City Council and Concurrent Authorities
July 7, 2026

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

INTRODUCTION
The Bear Creek South project is located in the City of Stockton, California. The project includes the construction of a single family home residential development. The project will be adjacent to Ronald E. McNair high school to the west, Westwood Elementary to the south, residential land uses to the east, and is directly bordered by UPRR to the east.

Figure 1 shows the project site plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.

Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.

ATTACHMENT E
1767
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, California
Figure 1
Project Site Plan
Project Location

ATTACHMENT E
1768
Morada Lane

ATTACHMENT E
1769
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10- decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013.

ATTACHMENT E
1770
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning  Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regards to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived;  Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
 A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

ATTACHMENT E
1771
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS

EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise-sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing singlefamily residential uses to the east and south of the project site.

EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on West Lane, East Morada Lane and the UPRR. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at three locations on the project site. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

ATTACHMENT E
1772
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Location Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1: 150 feet
from the CL to
West Ln
4/18/24 65 61 58 80 58 51 74
LT-2: 95 feet from
the CL to Morada
Ln
4/18/24 66 63 61 81 59 51 75
LT-3: 110 feet
from the CL of
UPRR
4/18/24 73 64 47 80 67 45 87
 All values shown in dBA
 Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
 Nighttime hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
 Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at sensitive receptors for existing and future, project and no-project conditions.

Existing, Existing Plus Approved (EPAP), Cumulative noise levels due to traffic are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site.

The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.

Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (Barrios 2024), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. The predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network for Existing, EPAP, and Cumulative conditions which would result from the project are provided in terms of Ldn.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance.

Tables 3 - 5 summarize the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the Project area. Appendix C provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic modeling.

ATTACHMENT E
1773
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 3: EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment Existing
No Project
Existing +
Project Change
West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 60.6 61.1 0.5
Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 63.4 64.1 0.7
Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 57.8 57.9 0.1
E. Morada Lane Between West Lane and Caywood Drive 65.4 66.2 0.8 West Lane Between E. Morada Lane and W. Frontage Lane 64.3 64.9 0.6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 68.6 69.2 0.6 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Lane 62.5 62.6 0.1
Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 56.8 56.8 0.0
Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 58.9 59.1 0.2
E. Hammer Ln West of West Lane 58.2 58.3 0.1
E. Hammer Ln Between West Lane and Lorraine Avenue 70.7 70.7 0.0 West Lane Between E Hammer Lane and E Swain Road 67.9 68.2 0.3 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Lane 63.7 63.7 0.0
E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Drive and Fox Creek Drive 71.7 72.9 1.2 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Lane 59.9 60.0 0.1
Holman Rd South of E. Morada Lane 60.3 60.5 0.2
E. Morada Ln West of Holman Road 66.7 67.8 1.1
E. Morada Ln East of Holman Road 67.8 68.9 1.1
Perino Dr North of E. Morada Lane 54.9 54.9 0.0
Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Lane 58.0 57.8 -0.2
E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Drive and Holman Road 67.5 68.6 1.1 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Lane 62.9 64.1 1.2
Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Lane 44.0 44.0 0.0

ATTACHMENT E
1774
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 4: EPAP TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment EPAP No
Project
EPAP +
Project Change
West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 61.3 61.7 0.4
Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 65.4 65.6 0.2
Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 59.8 59.9 0.1
E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 65.9 66.6 0.7 West Lane Between E. Morada Lane and W. Frontage Lane 65.0 65.6 0.6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 69.3 69.8 0.5 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Lane 62.5 62.6 0.1
Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 56.8 57.1 0.3
Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 58.9 59.1 0.2
E. Hammer Ln West of West Lane 58.2 58.3 0.1
E. Hammer Ln Between West Lane and Lorraine Avenue 70.7 70.7 0.0 West Lane Between E Hammer Lane and E Swain Road 68.6 68.8 0.2 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Lane 63.7 63.7 0.0
E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 72.0 71.1 -0.9 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Lane 61.4 61.5 0.1
Holman Rd South of E. Morada Lane 61.2 61.3 0.1
E. Morada Ln West of Holman Road 67.0 68.1 1.1
E. Morada Ln East of Holman Road 68.4 69.3 0.9
Perino Dr North of E. Morada Lane 54.9 54.9 0.0
Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Lane 57.8 57.8 0.0
E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Road 68.1 69.1 1.0 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Lane 63.6 64.6 1.0
Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Lane 44.0 44.0 0.0

ATTACHMENT E
1775
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 5: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
+ Project Change
West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 61.7 62.5 0.8
Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 66.7 66.8 0.1
Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 61.8 62.0 0.2
E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 67.2 67.7 0.5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 66.0 66.5 0.5 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 70.3 70.7 0.4 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Lane 62.7 62.8 0.1
Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 57.0 57.2 0.2
Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 59.1 59.3 0.2
E. Hammer Ln West of West Lane 58.5 58.6 0.1
E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 71.0 71.0 0.0 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 69.3 69.5 0.2 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Lane 63.8 63.8 0.0
E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 73.1 74.0 0.9 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Lane 61.6 61.7 0.1
Holman Rd South of E. Morada Lane 61.4 61.5 0.1
E. Morada Ln West of Holman Road 68.1 68.9 0.8
E. Morada Ln East of Holman Road 69.4 70.1 0.7
Perino Dr North of E. Morada Lane 55.1 55.1 0.0
Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Lane 58.6 58.0 -0.6
E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Drive and Holman Road 69.2 69.9 0.7 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Lane 64.7 65.6 0.9
Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Lane 44.1 44.5 0.4
Based upon Tables 3 -5 data, the proposed project is predicted to result in an increase in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 1.2 dBA.

EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise model to calculate traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses due to traffic on East Morada Lane, West Lane, and UPRR. Inputs to the SoundPLAN noise model include topography, existing structures, roadway elevations, and the proposed building pad elevations. It was estimated that existing noise levels would increase by +1 dBA based upon an assumed 1% per year increase in traffic volumes on West Lane, East Morada Lane, and UPRR. The results of this analysis are shown graphically on Figure 3.

ATTACHMENT E
1776
13 68
68 F1 68F2 68
69 65 F1 65
F2 65
65 71
71 70
F1 70F2 72
69 West Lane
E
M
orad
a
Lan
e
Bear Creek SouthCity of Stockton, CaliforniaFigure 3Future Transportation Noise Contours Ldn, dB(A)
Scale 1:850
0 150 300 600 900 1200
feet
Legend
Project SiteFacade Noise LevelOutdoor AreaNoise Level
Noise Level, dB(A)
65 < <= 70
70 < <= 7575 < <= 8080 <
Bear Creek South

ATTACHMENT E
1777
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

TABLE 6: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table 7 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

TABLE 7: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

ATTACHMENT E
1778
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels.

CEQA standards are discussed in more detail under the Thresholds of Significance section.

LOCAL
City of Stockton General Plan
Policy SAF-2.5: Protect the community from health hazards and annoyance associated with excessive noise levels.

A. Prohibit new commercial, industrial, or other noise-generating land uses adjacent to existing sensitive noise receptors such as residential uses, schools, health care facilities, libraries, and churches if noise levels are expected to exceed 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) (decibels on A-weighted scale CNEL) when measured at the property line of the noise sensitive land use.

B. Require projects that would locate noise sensitive land uses where the projected ambient noise level is greater than the "normally acceptable" noise level indicated on Table 8 to provide an acoustical analysis that shall:
a. Be the responsibility of the applicant;
b. Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics;
c. Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions;
d. Estimate existing and projected (20-year) noise levels in terms of Ldn/CNEL and compare the levels to the adopted noise policies and actions in this General Plan; e. Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compatibility with the adopted noise policies and standards;
f. Where the noise source in question consists of intermittent single events, address the effects of maximum noise levels in sleeping rooms in terms of possible sleep disturbance; g. Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented; h. If the project does not comply with the adopted standards and policies of this General Plan, provide acoustical information for a statement of overriding considerations for the project; and

ATTACHMENT E
1779
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx i. Describe a post-project assessment program, which could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

C. Require noise produced by commercial uses to not exceed 75 dB Ldn/CNEL at the nearest property line.

D. Grant exceptions to the noise standards for commercial and industrial uses only if a recorded noise easement is conveyed by the affected property owners.

E. Require all new habitable structures to be set back from railroad tracks to protect residents from noise, vibration, and safety impacts.

TABLE 8: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE City of Stockton Development Code

16.60.030 Activities deemed violations of this chapter:

The following acts are a violation of this chapter and are therefore prohibited.

ATTACHMENT E
1780
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx A. Construction Noise: Operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities.

16.60.040 Standards.

A. The following provisions shall apply to all uses and properties, as described below, and shall establish the City’s standards concerning acceptable noise levels for both noise-sensitive land uses and for noisegenerating land uses and transportation-related sources:
a. Standards For Proposed Noise-Sensitive Land Uses on Noise-Impacted Sites (Except Infill Areas). Excluding proposed noise-sensitive land uses on infill sites, which shall comply with subsection C of this section:
i. Existing Transportation-Related Noise Sources. Proposed noise sensitive land uses that will be impacted by existing or projected transportation noise sources shall be required to mitigate the noise levels from these transportation noise sources so that the resulting noise levels on the proposed noise-sensitive land use(s) do not exceed the standards in (Table 9).
ii. Existing Land Use-Related Noise Sources. Proposed noise sensitive land uses that will be impacted by existing land use-related noise sources shall be required to mitigate the noise levels from those noise sources so that the resulting noise levels on the proposed noise-sensitive land use(s) do not exceed the standards in (Table 10).

B. Standards for Proposed Noise-Generating Land Uses and Transportation-Related Sources. Excluding noise-generating projects on infill sites, which shall comply with subsection C of this section, the following shall apply:

1. Transportation-Related Noise Sources (Except Infill Sites). Transportation-related projects that include the development of new transportation facilities or the expansion of existing transportation facilities shall be required to mitigate their noise levels so that the resulting noise:
a. Does not adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses; and b. Does not exceed the standards in Table 9.

Noise levels shall be measured at the property line of the nearest site, which is occupied by, and/or zoned or designated to allow the development of, noise-sensitive land uses.

ATTACHMENT E
1781
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 9: TRANSPORTATION-RELATED NOISE STANDARDS (OUTDOOR/INDOOR) Noise Level Descriptor, dB
Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure (Ldn dB)
Outdoor Activity Areas Indoor Spaces
Residential (all types) 65 45
Childcare -- 45
Educational Facilities -- 45
Libraries and museums -- 45
Live-work facilities 65 45
Lodging 65 45
Medical services -- 45
Multi-use (with residential) 65 45
TABLE 10: LAND USE-RELATED NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Level Descriptor, dB Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq 55 45
Maximum Sound Level Lmax 75 65
(1) The noise standard must be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards must be applied on the receiving side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures.
(2) Each of the noise level standards specified must be decreased by 5 for impulse noise, simple tone noise, or noise consisting primarily of speech or music.

Source: City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.60.040, Standards.

ATTACHMENT E
1782
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Summary of Applicable Noise Level Standards
Table 8 shows the City of Stockton Land Use Compatibility Chart. The table indicates that development of residential uses is “Normally Acceptable” where the ambient noise level is 60 dBA Ldn or less. Construction where the ambient noise level exceeds 70 dBA Ldn is considered “Unacceptable.” Construction may occur where noise levels range from 60 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn if noise reduction measures are implemented to ensure interior and exterior spaces are protected from excessive noise. Table 9 establishes an acceptable exterior noise level of 65 dBA Ldn at outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn at interior spaces.

The project may not be exposed to land use noise levels greater than 55 dBA Leq during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 45 dBA L50 during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours at the property line of the adjacent residential uses per the City’s standards shown in Table 10. The City standards also establish maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA Lmax during the daytime and 65 dBA Lmax during the nighttime.

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.

Table 11, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.

Table 11 indicates that the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. A threshold of 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short-term construction projects.

ATTACHMENT E
1783
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 11: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/second in/second

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered walls
and ceilings. Special types of finish such
as lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Caltrans. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.

ATTACHMENT E
1784
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Significance criteria for noise impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XI [a-c]).

Would the project:
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? The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, therefore item “c” is not discussed any further in this study.

Noise Level Increase Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines define a significant impact of a project if it “increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas.” Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed.

These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in traffic noise from the project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following:
 A 3-dB change is barely perceptible,
 A 5-dB change is clearly perceptible, and
 A 10-dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud.

A limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre-project noise conditions. Table 12 is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.

ATTACHMENT E
1785
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx TABLE 12: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON).

Based on the Table 12 data, an increase in the traffic noise level of 5 dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, or 3 dB or more where existing noise levels are between 60 to 65 dB Ldn. Extending this concept to higher noise levels, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more may be significant where the pre-project traffic noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. The rationale for the Table 12 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
With temporary noise impacts (construction), identification of “substantial increases” depends upon the duration of the impact, the temporal daily nature of the impact, and the absolute change in decibel levels. Per the City of Stockton Municipal Code, construction activities operating between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are exempt from the ordinance.

The City has not adopted any formal standard for evaluating temporary construction noise which occurs within allowable hours. For short-term noise associated with Project construction, Saxelby Acoustics recommends use of the Caltrans increase criteria of 12 dBA (Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol, 2020), applied to existing residential receptors in the project vicinity. This level of increase is approximately equivalent to a doubling of sound energy and has been the standard of significance for Caltrans projects at the state level for many years.

Application of this standard to construction activities is considered reasonable considering the temporary nature of construction activities.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
The FICON guidelines specify criteria to determine the significance of traffic noise impacts. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. According to Tables 3 - 5, the maximum increase is traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 1.2 dBA. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered lessthan-significant, and no mitigation is required.

ATTACHMENT E
1786
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Operational Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
The proposed project would include typical residential noise which would be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses.

This is a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in Table 6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours.

The City of Stockton Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As shown in Table 6, construction equipment that may be used in the development of the project has the potential to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels; Saxelby Acoustics used this criterion to evaluate increases due to construction noise associated with the project.

As shown in Table 6, construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Table 13 shows the predicted maximum noise levels for each phase of project construction, assuming the equipment were to be used near the edge of each phase closest to existing receptors.

TABLE 13: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS Phase Distance to
Receptors (feet)
Construction
Lmax, 50'
Construction Lmax at
Receptor
Existing
Lmax1 Change
A1 2210 90 dBA 57.1 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
A2 2210 90 dBA 57.1 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
A3 2700 90 dBA 55.4 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K1 185 90 dBA 78.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K2 775 90 dBA 66.2 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K3 1470 90 dBA 60.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T1 185 90 dBA 78.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T2 510 90 dBA 69.8 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T3 510 90 dBA 69.8 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
1 Existing daytime ambient Lmax as measured at site LT-1 and LT-2.

ATTACHMENT E
1787
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Based upon Table 13, construction related noise levels are predicted to be less than existing ambient noise levels. Therefore, project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur during daytime hours.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours.

Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure 1(a) would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant.

Transportation Noise on Project Site (Non-CEQA Issue)
Exterior Transportation Noise
Compliance with City’s standards on new noise-sensitive receptors is not a CEQA consideration. However, this information is provided here so that a determination can be made regarding the ability of the proposed project to meet the requirements of the City of Stockton for exterior and interior noise levels at new sensitive uses proposed under the project.

As shown on Figure 3, several of the proposed outdoor activity areas are predicted to be exposed to exterior transportation noise levels up to approximately 71 dBA Ldn. This would exceed the 65 dBA limit for outdoor areas established by the City of Stockton. Therefore, additional noise control measures would be required.

Saxelby Acoustics determined the effect of including a sound wall in the project design. A sound barrier ranging from 6-foot to 12-foot tall was modeled along the west, south, and east project boundary. The barrier is predicted to lower noise levels at all outdoor activity areas on the project site to 65 dBA Ldn or lower. Figure 4 shows the recommended sound wall and resulting noise level contours.

ATTACHMENT E
1788
Interior Noise ControlMeasures
(Requiredfor the Indicated Lots, for Facades facing the Railroad) o Glazing shall have a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 34 minimum; o Exterior finish shall be stucco with sheathing;
o Interior gypsum at exterior walls shall be 5/8”;
o Ceiling gypsum shall be 5/8”;
o Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation;
o No PTAC’s shall be used.

Indicated Lots Needing
Acoustic Upgrades
Legend
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, California
Figure 5
Interior Noise Control Measures
Note: Standard construction is
sufficient for project units that
do not need acoustical upgrades.

Standard construction assumes a
minimum STC rating of 29 for
exterior window assemblies.

ATTACHMENT E
1789
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Interior Transportation Noise
Modern building construction methods typically yield an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 25 dBA1 .

Therefore, where exterior noise levels are 70 dBA Ldn, or less, no additional interior noise control measures are typically required. For this project, exterior noise levels are predicted to be up to 71 dBA Ldn at the second story of the buildings closest to the Union Pacific Railroad. This would result in interior noise levels of up to 46 dBA Ldn at the second story receivers based on typical building construction. This exceeds the City of Stockton which requires that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB Ldn. Therefore, additional noise control measures are required to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels.

The proposed residential buildings located along the Union Pacific Railroad frontage shall be designed to achieve a 26 dBA exterior to interior noise level reduction to satisfy the requirements of the City of Stockton.

Figure 5 shows the locations of facades requiring acoustic upgrades. Figure 5 and Appendix D provide an estimate of interior noise control measures required to meet the applicable standards. It should be noted that interior noise control measures are based upon an estimate of the future residence layouts. These assumptions should be verified once floor plans become available for an accurate assessment of interior noise control measures.

1 Assuming standard construction with a minimum STC rating of 29 for exterior window assemblies

ATTACHMENT E
1790
13 65
65 F1 64F2 68
61 F1 61
F2 65 62
64 62
63 F1 62F2 71
64 65
West Lane
E
M
orad
a
Lan
e
Bear Creek SouthCity of Stockton, CaliforniaFigure
4 Future Transportation Noise Contourswith Recommended Sound WallsLdn, dB(A) Scale 1:850
0 150 300 600 900 1200
feet
Legend
12‐Foot Wall6‐Foot WallFacade Noise LevelOutdoor AreaNoise LevelProject Site Noise Level, dB(A)
65 < <= 70
70 < <= 7575 < <= 8080 <
Bear Creek South

ATTACHMENT E
1791
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Mitigation Measures
1(a) The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
 Construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.  All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
 Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.  All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
 Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.  The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

Timing/Implementation: Implemented prior to approval of grading and/or building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Stockton Community Development Services Department Implementation of mitigation measures 1(a) would help to reduce construction-generated noise levels. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less-than-significant.

Recommended Condition of Approval
Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the southeastern area of the project site shall be shielded from UPRR, Morada Lane, and West Lane through the use of minimum six-foot-tall to 12-foot-tall sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer. Sound wall may include a combination of earthen berm and masonry wall to achieve the required wall height. Wall heights shall be measured relative to either pad or roadway centerline elevations, whichever is higher. The approximate locations of these barriers are shown on Figure 4. Other types of barrier may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed.

Additionally, the proposed residential buildings located along the Union Pacific frontage shall be designed to achieve a 26 dBA exterior to interior noise level reduction to satisfy the requirements of the City of Stockton interior noise level standard of 45 dBA. Figure 5 shows the locations of facades requiring acoustic upgrades.

Figure 5 and Appendix D provide an estimate of interior noise control measures required to meet the applicable standards. It should be noted that interior noise control measures are based upon an estimate of the future residence layouts. These assumptions should be verified once floor plans become available for an accurate assessment of interior noise control measures.

ATTACHMENT E
1792
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Impact 2: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

The Table 7 data indicates that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours.

This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Impact 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports within two miles of the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT E
1793
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx

REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.

ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, May 2011.

Egan, M. D. (1988). Architectural acoustics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05- 054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.

Hanson, Carl E. (Carl Elmer). (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.

International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.

Miller, L. N., Bolt, Beranek, & and Newman, Inc. (1981). Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants.

Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/

ATTACHMENT E
1794
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics   The science of sound.

Ambient Noise  The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC  Apparent  Sound  Transmission  Class.    Similar  to  STC  but  includes  sound  from  flanking  paths  and  correct  for  room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation   The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting   A  frequency‐response  adjustment  of  a  sound  level meter  that  conditions  the  output  signal  to  approximate  human response.

Decibel or dB   Fundamental  unit  of  sound, A Bell is  defined as  the logarithm  of  the  ratio  of  the  sound  pressure  squared  over  the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL   Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as  the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL  See definition of Ldn.

IIC  Impact  Insulation  Class.  An  integer‐number  rating  of  how  well  a  building  floor  attenuates  impact  sounds,  such  as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency   The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn     Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq     Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax     The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n)   The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness   A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC  Noise Isolation Class.  A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces.  Similar to STC but includes sound  from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class.  Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise     Unwanted sound.

NRC   Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple  of  0.05. It  is  a  representation  of  the  amount of  sound energy  absorbed  upon  striking  a  particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

RT60     The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin   The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.

SEL   Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

SPC  Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed  to measure the degree of speech  privacy  provided  by  a  closed  room,  indicating  the  degree  to  which  conversations  occurring  within  are  kept private from listeners outside the room.

STC   Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used  to  rate  interior  partitions,  ceilings/floors,  doors,  windows  and  exterior  wall  configurations.    The  STC  rating  is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist.   A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Threshold  The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing   to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold   Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive   Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Simple Tone         Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches.

ATTACHMENT E
1795
Appendix B: Continuous Long-Term Ambient
Noise Measurement Results

ATTACHMENT E
1796
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 0:00 56 71 48 39 Coordinates:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:00 53 69 42 38
Thursday, April 18, 2024 2:00 54 78 43 36
Thursday, April 18, 2024 3:00 55 73 46 38
Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:00 60 83 54 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:00 60 73 57 49
Thursday, April 18, 2024 6:00 62 72 60 53
Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:00 62 76 60 53
Thursday, April 18, 2024 8:00 61 75 59 52
Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:00 59 70 57 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:00 58 74 56 45
Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:00 59 80 55 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:00 58 78 55 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 13:00 58 79 55 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 14:00 65 96 57 49
Thursday, April 18, 2024 15:00 61 83 59 51
Thursday, April 18, 2024 16:00 62 83 60 53
Thursday, April 18, 2024 17:00 62 83 60 52
Thursday, April 18, 2024 18:00 61 82 58 50
Thursday, April 18, 2024 19:00 61 76 59 52
Thursday, April 18, 2024 20:00 61 82 59 54
Thursday, April 18, 2024 21:00 59 80 57 51
Thursday, April 18, 2024 22:00 57 77 54 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 23:00 56 73 53 45
Leq Lmax L50 L90
61 80 58 49
58 74 51 43
58 70 55 44
65 96 60 54
53 69 42 36
62 83 60 53
65 78
65 22
Appendix B1: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bear Creek South EIR
Eastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-1
Night Average
CAL200
Thursday, April 18, 2024 Thursday, April 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
(38.0427984, -121.2946402)
CNEL Night %
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
71 69
78 73
83 73 72
76 75
70 74
80 78 79
96 83 83 83 82
76 82 80
77 73
39 38 36 38
44 49
53 53 52
47 45 44 44 44
49 51 53 52 50
52 54
51 47
45 56
53 54 55
60 60 62 62 61 59 58 59 58 58
65 61 62 62 61 61 61 59 57 56
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
105
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
Morada Ln.

West Ln.

Union Pacific Railroad

ATTACHMENT E
1797
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 0:00 57 72 48 39 Coordinates:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:00 55 70 45 39
Thursday, April 18, 2024 2:00 55 71 44 39
Thursday, April 18, 2024 3:00 55 73 46 40
Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:00 59 76 52 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:00 61 76 56 48
Thursday, April 18, 2024 6:00 63 78 60 51
Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:00 63 75 61 56
Thursday, April 18, 2024 8:00 63 82 61 56
Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:00 62 82 59 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:00 62 84 59 46
Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:00 61 81 59 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:00 61 85 59 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 13:00 63 80 59 48
Thursday, April 18, 2024 14:00 61 74 59 52
Thursday, April 18, 2024 15:00 65 90 63 57
Thursday, April 18, 2024 16:00 64 76 63 58
Thursday, April 18, 2024 17:00 65 81 63 58
Thursday, April 18, 2024 18:00 64 82 63 56
Thursday, April 18, 2024 19:00 65 79 64 56
Thursday, April 18, 2024 20:00 64 75 62 54
Thursday, April 18, 2024 21:00 63 85 60 50
Thursday, April 18, 2024 22:00 61 77 58 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 23:00 61 82 53 43
Leq Lmax L50 L90
63 81 61 53
59 75 51 43
61 74 59 46
65 90 64 58
55 70 44 39
63 82 60 51
66 83
CNEL 67 Night % 17
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(38.0371534, -121.2847666)
Thursday, April 18, 2024 Thursday, April 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-6
Appendix B2: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bear Creek South EIR
Southern Project Boundary
72 70 71 73
76 76
78 75
82 82
84 81
85 80
74 90
76 81 82
79 75
85 77
82 39 39 39 40
44 48
51 56 56
47 46 47 47 48
52 57 58 58 56 56
54 50
47 43
57 55 55 55
59 61 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 63 61
65 64 65 64 65 64 63 61 61
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
105
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
Morada Ln.

West Ln.

Union Pacific Railroad

ATTACHMENT E
1798
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 0:00 66 93 42 39 Coordinates:

Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:00 68 89 42 39
Thursday, April 18, 2024 2:00 68 84 43 39
Thursday, April 18, 2024 3:00 67 88 44 42
Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:00 65 85 46 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:00 70 94 50 48
Thursday, April 18, 2024 6:00 64 84 55 51
Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:00 57 85 51 49
Thursday, April 18, 2024 8:00 51 70 49 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:00 66 94 49 45
Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:00 50 70 45 40
Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:00 46 60 44 40
Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:00 51 74 45 41
Thursday, April 18, 2024 13:00 65 90 42 39
Thursday, April 18, 2024 14:00 72 90 47 41
Thursday, April 18, 2024 15:00 67 86 49 44
Thursday, April 18, 2024 16:00 64 88 50 45
Thursday, April 18, 2024 17:00 52 74 51 47
Thursday, April 18, 2024 18:00 53 74 49 45
Thursday, April 18, 2024 19:00 59 82 48 42
Thursday, April 18, 2024 20:00 53 68 45 42
Thursday, April 18, 2024 21:00 65 86 47 43
Thursday, April 18, 2024 22:00 56 84 45 42
Thursday, April 18, 2024 23:00 65 86 42 39
Leq Lmax L50 L90
64 80 47 43
67 87 45 43
46 60 42 39
72 94 51 49
64 84 42 39
70 94 55 51
73 46
CNEL 73 Night % 54
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(38.0528574, -121.2769969)
Thursday, April 18, 2024 Thursday, April 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-5
Appendix B3: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bear Creek South EIR
Northeast of Project Boundar
93 89
84 88
85 94
84 85
70 94
70 60
74 90 90
86 88
74 74
82 68
86 84 86
39 39 39
42 44
48 51 49
47 45
40 40 41
39 41
44 45 47
45 42 42 43 42
39 66 68 68 67
65 70
64 57
51 66
50 46
51 65
72 67
64 52 53
59 53
65 56
65 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
95 105
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3
Morada Ln.

West Ln.

Union Pacific Railroad

ATTACHMENT E
1799
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results

ATTACHMENT E
1800
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 10,990 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 220 102 47 60.6 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 14,770 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 268 124 58 63.4 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 10,560 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 214 99 46 57.8 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 14,520 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 199 92 43 65.4 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 23,260 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 250 116 54 64.3 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 25,050 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 262 122 57 68.6 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,160 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 103 48 22 62.5 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 2,930 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 34 16 7 56.8 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,480 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 51 24 11 58.9 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 31,970 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 309 143 66 58.2 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 31,850 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 308 143 66 70.7 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 25,850 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 268 124 58 67.9 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,110 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 70 33 15 63.7 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 19,330 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 240 112 52 71.7 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 11,600 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 191 89 41 59.9 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 10,640 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 180 84 39 60.3 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 20,790 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 252 117 54 66.7 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 18,270 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 231 107 50 67.8 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,750 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 32 15 7 54.9 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,380 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 37 17 8 58.0 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 17,020 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 221 102 48 67.5 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 15,260 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 101 47 22 62.9 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 1,940 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 26 12 6 44.0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Eve
%
Day
Segment Roadway Segment ADT %
Appendix C-1
240309
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Existing Traffic
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Offset
Speed Distance (dB)
% Hvy.

Trucks
% Med.

Trucks
Night
%

ATTACHMENT E
1801
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 12,380 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 238 110 51 61.1 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 17,730 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 302 140 65 64.1 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 10,820 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 218 101 47 57.9 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 17,360 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 224 104 48 66.2 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 26,970 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 276 128 59 64.9 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 28,580 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 286 133 62 69.2 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,340 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 105 49 23 62.6 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 2,920 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 34 16 7 56.8 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,660 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 52 24 11 59.1 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 32,840 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 314 146 68 58.3 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 32,390 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 311 145 67 70.7 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 27,630 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 280 130 60 68.2 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,110 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 70 33 15 63.7 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 25,330 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 288 134 62 72.9 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 11,970 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 195 90 42 60.0 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 11,170 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 186 86 40 60.5 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 26,790 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 299 139 64 67.8 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 23,330 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 272 126 59 68.9 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,750 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 32 15 7 54.9 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,220 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 36 17 8 57.8 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 21,940 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 262 121 56 68.6 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 20,340 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 122 57 26 64.1 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 1,940 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 26 12 6 44.0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-2
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240309
Existing Plus Project Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%

ATTACHMENT E
1802
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 12,860 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 244 113 53 61.3 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 23,720 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 367 170 79 65.4 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 16,900 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 293 136 63 59.8 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 16,030 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 212 98 46 65.9 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 27,840 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 281 131 61 65.0 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 29,630 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 293 136 63 69.3 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,160 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 103 48 22 62.5 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 2,930 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 34 16 7 56.8 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,480 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 51 24 11 58.9 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 31,980 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 309 143 67 58.2 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 31,860 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 308 143 66 70.7 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 30,430 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 299 139 64 68.6 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,110 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 70 33 15 63.7 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 20,840 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 253 117 54 72.0 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 16,490 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 241 112 52 61.4 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 13,070 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 206 96 44 61.2 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 22,300 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 264 123 57 67.0 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 20,860 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 253 117 54 68.4 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,750 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 32 15 7 54.9 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,220 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 36 17 8 57.8 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 19,470 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 241 112 52 68.1 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 17,870 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 112 52 24 63.6 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 1,940 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 26 12 6 44.0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-3
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240309
EPAP Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%

ATTACHMENT E
1803
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 14,250 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 261 121 56 61.7 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 24,500 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 375 174 81 65.6 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 17,160 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 296 137 64 59.9 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 18,770 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 236 109 51 66.6 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 31,550 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 306 142 66 65.6 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 33,260 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 317 147 68 69.8 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,340 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 105 49 23 62.6 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 3,110 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 35 16 8 57.1 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,660 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 52 24 11 59.1 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 32,840 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 314 146 68 58.3 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 32,360 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 311 144 67 70.7 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 32,210 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 310 144 67 68.8 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,110 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 70 33 15 63.7 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 16,840 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 219 102 47 71.1 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 16,880 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 245 114 53 61.5 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 13,600 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 212 98 46 61.3 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 28,300 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 310 144 67 68.1 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 25,940 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 292 136 63 69.3 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,750 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 32 15 7 54.9 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,220 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 36 17 8 57.8 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 24,550 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 282 131 61 69.1 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 22,950 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 133 62 29 64.6 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 1,940 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 26 12 6 44.0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-4
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240309
EPAP Plus Project Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%

ATTACHMENT E
1804
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 14,230 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 261 121 56 61.7 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 31,680 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 445 207 96 66.7 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 27,040 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 401 186 86 61.8 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 21,920 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 261 121 56 67.2 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 35,160 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 329 153 71 66.0 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 37,080 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 341 158 73 70.3 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,420 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 106 49 23 62.7 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 3,050 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 35 16 7 57.0 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,720 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 53 24 11 59.1 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 34,000 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 322 149 69 58.5 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 34,300 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 323 150 70 71.0 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 35,910 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 333 155 72 69.3 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,370 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 72 33 16 63.8 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 26,910 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 300 139 65 73.1 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 17,210 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 248 115 53 61.6 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 13,840 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 215 100 46 61.4 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 28,430 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 311 144 67 68.1 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 26,340 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 295 137 64 69.4 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,870 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 33 15 7 55.1 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,810 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 40 19 9 58.6 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 25,360 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 288 134 62 69.2 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 23,250 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 134 62 29 64.7 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 2,020 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 26 12 6 44.1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-3
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240309
Cumulative Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%

ATTACHMENT E
1805
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 West Lane North of Eight Mile Road 16,910 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 200 0 293 136 63 62.5 2 Eight Mile Road West of West Lane 32,840 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 160 0 456 212 98 66.8 3 Eight Mile Road East of West Lane 27,680 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 50 140 -5 407 189 88 62.0 4 E. Morada Lane Between West Ln and Caywood Dr 24,650 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 -5 283 131 61 67.7 5 West Lane Between E. Morada Ln and W. Frontage Ln 38,870 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 130 0 352 163 76 66.5 6 West Lane Between W. Ln Frontage Rd and Knickerbocker Dr 40,620 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 362 168 78 70.7 7 W Lane Frontage Rd West of West Ln 6,600 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 70 0 108 50 23 62.8 8 Knickerbocker Dr West of West Lane 3,230 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 55 0 36 17 8 57.2 9 Knickerbocker Dr East of West Lane 5,900 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 60 0 54 25 12 59.3 10 E. Hammer Ln West Of West Ln 34,660 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 405 0 326 151 70 58.6 11 E. Hammer Ln Between West Ln and Lorraine Ave 34,730 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 60 0 326 151 70 71.0 12 West Lane Between E Hammer Ln and E Swain Rd 37,690 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 40 80 0 344 160 74 69.5 13 Glacier Point Dr South of E. Morada Ln 6,370 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 30 40 0 72 33 16 63.8 14 E. Morada Ln Between Glacier Point Dr. and Fox Creek Dr 32,930 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 40 0 343 159 74 74.0 15 Holman Rd North of E. Morada Ln 17,600 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 -5 252 117 54 61.7 16 Holman Rd South of E. Morada Ln 14,170 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 -5 218 101 47 61.5 17 E. Morada Ln West Of Holman Rd 34,230 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 90 0 352 163 76 68.9 18 E. Morada Ln East of Holman Rd 31,420 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 332 154 72 70.1 19 Perino Dr North of E. Morada Ln 2,870 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 70 0 33 15 7 55.1 20 Maranatha Dr South of E. Morada Ln 3,360 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 50 0 37 17 8 58.0 21 E. Morada Ln Between Maranatha Dr and Holman Rd 29,990 83 0 17 1.0% 1.0% 45 70 0 322 149 69 69.9 22 Diamond Bar Pl North of E. Morada Ln 28,550 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 65 0 153 71 33 65.6 23 Diamond Bar Pl South of E. Morada Ln 2,220 78 0 22 1.0% 1.0% 25 300 0 28 13 6 44.5 27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-4
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240309
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%

ATTACHMENT E
1806
Appendix D: Exterior to Interior
Noise Reduction Calculations

ATTACHMENT E
1807
Appendix D1: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: Bear Creek South
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 5.0
Noise Source:

Room Length, ft: 12.0
Room Width, ft: 11.0
Room Height, ft: 9.0
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 21.0
Glazing Area, ft: 24.0
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 132
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 390
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 24
Floor:

Floor, sf: 132
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 165
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-26
Vinyl Plank
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 1-Coat Stucco, 5/8" gyp INSUL
Glazing - STC 34
Noise Reduction, dBA:

Glass
Bedroom
Inputs
Railroad Locomotive and Cars
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
55 55
57 59 60 61 61 60 60 60 59 59 59 59 59
57 35
32 37 38
35 35 34
31 30 29
27 26
28 28
26 23
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level

ATTACHMENT E
1808
Appendix D2: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: Bear Creek South
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 5.0
Noise Source:

Room Length, ft: 15.0
Room Width, ft: 15.0
Room Height, ft: 9.0
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 28.0
Glazing Area, ft: 24.0
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 225
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 516
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 24
Floor:

Floor, sf: 225
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 228
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 24
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 44
-27
Living Room
Inputs
Railroad Locomotive and Cars
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
Vinyl Plank
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 1-Coat Stucco, 5/8" gyp INSUL
Glazing - STC 34
Noise Reduction, dBA:
55 55
57 59 60 61 61 60 60 60 59 59 59 59 59
57 34
31 37 37
34 35 34
31 30 29
27 25
28 28
25 22
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level

ATTACHMENT E
1809
Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis

ATTACHMENT E
1810
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
1811
Draft
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

De Novo Planning Group
Prepared by:

July 25, 2024
BTC-0021

ATTACHMENT E
1812
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ i Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii Vehicular Site Access and Circulation .................................................................................................................................. ii Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ....................................................................................................................................... iv CEQA and Local Transportation Study ............................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 CEQA Transportation Study .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Local Transportation Study ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2.2 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

2. Existing Transportation System ............................................................................................... 8

2.1 Roadway System ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Transit System ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................................10

2.6 Existing Vehicle Queues ...................................................................................................................................................15

3. Project Charateristics .............................................................................................................. 17

3.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................................17

3.1.1 West Lane Project Improvements ....................................................................................................................17

3.1.2 Morada Lane Project Improvements ...............................................................................................................18

3.1.3 West Lane/Morada Lane Intersection Improvements ..............................................................................19

3.1.4 Proect Site Access Configuration ......................................................................................................................19

3.2 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................................21

3.3 Project Trip Distribution And Assignment ................................................................................................................22

4. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Operations ............................................................ 24

4.1 Signal Warrants....................................................................................................................................................................24

4.2 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................................26

ATTACHMENT E
1813

4.3 Existing Plus Project Vehicle Queues ..........................................................................................................................28

5. Background Peak Hour Traffic Operations .......................................................................... 31

5.1 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................31

5.2 Roadway Network Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................31

5.3 Signal Warrants....................................................................................................................................................................34

5.4 Background Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................................................34

5.5 Background Vehicle Queues ..........................................................................................................................................37

6. Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Operations ............................................................................ 40

6.1 Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................40

6.2 Signal Warrants....................................................................................................................................................................43

6.3 Cumulative Conditions Intersection Levels of Service .........................................................................................43

6.4 Cumulative Conditions Vehicle Queues .....................................................................................................................46

7. Project Site Access and Circulation ....................................................................................... 49

7.1 Vehicular Site Access and Circulation .........................................................................................................................49

7.1.1 Traffic Signal or Side-street Stop Control at Project Roadway Access Locations .........................49

7.1.2 Roundabouts at Project Roadway Access #3 and #4 ...............................................................................50

7.1.3 Internal Vehicle Circulation .................................................................................................................................50

7.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ...............................................................................................................................51

8. CEQA Transportation Analysis ............................................................................................... 54

8.1 Programs, Plans, Ordinances and Policies ................................................................................................................54

8.1.1 Roadway System .....................................................................................................................................................54

8.1.2 Transit System ..........................................................................................................................................................64

8.1.3 Bicycle System ..........................................................................................................................................................64

8.1.4 Pedestrian System ..................................................................................................................................................64

8.2 Vehicle Miles Travel ...........................................................................................................................................................65

8.3 Geometric Design Features .............................................................................................................................................66

8.4 Emergency Access ..............................................................................................................................................................66

9. Local Roadway Transportation Analysis ............................................................................... 67

9.1 Existing Plus Project Conditions ....................................................................................................................................68

9.2 Background Plus Project Conditions ...........................................................................................................................69

9.3 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................................................70

ATTACHMENT E
1814
Appendices
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Existing Conditions LOS Worksheets
Appendix C: Existing Conditions Queue Worksheets
Appendix D: Existing Plus Project Signal Warrant Worksheets Appendix E: Existing Plus Project LOS Worksheets
Appendix F: Existing Plus Project Queue Worksheets
Appendix G: Background Signal Warrant Worksheets
Appendix H: Background Conditions LOS Worksheets
Appendix I: Background Conditions Queue Worksheets
Appendix J: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Signal Warrant Worksheets Appendix K: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project LOS Worksheets Appendix L: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Queue Worksheets Appendix M: Existing Plus Project (Mitigated) Queue Worksheets Appendix N: Background Plus Project (Mitigated) Queue Worksheets Appendix O: Cumulative Plus Project (Mitigated) Queue Worksheets Appendix P: Existing Plus Project Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets Appendix Q: Background Plus Project Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets Appendix R: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
1815
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Project Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-2. Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-1. Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-2. Existing Conditions Peak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ............................................................ 12 Figure 3-1. Project Peak Hour Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-1. Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5-1. Background No Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 5-2. Background Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6-1. Cumulative No Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 6-2. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control ................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 7-1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes on Internal Project Roadways ..................................................... 52 Figure 7-2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan ............................................................................................................ 53

ATTACHMENT E
1816
List of Tables
Table E-1. Vehicle Storage and Deceleration Lane Length Comparison ....................................................................... iii Table E-2. Intersection Impact and LOS Deficiency Summary .......................................................................................... vii Table 1-1. Intersection Impact and LOS Deficiency Summary ........................................................................................... 4 Table 2-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2-2. Existing 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ............................................................................................................... 15 Table 3-1. Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................................... 21 Table 3-2. Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 4-1. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrants ............................................................................................ 26 Table 4-2. Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................ 27 Table 4-3. Existing Plus Project 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ...................................................................................... 28 Table 5-1. Background Peak Hour Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 34 Table 5-2. Background Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................ 36 Table 5-3. Background 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ...................................................................................................... 37 Table 6-1. Planned Roadway Improvements for the Cumulative Year (2040) .......................................................... 40 Table 6-2. Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrants ..................................................................................... 43 Table 6-3. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 45 Table 6-4. Cumulative Plus Project 95th Percentile Queue Lengths .............................................................................. 46 Table 7-1. Vehicle Storage and Deceleration Lane Length Comparison ..................................................................... 50 Table 8-1. Existing Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths .................................................... 58 Table 8-2. Background Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ............................................ 60 Table 8-3. Cumulative Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ............................................. 63 Table 9-1. Existing Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................... 69 Table 9-2. Background Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... 70 Table 9-3. Cumulative Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... 70

ATTACHMENT E
1817
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the analysis and findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Bear Creek South Residential Project (Project) in the City of Stockton, California (City). The Project proposes to develop approximately 2,241 single-family dwelling units and is bounded by Bear Creek to the north, Morada Lane to the south, West Lane to the west, and United Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to the east. Project access would be provided by new roadway connections to West Lane and Morada Lane. A conceptual Project site plan is shown on Figure 1-1 in the main body of the report.

This TIA satisfies the requirements documented in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIA Guidelines) dated May 2023. Based on the expected project daily trip generation (17,633 trips), the TIA Guidelines require the preparation of a Local Transportation Study and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Study. Both studies are included in this report.

STUDY AREA
The study area for the TIA assessment includes the area immediately adjacent to the Project site. The following 15 intersections were selected for evaluation. The study area is shown on Figure 1-2 in the main body of the report.

1. West Lane / Eight Mile Road

2. West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (evaluated under Project conditions)

3. West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 (evaluated under Project conditions)

4. West Lane / Morada Lane

5. West Lane / West Lane Frontage

6. West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive

7. West Lane / Hammer Lane

8. Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3

9. Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4

10. Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5

11. Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane

12. Holman Road / Morada Lane

13. Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane

14. Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane

15. West Lane/Marlette Road (future intersection built by other development project)

ATTACHMENT E
1818
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
ii

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Operations of the study intersections above were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions – Existing conditions as they were in the fall of 2023 based on traffic volumes collected in September 2023.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.
• Background No Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Development Projects) – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by approved development projects near the Project site.
• Background Plus Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Development Projects Plus Project) – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by approved development projects plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.
• Cumulative Year (2040) No Project Conditions – Year 2040 traffic volumes and future roadway improvements based on the City’s Travel Demand Model under General Plan Buildout Conditions, without development of the Project.
• Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project Conditions – Year 2040 traffic volumes and future roadway improvements based on the City’s Travel Demand Model under General Plan Buildout Conditions, plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.

VEHICULAR SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Site access and internal circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles was evaluated based on the site plan presented on Figure 1-1. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from the following locations:
• West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 (Intersection 3) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) • Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5 (Intersection 10) All movements into and out of the Project site are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios assuming a traffic signal at Intersection 2, 8, and 9 and side-street stop control at Intersection 3 and 10. A two-lane roundabout is also under consideration at Project Roadway Access #3 and #4 (Intersection 8 and 9). Under Existing Plus Project and Background Plus Project conditions, all

ATTACHMENT E
1819
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
iii
movements into and out of the Project site are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better with a two-lane roundabout. However, under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the eastbound Morada Lane approach at Intersection 9, including the eastbound left-turn into the Project site, is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The City’s policy is to maintain LOS D or better operations except along corridors with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed. With a two-lane roundabout, the operations of Intersection 9 would not be consistent with the City’s LOS policy under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Adequate vehicle storage would be provided at the site access locations to accommodate the 95th percentile vehicle queues and adequate deceleration lane lengths are proposed for the left-turn and right-turn lanes on West Lane and Morada Lane assuming a traffic signal at Intersection 2, 8, and 9 and side-street stop control at Intersection 3 and 10. Table E-1 compares the proposed deceleration lane lengths and vehicle storage against the guidance presented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). West Lane has a posted speed limit of 55 mph and Morada Lane has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

Table E-1. Vehicle Storage and Deceleration Lane Length Comparison Intersection Movement1
Proposed (feet) HDM (feet)
Taper
Vehicle Storage
and Deceleration
Lane
Total Taper
Vehicle Storage
and Deceleration
Lane2
Total
2 West Lane / Project
Roadway Access #1
NBR 120 250 370 120 229 349
SBL 120 340 460 120 342 462
3 West Lane / Project
Roadway Access #2 NBR 120 200 320 120 195 315
8 Caywood Drive /
Morada Lane /
Project Roadway
Access #3
EBL 90 300 390 90 214 304
WBL 90 300 390 90 232 322
WBR 90 250 340 90 181 271
9 Cherbourg Way /
Morada Lane /
Project Roadway
Access #4
EBL 90 350 440 90 284 374
WBL 90 350 440 90 334 424
WBR 90 250 340 90 185 275
10 Fox Creek Drive /
Morada Lane
EBL 90 250 340 90 195 285
WBL 90 250 340 90 245 335
WBR 90 250 340 90 195 285
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. Vehicle storage is equal to the maximum 95th percentile queue reported for that movement under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Deceleration lane length assumes partial deceleration (15 mph) is permitted in the through lanes per HDM.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1820
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
iv
All internal local residential roadways are proposed to have a 54’ right-of-way (ROW) with a curb-to-curb width of 34 feet that would accommodate two travel lanes (one lane in each direction). All internal collector roadways are proposed to have a 56’ ROW with a curb-to-curb width of 26 feet that would accommodate two travel lanes (one lane in each direction). The major project roadways providing access to West Lane (intersection 2) or Morada Lane (intersections 8, 9, and 10) are proposed to have a 96’ ROW and can accommodate four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction). The proposed internal roadway designs are consistent with City of Stockton street design standards and would provide adequate vehicular capacity to accommodate Project traffic.

Emergency vehicle access to the Project site is provided from all five roadway access locations that are designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Cross-sections for the proposed streets within the Project site were reviewed and all street sections provide a minimum of 20-feet of clearway (meaning no obstructions in terms of parked vehicles, landscaping, etc.), such that sufficient width is provided for emergency vehicle access and circulation.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
All internal project roadways will have at a minimum 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street and in some areas an 8’ meandering sidewalk is proposed. There will be no gaps in the pedestrian circulation system and pedestrian access will be provided to West Lane and Morada Lane via the Project roadway access intersections.

Bicycle facilities that will be provided by the Project include the following:
• 12’ multi-use pedestrian path along Bear Creek
• 11’ one-way separated bikeway (Class IV) on West Lane along the Project frontage • 5’ bike lane (Class II) on Morada Lane along the Project frontage The proposed bicycle facilities are consistent with the City Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017).

CEQA AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), level of service (“LOS”), a qualitative description of traffic on a roadway facility or intersection, can no longer be used to determine a project’s environmental impact. Instead, Section 15064.3 of the 2023 CEQA Statue and Guidelines includes guidance related to assessing the Vehicle Miles of Travel (“VMT”) generated by various types of land use, and thresholds for the identification of significant impacts. The City of Stockton VMT impact analysis process is documented in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Adopted May 2, 2023).

ATTACHMENT E
1821
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
v
According to the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project is relieved from VMT impact analysis if it meets one of the following screening criteria:

1. Within a Transit Priority Area (TPA);

2. Is 100% restricted affordable housing;

3. Small project (generating 110 trips or less per day);

4. Is a locally serving public facility that contributes and supports community needs;

5. Neighborhood-serving retail project less than 50,000 square feet;

6. Located within a low VMT area; or

7. For specific project types that are consistent with General Plan and zoning standards, and do not trigger and EIR such as:
a. Housing: Residential projects within the City Limits that are consistent with all General Plan and zoning standards, are near transit (i.e., is within half a mile of a transit stop), or included as a housing capacity site needed to meet the City’s fair share of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as outlined in the City’s Housing Element. b. General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Projects that are:
i. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning that do not require a General Plan land use map amendment.
ii. Do not require an EIR for project related impacts beyond the General Plan EIR. iii. Located within the Greater Downtown Planning area, as defined in the General Plan, and do not require a land use map amendment or EIR.

The Project meets screening criteria #7 (consistent with General Plan & zoning standards). The Project is consistent with the land use presented in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (i.e., low density residential with less than 6.1 units per gross acre). The Project is also located within a half-mile of two transit stops on West Lane. Based on the screening criteria the Project is presumed to not require additional CEQA VMT impact analysis.

In addition, according to CEQA and City of Stockton policies, a transportation impact from a project is considered to be significant if the associated change to the transportation system with the project would:

A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

D. Result in inadequate emergency access.

ATTACHMENT E
1822
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
vi
The Project’s impact to the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are less-than-significant. The Project is also expected to have a less-than-significant impact related to geometric design features and emergency access. The Project will have several significant impacts related to the roadway system primarily dealing 95th percentile queues that exceed available storage. Potential mitigation for the significant impacts is provided in the analysis.

The Local Transportation Study is prepared to provide information to decision-makers and the public in understanding what types of improvements should be considered as Conditions of Approval for the ultimate development of a project, and to evaluate the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan LOS policy. The City’s policy is to maintain LOS D or better operations except along corridors with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed. The LOS standard for the intersections along these corridors (Hammer Lane) is LOS E or better. An intersection (roadway) impact and LOS deficiency summary is provided in Table E-2.

ATTACHMENT E
1823
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis July 25, 2024
vii
Table E-2. Intersection Impact and LOS Deficiency Summary Intersection
Existing Plus Project Background Plus Project Cumulative Plus Project CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic 1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road Queue
TR-1
Construct 2nd
NB left-turn
lane; Modify
signal timing
LOS
EX-1
Implement
TR-1
10% Queue
TR-5
Implement
TR-1
- - 8% Queue
TR-9
Contribute
towards local
and regional
impact fees
- - 6%
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 - - - - 22% - - - - 17% - - - - 13% 3 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 - - - - 13% - - - - 9% - - - - 7% 4 West Lane / Morada Lane - - - - 15% - - - - 15% - - - - 9%5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage - - LOS EX-2
Construct a
third NB and
SB through
lane; Modify
signal timing
15% - - LOS
BG-1
Implement
EX-2
13% - - - - 10%
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive Queue TR-2 Modify signal timing - - 14% Queue TR-6 Implement TR-2 - - 12% - - - - 10% 7 West Lane / Hammer Lane Queue TR-3
Modify signal
timing
- - 6% Queue
TR-7
Implement
TR-3
- - 6% Queue
TR-10
Implement
TR-9
- - 5%
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 - - - - 26% - - - - 24% - - - - 18% 9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 - - - - 33% - - - - 31% - - - - 24%
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5 - - - - 33% - - - - 32% - - - - 25%
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane - - - - 26% - - - - 24% - - - - 20%

ATTACHMENT
E
1824
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis July 25, 2024
viii
Intersection
Existing Plus Project Background Plus Project Cumulative Plus Project CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic CEQA Impact CEQA Mitigation Non-CEQA Deficiency Non-CEQA Conditions of Approval Percent Project Traffic 12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Queue
TR-4
Restripe one
EB through
lane to EB
left-turn lane;
Restripe one
NB through
lane to NB
left-turn lane; Modify signal
timing
- - 22% Queue
TR-8
Implement
TR-4
- - 19% Queue
TR-11
Implement
TR-9
LOS
CU-1
Implement
TR-9
16%
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane - - - - 25% - - - - 23% - - - - 18% 14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane - - - - 24% - - - - 22% - - - - 18% 15 West Lane / Marlette Road n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - - 11% - - - - 8% Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT
E
1825
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
1 1.INTRODUCTION
This report presents the analysis and findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Bear Creek South Residential Project (Project) in the City of Stockton, California (City). The Project proposes to develop approximately 2,241 single-family dwelling units and is bounded by Bear Creek to the north, Morada Lane to the south, West Lane to the west, and United Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to the east. Project access would be provided by new roadway connections to West Lane and Morada Lane. A conceptual Project site plan is shown on Figure 1-1.

This TIA satisfies the requirements documented in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIA Guidelines) dated May 2023. Based on the expected project daily trip generation (17,633 trips), the TIA Guidelines require the preparation of a Local Transportation Study and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Study. Both studies are included in this report.

1.1 CEQA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), level of service (“LOS”), a qualitative description of traffic on a roadway facility or intersection, can no longer be used to determine a project’s environmental impact. Instead, Section 15064.3 of the 2023 CEQA Statue and Guidelines includes guidance related to assessing the Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) generated by various types of land use, and thresholds for the identification of significant impacts. The City of Stockton VMT impact analysis process is documented in the City’s TIA Guidelines. According to the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project is relieved from VMT impact analysis if it meets one of seven screening criteria. If the Project does not meet one of the seven screening criteria then the City has adopted the following VMT impact criteria for residential land use projects:
• Significance Criteria: A project exceeds existing citywide home-based VMT per resident minus 15%.
• Baseline Level: 17.46 home-based VMT per resident (citywide average) • Impact Threshold: 15% below baseline (14.84 home-based VMT per resident) In addition, according to CEQA and City of Stockton policies, a transportation impact from a project is considered to be significant if the associated change to the transportation system with the project would:

A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

ATTACHMENT E
1826
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
2 C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

D. Result in inadequate emergency access.

ATTACHMENT E
1827
Figure 1-1
Conceptual Project Site Plan
Site Plan Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.,
February 20, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1828
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
4 1.2 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The Local Transportation Study is typically prepared to provide information to decision-makers and the public in understanding what types of improvements should be considered as Conditions of Approval for the ultimate development of a project, and to evaluate the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan level of service (LOS) policy.

1.2.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (over capacity conditions). The City generally strives to maintain LOS D or better for intersection operations, with the exception of select corridors with physical constraints that limit the traffic improvements that can be constructed, as outlined in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (General Plan) approved in 2018.

Operations of intersections were evaluated in Synchro 11 using the method from the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM), which uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 1-1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Table 1-1. Intersection Impact and LOS Deficiency Summary Level of
Service Description Signalized Unsignalized/
Roundabout
Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. (Transportation Research Board, 2016).

ATTACHMENT E
1829
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
5 1.2.2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2014 Edition provides nine warrants to determine if a traffic signal is justified. For this study, the unsignalized intersections were evaluated using Figure 4C-4 (Warrant 3, Peak Hour) in the MUTCD to reflect posted speed limits above 40 mph on Morada Lane and West Lane. Note that the peak hour signal warrant analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on field-measured traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and safety conditions.

A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.

1.3 STUDY AREA
The study area for the TIA assessment includes the area immediately adjacent to the Project site. The following 15 intersections were selected for evaluation in consultation with City of Stockton. The study area is shown on Figure 1-2.

1. West Lane / Eight Mile Road

2. West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (evaluated under Project conditions)

3. West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 (evaluated under Project conditions)

4. West Lane / Morada Lane

5. West Lane / West Lane Frontage

6. West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive

7. West Lane / Hammer Lane

8. Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3

9. Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4

10. Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5

11. Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane

12. Holman Road / Morada Lane

13. Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane

14. Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane

15. West Lane/Marlette Road (future intersection built by other development project) All study intersections fall under City of Stockon jurisdiction except the West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection which is within San Joaquin County jurisdiction. The Stockton General Plan notes that the West Lane/Hammer Lane intersection is located along a corridor with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed. The LOS standard for the West Lane/Hammer Lane intersection is

ATTACHMENT E
1830
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
6 LOS E or better. At all other study intersections, the City of Stockton strives to maintain LOS D or better conditions.

1.4 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Operations of the study intersections above were evaluated for the following scenarios in consultation with the City of Stockton:
• Existing Conditions – Existing conditions as they were in the fall of 2023 based on traffic volumes collected in September 2023.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.
• Background No Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Development Projects) – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by approved development projects near the Project site.
• Background Plus Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Development Projects Plus Project) – Existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by approved development projects plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.
• Cumulative Year (2040) No Project Conditions – Year 2040 traffic volumes and future roadway improvements based on the City’s Travel Demand Model under General Plan Buildout Conditions, without development of the Project.
• Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project Conditions – Year 2040 traffic volumes and future roadway improvements based on the City’s Travel Demand Model under General Plan Buildout Conditions, plus traffic generated by the proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT E
1831
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
WakeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam
O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
N Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersections
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15

ATTACHMENT E
1832
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
8 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the Project study area, including the roadway network and the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the Project site.

2.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM
The following is a description of major roadways that provide access to the proposed Project site.

Morada Lane is a discontinuous east-west roadway. In the Project vicinity, Morada Lane extends from West Lane to the east of SR 99 into San Joaquin County. Morada Lane is a two-lane roadway between West Lane and Cherbourg Way. Between Cherbourg Way and North 99 Frontage Road West, Morada Lane has been widened to provide between three and six lanes depending on location. East of North 99 Frontage Road West, Morada Lane provides two lanes. Adjacent to the Project site the roadway has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

West Lane is a north-south arterial roadway with a northern terminus in the City of Lodi and a southern terminus in downtown Stockton. The City of Stockon/San Joaquin County jurisdictional boundary crosses West Lane near Bear Creek. West Lane provides four lanes between Knickerbocker Drive and its northern terminus in the City of Lodi. South of Knickerbocker Drive, West Lane provides eight lanes up to its intersection with Swain Road. South of Swain Road, West Lanes provided between four and six lanes depending on location. Adjacent to the Project site the roadway has a posted speed limit of 50 mph.

Eight Mile Road is an east-west roadway north of the Project site. In the Project vicinity the majority of Eight Mile Road is two lanes wide. However, some portions of Eight Mile Road are four lanes wide. In the Project vicinity the posted speed limit along Eight Mile Road is 45 mph.

Hammer Lane is a major east-west arterial in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. It has a western terminus west of I-5, and an eastern terminus east of SR 99. In the Project vicinity Hammer Lane provides eight lanes and has a posted speed limit of 40 mph.

2.2 TRANSIT SYSTEM
In the project vicinity, within one half-mile walking distance, transit service (Route 93) is provided along West Lane by the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD). SJRTD is the regional transit provider for

ATTACHMENT E
1833
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
9 San Joaquin County, serving the Stockton Metropolitan Area and the County with intercity, interregional, and rural transit services. Route 93 travels between Lodi (Lodi Transit Station) and Downtown Stockton (Downtown Transit Center). A bus stop for northbound travel is provided on the east side of West Lane at the southeast corner of the West Lane/Morada Lane intersection. A bus stop for southbound travel is provided on the west side of West Lane about 600 feet north of Morada Lane. Neither bus stop provides transit stop amenities (e.g., benches, shelters, etc.).

As of July 30, 2023 northbound bus service begins at the Downtown Transit Center (DTC) at 6:10 AM and ends at the Lodi Transit Station (LTS) at 7:39 PM. The frequency of service ranges from 1 to 3 hours.

Southbound bus service begins at the LTS at 6:03 AM and ends at the DTC at 8:52 AM. The frequency of service ranges from 1 to 2.5 hours.

2.3 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and multi-use trails. In the Project vicinity, sidewalk is currently not provided on West Lane or Morada Lane along the Project’s frontage.

Existing sidewalk (within one half-mile walking distance from the Project site) is provided on the following roadways:
• West side of West Lane north of Morada Lane (8-foot sidewalk) • East side of West Lane south of Morada Lane (4-foot sidewalk) • South side of Morada Lane (4-foot sidewalk)
• North side of Morada Lane east of the eastern edge of the Project site boundary (4-foot sidewalk) • Both sides of the Caywood Drive, Cherbourg Way, and Fox Creek Drive (4-foot sidewalk) Near the Project vicinity, the intersection of West Lane/Morada Lane provides crosswalks on the west and south legs of the intersection. The West Lane/Morada Lane intersection provides access to the Ronald E.

McNair High School and as a result there is high pedestrian demand at the intersection.

2.4 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities include the following:
• Bike paths (Class I) – Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. These trails are sometimes shared with pedestrians.
• Bike lanes (Class II) – Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs.

ATTACHMENT E
1834
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
10 • Bike routes (Class III) – Bike routes provide a right-of-way designated by signs and/or pavement markings (also known as “sharrows”) to alert motorists to expect to share this roadway with bicyclists. A Bicycle Boulevard is a special type of shared route that optimizes bicycle travel. Bike Boulevards can have a variety of traffic calming elements to improve safety and comfort for bicycles.
• Separated bikeways (Class IV) – Separated bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic. Types of separation may include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.

In the Project vicinity, within a two-mile bicycling distance, there are Class III bicycle facilities on West Lane between Morada Lane and Bear Creek. Although there are paved shoulders on West Lane north of Bear Creek (within San Joaquin County) there are no signs or pavement markings indicating Class III bicycle facilities.

Class II bicycle facilities are provided on Morada Lane on both the north and south sides but the start and end points are different. On the south side, the bicycle lane starts about 250 feet west of Fox Creek Drive and ends at the Maranatha Drive intersection.

On the north side, the bicycle lane starts at the Diamond Bar Place intersection and ends at the Holman Road intersection. Between the Holman Road and the UPRR tracks there are sections of paved shoulder but there are no bicycle pavement markings or signs. Just west of the UPRR tracks there is about 200 feet of striped Class II bicycle facility that is unusable because the start of the bike lane is blocked by K-rail (temporary concrete traffic barrier).

2.5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in the fall of 2023 between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM, including separate counts of trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The counts were collected for three weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) from September 12, 2023 through September 14, 2023. For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during each count period was identified. The final AM and PM peak hour volumes were the average of the three days of count data. The AM peak hour in the Project study area is generally 7:30 to 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour is generally 4:45 to 5:45 PM. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 2-1 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. Existing peak hour bicycle and pedestrian activity is shown on Figure 2-2. Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT E
1835
242 (271)
322 (475)
65 (58)
109 (183)
419 (413)
395 (299) 151 (119) 474 (365)
36 (12)
7 (9)
379 (423)
150 (75)

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd
629 (804)
1,019 (739)

2. West Ln/Project Rd #1
629 (804)
1,019 (739)

3. West Ln/Project Rd #2
434 (94)
465 (639)330 (333)
62 (24)
252 (58)
241 (57) 169 (25) 591 (536)
259 (178)
102 (141)
244 (57)
265 (284)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln
191 (150)882 (962)
62 (134)
157 (102)
4 (6)
139 (90) 109 (58) 1,006 (756)
64 (37)
14 (8)
16 (9)
225 (130)

5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage
21 (63)
950 (1,145)
62 (83)
74 (72)
43 (43)
31 (29) 54 (37) 1,155 (823)
161 (116)
72 (66)
70 (52)
140 (119)

6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr
266 (478)518 (824)192 (259)
398 (492)
1,094 (1,257)
209 (187) 288 (260) 853 (585)
226 (203)
184 (122)
942 (1,107)
547 (409)

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln
22 (18)86 (36)
789 (547)
103 (44)
634 (492)
70 (47)

8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3
8 (32)
130 (73)
820 (521)
55 (62)
696 (507)
154 (88)

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4
24 (42)
119 (62)
914 (542)
36 (52)
826 (553)
74 (86)

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5
140 (42)
53 (6)
101 (41)
162 (33)
716 (514)
155 (57) 102 (60) 68 (11)
207 (91)
303 (68)
658 (537)
94 (42)

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln
209 (134)121 (210)
91 (177)
184 (130)
629 (403)
211 (113) 241 (98) 272 (150)
194 (109)
146 (167)
605 (415)
160 (142)

12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

STOP STOP
STOP
ACF
ACE
ACE
AE
CC
CC
CC
CCC
BF
AACCF
ACCF
AD
BF
ACE
ACE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
G
E
AC
G
E
AC
CE
G
AC
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
87 (27)
7 (15)
83 (91)
61 (71)
788 (584)
65 (34) 90 (35) 22 (15)
64 (50)
31 (63)
662 (674)
58 (101)

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr
ACCF
ACF
ACF
ACCE
57 (25)20 (15)62 (28)
178 (213)
724 (469)
33 (43) 108 (521) 5 (16)
54 (133)
83 (171)
586 (562)
17 (49)

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future) Diamond Bar Pl ACCF
ACF
AE
ACCF
Figure 2-1
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 629 (804)
1,019 (739)

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
CC
CC
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1836

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future)

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

STOP STOP
STOP

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
2 (1)
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
1 (2)0 (0)
15 (1)
6 (2)
0 (0)1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)1 (2)
1 (0)
1 (0)
2 (1)0 (2)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (2)
12 (2)
0 (0)
1 (1)
12 (3)
0 (0)
1 (2)
12 (2)
2 (0)
0 (2)1 (1)
8 (0)
2 (2)
2 (1)1 (0)
2 (0)

C C C C
C
C
0 (0)
0 (0)
C
C
C
C

C C C C

C C C C

C C C C

C C C C
C C
C
C C
C
C C
C

C C C CC C C C
0 (0)
2 (1)1 (0)
0 (0)

C C C C
0 (1)
3 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)

C C C C
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 (0)
0 (0)
142 (9)
18 (5)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)6 (3)
1 (1)
2 (2)
1 (3)2 (3)
5 (5)
8 (10)
6 (12)
2 (4)
26 (16)
0 (0)0 (0)
16 (13)
0 (0)0 (0)
9 (11)
0 (0)0 (0)
11 (7)
21 (4)
73 (18)
1 (0)
10 (3)
9 (2)
4 (1)1 (0)
5 (2)
6 (1)
2 (1)1 (1)
4 (4)
2 (1)
0 (1)2 (2)
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Figure 2-2
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Pedestrian And Bicycle Volumes
Signalized Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Pedestrian Volumes
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Bicycle Volumes 0 (0) 0 (0)ACF
Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
# 15

ATTACHMENT E
1837
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
13 Existing intersection lane configurations, signal timings, and peak hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the levels of service for the study intersections during each peak hour using the Synchro

11.0 software program, as presented in Table 2-1. Observed peak hour factors1 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Trucks and pedestrian/bicycle activity were also factored into the analysis.

The following intersections have deficient operations during at least one peak hour:
• West Lane/Morada Lane (Intersection 4) – AM peak hour • Diamond Bar Place/Morada Lane (Intersection 14) – PM peak hour All other study intersections operate at acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City during both the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B.

The intersections of Morada Lane with Caywood Drive, Cherbourg Way, and Fox Creek Drive are not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F for at least one peak hour. A side-street stop controlled intersection is considered deficient if the intersection meets the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria and there are no acceptable alternative routes that can be used. None of the existing unsignalized study intersections meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant (signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix B). The critical movement that operates at LOS F at these intersections is the northbound left-turn movement. There are two acceptable alternative routes for the northbound left-turn movement that would provide access to all likely destinations: the first is to use to use local streets in the residential neighborhood to access northbound West Lane via a right-turn movement at Westmora Avenue (a parallel road to Morada Lane); and the second is to access southbound West Lane via the signalized intersection of West Lane/West Lane Frontage.
1 The peak hour factor is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume: PHF = Hourly volume / (4 x (volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow)). The analysis is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations may occur during a peak hour.

ATTACHMENT E
1838
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
14 Table 2-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control1 Peak Hour LOS Delay
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road3 Signal
AM D 44
PM D 35
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 n/a
AM n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a
3 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 n/a
AM n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a
4 West Lane / Morada Lane Signal
AM E 76
PM D 36
5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage Signal
AM D 44
PM B 18
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive Signal
AM B 19
PM B 18
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane3 Signal
AM D 44
PM D 49
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #3 SSSC
AM A (F) 4 (51)
PM A (C) 1 (19)
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #4 SSSC
AM A (F) 5 (51)
PM A (D) 3 (25)
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #5 SSSC
AM B (F) 11 (>100)
PM A (D) 3 (32)
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane Signal
AM D 37
PM B 18
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Signal
AM C 32
PM C 21
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane Signal
AM B 11
PM B 11
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane Signal
AM C 33
PM E 61
15 West Lane / Marlette Road n/a
AM n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a
Notes:

1. SSSC = side-street stop-controlled intersection. For SSSC intersections, LOS/delay is presented as: Intersection Average (Worst Movement).
n/a =not applicable
Deficient intersection operations based on City of Stockton General Plan are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1839
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
15 2.6 EXISTING VEHICLE QUEUES
Existing 95th percentile vehicle queues are presented for turn pockets at signalized study intersections in Table 2-2. All the study intersections have vehicle queues that periodically exceed the available storage except the Maranatha Drive/Morada Lane intersection. Queuing worksheets provided in Appendix C show the 95th percentile queue for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 2-2. Existing 95th Percentile Queue Lengths
Intersection Movement1 Storage Length
(feet) AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 196 273
EBR 240 311 174
WBL 165 254 136
NBL 375 432 441
SBL 410 85 36
4 West Lane / Morada Lane
EBR 1,270 393 39
WBL 250 405 383
NBL 300 378 86
NBR 300 342 331
SBL 320 552 276
SBR 2,000 230 7
5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage
EBR 50 97 38
WBR 50 0 0
NBL 415 252 147
SBL 400 105 55
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive
EBL 140 196 168
WBL 70 227 182
NBL 275 56 113
NBR 130 0 3
SBL 260 259 179
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane
EBL 265 289 439
EBR 265 92 103
WBL 340 480 328
WBR 190 108 91
NBL 390 197 420
NBR 390 62 96
SBL 390 173 164

ATTACHMENT E
1840
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
16 Intersection Movement1 Storage Length
(feet) AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2
SBR 330 129 109
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane
EBL 310 234 56
WBL 215 153 66
WBR 590 157 16
NBL 100 208 66
SBL 230 316 116
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane
EBL 250 277 193
EBR 225 67 51
WBL 300 252 208
WBR 215 60 59
NBL 315 357 199
NBR 215 47 58
SBL 300 319 170
SBR 225 72 47
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane
EBL 300 77 81
EBR 1,470 27 9
WBL 310 74 106
NBL 100 79 29
NBR 100 32 31
SBL 90 61 46
SBR 90 33 9
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane
EBL 180 323 436
EBR 180 0 0
WBL 100 39 88
WBR 110 30 79
NBL 65 93 55
NBR 65 9 0
SBL 150 89 254
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1841
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
17 3. PROJECT CHARATERISTICS
This chapter provides an overview of the proposed Project components and project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. These items allow for an evaluation of Project impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of Project-related traffic volume estimated to be added to the transportation system after completion of the Project was assessed using a three-step process:

1. Trip Generation – The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the site was estimated.

2. Trip Distribution – The direction trips will use to approach and depart the site was projected.

3. Trip Assignment – Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements based on likely travel paths.

3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project, located in northern Stockton, proposes to develop approximately 2,241 single-family dwelling units (d.u.) and is bounded by Bear Creek to the north, Morada Lane to the south, West Lane to the west, and United Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to the east. Project access would be provided by new roadway connections to West Lane and Morada Lane.

3.1.1 WEST LANE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

3.1.1.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
West Lane is currently a four-lane arterial (two lanes in each direction) that is planned as a future six-lane arterial in the City of Stockton General Plan. The Project proposes to widen West Lane along the Project frontage to provide a third northbound travel lane per the Stockton General Plan. The Project does not propose widening the existing Bear Creek Bridge.

3.1.1.2 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalks are not currently provided on West Lane along the Project frontage. The Project would provide an 8-foot sidewalk along the Project frontage which is consistent with the City of Stockton Standard Plans and Specifications.

3.1.1.3 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Bicycle facilities are currently not provided on West Lane along the Project frontage. The Project proposes to provide a separated one-way bikeway (Class IV) per the City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017).

ATTACHMENT E
1842
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
18 3.1.1.4 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
The proposed typical cross section for West Lane after completion of the Project is presented in Exhibit 1 below.

Exhibit 1 – Typical West Lane Cross Section

3.1.2 MORADA LANE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

3.1.2.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Morada Lane is primarily a two-lane arterial along the Project frontage that is planned as a future six-lane arterial in the City of Stockton General Plan. The Project proposes to widen Morada Lane along the Project frontage to provide sufficient right-of-way to accommodate a six-lane arterial.

3.1.2.2 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalks are currently not provided on Morada Lane along the Project frontage. The Project would provide an 8-foot sidewalk along the Project frontage which is consistent with the City of Stockton Standard Plans and Specifications.

3.1.2.3 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Bicycle facilities are currently not provided on Morada Lane along the Project frontage. The Project proposes to provide a 5’ Class II bike lane per the City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017).

3.1.2.4 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
The proposed typical cross section for Morada Lane after completion of the Project is presented in Exhibit 2 below.

ATTACHMENT E
1843
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
19 Exhibit 2 – Typical Morada Lane Cross Section

3.1.3 WEST LANE/MORADA LANE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The Project proposes to make improvements at the intersection of West Lane/Morada Lane to be consistent with the proposed Project improvements on West Lane and Morada Lane and to accommodate new traffic from the Project. The proposed lane configuration is presented below:
• West Lane Northbound Approach: 2 left-turn lanes (300’), 3 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (300’)
• West Lane Southbound Approach: 2 left-turn lanes (320’), 2 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane • Morada Lane Westbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (450’), 1 “trap” left-turn lane,2 2 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (300’)
• Morada Lane Eastbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (200’), 1 through lane, and 1 right-turn lane

3.1.4 PROECT SITE ACCESS CONFIGURATION
Project access would be provided by new roadway connections to West Lane (two site access locations) and Morada Lane (three site access locations). The site access configurations used for the study are presented below.

3.1.4.1 WEST LANE / PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #1
This new intersection will provide full access (all movements allowed) to the Project site from West Lane.

The Project proposes to signalize this intersection if it meets the peak hour signal warrant. The lane configuration is presented below:
• West Lane Northbound Approach: 3 through lanes and 1 right-turn lane (250’) • West Lane Southbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (340’) and 2 through lanes • Project Roadway Access #1 Westbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (200’) and 1 right-turn lane 2 One westbound through lane would become a left-turn lane at the intersection.

ATTACHMENT E
1844
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
20 3.1.4.2 WEST LANE / PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #2
This new intersection will provide right turn in/right-turn out (RIRO) access to the Project site from West Lane (Project traffic stops and yields to traffic on West Lane). The lane configuration is presented below:
• West Lane Northbound Approach: 3 through lanes and 1 right-turn lane (200’) • West Lane Southbound Approach: 3 through lanes
• Project Roadway Access #2 Westbound Approach: 1 right-turn lane

3.1.4.3 CAYWOOD DRIVE / MORADA LANE / PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #3 The Project will provide a fourth (north) leg to an existing three-leg intersection. The Project proposes to signalize this intersection if it meets the peak hour signal warrant. A two-lane roundabout is also under consideration at this location. The lane configuration as a signalized intersection is presented below:
• Morada Lane Westbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (300’), 3 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (250’)
• Morada Lane Eastbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (300’), 2 through lanes, and 1 shared through/right-turn lane
• Project Roadway Access #3 Southbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (300’) and 1 shared left/through/right-turn lane
• Caywood Drive Northbound Approach: 1 shared left/through/right-turn lane

3.1.4.4 CHERBOURG WAY / MORADA LANE / PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #4 The Project will provide a fourth (north) leg to an existing three-leg intersection. The Project proposes to signalize this intersection if it meets the peak hour signal warrant. A two-lane roundabout is also under consideration at this location. The lane configuration as a signalized intersection is presented below:
• Morada Lane Westbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (350’), 3 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (250’)
• Morada Lane Eastbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (350’), 2 through lanes, and 1 shared through/right-turn lane
• Project Roadway Access #4 Southbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (300’) and 1 shared left/through/right-turn lane
• Cherbourg Way Northbound Approach: 1 shared left/through/right-turn lane

ATTACHMENT E
1845
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
21 3.1.4.5 FOX CREEK DRIVE / MORADA LANE / PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #5 The Project will provide a fourth (north) leg to an existing three-leg intersection. The project does not propose to signalize this intersection to avoid the potential for westbound vehicle queues extending to the UPRR tracks. Southbound (exiting the Project site) left-turn and through movements will be prohibited via a raised channelization island that will permit only right-turning vehicles.

The lane configuration is presented below:
• Morada Lane Westbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (250’), 3 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane (250’)
• Morada Lane Eastbound Approach: 1 left-turn lane (250’), 2 through lanes, and 1 shared through/right-turn lane
• Project Roadway Access #5 Southbound Approach: 1 right-turn lane only (through and left turns not allowed)
• Fox Creek Drive Northbound Approach: 1 shared left/through/right-turn lane

3.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Estimates are created for the daily condition and for the peak one-hour period during the morning and evening commute when traffic volumes on the adjacent streets are typically the highest. Project trip generation was estimated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), with the resulting estimates presented in Table 3-1. The project is expected to generate approximately 17,633 new daily vehicle trips, including approximately 1,262 morning peak hour and 1,848 evening peak hour trips.

Table 3-1. Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates
Use Size Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
New Single Family 2,241 d.u. 17,633 316 946 1,262 1,164 684 1,848 ITE land use category 210 – Single-Family Homes (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P):

Daily: Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X) + 2.68
AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.91Ln(X)+0.12; Enter = 25%; Exit = 75% PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.94Ln(X) + 0.27; Enter = 63%; Exit = 37% Source: Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition); BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1846
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
22 3.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of project trip distribution were developed based on City of Stockton Travel Demand Model and engineering judgement using existing traffic count data and land use patterns.

The trip distribution percentages are shown in Table 3-2 and traffic assignment is shown on Figure 3-1.

Table 3-2. Project Trip Distribution
Direction of Travel % of Travel
Eight Mile Road: West of West Lane 6%
West Lane: North of Eight Mile Road 11%
Eight Mile Road: East of West Lane 2%
Morada Lane: East of Diamond Bar Place 40%
Holman Road: North of Morada Lane 3%
Holman Road: South of Morada Lane 4%
Hammer Lane: West of West Lane 7%
Hammer Lane: East of West Lane 4%
West Lane: South of Hammer Lane 14%
South of Morada Lane: West of West Lane 3%
South of Morada Lane: East of West Lane 2%
Morada Lane: West of West Lane 4%

ATTACHMENT E
1847
Marlette Rd (Future)
182 (129)
61 (223)

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
C
C
Figure 3-1
Project Peak Hour Traffic Assignment

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Project Road #3 Caywood Dr

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Project Rd #4 Cherbourg Way

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Project Rd #5 Fox Creek Dr

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln
STOP
STOP
STOP

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
58 (40)
104 (75)
20 (14)
20 (70)35 (129)
6 (24)
36 (27)
35 (119)
61 (223)
146 (102)
100 (70)
35 (119)
15 (55)
0 (0)100 (70)
36 (27)
42 (149)50 (195)
8 (25)
6 (23)16 (10) 84 (60)
23 (17)
195 (148)
88 (327)
4 (17)14 (12) 265 (196)
80 (293)
4 (17) 14 (12) 237 (172)
14 (12)
4 (17)
46 (165)
20 (81) 66 (49) 132 (96)
39 (27)
14 (47)
0 (2)
14 (54)
42 (164) 86 (67) 2 (2)
105 (75)
36 (127)
132 (98)
0 (3)
28 (117)
119 (122) 50 (38) 2 (2)
343 (244)
36 (128)
118 (187)
14 (47)
448 (319)82 (60)
80 (291)
72 (255)
448 (319)
152 (546)
14 (47)
29 (20)
380 (272)
39 (27)10 (35)
128 (464)

ACF F C A
CF
A
AF
CF
CF F
CF
AC
CF
AC
C A CF

C A ACF F

C A ACF F
C
AC
ACF
CF
C
AC
ACF
CF
AC
F
CF
C
C
ACF
A
F C
380 (272)
128 (464)
C
C
380 (272)
128 (464)
C
C
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1848
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
24 4. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK

HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
This chapter evaluates potential off-site traffic impacts under Existing Plus Project conditions. The Project trip assignment shown in Figure 3-1 was added to the Existing peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 2-1 to develop Existing Plus Project intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Figure 4-1.

The roadway improvements presented in Chapter 3 were assumed under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors, pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from Existing Conditions. Measures to improve potentially deficient operations are provided in the CEQA Transportation Analysis (Chapter 7) and Local Roadway Transportation Analysis (Chapter 8).

4.1 SIGNAL WARRANTS
Existing Plus Project peak hour traffic signal warrants were performed at the unsignalized study intersections (intersections 2, 8, 9, and 10) and the results are presented in Table 4-1. The peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied at the following intersections:
• West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The intersections listed above are assumed to be signalized under Existing Plus Project Conditions.3 Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
3 Intersection #8 and #9 were also evaluated as a two-lane roundabout under Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1849
Marlette Rd (Future)
811 (923)
1,080 (962)

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
CC
CC
Figure 4-1
Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 300 (311)426 (550)
85 (72)
109 (183)
419 (413)
415 (369) 151 (119) 509 (494)
36 (12)
7 (9)
379 (423)
156 (99)

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd
665 (831)
35 (119)
1,019 (739)61 (223)
146 (102)
100 (70)

2. West Ln/Project Rd #1
664 (923)
15 (55)
1,119 (809)
36 (27)

3. West Ln/Project Rd #2
434 (94)
507 (788)380 (528)
70 (49)
258 (81)
241 (57) 185 (35) 675 (596)
259 (178)
102 (141)
267 (74)
460 (432)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln
191 (150)
970 (1,289)
62 (134)
161 (119)
4 (6)
139 (90) 123 (70) 1,271 (952)
64 (37)
14 (8)
16 (9)
225 (130)

5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage
21 (63)
1,030 (1,438)
62 (83)
78 (89)
43 (43)
31 (29) 68 (49) 1,392 (995)
175 (128)
76 (83)
70 (52)
140 (119)

6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr
266 (478)564 (989)192 (259)
418 (573)
1,094 (1,257)
209 (187) 354 (309) 985 (681)
265 (230)
198 (169)
943 (1,107)
547 (409)

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln
22 (18)
0 (2)
86 (36)
14 (54)
831 (711)
103 (44) 86 (67) 2 (2)
105 (75)
36 (127)
766 (590)
70 (47)

8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Project Road #3 Caywood Dr
8 (32)
0 (3)
130 (73)
28 (117)
939 (643)
55 (62) 50 (38) 2 (2)
343 (244)
36 (128)
814 (694)
154 (88)

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Project Rd #4 Cherbourg Way
24 (42)
0 (0)
119 (62)
14 (47)
1,362 (861)
36 (52)82 (60)
80 (291)
898 (808)
74 (86)

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Project Rd #5 Fox Creek Dr
140 (42)
53 (6)
101 (41)
162 (33)
1,164 (833)
155 (57) 102 (60) 68 (11)
207 (91)
303 (68)
810 (1,083)
94 (42)

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln
223 (181)121 (210)
91 (177)
213 (150)
1,009 (675)
250 (140) 251 (133) 272 (150)
194 (109)
146 (167)
733 (879)
160 (142)

12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln
STOP
STOP
STOP
ACF
ACE
ACE
AE
CCCF
ACC
AF
CCCF
CCC F
ACF
AACCCF
AACCF
AACCF
BF
ACE
ACE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
F
ACCCF
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
87 (27)
7 (15)
83 (91)
61 (71)
1,168 (856)
65 (34) 90 (35) 22 (15)
64 (50)
31 (63)
790 (1,138)
58 (101)

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr
ACCF
ACF
ACF
ACCE
57 (25)20 (15)62 (28)
178 (213)
1,104 (741)
33 (43) 108 (251) 5 (16)
54 (133)
83 (171)
714 (1,026)
17 (49)

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
ACCF
ACF
AE
ACCF
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1850
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
26 Table 4-1. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrants Intersection Peak Hour Signal Warrant Met?
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1
AM Yes
PM Yes
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 AM Yes
PM Yes
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 AM Yes
PM Yes
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5 AM No
PM No
Source: BTC, 2024.

4.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection levels of service for Existing Plus Project Conditions are presented in Table 4-2. Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, the addition of Project traffic would cause the following intersections to have deficient operations during at least one peak hour:
• West Lane / Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) – AM peak hour • West Lane / West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) – AM peak hour Intersection LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix E. The intersection of Fox Creek Drive/Morada Lane/Project Roadway Access #5 is not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. A side-street stop controlled intersection is considered deficient if the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to meet the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria and there are no acceptable alternative routes that can be used. Under Existing Plus Project conditions that intersection does not meet the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria and there are acceptable alternative routes via Cherbourg Way that can be reasonably be used by northbound traffic to access Morada Lane via a traffic signal.

ATTACHMENT E
1851
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
27 Table 4-2. Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project
LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road Signal AM D 44 E 55
PM D 35 D 45
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 Project
Signal
AM
N/A
A 9
PM B 12
3 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 SSSC AM N/A
A (B) 1 (12)
PM A (B) 1 (14)
4 West Lane / Morada Lane Signal AM E 76 D 50
PM D 36 C 31
5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage Signal AM D 44 E 62
PM B 18 C 21
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive Signal AM B 19 C 20
PM B 18 C 20
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane Signal AM D 44 D 50
PM D 49 D 55
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #3
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 4 (51) [B]
{A (A)}
[17]
{7 (9)}
PM A (C) 1 (19) [B]
{A (A)}
[15]
{6 (7)}
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #4
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 5 (51) [C]
{B (C)}
[26]
{13 (18)}
PM A (D) 3 (25) [C]
{A (A)}
[22]
{8 (10)}
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #5 SSSC
AM B (F) 11 (>100) D (F) 27 (>100)
PM A (D) 3 (32) A (F) 6 (95)
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM D 37 D 41 PM B 18 B 19
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Signal AM C 32 D 37
PM C 21 C 24
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM B 11 B 12
PM B 11 B 11
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane Signal AM C 33 C 29
PM E 61 D 51
15 West Lane / Marlette Road n/a
AM n/a n/a n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a n/a n/a
Notes:

1. SSSC = side-street stop-controlled intersection. For SSSC and Roundabout (RAB) intersections, LOS/delay is presented as:

Intersection Average (Worst Movement). n/a =not applicable Deficient intersection operations are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1852
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
28 4.3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT VEHICLE QUEUES
Existing Plus Project 95th percentile vehicle queues are presented for turn pockets at signalized study intersections in Table 4-3. The addition of Project traffic is projected to cause the following locations to exceed available storage and increase vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet:
• West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1)
• West Lane/Knickerbocker Drive (Intersection 6)
• West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7)
• Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12)
Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix F show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 4-3. Existing Plus Project 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Intersection Movement1
Existing2 Existing Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 196 273 240 200 293
EBR 240 311 174 240 337 244
WBL 165 254 136 165 267 178
NBL 375 432 441 375 613 598
SBL 410 85 36 410 87 38
2 West Lane / Project Roadway
Access #1
WBL
N/A
300 67 64
NBR 250 16 33
SBL 340 48 147
4 West Lane / Morada Lane
EBL N/A 200 121 70
EBR 1,270 393 39 1,270 210 0
WBL 250 405 383 450 329 288
WBR N/A 300 33 48
NBL 300 378 86 300 340 76
NBR 300 342 331 300 120 103
SBL 320 552 276 320 211 122
SBR 2,000 230 7 2,000 73 0

ATTACHMENT E
1853
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
29 Intersection Movement1
Existing2 Existing Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
5 West Lane / West Lane
Frontage
EBR 50 97 38 50 98 50
WBR 50 0 0 50 0 0
NBL 415 252 147 415 252 164
SBL 400 105 55 400 105 59
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker
Drive
EBL 230 196 168 230 208 218
WBL 70 227 182 70 227 185
NBL 275 56 113 275 56 114
NBR 130 0 3 130 0 3
SBL 260 259 179 260 281 194
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane
EBL 265 289 439 265 328 545
EBR 265 92 103 265 92 103
WBL 340 480 328 340 494 328
WBR 190 108 91 190 113 116
NBL 390 197 420 390 200 420
NBR 390 62 96 390 62 99
SBL 390 173 164 390 205 185
SBR 330 129 109 330 224 177
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #3
EBL
N/A
300 27 57
WBL 300 81 51
WBR 250 0 36
SBL 250 105 69
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #4
EBL
N/A
350 50 121
WBL 350 177 98
WBR 250 0 43
SBL 300 217 147
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 310 234 56 310 234 60
WBL 215 153 66 215 153 71
WBR 590 157 16 590 209 14
NBL 100 208 66 100 208 71
SBL 230 316 116 230 316 123

ATTACHMENT E
1854
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
30 Intersection Movement1
Existing2 Existing Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane
EBL 250 277 193 250 319 220
EBR 225 67 51 225 140 57
WBL 300 252 208 300 252 212
WBR 215 60 59 215 67 90
NBL 315 357 199 315 393 264
NBR 215 47 58 215 47 58
SBL 300 319 170 300 319 173
SBR 225 72 47 225 73 55
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 300 77 81 300 86 93
EBR 1,470 27 9 1,470 26 7
WBL 310 74 106 310 82 121
NBL 100 79 29 100 92 36
NBR 100 32 31 100 36 37
SBL 90 61 46 90 71 57
SBR 90 33 9 90 38 9
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada
Lane
EBL 180 323 436 180 323 436
EBR 180 0 0 180 0 0
WBL 100 39 88 100 39 88
WBR 110 30 86 110 30 108
NBL 65 93 55 65 93 55
NBR 65 9 0 65 9 0
SBL 150 89 254 150 89 254
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1855
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
31 5. BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
This chapter presents the analysis results under Background and Background Plus Project conditions.

Background conditions represent projected traffic volumes and near-term roadway improvements expected to occur by the time the proposed Project would be operational. Measures to improve potentially deficient operations are provided in the CEQA Transportation Analysis (Chapter 7) and Local Roadway Transportation Analysis (Chapter 8).

5.1 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Development projects anticipated to generate traffic by the time the proposed Project would be operational include the following:
• Tra Vigne Development Project (southeast quadrant of West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection) • Gill Medical Center (northeast quadrant of West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection) • Cannery Park Project (southwest quadrant of the SR 99/Eight Mile Road interchange) Traffic from these developments, based on traffic studies prepared for these developments, was added to Existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop Background No Project intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Figure 5-1. The Project trip assignment shown in Figure 3-1 was added to the Background No Project peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 5-1 to develop Background Plus Project intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Figure 5-2.

5.2 ROADWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS
Under Background No Project conditions it was assumed that a new signalized intersection on West Lane (West Lane/Marlette Road) about 2,000 feet north of Bear Creek would be constructed to serve traffic from the Tra Vigne Development. For this study it was assumed that this intersection would be designed and constructed to accommodate General Plan Buildout as part of the Tra Vigne Development. Improvements to the West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection would also be made to support the Tra Vigne Development and other approved projects. The assumed intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 5-1 for Background No Project conditions. Roadway improvements proposed by the Project and presented in Chapter 3 were assumed under Background Plus Project conditions. The assumed intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 5-2 for Background Plus Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1856
Figure 5-1
Background No Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 300 (316)376 (504)100 (101)
203 (227)
684 (666)
427 (337) 151 (119) 478 (370)
53 (16)
25 (22)
607 (691)
221 (216)
871 (1,171)
0 (0)
1,385 (1,048)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
871 (1,171)
0 (0)
1,385 (1,048)
0 (0)
434 (94)
640 (923)330 (333)
77 (41)
252 (58)
241 (57) 195 (39) 854 (784)
336 (225)
154 (207)
246 (59)
285 (311)
191 (150)
1,057 (1,246)
62 (134)
157 (102)
4 (6)
139 (90) 109 (58) 1,289 (1,031)
64 (37)
14 (8)
16 (9)
225 (130)
21 (63)
1,125 (1,429)
62 (83)
74 (72)
43 (43)
31 (29) 54 (37) 1,438 (1,098)
161 (116)
72 (66)
70 (52)
140 (119)
266 (478)
693 (1,108)
192 (259)
398 (492)
1,094 (1,257)
209 (187) 288 (260) 1,136 (860)
226 (203)
184 (122)
943 (1,107)
547 (409)
22 (18)86 (36)
866 (594)
103 (44)
708 (587)
70 (47)
8 (32)
130 (73)
897 (568)
55 (62)
770 (602)
154 (88)
24 (42)
119 (62)
991 (589)
36 (52)
900 (648)
74 (86)
140 (42)
53 (6)
101 (41)
162 (33)
793 (561)
155 (57) 102 (60) 68 (11)
207 (91)
303 (68)
732 (632)
94 (42)
212 (138)199 (337)
91 (177)
216 (162)
669 (416)
216 (115) 278 (130) 429 (245)
304 (168)
223 (255)
639 (474)
160 (142)
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
ACCF
ACCF
ACCF
ACCF
CCCF
ACC
AF
CCCF
CCC F
BF
AACCF
ACCF
AD
BF
ACE
ACE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
G
E
AC
G
E
AC
CE
G
AC
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
87 (27)
7 (15)
83 (91)
61 (71)
938 (656)
65 (34) 90 (35) 22 (15)
64 (50)
31 (63)
773 (821)
58 (101)
ACCF
ACF
ACF
ACCE
57 (25)20 (15)62 (28)
178 (213)
874 (541)
33 (43) 108 (251) 5 (16)
54 (133)
83 (171)
697 (709)
17 (49)
ACCF
ACF
AE
ACCF
791 (1,036)
80 (135)
1,081 (868)45 (55)
14 (6)
304 (180)
CCF
ACC
AF

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 (Full Access) 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2 (RI/RO)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future) Diamond Bar Pl

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1857
Figure 5-2
Background Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 358 (356)480 (579)120 (115)
203 (227)
684 (666)
447 (407) 151 (119) 513 (499)
53 (16)
25 (22)
607 (691)
227 (240)
907 (1,198)
35 (119)
1,385 (1,048)61 (223)
146 (102)
100 (70)
906 (1,290)
15 (55)
1,485 (1,118)
36 (27)
434 (94)
682 (1,072)
380 (528)
85 (66)
258 (81)
241 (57) 211 (49) 938 (844)
336 (225)
154 (207)
269 (76)
480 (459)
191 (150)
1,145 (1,573)
62 (134)
161 (119)
4 (6)
139 (90) 123 (70) 1,554 (1,227)
64 (37)
14 (8)
16 (9)
225 (130)
21 (63)
1,205 (1,722)
62 (83)
78 (89)
43 (43)
31 (29) 68 (49) 1,675 (1,270)
175 (128)
76 (83)
70 (52)
140 (119)
266 (478)
739 (1,273)
192 (259)
418 (573)
1,094 (1,257)
209 (187) 354 (309) 1,268 (956)
265 (230)
198 (169)
943 (1,107)
547 (409)
22 (18)
0 (2)
86 (36)
14 (54)
908 (758)
103 (44) 86 (67) 2 (2)
105 (75)
36 (127)
840 (685)
70 (47)
8 (32)
0 (3)
130 (73)
28 (117)
1,016 (690)
55 (62) 50 (38) 2 (2)
343 (244)
36 (128)
888 (789)
154 (88)
24 (42)
0 (0)
119 (62)
14 (47)
1,439 (908)
36 (52)82 (60)
80 (291)
972 (903)
74 (86)
140 (42)
53 (6)
101 (41)
162 (33)
1,241 (880)
155 (57) 102 (60) 68 (11)
207 (91)
303 (68)
884 (1,178)
94 (42)
226 (185)199 (337)
91 (177)
245 (182)
1,049 (688)
255 (142) 288 (165) 429 (245)
304 (168)
223 (255)
767 (938)
160 (142)
STOP
STOP
STOP
ACCF
ACCF
ACCF
ACCF
CCCF
ACC
AF
CCCF
CCC F
ACF
AACCCF
AACCF
AACCF
BF
ACE
ACE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
F
ACCCF
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
87 (27)
7 (15)
83 (91)
61 (71)
1,318 (928)
65 (34) 90 (35) 22 (15)
64 (50)
31 (63)
901 (1,285)
58 (101)
ACCF
ACF
ACF
ACCE
57 (25)20 (15)62 (28)
178 (213)
1,254 (813)
33 (43) 108 (251) 5 (16)
54 (133)
83 (171)
825 (1,173)
17 (49)
ACCF
ACF
AE
ACCF
973 (1,165)
80 (135)
1,142 (1,091)45 (55)
14 (6)
304 (180)
CCF
ACC
AF

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 (Full Access) 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2 (RI/RO)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future) Diamond Bar Pl

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1858
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
34 5.3 SIGNAL WARRANTS
Peak hour traffic signal warrants were performed at the unsignalized study intersections (intersections 2, 8, 9, and 10) and the results are presented in Table 5-1. The peak hour traffic signal warrants are satisfied at the following intersections under Background Plus Project conditions:
• West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The intersections listed above are assumed to be signalized under Background Plus Project Conditions.4 Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix G.

Table 5-1. Background Peak Hour Signal Warrants
Intersection Peak Hour
Signal Warrant Met?
Background No
Project
Background
Plus Project
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1
AM No Yes
PM No Yes
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 AM No Yes
PM No Yes
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 AM No Yes
PM No Yes
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5 AM No No
PM No No
Source: BTC, 2024.

5.4 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection operations under Background Conditions, with and without the Project, are presented in Table 5-2. Peak hour factors, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and heavy vehicle percentages were left unchanged from existing conditions. Signal timings were updated in the Background Conditions analysis to reflect updates that would occur alongside roadway improvements. Under Background No Project Conditions, the following intersections would have deficient operations for at least one peak hour:
• West Lane/Morada Lane (Intersection 4) – AM and PM peak hour 4 Intersection #8 and #9 were also evaluated as a two-lane roundabout under Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1859
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
35 • West Lane / West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) – AM peak hour The intersections of Morada Lane with Caywood Drive, Cherbourg Way, and Fox Creek Drive are not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F for at least one peak hour. A side-street stop controlled intersection is considered deficient if the intersection meets the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria and there are no acceptable alternative routes that can be used. These intersections do not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant under Background No Project conditions. Furthermore, the critical movement that operates at LOS F at these intersections is the northbound left-turn movement and there are two acceptable alternative routes for the northbound left-turn movement that would provide access to all likely destinations: the first is to use to use local streets in the residential neighborhood to access northbound West Lane via a right-turn movement at Westmora Avenue (a parallel road to Morada Lane); and the second is to access southbound West Lane via the signalized intersection of West Lane/West Lane Frontage.

Under Background Plus Project Conditions, the following intersections would worsen under Project conditions and have deficient operations for at least one peak hour:
• West Lane / West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) – AM peak hour The intersection of Fox Creek Drive/Morada Lane/Project Roadway Access #5 is not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F under Background Plus Project conditions. Northbound traffic can reasonably access Morada Lane via the traffic signal at the intersection of Cherbourg Way/Morada Lane. Intersection LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix H.

ATTACHMENT E
1860
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
36 Table 5-2. Background Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Background No Project Background Plus Project
LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road Signal AM D 42 D 49
PM D 36 D 45
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 Project
Signal
AM
N/A
A 10
PM B 12
3 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 SSSC AM N/A
A (B) 1 (14)
PM A (C) 1 (17)
4 West Lane / Morada Lane Signal AM F 115 E 57
PM D 50 C 33
5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage Signal AM E 56 F 95
PM B 20 C 24
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive Signal AM C 20 C 22
PM B 19 C 21
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane Signal AM D 46 D 51
PM D 50 E 56
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #3
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 5 (76) [B]
{A (A)}
[17]
{8 (10)}
PM A (C) 1 (22) [B]
{A (A)}
[15]
{7 (7}}
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane /
Project Roadway Access #4
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 6 (77) [C]
{B (C)}
[27]
{15 (20)}
PM A (D) 3 (32) [C]
{A (B)}
[22]
{9 (11)}
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane /
Project Roadway Access #5 SSSC
AM C (F) 18 (>100) E (F) 35 (>100)
PM A (E) 4 (43) A (F) 7 (>100)
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM D 38 D 44 PM B 18 B 20
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Signal AM D 37 D 43
PM C 26 C 28
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM B 11 B 12
PM B 11 B 11
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane Signal AM C 31 C 28
PM D 39 D 38
15 West Lane / Marlette Road Signal AM B 11 B 15
PM A 9 B 12
Notes:

1. SSSC = side-street stop-controlled intersection. For SSSC and Roundabout (RAB) intersections, LOS/delay is presented as:

Intersection Average (Worst Movement).

Deficient intersection operations based on the City of Stockton General Plan are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1861
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
37 5.5 BACKGROUND VEHICLE QUEUES
Background 95th percentile vehicle queues are presented for turn pockets at signalized study intersections in Table 5-3. The addition of Project traffic is projected to cause the following locations to exceed available storage and increase vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet:
• West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1)
• West Lane/Knickerbocker Drive (Intersection 6)
• West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7)
• Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12)
Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix I show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 5-3. Background 95th Percentile Queue Lengths
Intersection Movement1
Background No Project2 Background Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 245 286 240 245 286
EBR 240 88 71 240 112 78
WBL 165 286 255 165 297 294
WBR 165 0 0 165 0 0
NBL 375 323 334 375 418 395
NBR 375 20 19 375 34 27
SBL 410 75 32 410 75 32
SBR 410 34 7 410 34 7
2 West Lane / Project Roadway
Access #1
WBL
N/A
300 84 64
NBR 250 15 33
SBL 340 60 147
4 West Lane / Morada Lane
EBL N/A 200 141 111
EBR 1,270 433 41 1,270 83 0
WBL 250 433 455 450 345 272
WBR N/A 300 65 52
NBL 300 405 91 300 340 74
NBR 300 514 467 300 160 106
SBL 320 860 356 320 272 151
SBR 2,000 319 25 2,000 132 0

ATTACHMENT E
1862
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
38 Intersection Movement1
Background No Project2 Background Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
5 West Lane / West Lane
Frontage
EBR 50 86 43 50 88 49
WBR 50 0 0 50 0 0
NBL 415 239 174 415 239 174
SBL 400 102 62 400 102 62
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker
Drive
EBL 230 196 168 230 208 218
WBL 70 227 182 70 227 185
NBL 275 56 113 275 56 114
NBR 130 0 3 130 0 3
SBL 260 259 179 260 281 194
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane
EBL 265 330 447 265 403 614
EBR 265 96 102 265 102 109
WBL 340 532 335 340 592 380
WBR 190 113 91 190 126 125
NBL 390 210 429 390 227 479
NBR 390 61 96 390 60 97
SBL 390 187 167 390 234 202
SBR 330 130 109 330 226 178
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #3
EBL
N/A
300 28 58
WBL 300 83 53
WBR 250 0 36
SBL 250 108 71
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #4
EBL
N/A
350 50 126
WBL 350 177 103
WBR 250 0 42
SBL 300 217 153
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 310 234 59 310 234 60
WBL 215 153 70 215 153 71
WBR 590 186 15 590 228 14
NBL 100 208 70 100 208 71
SBL 230 316 122 230 316 123
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane
EBL 250 325 236 250 389 264
EBR 225 68 51 225 151 56
WBL 300 252 212 300 252 217
WBR 215 73 73 215 94 140
NBL 315 364 208 315 400 279

ATTACHMENT E
1863
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
39 Intersection Movement1
Background No Project2 Background Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
NBR 215 47 62 215 47 62
SBL 300 597 246 300 597 254
SBR 225 77 53 225 79 60
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 300 84 84 300 86 97
EBR 1,470 26 8 1,470 26 7
WBL 310 80 109 310 82 126
NBL 100 89 31 100 92 38
NBR 100 36 33 100 36 39
SBL 90 69 48 90 71 60
SBR 90 37 9 90 38 9
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada
Lane
EBL 180 323 335 180 323 335
EBR 180 0 0 180 0 0
WBL 100 39 88 100 39 88
WBR 110 30 92 110 30 92
NBL 65 93 55 65 93 55
NBR 65 9 0 65 9 0
SBL 150 89 254 150 89 254
15 West Lane / Marlette Road
WBL 400 242 146 400 227 140
NBR 400 26 30 400 28 32
SBL 400 57 61 400 56 59
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1864
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
40 6. CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
This chapter presents the traffic operations analysis results under Cumulative (2040) year conditions without and with the Project. Cumulative conditions represent projected traffic volumes and future roadway improvements based on the City’s Travel Demand Model under General Plan Buildout Conditions. Measures to improve potentially deficient operations are provided in the CEQA Transportation Analysis (Chapter 7) and Local Roadway Transportation Analysis (Chapter 8). Major roadway improvements in the study area are described in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Planned Roadway Improvements for the Cumulative Year (2040) Location Improvement
Eight Mile Road Four lanes west of West Lane
Six lanes east of West Lane
West Lane Six lanes between Eight Mile Road and Hammer Lane Morada Lane Four lanes between West Lane and Fox Creek Road Six lanes between Holman Road and SR 99
Source: Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan.

6.1 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Cumulative No Project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated using the City’s Travel Demand Model.

Cumulative No Project peak hour traffic volumes include traffic from General Plan Buildout (without the Project) and also reflect traffic from the following approved/planned development in the Project vicinity:
• Tra Vigne Development Project (southeast quadrant of West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection) • Gill Medical Center (northeast quadrant of West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection) • Cannery Park Project (southwest quadrant of the SR 99/Eight Mile Road interchange) • LeBaron Ranch (southwest quadrant of West Lane/Eight Mile Road intersection) Cumulative Plus Project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding traffic generated by the Project to the Cumulative No Project intersection turning movement volumes. Cumulative No Project intersection turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 6-1. Cumulative Plus Project intersection turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 6-2.

ATTACHMENT E
1865
Figure 6-1
Cumulative No Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 347 (352)509 (609)285 (242)
208 (235)
982 (949)
469 (413) 182 (124) 548 (515)
55 (17)
50 (22)
1,058 (1,186)
332 (428)
1,184 (1,741)
0 (0)
1,859 (1,473)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1,184 (1,741)
0 (0)
1,859 (1,473)
0 (0)
505 (270)
791 (1,299)
344 (347)
197 (127)
562 (260)
404 (161) 251 (173) 1,176 (1,009)
432 (291)
196 (315)
362 (398)
296 (323)
199 (156)
1,285 (1,808)
65 (140)
164 (106)
4 (6)
145 (94) 113 (60) 1,779 (1,368)
66 (39)
15 (8)
17 (9)
235 (136)
22 (66)
1,358 (1,997)
65 (87)
77 (75)
45 (45)
32 (30) 56 (39) 1,935 (1,438)
168 (121)
75 (69)
73 (54)
146 (124)
277 (498)
850 (1,498)
200 (270)
432 (565)
1,140 (1,468)
218 (195) 350 (304) 1,476 (1,090)
313 (263)
224 (215)
983 (1,154)
570 (426)
23 (19)90 (38)
1,282 (874)
107 (46)
876 (1,045)
73 (49)
8 (33)
136 (76)
1,315 (847)
57 (65)
941 (1,061)
161 (92)
25 (44)
124 (65)
1,413 (869)
38 (54)
1,077 (1,109)
77 (90)
146 (44)
55 (6)
105 (43)
169 (34)
1,206 (841)
162 (59) 106 (63) 71 (11)
216 (95)
316 (71)
902 (1,092)
98 (44)
229 (169)204 (346)
95 (185)
241 (179)
1,038 (665)
248 (135) 294 (153) 441 (251)
312 (173)
229 (262)
793 (885)
167 (148)
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
AACCF
ACCCF
ACCF
AACCCF
CCCF
ACCC
AF
CCCF
CCC F
ACCF
AACCCF
AACCCF
AD
BF
ACCE
ACCE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
CE
G
ACC
CE
G
ACC
CE
G
ACC
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
91 (28)
7 (16)
87 (95)
64 (74)
1,313 (914)
68 (35) 94 (36) 23 (16)
67 (52)
32 (66)
932 (1,243)
60 (105)
ACCE
ACF
ACF
ACCE
59 (26)21 (16)65 (29)
186 (222)
1,247 (794)
34 (45) 113 (262) 5 (17)
56 (139)
87 (178)
852 (1,126)
18 (51)
ACCE
ACF
AE
ACCE
173 (461)
931 (1,145)
80 (135)
238 (182)
68 (55)
332 (225) 102 (145) 1,223 (1,068)
45 (55)
14 (6)
16 (44)
304 (180)
ACF
AACCCF
ACCCF
AE

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 (Full Access) 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2 (RI/RO)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future) Diamond Bar Pl

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1866
Figure 6-2
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control 405 (392)613 (684)305 (256)
208 (235)
982 (949)
489 (483) 182 (124) 583 (644)
55 (17)
50 (22)
1,058 (1,186)
338 (452)
1,220 (1,768)
35 (119)
1,859 (1,473)61 (223)
146 (102)
100 (70)
1,219 (1,860)
15 (55)
1,959 (1,543)
36 (27)
505 (270)
833 (1,448)
394 (542)
205 (152)
568 (283)
404 (161) 267 (183) 1,260 (1,069)
432 (291)
196 (315)
385 (415)
491 (471)
199 (156)
1,373 (2,135)
65 (140)
168 (123)
4 (6)
145 (94) 127 (72) 2,044 (1,564)
66 (39)
15 (8)
17 (9)
235 (136)
22 (66)
1,438 (2,290)
65 (87)
81 (92)
45 (45)
32 (30) 70 (51) 2,172 (1,610)
182 (133)
79 (86)
73 (54)
146 (124)
277 (498)
896 (1,663)
200 (270)
452 (646)
1,140 (1,468)
218 (195) 416 (353) 1,608 (1,186)
352 (290)
238 (262)
983 (1,154)
570 (426)
23 (19)
0 (2)
90 (38)
14 (54)
1,324 (1,038)
107 (46) 86 (67) 2 (2)
105 (75)
36 (127)
1,008 (1,143)
73 (49)
8 (33)
0 (3)
136 (76)
28 (117)
1,434 (969)
57 (65) 50 (38) 2 (2)
343 (244)
36 (128)
1,059 (1,248)
161 (92)
25 (44)
0 (0)
124 (65)
14 (47)
1,861 (1,188)
38 (54)82 (60)
80 (291)
1,149 (1,364)
77 (90)
146 (44)
55 (6)
105 (43)
169 (34)
1,654 (1,160)
162 (59) 106 (63) 71 (11)
216 (95)
316 (71)
1,054 (1,638)
98 (44)
243 (216)204 (346)
95 (185)
270 (199)
1,418 (937)
287 (162) 304 (188) 441 (251)
312 (173)
229 (262)
921 (1,349)
167 (148)
STOP
STOP
STOP
AACCF
ACCCF
ACCF
AACCCF
CCCF
ACCC
AF
CCCF
CCC F
ACCF
AACCCF
AACCCF
AACCF
BF
ACCE
ACCE
BF
AE
ACCCF
ACCE
AE

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF

AACCCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
AD
ACCCF
ACCE
D
F
ACCCF
ACCE
AE
AE
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
ACCCF
91 (28)
7 (16)
87 (95)
64 (74)
1,693 (1,186)
68 (35) 94 (36) 23 (16)
67 (52)
32 (66)
1,060 (1,707)
60 (105)
ACCE
ACF
ACF
ACCE
59 (26)21 (16)65 (29)
186 (222)
1,627 (1,066)
34 (45) 113 (262) 5 (17)
56 (139)
87 (178)
980 (1,590)
18 (51)
ACCE
ACF
AE
ACCE
173 (461)
1,113 (1,274)
80 (135)
238 (182)
68 (55)
332 (225) 102 (145) 1,284 (1,291)
45 (55)
14 (6)
16 (44)
304 (180)
ACF
AACCCF
ACCCF
AE

1. West Ln/Eight Mile Rd 2. West Ln/Project Rd #1 (Full Access) 3. West Ln/Project Rd #2 (RI/RO)

4. West Ln/Morada Ln 5. West Ln/West Ln Frontage 6. West Ln/Knickerbocker Dr

7. West Ln/Hammer Ln 8. Caywood Dr/PR #3/Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Project Rd #2
West Ln
Morada Ln
West Ln
West Ln Frontage
West Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
West Ln
Hammer Ln
West Ln
Morada Ln
Caywood Dr/PR #3

9. Cherbourg Way/PR #4/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Cherbourg Way/PR #4

10. Fox Creek Dr/PR #5/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Fox Creek Dr/PR #5

11. Glacier Point Drive/Morada Ln 12. Holman Rd/Morada Ln Morada Ln
Glacier Point Drive
Morada Ln
Holman Rd
Project Rd #1
West Ln

13. Marantha Dr/Morada Ln
Morada Ln
Marantha Dr

14. Diamond Bar Pl/Morada Ln
Morada Ln Marlette Rd (Future) Diamond Bar Pl

15. West Ln/Marlette Rd (Future) West Ln
Mosher Sl o ug h
West Ln
West Ln
Marlette Rd
akeeldRd
Hammertown Dr
Tam O
Shanter Dr
Holman Rd Inspiration Dr
E Ashley Ln
Hildreth Ln
Pearson Rd
Tudor Rose Gln
Quashnick Rd
N Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Genova Ln
Maranatha Dr
E Foppiano Ln
Bryant Dr
Lorraine Ave
Wakeman Dr
Shippee Ln
Diamond Bar Pl
Fox Creek Dr
Cherbourg Way
Caywood Dr
Glac ei r Point Dr
Knickerboc ker Dr
E Eight Mile Rd
E Morada Ln
E Eight Mile Rd
E Hammer Ln
J3
J3
99 99
M o r a d a
1 4 11 12 13 14
5 6
7 2
3 8 9 10
15 Figure 1-2
Project Location Study Intersection # # Project Site Access Study Intersection Future Study Intersection 15 Project
Location
Study
Intersection
# Project Site Access
Study Intersection
Future Study
Intersection
#
AM (PM) Peak Hour Signalized Intersection
Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) STOP Stop Sign
15 ATTACHMENT E
1867
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
43 6.2 SIGNAL WARRANTS
Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project peak hour traffic signal warrants were performed at the unsignalized study intersections (intersections 2, 8, 9, and 10) and the results are presented in Table 6-2. Under Cumulative No Project conditions none of the unsignalized study intersections meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions the peak hour traffic signal warrants are satisfied at the following intersections:
• West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The intersections listed above are assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.5 Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix J.

Table 6-2. Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrants Intersection Peak Hour
Signal Warrant Met?
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1
AM N/A Yes
PM N/A Yes
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #3
AM No Yes
PM No Yes
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #4
AM No Yes
PM No Yes
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project
Roadway Access #5
AM No No
PM No No
Source: BTC, 2024.

6.3 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LEVELS

OF SERVICE
Intersection operations under Cumulative Conditions, with and without the Project, are presented in Table 6-3. Pedestrian and bicycle activity, and heavy vehicle percentages were left unchanged from existing conditions. Peak hour factors were set to be equal to existing or a minimum of 0.92 (HCM recommended default).
5 Intersection #8 and #9 were also evaluated as a two-lane roundabout under Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1868
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
44 Signal timings were updated in the Cumulative year analysis to reflect updates that would occur alongside roadway improvements. Under Cumulative No Project Conditions, the following intersections would have deficient operations for at least one peak hour:
• West Lane/Morada Lane (Intersection 4) – AM peak hour The intersections of Morada Lane with Caywood Drive, Cherbourg Way, and Fox Creek Drive are not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F for at least one peak hour. A side-street stop controlled intersection is considered deficient if the intersection meets the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria and there are no acceptable alternative routes that can be used. These intersections do not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant under Cumulative No Project conditions. Furthermore, the critical movement that operates at LOS F at these intersections is the northbound left-turn movement and there are two acceptable alternative routes for the northbound left-turn movement that would provide access to all likely destinations: the first is to use to use local streets in the residential neighborhood to access northbound West Lane via a right-turn movement at Westmora Avenue (a parallel road to Morada Lane); and the second is to access southbound West Lane via the signalized intersection of West Lane/West Lane Frontage.

Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the following intersections would worsen under Project conditions and have deficient operations for at least one peak hour:
• Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) – AM peak hour The intersection of Cherbourg Way/Morada Lane/Project Roadway Access #4 is not considered deficient because the intersection would operate at LOS C or better under traffic signal control. As a two-lane roundabout, the eastbound Morada Lane approach, including the eastbound left-turn into the Project site, is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. As a two-lane roundabout, the operations of the intersection would not be consistent with the City’s LOS policy under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

The intersection of Fox Creek Drive/Morada Lane/Project Roadway Access #5 is not considered deficient based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines even though the northbound approach operates at LOS F under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Northbound traffic can reasonably access Morada Lane via the traffic signal at the intersection of Cherbourg Way/Morada Lane. Intersection LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix K.

ATTACHMENT E
1869
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
45 Table 6-3. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road Signal AM C 35 D 38
PM D 36 D 42
2 West Lane / Project Roadway Access
#1
(Signal
Project)
AM n/a n/a A 9
PM n/a n/a B 17
3 West Lane / Project Roadway Access
#2 SSSC
AM n/a n/a A (C) 1 (17)
PM n/a n/a A (D) 1 (26)
4 West Lane / Morada Lane Signal AM F 129 E 68
PM F 121 D 48
5 West Lane / West Lane Frontage Signal AM D 46 D 54
PM B 19 C 21
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker Drive Signal AM C 22 C 25
PM C 22 C 31
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane Signal AM D 52 E 56
PM E 56 E 62
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane /
Project Roadway Access #3
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 8 (>100) [B]
{B (C)}
[18]
[11 (17)]
PM A (D) 1 (33) [B]
{A (A)}
[14]
{9 (11)}
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane /
Project Roadway Access #4
SSSC
[Signal]
{RAB}
AM A (F) 7 (>100) [C]
{D (F)}
[29]
{32 (53)}
PM A (F) 4 (63) [C]
{B (C)}
[21]
{14 (20)}
10 Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane /
Project Roadway Access #5 SSSC
AM C (F) 19 (>100) F (F) 96 (>100)
PM A (F) 6 (>100) D (F) 30 (>100)
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM D 39 D 46 PM B 17 B 18
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Signal AM D 42 E 61
PM C 28 C 35
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada Lane Signal AM B 11 B 12
PM B 11 B 11
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada Lane Signal AM C 22 C 21
PM C 33 D 36
15 West Lane / Marlette Road Signal AM D 45 D 47
PM C 33 D 36
Notes:

1. SSSC = side-street stop-controlled intersection. For SSSC and Roundabout (RAB) intersections, LOS/delay is presented as:

Intersection Average (Worst Movement).

Deficient intersection operations based on the City of Stockton General Plan are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1870
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
46 6.4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS VEHICLE QUEUES
Cumulative 95th percentile vehicle queues are presented for turn pockets at signalized study intersections in Table 6-4. The addition of Project traffic is projected to cause the following locations to exceed available storage and increase vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet:
• West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1)
• West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7)
• Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12)
Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix L show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 6-4. Cumulative Plus Project 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Intersection Movement1
Cumulative2 Cumulative Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 253 313 240 253 313
EBR 240 271 238 240 333 348
WBL 165 179 223 165 185 243
WBR 165 0 0 165 0 0
NBL 375 166 204 375 216 239
NBR 375 62 60 375 64 61
SBL 410 78 36 410 78 36
SBR 410 55 18 410 55 18
2 West Lane / Project Roadway
Access #1
WBL
N/A
300 87 64
NBR 250 14 34
SBL 340 63 147
4 West Lane / Morada Lane
EBL 400 259 228 400 381 206
EBR 400 328 63 400 197 58
WBL 250 430 461 450 432 334
WBR N/A 300 65 93
NBL 300 506 297 300 339 275
NBR 300 88 123 300 156 251
SBL 320 419 312 320 320 192
SBR 320 93 58 320 77 55

ATTACHMENT E
1871
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
47 Intersection Movement1
Cumulative2 Cumulative Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
5 West Lane / West Lane
Frontage
EBR 50 98 46 50 100 49
WBR 50 0 0 50 0 0
NBL 415 256 178 415 256 182
SBL 400 106 64 400 106 66
6 West Lane / Knickerbocker
Drive
EBL 230 135 120 230 141 142
WBL 70 227 180 70 227 182
NBL 275 56 113 275 56 115
NBR 130 0 0 130 0 0
SBL 260 242 173 260 257 191
7 West Lane / Hammer Lane
EBL 265 296 434 265 310 532
EBR 265 110 102 265 111 100
WBL 340 436 311 340 436 323
WBR 190 101 131 190 124 154
NBL 390 236 424 390 236 424
NBR 390 62 68 390 62 68
SBL 390 257 198 390 308 236
SBR 330 79 76 330 155 135
8 Caywood Drive / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #3
EBL
N/A
300 28 69
WBL 300 86 64
WBR 250 0 33
SBL 250 109 84
9 Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane
/ Project Roadway Access #4
EBL
N/A
350 51 139
WBL 350 185 117
WBR 250 0 40
SBL 300 227 172
11 Glacier Point Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 310 231 62 310 231 62
WBL 215 203 73 215 203 73
WBR 590 70 0 590 70 0
NBL 100 279 73 100 279 73
SBL 230 305 128 230 305 128
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane
EBL 250 419 261 250 496 290
EBR 225 155 55 225 252 60
WBL 300 270 219 300 270 219

ATTACHMENT E
1872
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
48 Intersection Movement1
Cumulative2 Cumulative Plus Project2
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
WBR 215 90 74 215 127 167
NBL 315 354 248 315 376 336
NBR 215 51 63 215 51 63
SBL 300 549 253 300 549 253
SBR 225 84 57 225 86 62
13 Maranatha Drive / Morada
Lane
EBL 300 92 100 300 91 105
WBL 310 87 129 310 88 135
NBL 100 100 39 100 100 41
NBR 100 39 39 100 39 41
SBL 90 77 62 90 77 65
SBR 90 40 12 90 41 12
14 Diamond Bar Place / Morada
Lane
EBL 180 217 256 180 217 256
WBL 100 39 83 100 39 83
NBL 65 92 51 65 92 51
NBR 65 0 0 65 0 0
SBL 150 88 174 150 88 174
15 West Lane / Marlette Rd
EBL 400 244 240 400 244 240
EBR 400 215 72 400 215 72
WBL 400 299 235 400 299 235
NBL 400 104 215 400 104 215
NBR 400 21 37 400 21 37
SBL 400 74 82 400 74 82
SBR 400 39 42 400 39 42
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1873
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
49 7. PROJECT SITE ACCESS

AND CIRCULATION
Site access and internal circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles was evaluated based on the site plan presented on Figure 1-1.

7.1 VEHICULAR SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
As discussed earlier in the report vehicular access to the Project site would be provided from the following locations:
• West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • West Lane / Project Roadway Access #2 (Intersection 3) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) • Fox Creek Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #5 (Intersection 10)

7.1.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL AT PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS

LOCATIONS
All movements into and out of the Project site are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios assuming a traffic signal at Intersection 2, 8, and 9 and side-street stop control at Intersection 3 and 10. Furthermore, adequate vehicle storage would be provided at the site access locations to accommodate the 95th percentile vehicle queues, and adequate deceleration lane lengths are proposed for the left-turn and right-turn lanes on West Lane and Morada Lane. Table 7-1 compares the proposed deceleration lane lengths and vehicle storage against the guidance presented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). West Lane has a posted speed limit of 55 mph and Morada Lane has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

ATTACHMENT E
1874
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
50 Table 7-1. Vehicle Storage and Deceleration Lane Length Comparison Intersection Movement1
Proposed (feet) HDM (feet)
Taper
Vehicle Storage
and Deceleration
Lane
Total Taper
Vehicle Storage
and Deceleration
Lane2
Total
2 West Lane / Project
Roadway Access #1
NBR 120 250 370 120 229 349
SBL 120 340 460 120 342 462
3 West Lane / Project
Roadway Access #2 NBR 120 200 320 120 195 315
8 Caywood Drive /
Morada Lane /
Project Roadway
Access #3
EBL 90 300 390 90 214 304
WBL 90 300 390 90 232 322
WBR 90 250 340 90 181 271
9 Cherbourg Way /
Morada Lane /
Project Roadway
Access #4
EBL 90 350 440 90 284 374
WBL 90 350 440 90 334 424
WBR 90 250 340 90 185 275
10 Fox Creek Drive /
Morada Lane
EBL 90 250 340 90 195 285
WBL 90 250 340 90 245 335
WBR 90 250 340 90 195 285
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. Vehicle storage is equal to the maximum 95th percentile queue reported for that movement under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Deceleration lane length assumes partial deceleration (15 mph) is permitted in the through lanes per HDM.

Source: BTC, 2024.

7.1.2 ROUNDABOUTS AT PROJECT ROADWAY ACCESS #3 AND #4
In addition to a traffic signal, a two-lane roundabout is also under consideration at Project Roadway Access #3 and #4 (Intersection 8 and 9). Under Existing Plus Project and Background Plus Project conditions, all movements into and out of the Project site are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.

However, under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the eastbound Morada Lane approach at Intersection 9, including the eastbound left-turn into the Project site, is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. As a two-lane roundabout, the operations of Intersection 9 would not be consistent with the City’s LOS policy under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

7.1.3 INTERNAL VEHICLE CIRCULATION
All internal local residential roadways are proposed to have a 54’ right-of-way (ROW) with a curb-to-curb width of 34 feet that would accommodate two travel lanes (one lane in each direction). All internal collector roadways are proposed to have a 56’ ROW with a curb-to-curb width of 26 feet that would

ATTACHMENT E
1875
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
51 accommodate two travel lanes (one lane in each direction). The major project roadways providing access to West Lane (intersection 2) or Morada Lane (intersections 8, 9, and 10) are proposed to have a 96’ ROW and can accommodate four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction). The proposed internal roadway designs are consistent with City of Stockton street design standards.

Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are presented in Figure 7-1 for selected roadway locations within the Project site. These selected locations are representative of the range of ADT volumes that can be expected within the Project. Figure 7-1 also presents total daily volume arriving at several internal intersections. The typical capacity of a two-lane collector roadway is about 13,200 daily vehicles based on the City of Stockton General Plan. The typical capacity of a four-way all-way stop controlled intersection with one lane on all approaches is about 13,500 daily vehicles while a single lane roundabout can accommodate about 20,000 daily vehicles based on HCM. The proposed internal roadway designs would provide adequate vehicular capacity to accommodate Project traffic.

7.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
All internal project roadways will have at a minimum 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street. In some cases, an 8’ meandering sidewalk is proposed as shown in Figure 7-2. There will be no gaps in the pedestrian circulation system and pedestrian access will be provided to West Lane and Morada Lane via the project roadway access points.

Figure 7-2 also presents the bicycle facilities that will be provided by the Project. These include:
• 12’ multi-use pedestrian path along Bear Creek
• 11’ one-way separated bikeway (Class IV) on West Lane along the Project frontage • 5’ bike lane (Class II) on Morada Lane along the Project frontage The proposed bicycle facilities are consistent with the City Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017).

ATTACHMENT E
1876
4,100
5,800
5,900
3,600
5,500
5,000
2,700
3,200 5,100
2,500
3,400
2,300
1,300
Figure 7-1
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume on Internal Project Roadways Roadway ADT Volume
(Both Directions) Total Intersection ADT Volume
Site Plan Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.,
February 20, 2024. # #

ATTACHMENT E
1877
Figure 7-2
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan
Site Plan Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.,
February 16, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1878
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
54 8. CEQA TRANSPORTATION

ANALYSIS
Based on the definitions and determining factors outlined in the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, the Project would have a significant impact on the environment if the Project would:

A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

D. Result in inadequate emergency access.

8.1 PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
The TIA Guidelines includes a list of significance criteria consistent with policies set in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (2018) and City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017).

8.1.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM

8.1.1.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
The Project would create a significant impact related to the roadway system if:

At unsignalized intersections, the project results in any of the traffic signal warrants included in the CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to be satisfied, or for a location where any of the warrants are satisfied prior to the project, the project increases overall travel through the intersection.

8.1.1.1.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic causes the signal warrant to be satisfied at the following intersections. • West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The Project proposes to signalize intersections 2, 8, and 9; therefore, Project’s impact to traffic signal warrants is considered less-than-significant.

ATTACHMENT E
1879
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
55 8.1.1.1.2 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic causes the signal warrant to be satisfied at the following intersections. • West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The Project proposes to signalize intersections 2, 8, and 9; therefore, Project’s impact to traffic signal warrants is considered less-than-significant.

8.1.1.1.3 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic causes the signal warrant to be satisfied at the following intersections. • West Lane / Project Roadway Access #1 (Intersection 2) • Caywood Drive / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #3 (Intersection 8) • Cherbourg Way / Morada Lane / Project Roadway Access #4 (Intersection 9) The Project proposes to signalize intersections 2, 8, and 9; therefore, Project’s impact to traffic signal warrants is considered less-than-significant.

8.1.1.2 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUES
The Project would create a significant impact related to the roadway system if:

The Project creates the potential for 95th percentile vehicle queues that exceed available storage and could periodically block or interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities.

8.1.1.2.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic, under Existing Plus Project conditions, causes the 95th percentile queue to exceed available storage and increases vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet at the following locations.

Impact TR-1: West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) – During the AM and/or PM peak hour several turning movements (eastbound right, westbound left, and northbound left) exceed available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet with the addition of Project traffic. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Existing Plus Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1880
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
56 Mitigation Measure TR-1: The applicant shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to construct a second 375’ northbound left-turn lane (with a second receiving lane on westbound Eight Mile Road) and the cost to modify the signal timing at the intersection of West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) to better accommodate changed travel patterns with the Project.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Existing without Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-1, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton in coordination with San Joaquin County will modify the intersection lane configuration, the impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-2: West Lane/Knickerbocker Drive (Intersection 6) – During the AM peak hour the southbound left-turn would exceed the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-2: The applicant shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to modify the signal timing at the intersection of West Lane/Knickerbocker Drive (Intersection 6) to better accommodate changed travel patterns with the Project.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Existing without Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-1, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the traffic signal timing, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-3: West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7) – During the AM and PM peak hour the eastbound left-turn exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-3: The applicant shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to modify the signal timing at the intersection of West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7) to better accommodate changed travel patterns with the Project.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Existing without Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-1, and reduce the Project impact

ATTACHMENT E
1881
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
57 to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the traffic signal timing, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-4: Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) – During the AM peak hour the eastbound left-turn and northbound left-turn lane exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-4: The applicant shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to restripe one eastbound through lane to an eastbound left-turn lane and restripe one northbound through lane to a northbound left-turn lane and the cost to modify the signal timing at the intersection of Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) to better accommodate changed travel patterns with the Project.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available vehicle storage or be better than Existing without Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-1, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the intersection lane configuration, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix M show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

ATTACHMENT E
1882
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
58 Table 8-1. Existing Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Intersection Movement
Existing Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project
With Mitigation
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
1 West Lane /
Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 196 273 240 200 293 240 152 233
EBR 240 311 174 240 337 244 240 180 84
WBL 165 254 136 165 267 178 165 200 142
NBL 375 432 441 375 613 598 375 184 187
SBL 410 85 36 410 87 38 410 70 32
6 West Lane /
Knickerbocker
Drive
EBL 140 196 168 140 208 218 140 186 161
WBL 70 227 182 70 227 185 70 217 179
NBL 275 56 113 275 56 114 275 54 111
NBR 130 0 3 130 0 3 130 0 4
SBL 260 259 179 260 281 194 260 259 188
7 West Lane /
Hammer Lane
EBL 265 289 439 265 328 545 265 287 421
EBR 265 92 103 265 92 103 265 91 70
WBL 340 480 328 340 494 328 340 372 324
WBR 190 108 91 190 113 116 190 78 83
NBL 390 197 420 390 200 420 390 219 400
NBR 390 62 96 390 62 99 390 61 67
SBL 390 173 164 390 205 185 390 218 179
SBR 330 129 109 330 224 177 330 83 80
12 Holman Road /
Morada Lane
EBL 250 277 193 250 319 220 250 148 104
EBR 225 67 51 225 140 57 225 157 47
WBL 300 252 208 300 252 212 300 251 195
WBR 215 60 59 215 67 90 215 56 49
NBL 315 357 199 315 393 264 315 154 120
NBR 215 47 58 215 47 58 215 36 54
SBL 300 319 170 300 319 173 300 311 158
SBR 225 72 47 225 73 55 225 66 40
Notes:

1. Northbound = NB, Southbound = SB, Eastbound = EB, Westbound = WB, L = Left turn, R = Right turn.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1883
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
59 8.1.1.2.2 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic, under Background Plus Project conditions, causes the 95th percentile queue to exceed available storage and increases vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet at the following locations.

Impact TR-5: West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) – During the AM and/or PM peak hour several turning movements (westbound left and northbound left) exceed available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet with the addition of Project traffic. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Background Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-5: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-1.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Background No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-2, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton in coordination with San Joaquin County will modify the intersection lane configuration, the impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-6: West Lane/Knickerbocker Drive (Intersection 6) – During the AM peak hour the southbound left-turn would exceed the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Background Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-6: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-2.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Background No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-2, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the traffic signal timing, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-7: West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7) – During the AM peak hour the eastbound leftturn and westbound left-turn lane exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. During the PM peak hour the eastbound left-turn, westbound left-turn, and northbound left-turn lane exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Background Plus Project conditions.

ATTACHMENT E
1884
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
60 Mitigation Measure TR-7: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-3.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Background No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-2, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the traffic signal timing, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-8: Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) – During the AM peak hour the eastbound left-turn and northbound left-turn lane exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. During the PM peak hour the eastbound left-turn exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Background Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-8: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-4.

The implementation of this measure would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available vehicle storage or be better than Background No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-2, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the intersection lane configuration, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix N show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 8-2. Background Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Intersection Movement
Background Background Plus Project Background Plus Project With Mitigation
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
1 West Lane /
Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 245 286 240 245 286 240 234 271
EBR 240 88 71 240 112 78 240 109 75
WBL 165 286 255 165 297 294 165 285 280
WBR 165 0 0 165 0 0 165 0 0
NBL 375 323 334 375 418 395 375 155 150
NBR 375 20 19 375 34 27 375 35 28
SBL 410 75 32 410 75 32 410 73 31
SBR 410 34 7 410 34 7 410 34 8

ATTACHMENT E
1885
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
61 Intersection Movement
Background Background Plus Project Background Plus Project With Mitigation
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
6 West Lane /
Knickerbocker
Drive
EBL 230 196 168 230 208 218 230 186 218
WBL 70 227 182 70 227 185 70 217 185
NBL 275 56 113 275 56 114 275 54 114
NBR 130 0 3 130 0 3 130 0 3
SBL 260 259 179 260 281 194 260 259 194
7 West Lane /
Hammer Lane
EBL 265 330 447 265 403 614 265 289 426
EBR 265 96 102 265 102 109 265 95 71
WBL 340 532 335 340 592 380 340 375 327
WBR 190 113 91 190 126 125 190 79 83
NBL 390 210 429 390 227 479 390 221 403
NBR 390 61 96 390 60 178 390 61 67
SBL 390 187 167 390 234 185 390 219 179
SBR 330 130 109 330 226 177 330 83 79
12 Holman Road /
Morada Lane
EBL 250 325 236 250 389 264 600 177 126
EBR 225 68 51 225 151 56 225 199 78
WBL 300 252 212 300 252 217 300 261 199
WBR 215 73 73 215 94 140 215 69 117
NBL 315 364 208 315 400 279 600 169 127
NBR 215 47 62 215 47 62 215 21 62
SBL 300 597 246 300 597 264 300 551 229
SBR 225 77 53 225 79 60 225 72 56
Notes:

1. EB=eastbound, WB=westbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound. L=left, R=right.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

8.1.1.2.3 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The addition of Project traffic, under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, causes the 95th percentile queue to exceed available storage and increases vehicle queue lengths by more than 25 feet at the following locations.

Impact TR-9: West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) – During the AM and PM peak hour the eastbound right-turn lane exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more

ATTACHMENT E
1886
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
62 than 25 feet with the addition of Project traffic. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-9: The applicant shall pay all local and regional transportation impact fees that help fund periodic traffic signal and intersection modifications by the responsible agency and shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to make modifications and improvements at this intersection.

Extending the eastbound right-turn lane to provide 350 feet of vehicle storage would accommodate the queue length, as shown in Table 8-3, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level.

However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton in coordination with San Joaquin County will implement the improvement, the impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-10: West Lane/Hammer Lane (Intersection 7) – During the PM peak hour the eastbound leftturn exceeds the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-10: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-9.

Modification of this intersection to restripe one eastbound through lane to a left-turn lane would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Cumulative No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-3, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level. The intersection LOS would remain at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hour. However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the intersection lane configuration, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TR-11: Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) – During the AM peak hour the eastbound left-turn and right-turn lane exceed the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. During the PM peak hour, the eastbound left-turn and northbound left-turn lane exceed the available storage and the 95th percentile queue increases by more than 25 feet. Based on the City of Stockton TIA Guidelines, this is considered a significant impact under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TR-11: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-9.

Modification of this intersection to restripe one through lane to a left-turn lane on all approaches would reduce the queue lengths to fall within the available storage or be better than Cumulative No Project Conditions, as shown in Table 8-3, and reduce the Project impact to a less-than-significant level.

ATTACHMENT E
1887
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
63 However, as payment of a fee does not guarantee that the City of Stockton will modify the intersection lane configuration, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.

Queuing analysis worksheets provided in Appendix O show the 95th percentile queues for all movements at signalized intersections.

Table 8-3. Cumulative Plus Project With Mitigation 95th Percentile Queue Lengths Intersection Movement
Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Cumulative Plus Project With Mitigation
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Storage
Length
(feet)
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
1 West Lane /
Eight Mile Road
EBL 240 253 313 240 253 313 240 253 313
EBR 240 271 238 240 333 348 350 333 348
WBL 165 179 223 165 185 243 165 185 243
WBR 165 0 0 165 0 0 165 0 0
NBL 375 166 204 375 216 239 375 216 239
NBR 375 62 60 375 64 61 375 64 61
SBL 410 78 36 410 78 36 410 78 36
SBR 410 55 18 410 55 18 410 55 18
7 West Lane /
Hammer Lane
EBL 265 296 434 265 310 532 600 209 287
EBR 265 110 102 265 111 100 265 115 133
WBL 340 436 311 340 436 323 340 436 323
WBR 190 101 131 190 124 154 190 117 154
NBL 390 236 424 390 236 424 390 236 424
NBR 390 62 68 390 62 68 390 62 68
SBL 390 257 198 390 308 236 390 308 236
SBR 330 79 76 330 155 135 330 155 135
12 Holman Road /
Morada Lane
EBL 250 419 261 250 496 290 250 188 142
EBR 225 155 55 225 252 60 225 191 65
WBL 300 270 219 300 270 219 300 127 103
WBR 215 90 74 215 127 167 215 120 150
NBL 315 354 248 315 376 336 315 208 161
NBR 215 51 63 215 51 63 215 18 55
SBL 300 549 253 300 549 253 300 280 118
SBR 225 84 57 225 86 62 225 163 64
Notes:

1. Northbound = NB, Southbound = SB, Eastbound = EB, Westbound = WB, L = Left turn, R = Right turn.

2. 95th percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1888
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
64 8.1.2 TRANSIT SYSTEM
The project would create a significant impact related to transit service if:

The project disrupts an existing transit facility or service or interferes with the implementation of future transit service.

The Project does not disrupt an existing transit facility or service and would not interfere with the implementation of future transit service; therefore, the Project’s impact to transit is less-than-significant.

8.1.3 BICYCLE SYSTEM
The project would create a significant impact related to the bicycle system if any of the following criteria are met:
• Disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or
• Interfere with planned bicycle facilities; or
• Cause other changes to the bicycle system that would be inconsistent with performance expectations established in adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

The Project would provide the following along its frontage: 1) Class II bike lanes on Morada Lane and 2) one-way separated bikeway (Class IV) on West Lane. The proposed bicycle facilities are consistent with the City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017). The Project does not disrupt existing bicycle facilities, interfere with planned bicycle facilities, or propose any changes to the bicycle system that are inconsistent with adopted bicycle system plans; therefore, the Project’s impact to the bicycle system is less-than-significant.

8.1.4 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
The project would create a significant impact related to the pedestrian system if any of the following criteria are met:
• Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities; or
• Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or
• Cause other changes to the pedestrian system that would be inconsistent with performance expectations established in adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

ATTACHMENT E
1889
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
65 There are currently no pedestrian facilities along the Project frontage. The Project would construct 8-foot sidewalk along the Project frontage on Morada Lane and West Lane, which is consistent with the City of Stockton Standard Plans and Specifications. The Project does not disrupt existing pedestrian facilities, interfere with planned pedestrian facilities, or propose any changes to the pedestrian system that would be inconsistent with pedestrian system policies, therefore the Project’s impact to the pedestrian system is less-than-significant.

8.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVEL
For the purposes of CEQA, level of service cannot be used to determine a project’s environmental impact; CEQA Guidelines Section §15064.3 requires Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) analysis for land use developments. The City of Stockton VMT impact analysis process is documented in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Adopted May 2, 2023).

According to the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project is relieved from VMT impact analysis if it meets one of the following screening criteria:

8. Within a Transit Priority Area (TPA);

9. Is 100% restricted affordable housing;

10. Small project (generating 110 trips or less per day);

11. Is a locally serving public facility that contributes and supports community needs;

12. Neighborhood-serving retail project less than 50,000 square feet;

13. Located within a low VMT area; or

14. For specific project types that are consistent with General Plan and zoning standards, and do not trigger and EIR such as:
a. Housing: Residential projects within the City Limits that are consistent with all General Plan and zoning standards, are near transit (i.e., is within half a mile of a transit stop), or included as a housing capacity site needed to meet the City’s fair share of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as outlined in the City’s Housing Element. b. General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Projects that are:
i. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning that do not require a General Plan land use map amendment.
ii. Do not require an EIR for project related impacts beyond the General Plan EIR. iii. Located within the Greater Downtown Planning area, as defined in the General Plan, and do not require a land use map amendment or EIR.

The Project meets screening criteria #7 (consistent with General Plan & zoning standards). The Project is consistent with the land use presented in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (i.e., low density

ATTACHMENT E
1890
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
66 residential with less than 6.1 units per gross acre). The Project is also located within a half-mile of two transit stops on West Lane. Based on the screening criteria the Project is presumed to not require additional CEQA VMT impact analysis.

8.3 GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURES
The Project would create a significant impact related to geometric design feature if it would:

Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? This means that the project would cause a significant impact if the project adds demand to facilities that do not meet applicable design standards or if the project proposes transportation network modifications that are inconsistent with applicable design standards.

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided by two unsignalized and three signalized intersections that are designed to be perpendicular to the major streets. Parking is restricted on the major streets and there are no additional obstructions that would limit sight distance from the Project driveways.

The Project would also provide turn pockets with adequate vehicle storage and deceleration lane distance.

The Project does not propose any substandard design features, therefore the Project’s impact to geometric design hazards is considered less-than-significant.

8.4 EMERGENCY ACCESS
Several factors determine whether a project has adequate access for emergency vehicles, including the following:

1. Number of access points (both public and emergency access only)

2. Width of internal roadways

3. Turnarounds at dead-end streets
Emergency vehicle access to the Project site is provided from all five roadway access locations that are designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Cross-sections for the proposed streets within the Project site were reviewed and all street sections provide a minimum of 20-feet of clearway (meaning no obstructions in terms of parked vehicles, landscaping, etc.), such that sufficient width is provided for emergency vehicle access and circulation. There are several dead-end streets provided within the residential development that measure less than 500’ and provide 96-foot diameter cul-de-sacs. This meets the requirements of the California Fire Code. Emergency vehicle access to the Project site is consistent with Policy SAF-2.2 and Action SAF-2.2A of the General Plan. The Project’s impact to emergency access is less-than-significant.

ATTACHMENT E
1891
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
67 9. LOCAL ROADWAY

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The Local Transportation Study is prepared to provide information to decision-makers and the public, and to assist City staff in understanding what types of improvements should be considered as Conditions of Approval for the project, and to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan LOS policy.

According to the TIA Guidelines, at a signalized intersection not located along a corridor with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed, a deficiency is identified:
• If the addition of project traffic causes a signalized intersection to perform at an unacceptable LOS E or F condition during a peak hour or,
• If the addition of project traffic exacerbates an existing LOS E or F condition by increasing the delay by 5 or more seconds.

At signalized intersections located along a corridor with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed,6 a deficiency is identified:
• If the addition of project traffic causes a signalized intersection to perform at an unacceptable LOS F condition during a peak hour or,
• If the addition of project traffic exacerbates an existing LOS F condition by increasing the delay by 5 or more seconds.

For stop-controlled intersections, a deficiency is identified if:
• The addition of project traffic causes a stop-controlled intersection to perform at an unacceptable LOS E or F condition during a peak hour and causes the intersection to meet the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria or,
• Exacerbates an existing LOS E or F condition by increasing the delay by 5 or more seconds and causes the intersection to meet the CA MUTCD signal warrant criteria. 6 The Stockton General Plan notes that the intersection of West Lane/Hammer Lane is located along a corridor with physical constraints that limit the improvements that can be constructed. The LOS standard for this intersection is LOS E or better.

ATTACHMENT E
1892
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
68 9.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Under the Existing Plus Project scenario, the addition of Project traffic degrades operations below standards set by the City’s General Plan LOS policy at the following intersections:
• West Lane / Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1)
• West Lane / West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5)
The following Conditions of Approvals (COA) would improve operations to acceptable or better than No Project conditions at the deficient intersections, as shown in Table 9-1.

West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) – The addition of Project traffic would degrade intersection operations from LOS D to E during the AM peak hour.

Condition of Approval EX-1: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-1.

Modification of West Lane/Eight Mile Road (Intersection 1) to include a second northbound left-turn would improve operations to LOS D and LOS C during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively.

West Lane/West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) – The addition of Project traffic would degrade intersection operations from LOS D to E during the AM peak hour.

Condition of Approval EX-2: The applicant shall pay a one-time only fee to the City of Stockton, prior to the City granting the last building occupancy, representing the Project’s pro-rata share of the cost to construct a third northbound and southbound through lane and modify the signal timing at the intersection of West Lane/West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) to better accommodate changed travel patterns with the Project.

Modification of West Lane/West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) to include a third northbound and southbound through lane would improve operations to LOS C and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. A third northbound and southbound through lane is consistent with the City’s planned roadway improvement to widen West Lane to six lanes between Eight Mile Road and Hammer Lane.

Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix P.

ATTACHMENT E
1893
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
69 Table 9-1. Existing Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing Plus
Project
Existing Plus
Project With COA
Intersection Control Peak
Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 West Lane / Eight Mile Road Signal
AM D 44 E 55 D 41
PM D 35 D 53 C 33
5 West Lane / West Lane
Frontage Signal
AM D 44 E 62 C 34
PM B 18 C 21 B 17
Notes:

Deficient intersection operations are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

9.2 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Under the Background Plus Project scenario, the addition of Project traffic degrades operations below standards set by the City’s General Plan LOS policy at the following intersection:
• West Lane / West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5)
The following Conditions of Approvals (COA) would improve operations to acceptable or better than No Project conditions at the deficient intersection, as shown in Table 9-2.

West Lane/West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) – The addition of Project traffic would degrade intersection operations from LOS E to LOS F and add more than 5 seconds of delay during the AM peak hour.

Condition of Approval BG-1: Implement Condition of Approval EX-1.

Modification of West Lane/West Lane Frontage (Intersection 5) to include a third northbound and southbound through lane would improve operations to LOS D and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. A third northbound and southbound through lane is consistent with the City’s planned roadway improvement to widen West Lane to six lanes between Eight Mile Road and Hammer Lane.

Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix Q.

ATTACHMENT E
1894
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
July 25, 2024
70 Table 9-2. Background Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service Background No
Project
Background Plus
Project
Background Plus
Project With COA
Intersection Control Peak
Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
5 West Lane / West Lane
Frontage Signal
AM E 56 F 95 D 40
PM B 20 C 23 B 18
Notes:

Deficient intersection operations are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

9.3 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario, the addition of Project traffic degrades operations below standards set by the City’s General Plan LOS policy at the following intersection:
• Holman Road / Morada Lane (Intersection 12)
The following Conditions of Approvals (COA) would improve operations to acceptable or better than No Project conditions at the deficient intersection, as shown in Table 9-3.

Holman Road/Morada Lane (Intersection 12) – The addition of Project traffic would worsen operations from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour.

Condition of Approval CU-1: Implement Mitigation Measure TR-9.

Restriping one through lane to a left-turn lane on all approaches to the intersection of Holman Road / Morada Lane (Intersection 12) would improve operations to LOS D or better conditions during the peak hours.

Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix R.

Table 9-3. Cumulative Plus Project With COA Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative No
Project
Cumulative Plus
Project
Cumulative Plus
Project With COA
Intersection Control Peak
Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
12 Holman Road / Morada Lane Signal
AM D 42 E 61 D 51
PM C 28 C 35 C 32
Notes:

Deficient intersection operations are noted in bold text.

Source: BTC, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
1895
Appendix A: Traffic Counts (Provided
Electronically)

ATTACHMENT E
1896
Appendix B: Existing Conditions
LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
1897
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 419 395 150 379 7 242 322 65 36 474 151 Future Volume (veh/h) 109 419 395 150 379 7 242 322 65 36 474 151 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 446 420 160 403 7 257 343 69 38 504 161 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 145 561 475 192 598 10 290 1092 217 54 633 201 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1833 32 1781 2942 584 1781 2653 843 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 446 420 160 0 410 257 205 207 38 337 328 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1781 1777 1750 1781 1777 1719 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 25.3 29.1 10.2 0.0 21.9 16.3 9.5 9.7 2.4 20.5 20.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 25.3 29.1 10.2 0.0 21.9 16.3 9.5 9.7 2.4 20.5 20.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.49
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 561 475 192 0 608 290 659 649 54 424 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.79 0.88 0.83 0.00 0.67 0.88 0.31 0.32 0.70 0.79 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 463 730 618 463 0 727 463 909 895 463 909 879 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 37.1 38.5 50.4 0.0 33.6 47.2 25.8 25.9 55.4 41.3 41.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.6 4.6 11.7 9.0 0.0 1.9 11.7 0.3 0.3 15.0 3.4 3.7 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 3.6 11.8 12.2 4.9 0.0 9.8 7.9 3.8 3.9 1.3 9.3 9.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.7 41.7 50.1 59.5 0.0 35.5 58.9 26.1 26.2 70.4 44.7 45.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E A D E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 982 570 669 703
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.7 42.2 38.7 46.2
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 40.6 23.8 33.5 14.4 43.6 8.5 48.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 45.0 30.0 59.0 30.0 45.0 30.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.2 31.1 18.3 22.7 9.4 23.9 4.4 11.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.5 0.5 4.8 0.3 2.2 0.1 2.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.2
HCM 6th LOS D

ATTACHMENT E
1898
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Morada Ln & West Ln 05/30/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 62 252 241 265 244 102 434 465 330 259 591 169 Future Volume (veh/h) 62 252 241 265 244 102 434 465 330 259 591 169 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 277 265 291 268 112 477 511 363 285 649 186 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 88 360 313 403 281 117 537 756 333 307 817 350 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 365 1487 1292 1781 1241 519 3456 3554 1563 1781 3554 1523 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 345 0 265 291 0 380 477 511 363 285 649 186 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1852 0 1292 1781 0 1760 1728 1777 1563 1781 1777 1523 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.5 0.0 32.2 24.8 0.0 35.0 22.2 21.7 35.0 25.9 28.3 17.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.5 0.0 32.2 24.8 0.0 35.0 22.2 21.7 35.0 25.9 28.3 17.6 Prop In Lane 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 449 0 313 403 0 399 537 756 333 307 817 350 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.85 0.72 0.00 0.95 0.89 0.68 1.09 0.93 0.79 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 450 0 314 2166 0 2140 735 756 333 379 817 350 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 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.0 0.0 59.4 58.8 0.0 62.8 68.1 59.5 64.7 67.0 59.7 55.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.0 18.8 0.9 0.0 5.8 10.0 2.4 76.1 25.6 5.4 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.5 0.0 12.3 11.2 0.0 16.1 10.5 10.0 20.8 13.7 13.1 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.9 0.0 78.2 59.7 0.0 68.6 78.1 61.9 140.9 92.6 65.1 57.1 LnGrp LOS EAEEAEEEFFEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 610 671 1351 1120
Approach Delay, s/veh 71.2 64.7 88.8 70.8
Approach LOS E E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.4 41.0 43.2 31.6 43.8 45.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 35.0 200.0 35.0 35.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.9 37.0 37.0 24.2 30.3 34.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.9 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

ATTACHMENT E
1899
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 157 4 139 225 16 14 191 882 62 64 1006 109 Future Volume (vph) 157 4 139 225 16 14 191 882 62 64 1006 109 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 1583 1780 1563 1770 3495 1770 3478 Flt Permitted 0.36 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 662 1583 969 1563 1770 3495 1770 3478 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 5 158 256 18 16 217 1002 70 73 1143 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 0 0 12 040070
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 183 85 0 274 4 217 1068 0 73 1260 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 6 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 61
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 17.9 55.7 8.4 46.2 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 17.9 55.7 8.4 46.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.52 0.08 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 391 239 386 297 1829 139 1510
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.31 0.04 c0.36
v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.05 c0.28 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.12 0.22 1.15 0.01 0.73 0.58 0.53 0.83
Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 31.9 40.1 30.2 42.0 17.4 47.1 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 107.2 0.3 103.5 0.0 8.9 0.5 3.6 4.1 Delay (s) 147.3 32.1 143.5 30.2 50.9 17.9 50.6 30.8
Level of Service F C F C D B D C
Approach Delay (s) 93.9 137.3 23.4 31.9
Approach LOS F F C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

ATTACHMENT E
1900
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 43 31 140 70 72 21 950 62 161 1155 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 43 31 140 70 72 21 950 62 161 1155 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 48 35 157 79 81 24 1067 70 181 1298 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 107 88 64 205 120 123 39 1751 542 232 2254 106 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1002 731 1781 839 860 1781 5106 1580 1781 4991 235 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 83 0 83 157 0 160 24 1067 70 181 885 474 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1733 1781 0 1699 1781 1702 1580 1781 1702 1822 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.5 0.0 5.8 0.9 11.3 2.0 6.4 12.5 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.5 0.0 5.8 0.9 11.3 2.0 6.4 12.5 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 0 152 205 0 243 39 1751 542 232 1537 823 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.54 0.77 0.00 0.66 0.62 0.61 0.13 0.78 0.58 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 220 0 214 686 0 786 686 3778 1169 686 2519 1348 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 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 0.0 28.3 27.9 0.0 26.3 31.5 17.7 14.7 27.3 13.2 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.0 3.0 5.9 0.0 3.0 15.3 0.3 0.1 5.6 0.3 0.6 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 1.6 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 2.5 0.5 3.9 0.7 2.8 4.0 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 0.0 31.3 33.8 0.0 29.3 46.7 18.0 14.8 32.9 13.5 13.8 LnGrp LOS D A C C A C D B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 166 317 1161 1540
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.4 31.5 18.4 15.9
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 28.2 12.5 10.7 6.4 35.3 8.9 14.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.0 25.0 8.0 25.0 48.0 8.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 13.3 7.5 5.0 2.9 14.5 5.0 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 8.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

ATTACHMENT E
1901
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 398 1094 209 547 943 184 266 518 192 226 853 288 Future Volume (veh/h) 398 1094 209 547 943 184 266 518 192 226 853 288 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 419 1152 220 576 993 194 280 545 202 238 898 303 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 490 1786 430 635 2055 497 349 1837 446 302 1749 428 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1550 3456 6434 1558 3456 6434 1562 3456 6434 1575 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 419 1152 220 576 993 194 280 545 202 238 898 303 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1550 1728 1609 1558 1728 1609 1562 1728 1609 1575 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.0 19.9 15.1 20.7 15.7 12.3 10.0 8.4 13.4 8.5 14.9 22.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 19.9 15.1 20.7 15.7 12.3 10.0 8.4 13.4 8.5 14.9 22.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 490 1786 430 635 2055 497 349 1837 446 302 1749 428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.65 0.51 0.91 0.48 0.39 0.80 0.30 0.45 0.79 0.51 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 683 3559 857 683 3559 862 683 3559 864 546 3559 871 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.0 40.2 38.5 50.6 34.7 33.5 55.6 35.3 37.1 56.6 39.0 41.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 0.4 0.9 15.4 0.2 0.5 4.3 0.1 0.7 4.6 0.2 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.9 7.8 5.8 10.1 6.1 4.6 4.5 3.3 5.1 3.9 5.8 8.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.7 40.6 39.4 66.0 34.8 34.0 60.0 35.4 37.8 61.2 39.2 43.7 LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E D D E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1791 1763 1027 1439
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.2 44.9 42.6 43.8
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 42.1 28.2 40.1 17.8 40.4 22.9 45.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 15.4 22.7 21.9 12.0 24.0 17.0 17.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 4.7 0.6 11.4 0.8 8.7 1.0 9.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D

ATTACHMENT E
1902
HCM 6th TWSC
8: Caywood Dr & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 789 103 70 634 22 86
Future Vol, veh/h 789 103 70 634 22 86
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 26 26 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 240 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 867 113 77 697 24 95
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1006 0 1801 950
Stage 1 - - - - 950 -
Stage 2 - - - - 851 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 689 - 88 315
Stage 1 - - - - 376 -
Stage 2 - - - - 419 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 672 - 76 307
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 76 -
Stage 1 - - - - 367 -
Stage 2 - - - - 371 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 51.1

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 190 - - 672 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.625 - - 0.114 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 51.1 - - 11 -
HCM Lane LOS F - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.6 - - 0.4 -

ATTACHMENT E
1903
HCM 6th TWSC
9: Cherbourg Wy & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 820 55 154 696 8 130
Future Vol, veh/h 820 55 154 696 8 130
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 16 16 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 180 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 921 62 173 782 9 146
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 999 0 2096 968
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1128 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 693 - 57 308
Stage 1 - - - - 368 -
Stage 2 - - - - 309 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 682 - 42 303
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 42 -
Stage 1 - - - - 362 -
Stage 2 - - - - 231 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.2 51.3

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 223 - - 682 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.695 - - 0.254 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 51.3 - - 12.1 -
HCM Lane LOS F - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.5 - - 1 -

ATTACHMENT E
1904
HCM 6th TWSC
10: Fox Creek Dr & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 11.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 914 36 74 826 24 119
Future Vol, veh/h 914 36 74 826 24 119
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 99000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1063 42 86 960 28 138
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1114 0 2225 562
Stage 1 - - - - 1093 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1132 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.63 6.93
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.219 - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 625 - 42 471
Stage 1 - - - - 284 -
Stage 2 - - - - 307 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 620 - 36 467
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 36 -
Stage 1 - - - - 281 -
Stage 2 - - - - 264 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 151.7

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 155 - - 620 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.073 - - 0.139 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 151.7 - - 11.7 -
HCM Lane LOS F - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.6 - - 0.5 -

ATTACHMENT E
1905
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Glacier Point Dr & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 162 716 155 94 658 303 140 53 101 207 68 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 162 716 155 94 658 303 140 53 101 207 68 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 814 176 107 748 344 159 60 115 235 77 116 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 222 1375 295 138 1000 424 197 131 251 273 173 261 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4182 896 1781 3554 1507 1781 567 1087 1781 633 953 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184 661 329 107 748 344 159 0 175 235 0 193 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1674 1781 1777 1507 1781 0 1655 1781 0 1586 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 16.2 16.4 5.9 19.2 21.3 8.7 0.0 9.1 12.9 0.0 10.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 16.2 16.4 5.9 19.2 21.3 8.7 0.0 9.1 12.9 0.0 10.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.60
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 222 1119 550 138 1000 424 197 0 382 273 0 434 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.59 0.60 0.78 0.75 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.46 0.86 0.00 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 623 1224 602 623 1278 542 712 0 579 445 0 555 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.8 28.0 28.1 45.3 32.7 33.5 43.5 0.0 33.1 41.3 0.0 30.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.6 1.4 9.0 1.8 7.2 7.7 0.0 0.9 9.2 0.0 0.7 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 4.7 6.3 6.4 2.9 8.0 8.6 4.3 0.0 3.8 6.4 0.0 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.5 28.6 29.4 54.4 34.6 40.7 51.2 0.0 34.0 50.6 0.0 30.8 LnGrp LOS DCCDCDDACDAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1174 1199 334 428
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.3 38.1 42.2 41.6
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 38.9 16.0 32.4 17.5 34.2 20.3 28.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 36.0 40.0 35.0 35.0 36.0 25.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 18.4 10.7 12.1 12.1 23.3 14.9 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 5.8 0.5 1.2 0.5 4.9 0.5 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8
HCM 6th LOS D

ATTACHMENT E
1906
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 184 629 211 160 605 146 209 121 91 194 272 241 Future Volume (veh/h) 184 629 211 160 605 146 209 121 91 194 272 241 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 676 227 172 651 157 225 130 98 209 292 259 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 243 1200 363 214 1118 338 270 1210 370 254 1162 354 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1545 1781 5106 1542 1781 5106 1561 1781 5106 1556 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 676 227 172 651 157 225 130 98 209 292 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1545 1781 1702 1542 1781 1702 1561 1781 1702 1556 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 9.7 10.9 7.8 9.5 7.3 10.2 1.7 4.2 9.5 3.9 12.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 9.7 10.9 7.8 9.5 7.3 10.2 1.7 4.2 9.5 3.9 12.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 1200 363 214 1118 338 270 1210 370 254 1162 354 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.56 0.62 0.80 0.58 0.47 0.83 0.11 0.26 0.82 0.25 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 644 1724 522 537 1478 446 537 2956 904 537 2956 901 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.8 28.0 28.4 35.5 29.0 28.2 34.2 24.8 25.8 34.6 26.2 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 0.4 1.8 6.9 0.5 1.0 6.6 0.0 0.4 6.6 0.1 2.9 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 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.6 3.7 2.6 4.6 0.6 1.5 4.3 1.5 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 28.4 30.2 42.4 29.5 29.2 40.7 24.8 26.1 41.2 26.3 32.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1101 980 453 760
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 31.7 33.0 32.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.8 25.7 15.0 25.5 17.6 24.9 16.3 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.0 25.0 28.0 25.0 48.0 30.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 6.2 9.8 12.9 12.2 14.8 11.0 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.1 0.4 4.4 0.5 2.8 0.5 3.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

ATTACHMENT E
1907
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
13: Maranatha Dr & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 788 65 58 662 31 87 7 83 64 22 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 788 65 58 662 31 87 7 83 64 22 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 66 847 70 62 712 33 94 8 89 69 24 97 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 93 1483 643 89 2076 96 360 282 239 374 282 235 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1539 1781 5000 231 1266 1870 1582 1296 1870 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 66 847 70 62 484 261 94 8 89 69 24 97 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1539 1781 1702 1827 1266 1870 1582 1296 1870 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 7.2 1.1 1.3 3.8 3.8 2.7 0.1 2.0 1.9 0.4 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 7.2 1.1 1.3 3.8 3.8 3.1 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.4 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 1483 643 89 1413 759 360 282 239 374 282 235 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.57 0.11 0.70 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.37 0.18 0.09 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1133 4340 1880 1088 4158 2232 943 1142 966 970 1142 951 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.3 8.8 7.0 18.4 7.8 7.8 15.7 14.2 15.0 15.1 14.4 15.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.5 0.3 0.1 9.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.7 0.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.8 9.1 7.1 27.7 8.0 8.1 16.1 14.3 16.0 15.3 14.5 16.3 LnGrp LOS C A A C AABBBBBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 983 807 191 190
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.2 9.5 16.0 15.7
Approach LOS BABB
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 21.4 10.9 7.1 21.3 10.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 48.0 24.0 25.0 48.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 9.2 4.2 3.4 5.8 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.8 0.6 0.1 5.1 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

ATTACHMENT E
1908
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
14: Diamond Bar Pl & Morada Ln 05/21/2024
Existing AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report