% 17%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 106 302 203 127
LT Vol 2 58 10 13
Through Vol 84 231 159 93
RT Vol 20 13 34 21
Lane Flow Rate 116 332 223 140
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.179 0.466 0.315 0.214
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.528 5.053 5.076 5.515
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 648 717 709 650
Service Time 3.569 3.053 3.106 3.554
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.179 0.463 0.315 0.215
HCM Control Delay 9.8 12.4 10.4 10.1
HCM Lane LOS A B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 2.5 1.3 0.8
311
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Conditions
5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 112.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 218 54 20 220 45 54 292 9 46 417 28 Future Vol, veh/h 52 218 54 20 220 45 54 292 9 46 417 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 57 240 59 22 242 49 59 321 10 51 458 31
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 64.2 31 67.7 223.1

HCM LOS F D F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 0% 16% 8% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 84% 0% 67% 92% 0% 85%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 346 9 324 240 45 491
LT Vol 54 0 52 20 0 46
Through Vol 292 0 218 220 0 417
RT Vol 0 9 54 0 45 28
Lane Flow Rate 380 10 356 264 49 540
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.955 0.023 0.921 0.694 0.12 1.405
Departure Headway (Hd) 10.035 9.218 10.54 10.614 9.832 9.373 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 365 391 345 343 367 388
Service Time 7.735 6.918 8.54 8.314 7.532 7.448
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.041 0.026 1.032 0.77 0.134 1.392
HCM Control Delay 69.1 12.1 64.2 34.2 13.9 223.1
HCM Lane LOS F B F D B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 10.4 0.1 9.3 4.9 0.4 26.8
312
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 28.4
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 180 75 80 233 12 44 124 69 10 191 176 Future Vol, veh/h 47 180 75 80 233 12 44 124 69 10 191 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 51 194 81 86 251 13 47 133 74 11 205 189
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 29.9 19.9 15.8 42.5

HCM LOS D C C E

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 26% 0% 16% 100% 0% 3%
Vol Thru, % 74% 0% 60% 0% 95% 51%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 25% 0% 5% 47%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 168 69 302 80 245 377
LT Vol 44 0 47 80 0 10
Through Vol 124 0 180 0 233 191
RT Vol 0 69 75 0 12 176
Lane Flow Rate 181 74 325 86 263 405
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.426 0.157 0.727 0.206 0.59 0.862
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.496 7.635 8.063 8.617 8.065 7.652 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 423 468 448 415 448 474
Service Time 6.266 5.405 6.129 6.383 5.831 5.71
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.428 0.158 0.725 0.207 0.587 0.854
HCM Control Delay 17.5 11.8 29.9 13.6 21.9 42.5
HCM Lane LOS C B D B C E
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 0.6 5.8 0.8 3.7 8.9
313
HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 41 170 20 175 171
Future Vol, veh/h 5 41 170 20 175 171
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 5 45 185 22 190 186
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 762 196 0 0 207 0
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 566 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.45 6.25 - - 4.15 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.45 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.45 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 3.345 - - 2.245 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 369 838 - - 1346 -
Stage 1 830 - - - - -
Stage 2 562 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 311 838 - - 1346 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 311 - - - - -
Stage 1 830 - - - - -
Stage 2 474 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 4.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 708 1346 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.071 0.141 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.5 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.5 -
314
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 31 9 19 5 5 12 149 140 23 121 17
Future Vol, veh/h 28 31 9 19 5 5 12 149 140 23 121 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 33 36 10 22 6 6 14 173 163 27 141 20
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9 8.7 10.2 9.1

HCM LOS A A B A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 41% 66% 14%
Vol Thru, % 50% 46% 17% 75%
Vol Right, % 47% 13% 17% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 301 68 29 161
LT Vol 12 28 19 23
Through Vol 149 31 5 121
RT Vol 140 9 5 17
Lane Flow Rate 350 79 34 187
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.412 0.115 0.05 0.241
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.239 5.228 5.326 4.626
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 847 683 669 775
Service Time 2.269 3.278 3.382 2.662
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.413 0.116 0.051 0.241
HCM Control Delay 10.2 9 8.7 9.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 0.4 0.2 0.9
315
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12
Intersection LOS B
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 156 5 12 196 107 4 132 18 39 109 37 Future Vol, veh/h 50 156 5 12 196 107 4 132 18 39 109 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 53 164 5 13 206 113 4 139 19 41 115 39
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.6 13.1 10.9 11.4

HCM LOS B B B B

HCM LOS D C F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 17% 0% 10% 5% 0% 12%
Vol Thru, % 83% 0% 73% 95% 0% 77%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 17% 0% 100% 10%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 453 11 234 224 54 367
LT Vol 77 0 24 11 0 45
Through Vol 376 0 170 213 0 284
RT Vol 0 11 40 0 54 38
Lane Flow Rate 503 12 260 249 60 408
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 1.188 0.026 0.666 0.624 0.138 0.968
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.498 7.684 9.912 9.592 8.834 9.087 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 428 465 367 378 409 404
Service Time 6.252 5.437 7.912 7.292 6.534 7.087
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.175 0.026 0.708 0.659 0.147 1.01
HCM Control Delay 133.3 10.6 30.6 26.9 12.9 68.2
HCM Lane LOS F B D D B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 19.5 0.1 4.6 4 0.5 11.2
317
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 51.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 280 32 42 240 16 119 232 132 40 114 85 Future Vol, veh/h 118 280 32 42 240 16 119 232 132 40 114 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 124 295 34 44 253 17 125 244 139 42 120 89
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 97.7 25.1 39.4 27.1

HCM LOS F D E D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 34% 0% 27% 100% 0% 17%
Vol Thru, % 66% 0% 65% 0% 94% 48%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 7% 0% 6% 36%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 351 132 430 42 256 239
LT Vol 119 0 118 42 0 40
Through Vol 232 0 280 0 240 114
RT Vol 0 132 32 0 16 85
Lane Flow Rate 369 139 453 44 269 252
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.874 0.295 1.083 0.113 0.649 0.627
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.923 8.019 8.617 9.623 9.056 9.475 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 410 452 425 375 402 385
Service Time 6.623 5.719 6.617 7.323 6.756 7.475
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.9 0.308 1.066 0.117 0.669 0.655
HCM Control Delay 48.9 14 97.7 13.5 27 27.1
HCM Lane LOS E B F B D D
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.8 1.2 15.4 0.4 4.4 4.1
318
HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
2: Tully Rd & Street A PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 170 220 5 48 138
Future Vol, veh/h 16 170 220 5 48 138
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 17 185 239 5 52 150
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 496 242 0 0 244 0
Stage 1 242 - - - - -
Stage 2 254 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 531 794 - - 1316 -
Stage 1 796 - - - - -
Stage 2 786 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 508 794 - - 1316 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 508 - - - - -
Stage 1 796 - - - - -
Stage 2 752 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 757 1316 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.267 0.04 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.5 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
319
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 10 6 76 22 14 7 170 44 6 126 20
Future Vol, veh/h 28 10 6 76 22 14 7 170 44 6 126 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 32 11 7 86 25 16 8 193 50 7 143 23
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.6 9.2 9.6 9

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 64% 68% 4%
Vol Thru, % 77% 23% 20% 83%
Vol Right, % 20% 14% 12% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 221 44 112 152
LT Vol 7 28 76 6
Through Vol 170 10 22 126
RT Vol 44 6 14 20
Lane Flow Rate 251 50 127 173
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.313 0.071 0.178 0.222
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.491 5.14 5.042 4.618
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 799 693 709 776
Service Time 2.528 3.2 3.094 2.657
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.314 0.072 0.179 0.223
HCM Control Delay 9.6 8.6 9.2 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.2 0.6 0.8
320
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh13.6
Intersection LOS B
Movement
GHD

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 231 13 10 159 54 2 95 20 92 132 40 Future Vol, veh/h 63 231 13 10 159 54 2 95 20 92 132 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 69 254 14 11 175 59 2 104 22 101 145 44
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 15.1 12.4 10.9 14.1

HCM LOS C B B B

HCM LOS F D F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 17% 0% 18% 8% 0% 9%
Vol Thru, % 83% 0% 63% 92% 0% 84%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 350 9 367 245 45 495
LT Vol 58 0 66 20 0 46
Through Vol 292 0 232 225 0 417
RT Vol 0 9 69 0 45 32
Lane Flow Rate 385 10 403 269 49 544
Geometry Grp 7 7 6 7 7 6
Degree of Util (X) 0.989 0.023 1.063 0.725 0.123 1.443
Departure Headway (Hd) 10.566 9.741 10.791 11.122 10.338 9.966 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 346 370 339 328 349 370
Service Time 8.266 7.441 8.791 8.822 8.038 7.966
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.113 0.027 1.189 0.82 0.14 1.47
HCM Control Delay 79.4 12.7 101.2 38.3 14.5 240.7
HCM Lane LOS F B F E B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 11 0.1 12.9 5.3 0.4 27.2
322
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 180 75 80 233 12 44 124 69 10 191 176 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 180 75 80 233 12 44 124 69 10 191 176 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1914 1914 1841 1914 1914 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 194 81 86 251 13 47 133 74 11 205 189 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 330 350 146 315 492 25 261 678 822 89 468 416 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1097 1282 535 1086 1804 93 304 1286 1558 14 887 789 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 0 275 86 0 264 180 0 74 405 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1097 0 1817 1086 0 1897 1590 0 1558 1690 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 5.8 3.3 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 0.0 5.8 9.2 0.0 5.3 2.3 0.0 1.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.05 0.26 1.00 0.03 0.47
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 0 495 315 0 517 939 0 822 973 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.56 0.27 0.00 0.51 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 470 0 727 453 0 759 939 0 822 973 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.8 0.0 14.0 17.9 0.0 13.8 5.6 0.0 5.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 0.0 15.0 18.3 0.0 14.5 6.0 0.0 5.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 326 350 254 405
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.3 15.4 5.9 7.9
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.2 16.8 28.2 16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 9.1 8.7 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
"i .,,
323
HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 2: Tully Rd & Street A AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 41 170 20 175 171
Future Vol, veh/h 5 41 170 20 175 171
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 5 45 185 22 190 186
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 762 196 0 0 207 0
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 566 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.45 6.25 - - 4.15 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.45 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.45 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.545 3.345 - - 2.245 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 369 838 - - 1346 -
Stage 1 830 - - - - -
Stage 2 562 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 311 838 - - 1346 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 311 - - - - -
Stage 1 830 - - - - -
Stage 2 474 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 4.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 708 1346 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.071 0.141 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.5 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.5 -
324
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 31 9 19 5 5 12 149 140 23 121 17
Future Vol, veh/h 28 31 9 19 5 5 12 149 140 23 121 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 33 36 10 22 6 6 14 173 163 27 141 20
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9 8.7 10.2 9.1

HCM LOS A A B A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 41% 66% 14%
Vol Thru, % 50% 46% 17% 75%
Vol Right, % 47% 13% 17% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 301 68 29 161
LT Vol 12 28 19 23
Through Vol 149 31 5 121
RT Vol 140 9 5 17
Lane Flow Rate 350 79 34 187
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.412 0.115 0.05 0.241
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.239 5.228 5.326 4.626
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 847 683 669 775
Service Time 2.269 3.278 3.382 2.662
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.413 0.116 0.051 0.241
HCM Control Delay 10.2 9 8.7 9.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 0.4 0.2 0.9
325
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 4: Tully Rd & Service Rd AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12
Intersection LOS B
Movement
GHD

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 24% 4% 21%
Vol Thru, % 86% 74% 62% 59%
Vol Right, % 12% 2% 34% 20%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 154 211 315 185
LT Vol 4 50 12 39
Through Vol 132 156 196 109
RT Vol 18 5 107 37
Lane Flow Rate 162 222 332 195
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.261 0.346 0.481 0.31
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.803 5.604 5.221 5.728
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 616 640 690 625
Service Time 3.863 3.658 3.269 3.784
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 0.347 0.481 0.312
HCM Control Delay 10.9 11.6 13.1 11.4
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 1.5 2.6 1.3
4 4 4 4
326
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave AM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 170 40 11 213 54 77 376 11 45 284 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 170 40 11 213 54 77 376 11 45 284 38 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 189 44 12 237 60 86 418 0 50 316 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 98 273 59 83 412 357 204 927 151 843 105
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 81 1231 267 36 1861 1611 200 1548 1622 117 1408 175 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 260 0 0 249 0 60 504 0 0 408 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1580 0 0 1897 0 1611 1749 0 1622 1700 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 1.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 0.17 0.05 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.12 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 0 0 495 0 357 1131 0 1099 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.17 0.45 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 659 0 0 753 0 580 1131 0 1099 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 15.7 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.3 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 16.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A B A B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 260 309 504 408
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 17.8 6.7 6.2
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.4 15.6 34.4 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 18.0 23.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 9.8 7.9 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 0.9 2.1 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +f'{' +f'f'_
327
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 1: Tully Rd & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 118 280 32 42 240 16 119 232 132 40 114 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 118 280 32 42 240 16 119 232 132 40 114 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1945 1945 1870 1945 1945 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 124 295 34 44 253 17 125 244 139 42 120 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 353 524 60 330 552 37 322 580 766 171 441 285 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1109 1712 197 1051 1802 121 436 1176 1551 158 893 578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 0 329 44 0 270 369 0 139 251 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1109 0 1910 1051 0 1923 1611 0 1551 1629 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 0.0 6.5 1.8 0.0 6.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 0.0 6.5 8.3 0.0 6.0 6.1 0.0 2.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.06 0.34 1.00 0.17 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 353 0 585 330 0 589 903 0 766 898 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.56 0.13 0.00 0.46 0.41 0.00 0.18 0.28 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 457 0 764 429 0 769 903 0 766 898 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.3 0.0 13.1 20.9 0.0 16.7 7.2 0.0 6.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.9 0.0 13.9 21.0 0.0 17.2 8.6 0.0 6.9 7.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B C A B A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 453 314 508 251
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 17.7 8.1 7.5
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.7 18.3 26.7 18.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 12.6 5.8 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0
HCM 6th LOS B
"i .,,
328
HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 2: Tully Rd & Street A PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 170 220 5 48 138
Future Vol, veh/h 16 170 220 5 48 138
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 17 185 239 5 52 150
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 496 242 0 0 244 0
Stage 1 242 - - - - -
Stage 2 254 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 531 794 - - 1316 -
Stage 1 796 - - - - -
Stage 2 786 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 508 794 - - 1316 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 508 - - - - -
Stage 1 796 - - - - -
Stage 2 752 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 757 1316 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.267 0.04 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.5 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
329
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 3: Tully Rd & Roeding Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 10 6 76 22 14 7 170 44 6 126 20
Future Vol, veh/h 28 10 6 76 22 14 7 170 44 6 126 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 32 11 7 86 25 16 8 193 50 7 143 23
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.6 9.2 9.6 9

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 64% 68% 4%
Vol Thru, % 77% 23% 20% 83%
Vol Right, % 20% 14% 12% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 221 44 112 152
LT Vol 7 28 76 6
Through Vol 170 10 22 126
RT Vol 44 6 14 20
Lane Flow Rate 251 50 127 173
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.313 0.071 0.178 0.222
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.491 5.14 5.042 4.618
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 799 693 709 776
Service Time 2.528 3.2 3.094 2.657
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.314 0.072 0.179 0.223
HCM Control Delay 9.6 8.6 9.2 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.2 0.6 0.8
330
HCM 6th AWSC Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 4: Tully Rd & Service Rd PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh13.6
Intersection LOS B
Movement
GHD

HCM LOS C B B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 2% 21% 4% 35%
Vol Thru, % 81% 75% 71% 50%
Vol Right, % 17% 4% 24% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 117 307 223 264
LT Vol 2 63 10 92
Through Vol 95 231 159 132
RT Vol 20 13 54 40
Lane Flow Rate 129 337 245 290
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.218 0.531 0.387 0.471
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.107 5.67 5.687 5.843
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 582 631 627 612
Service Time 4.199 3.741 3.764 3.917
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 0.534 0.391 0.474
HCM Control Delay 10.9 15.1 12.4 14.1
HCM Lane LOS B C B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 3.1 1.8 2.5
4 4 4 4
331
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Mitigated) 5: Santa Fe Ave & E Whitmore Ave PM Peak Hour
Tully Road Subdivision TIAR Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 232 69 20 225 45 58 292 9 46 417 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 232 69 20 225 45 58 292 9 46 417 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 255 76 22 247 49 64 321 0 51 458 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 154 350 95 108 587 511 177 777 132 759 55
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 189 1104 300 67 1851 1612 174 1609 1648 92 1573 114 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 404 0 0 269 0 49 385 0 0 544 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1593 0 0 1918 0 1612 1782 0 1648 1779 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.18 0.19 0.08 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.09 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 600 0 0 695 0 511 954 0 946 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 732 0 0 846 0 645 954 0 946 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 10.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 10.9 8.8 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A B A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 404 318 385 544
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 12.3 8.8 11.1
Approach LOS C B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 18.8 26.2 18.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 13.2 11.7 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +f'{' +f'f'_
332
Attachment C: Signal Warrant Sheets

Hughson City CouncilApril 14, 2025

Hughson City Council
April 14, 2025