City Council and Concurrent Authorities
July 7, 2026

ATTACHMENT E
• Project Entries: Enhanced Project entries would be provided along the Project site access points along West Lane and E. Morada Lane. These are visual opportunities for making a statement and creating a sense of place.
• Perimeter Improvements: The Project includes buildout of the West Lane and Morada Lane rights-of-way to includes bike lanes, additional travel lanes, perimeter landscaping, and signalized intersections.

Table 2 summaries the total unit count and acreage for each proposed land use in the Project site.

Residential Development
The proposed Project includes three vesting tentative maps that would subdivide the Development Area consistent with the proposed land uses. The Development Area would have 2,241 singlefamily residential units dispersed throughout multiple neighborhoods, linked by a system of parks and open spaces. Minimum lot sizes will be 5,000 sf.

The Project would be developed in three major phases as represented by the three individual vesting tentative maps. Sub-phases within each vesting tentative map will be identified later in the engineering process. The general pattern of phases will be north to south from Morada Lane, and west to east from West Lane.

Necessary improvements per vesting tentative map have been identified to anticipate needed improvements to accommodate any one of the vesting tentative maps going forward as the first phase.

TABLE 2:GROSS LANDUSE SUMMARY –OVERALL PROJECT AREA

PROPOSED LAND USE APPROXIMATE ACRES NUMBER OFUNITS
Low Density Residential (min. 5,000 sf lots) 301.1 2,241 Parks 26.1 --
Storm Basin 6.6 --
Bear Creek Open Space 22.3 --
Project Streets 140.8 --
WID Future Easement (Parcel 1) 3.8 --
Morada Lane (Parcel 2) 0.4 --
Morada Lane (Parcel 3) 0.8 --
Morada Lane (Parcel A) 0.6 --
Morada Lane (Parcel B) 0.6 --
West Lane (Parcel B) 0.2 --
West Lane (Parcel C) 0.6 --
SOURCE: VVH CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 2024.

Parks and Open Space
The Project includes the following park facilities:

ATTACHMENT E
• An approximately 3.2-acre “Central” Park adjacent to and surrounding the primary detention basin, which is approximately 5.1 acres in size; • An approximately 4.8-acre “Northwest” Park;
• An approximately 7.7-acre “Northeast” Park;
• An approximately 4.9-acre “Southeast” Park; and
• An approximately 5.5-acre “Southwest” Park.

The park facilities total approximately 26.1 acres, with an additional 5.1 acres of detention basin.

In addition to the Parks, there will be a series of streets with an enhanced right of way to accommodate a pedestrian “wellness walk.” This “wellness walk” will tie different areas to the internal parks and encourage movement throughout the Project site.

Further, Bear Creek will be bordered by a frontage road with an open space area containing a 20- foot width from the toe of slope, adjacent to a 19-foot landscaped area with a 12-foot wide multi use path. The total open space area along Bear Creek is approximately 22.3 acres.

Circulation
The proposed street network will connect into the greater Stockton community at five access points, including three along Morada Lane and two along West Lane. These connection points will be made up of a combination of minor arterial roads, with and without a median, and collector roads. The street network within Project site is intended to contribute to the aesthetics of the community, with residents experiencing varied street scenes and street designs.

As noted previously, the Project will include full frontage improvements along West Lane and Morada Lane. Included in these improvements will be full signalized intersections at the northern entry point along West Lane and at the central entrance along Morada Lane.

Utilities and Planned Infrastructure Improvements
The construction of on-site infrastructure improvements would be required to accommodate build out of the Development Area, as described below.

Potable Water System
Water supply will be provided by the City of Stockton, which includes surface and ground water supplies. Water distribution will be by an underground distribution system designed and constructed per the City of Stockton standards and specifications.

The Project requires extension of offsite potable water conveyance infrastructure to the Project site to comply with the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update; however, this is not required for the initial phases of the Project because existing City water mains are in West Lane and Morada Lane.

Improvements to the potable water system would be constructed in accordance with the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update adopted February 23, 2021. Improvements identified in the Water Master Plan Update include: (1) a 16-inch diameter potable water transmission pipeline connection to existing potable water in West Lane, (2) a 16-inch diameter potable water transmission pipeline connection to existing potable water in Morada Lane, and (3) an 18-inch diameter potable water

ATTACHMENT E
transmission pipeline connection to the existing Cannery Park project located east of the existing UPRR. The 18-inch diameter pipeline would cross under the UPRR tracks to connect to the existing stub-out constructed by the Cannery Park project. Service line connections are not allowed by the City of Stockton on water lines 16-inches diameter or larger. The Project will construct a potable water distribution system with pipe sizes ranging from six inches to 12 inches. Stubs from the transmission pipelines will be constructed as required by the City to connect to the Project potable water distribution system. The Project may also construct a parallel distribution pipeline for connection of fire hydrants along Project frontage roads if required by the City, with interconnection to the transmission pipeline as required.

Wastewater System
The Project is located within existing City of Stockton Collection System Service Area 10 and is identified as a major development in the City’s 2022 Wastewater Master Plan Update (adopted October 18, 2022). The Project would construct wastewater infrastructure in accordance with the 2022 Wastewater Master Plan Update, which shows a 21-inch diameter future gravity sewer connection from the Project to existing City of Stockton gravity sewer locate in Morada Lane.

Effluent from all tributary areas would be collected and conveyed through gravity sewer pipelines.

All sewer collection and conveyance infrastructure would be sized and constructed according to adopted City of Stockton sewer hydrologic and hydraulic design criteria, design standards, and specifications.

Stormwater System
The Project storm drainage infrastructure would consist of an engineered network of inlets, storm drainage pipes, maintenance holes, storm water quality treatment systems/devices, a detention basin, a basin discharge pump station, and a pressure force main for conveying discharge from the detention basin to an existing outfall at Bear Creek. All drainage collection and conveyance infrastructure would be sized and constructed according to adopted City of Stockton storm drainage hydrologic and hydraulic design criteria, design standards, and specifications. Onsite stormwater runoff would be directed into an underground pipe system which would collect the runoff and direct it to the central storm drainage basin. Stormwater from this basin would be discharged via a new pump station and force main into Bear Creek through an existing 24-inch diameter outfall structure located on the south side of Bear Creek, just east of the West Lane overcrossing. The basin drawdown rate would meet City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD) standards to discharge the 100-year, 24-hour design storm volume over a period of 48 hours and would be less than predeveloped runoff rates from the Project area.

The proposed Project would incorporate site design measures, landscape features, and approved engineered treatment facilities(bioretention facilities or COSMUD-approved equivalent) for water quality treatment that minimizes imperviousness, retains or detains stormwater, slows runoff rates, and reduces pollutants in post-development runoff consistent with the City of Stockton NPDES SWMP and the City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan

ATTACHMENT E
Regulated Public Utilities
Electrical, gas, phone, cable, and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along West Lane and Morada Lane, or other utility systems in the Project vicinity. Utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements.

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps
The proposed Project includes three Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Development Area. The tentative maps would result in the subdivision of 503.89 acres into 2,241 single-family residential units, five parks, and a storm basin facility. Total parkland is 26.1 acres. In addition, there will be a series of streets with an enhanced right of ways to accommodate a pedestrian “wellness walk” connecting the parks and a lineal open space area paralleling the south edge of Bear Creek.

ANNEXATION
The proposed Project includes a request for annexation of 15 APNs, totaling 530.18 acres, into the City of Stockton. This includes the proposed 503.89-acre Development Area (including future right-of-way and existing roadway right-of-way along West Lane and Morada Lane) and 26.29- acre Non-Development Area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following study has been prepared to meet the needs of a CEQA review. The project research included a records search, check of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands files, and a field survey of the Development Area.

Melinda A. Peak, senior historian/archeologist with Peak & Associates, Inc. served as principal investigator for the study, with archeologist Michael Lawson completing the field survey (resumes, Appendix 1).

REGULATORY CONTEXT
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA Section 15064.5 requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. Public Resources Code Section 21098.1 further cites: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT E
An “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code section 5020.1).

Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effectsis given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA and Archaeological Resources, 1994. The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Codes Sections 5097.94 et al).

The California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project will impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that does any of the following:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states:

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey

ATTACHMENT E
(meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.

California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e)
This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts. AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code states that “tribal cultural resources” are: (1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the national or state register of historical resources, or listed in a local register of historic resources; or (2) resources that the lead agency determines, in its discretion, are tribal cultural resource.

AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that consultation address project alternatives, mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Under AB 52, such measures shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and adopted mitigation monitoring program if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource.

ATTACHMENT E

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The Central Valley region was among the first in the state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research has continued to the present day. This has resulted in a substantial accumulation of data.

In the early decades of the 1900s, E.J. Dawson explored numerous sites near Stockton and Lodi, later collaborating with W.E. Schenck (Schenck and Dawson 1929). By 1933, the focus of work was directed to the Cosumnes locality, where survey and excavation studies were conducted by the Sacramento Junior College (Lillard and Purves 1936).

Excavation data from the stratified Windmiller site (CA-Sac-107), suggested two temporally distinct cultural traditions. Later work at other mounds by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley, enabled the investigators to identify a third cultural tradition, intermediate between the previously postulated Early and Late Horizons.

The three-horizon sequence, based on discrete changes in ornamental artifacts and mortuary practices, as well as on observed differences in soils within sites (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939), was later refined by Beardsley (1954). An expanded definition of artifacts diagnostic of each time period was developed, and its application extended to parts of the central California coast. Traits held in common allow the application of this system within certain limits of time and space to other areas of prehistoric central California.

The Windmiller Culture (Early Horizon) is characterized by ventrally-extended burials (some dorsal extensions are known), with westerly orientation of heads; a high percentage of burials with grave goods; frequent presence of red ocher in graves; large projectile points, of which 60 percent are of materials other than obsidian; rectangular Haliotis beads; Olivella shell beads (types A1a and L); rare use of bone; some use of baked clay objects; and well-fashioned charmstones, usually perforated.

The Cosumnes Culture (Middle Horizon) displays considerable changes from the preceding cultural expression. The burial mode is predominately flexed, with variable cardinal orientation and some cremations present. There are a lower percentage of burials with grave goods, and ocher staining is common in graves. Olivella beads of types C1, F and G predominate, and there is abundant use of green Haliotis sp. rather than red Haliotis sp. Other characteristic artifacts include perforated and canid teeth; asymmetrical and "fishtail" charmstones, usually unperforated; cobble mortars and evidence of wooden mortars; extensive use of bone for tools and ornaments; large projectile points, with considerable use of rock other than obsidian; and use of baked clay.

Hotchkiss Culture (Late Horizon) -- The burial pattern retains the use of the flexed mode, and there is wide spread evidence of cremation, lesser use of red ocher, heavy use of baked clay, Olivella beads of Types E and M, extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms, shaped mortars and cylindrical pestles, bird-bone tubes with elaborate geometric designs, clam shell disc beads, small projectile points indicative of the introduction of the bow and arrow, flanged

ATTACHMENT E
tubular pipes of steatite and schist, and use of magnesite (Moratto 1984:181-183). The characteristics noted are not all-inclusive, but cover the more important traits.

Schulz (1981), in an extensive examination of the central California evidence for the use of acorns, used the terms Early, Middle and Late Complexes, but the traits attributed to them remain generally the same. While it is not altogether clear, Schulz seemingly uses the term “Complex” to refer to the particular archeological entities (above called “Horizons”) as defined in this region. Ragir’s (1972) cultures are the same as Schulz's complexes.

Bennyhoff and Hughes (1984) have presented alternative dating schemes for the Central California Archeological Sequence. The primary emphasis is a more elaborate division of the horizons to reflect what is seen as cultural/temporal changes within the three horizons and a compression of the temporal span.

There have been other chronologies proposed, including Fredrickson (1973), and since it is correlated with Bennyhoff's (1977) work, it does merit discussion. The particular archeological cultural entities Fredrickson has defined, based upon the work of Bennyhoff, are patterns, phases and aspects. Bennyhoff's (1977) work in the Plains Miwok area is the best definition of the Cosumnes District, which likely conforms to Fredrickson's pattern. Fredrickson also proposed periods of time associated heavily with economic modes, which provides a temporal term for comparing contemporary cultural entities. It corresponds with Willey and Phillips’ (1958) earlier “tradition”, although it is tied more specifically to the archeological record in California.

Ethnography
The project area lies within the northern portion of the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people.

The Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family which held all of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other ethnographic groups in California as they had true tribal divisions with group names (Kroeber 1925; Latta 1949). Each tribe spoke a particular dialect, common to its members, but similar enough to other Yokuts that they were mutually intelligible (Kroeber 1925).

The Yokuts held portions of the San Joaquin Valley from the Tehachapi in the south to Stockton in the north. On the north they were bordered by the Plains Miwok, and on the west by the Saclan or Bay Miwok and Costonoan peoples. Although neighbors were often from distinct language families, differences between the people appear to have been more influenced by environmental factors as opposed to linguistic affinities. Thus, the Plains Miwok were more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to foothill members of their own language group. Similarities in cultural inventory co-varied with distance from other groups and proximity to culturally diverse people. The material culture of the southern San Joaquin Yokuts was therefore more closely related to that of their nonYokuts neighbors than to that of Delta members of their own language group.

Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.

Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups

ATTACHMENT E
on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).

Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles.

Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).

Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources. House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925), with most constructed from the readily available tules found in the extensive marshes of the low-lying valley areas. The housepit depressions for the structures ranged in diameter from 3 meters to 18 meters (Wallace 1978:470).

Historical Background
The agricultural value of the San Joaquin Valley was recognized early in time, with much of the region used for dry land grain farming. The early completion of railroads through the region helped provide a ready means of shipping farm projects. The 1870 San Joaquin County map shows the Western Pacific railroad line west of the Project site. By 1883, the rail line had been acquired by the Central Pacific and by 1905, the Southern Pacific.

The land of the overall Development Area has been used for agricultural purposes, with many different owners over time. It is only now, with increasing urbanization in the region, in part spurred on by the expansion of population growth and increased real estate cost in the Bay Area, that development has also spread to the Stockton area, resulting in conversion of agricultural properties to residential uses.

The earliest map available for the Project area is the 1865 General Land Office plat for Township 2 North Range 6 East. Little detail is shown, but the distinctive curve in a slough in section 2 (partial) and section 3 suggests that Bear Creek is in its original channel.

The acreage includes all land in Section 2 that lies south of Bear Creek with owners C. M.

Hohenshell and J.U. Castle in 1895. Owners in the northern portion of Section 14 include J.U.

Castle, J. Little, C.M. Hohenshell and J.A. Cramer. Hohenshell’s house was located just south of the project area and is illustrated in the 1879 San Joaquin County history. A section of the Project area is included in the illustration.

ATTACHMENT E
It appears that increasing canal construction in the region led to a switch circa 1890-1900 to crops that required irrigation were planted rather than the dry grain farming of previous landowners.

RESEARCH
Five resources have been reported in the Project area. One of the sites listed as in the project area is the bridge over Bear Creek on the railroad line, but technically outside the project area---P-39-00363.

Another site record has been prepared for the levees along Bear Creek (P-39-004875), also outside the Project area.

P-39-004642 is an irrigation system with ten features, primarily floodgates, weirs, and culverts. One feature is dated 1946.

P-039-004641 (CA-SJO-315/H) has many artifacts representing the prehistoric, protohistoric and historic periods, with surface artifacts covering some 12,000 square meters. This site appears to be the former location of a historic period residence.

P-39-000005 (CA-SJO-253) contains bone and chipped stone, and the recorder thought the site might be a small village site. The metate is thought to be pulled out of a deeply buried cultural sediment.

The site recorder emphasized that the site boundaries could not be determined due to dense crops, and the site is highly disturbed.

Six other resources have been found and recorded in the 0.25-mile buffer search radius for the project.

There are six reports within the Project area, and sixteen other studies in the 0.25-mile search radius. Covering the Development Area are studies by Napton in 1990 (SJ-805); Hinshaw in 1993 (SJ-2016); Busby in 1996 (SJ-6507); Jurich, Martinez and Smith (SJ-6541); and ESA in 2007 (SJ06843). Full citations for the reports are included in the Report List in Appendix 2.

PROJECT SOILS
The Project area contains a mix of two soil types: about 90 per cent Jacktone clay and 10 per cent Stockton clay. The Stockton clay is located along Bear Creek and to the south on the west end of the project.

The Jacktone clay extends from ground level to 20-40 inches as a dark clay, ending on a duripan.

Below the duripan it is a stratified sandy loam to clay loam, cemented at about 60 inches.

Composed of mixed alluvium. This deposit dates to the Early to Middle Holocene, and is rated “high” for buried site potential (Meyers and Rosenthal 2004, Appendix D).

ATTACHMENT E
The Stockton clay, is 0 – 40 inches clay, with from 40 – 60 inches clay loam. This deposit is also cemented at about 60 inches. It is composed of mixed alluvium dating to the Middle to Late Holocene and is rated “very high” for buried site potential (Meyers and Rosenthal 2004: Appendix D).

In conclusion, the Project Area may be likely to contain prehistoric period resources, especially in the zone below a depth of 5 feet.

FIELD ASSESSMENT
The Development Area of 503.89 acres was surveyed by Michael Lawson on April 1, 2, 15 and 16, 2022. The area is connecting square agricultural fields currently tilled and planted, bordered by West Lane on the west, the UPRR on the east, Morada Lane on the south, and a natural drainage, Bear Creek, lies to the north of the overall Project Site.

The entire Development Area is flat and level. Dirt roadways running between fields are elevated to 6” to 12”. The various fields are in different stages of agricultural production from recent planting to 6” tall. A large Woodbridge Irrigation District runs north to south through the center of the Project Area, with smaller ditches in the fields, appearing to have been re-routed depending upon the crop grown on the property over the many seasons of agricultural use.

The soil throughout fields is similar. The color is medium brown, silty loam in nature with light stone component mostly consisting of small pebbles of granitic components (quartzite, mica, and feldspar. Other noted stone types include meta-volcanic and unidentified crypto-crystalline silicates. Soil within the likely previous building area is darker and with more loam component.

Stains consistent in appearance with industrial oil are common in this area.

View of the ground was excellent due to recent tilling and other weed abatement, rodent excavation, as well as vehicular travel, and recent ditch clearing. The only areas where ground view was impinged upon was along ditches and roadways.

Lawson conducted the survey on four sunny days, working from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with appropriate breaks. Figure 5 indicates the portions of the property surveyed by date.

The northeast portion with divided fields of newly planted alfalfa was surveyed on April 1. The following day, the adjacent divided fields to the south of newly planted alfalfa were covered. On April 15, the southern portion of the divided fields of newly planted alfalfa was surveyed. The following day, the survey was completed by inspection of the survey area to the northwest including a maturing field of alfalfa that reduced visibility to a degree (Figure 5).

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT E
Due to reported resources nearby, and knowledge of those sites reported from older survey efforts win the Project Area, the reported site areas were covered by narrow transects no greater than 3 meters, hoping to find evidence of reported artifacts or any cultural use. Dirt access roads and drainage ditches received additional inspection.

Soil visibility was very good at the time of the survey due to recent plowing and newly sprouted alfalfa. Slightly less coverage occurred in the northwest portion because of the maturing plants.

Due to known pre-contact and historical sites in the general area, parallel transects of no more than 3 to 5 meters were used, with the plow rows used for measurement. Closer overlapping inspection occurred within the excavated ditches and areas disturbed by burrowing animals, as well as fence lines and the area where buildings may have been.

He found prehistoric period artifacts in three locations during the survey, one near the north end of the project area and several in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005. A few scattered historic period items were found, consisting of fragments of milk glass, aqua glass with bubbles, amber glass, porcelain, and brick fragments in the location of P-39-004641, along with several prehistoric flakes.

The failure to re-locate the recorded sites as described in the site records may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation or plowing within the development area.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Historic Period Resources
The historic evidence at P-004641 needs to be evaluated under the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources for itsinformation potential. It is possible that the plowing over the last 175 years may have destroyed intact features and deposits. This site appears to be the remains of a farm or ranch, and may be the Hohenshell residence. There could also be a prehistoric period deposit with artifacts located in this area. A monitor shall be retained for all excavation work in the vicinity of P004641. If an intact feature or historic period artifacts be located, work shall be halted and equipment moved 100 feet away. A determination should be made at this point, the appropriate actions for preservation, protection, or other action such as data recovery excavations. Historic period deposits may be located elsewhere on the property, and would be subject to the same actions.

Prehistoric Period and Tribal Cultural Resources
During the field survey of the Project site, prehistoric period artifacts and prehistoric flakes were found in three locations in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005 and P-39-004641.

The field survey, however, failed to re-locate the recorded sites in the site records, which may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation, or plowing within the development area. The proposed Project is in a region where cultural resources have been recorded in the past and there

ATTACHMENT E
remains a potential that some undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities. Thus, the City is treating these prerecorded period resources as Tribal Cultural Resources under PRC section 21074.

The recommendations below provided for prehistoric period resources will also avoid any significant impacts on tribal cultural resources under the CEQA AB 52 requirements.

There is always a possibility that prehistoric period sites may exist in the project area, and be obscured by vegetation, siltation, or historic activities, leaving no surface evidence, even with testing. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell, or bone are uncovered during the construction, work should stop in that area immediately and a qualified archeologist should be contacted to examine and evaluate the deposit. A determination should be made at this point, the appropriate actions for preservation, protection, or other action such as data recovery excavations. The Native American monitor needs to be involved in the decision-making. Subsurface testing extending to a depth of more than 60” to locate the location and extent of the buried sites. These resources may provide information of early man in this region. A program for testing should be developed. Non-invasive testing such as ground penetrating radar or a magnetometer survey are not advised. There are not likely to be intact burials orsubsurface features due to the long-term plowing over the last 175 years, deep ripping, development of orchards as well as other agricultural featuressuch as ditches cut through the landscape, disturbing the soils. Non-invasive methods result in the need to open anomaly locations to determine what is there, turning those methods into roughly the same as excavated trenches.

We recommend that the property owners consider pre-development testing of the property to prevent impact to the buried resources present, if present. Some of our predecessors who conducted surveys on the property included similar recommendations: testing of the property. If testing did occur and findings are made, particularly of human remains, a major archeological data recovery effort will be required. Testing would include backhoe trenching, test units, and/or other standard practices of excavating in areas identified by a qualified archeologist, including the use of hand tools, if necessary and feasible, and should involve theNorthernValleyYokuts groupwho is knowledgeable about local resources.

Subsurface testing should be conducted extending to a depth of more than 60” to locate the location and extent of the buried sites. These resources may provide information on early man in this region.

Additionally, prior to the beginning of construction work, the developer shall contact an appropriate Northern Valley Yokuts Tribal representative to train construction workers on appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, requirements for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment, other applicable regulations, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell, or bone are uncovered during the construction, work in that area shall stop immediately and a qualified archeologist and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribal representative shall be contacted to examine and evaluate the deposit.

If the examination and evaluation reveals significant resources, a treatment plan in accordance with appropriate standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of

ATTACHMENT E
Archaeological Sites would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and a Tribal monitor if the development cannot avoid an archaeological or paleontological deposit prior to construction.

Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The County Coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.

If the San Joaquin County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the County Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

After notification, the NAHC will follow the procedures outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. that include notifications of the most likely descendants (MLDs), and recommendations for the treatment of the remains. The MLDs will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendations (PRC Section 5097.98).

ATTACHMENT E

REFERENCES
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236.

Berkeley.

Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 11). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.

Bennyhoff, James A.
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 5. University of California, Davis.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer
1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell Beads. University of California Archaeological Survey Report, 42:60-92. Berkeley.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.

Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California.

University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.

Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gudde, Erwin
1969 California Place Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth Edition), revised by Douglas E. Kyle.

Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1953 Handbook of the California Indians. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley.

Latta, F. F.
1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

ATTACHMENT E
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves
1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.

Sacramento.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. University of California Research Contributions 15. Berkeley.

Rosenthal, Jeffery S., and Jack Meyer
2004 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways, Volume III: Geoarchaeological Study Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record of Central California. Ms. on file, Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus San Joaquin County
1901
1919 San Joaquin County Plats. Reprinted in India.

Schulz, Peter D.
1981 Osteoarchaeology and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Central California.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413. Berkeley.

Smith, Wallace
1960 Garden of the Sun. Privately printed.

Thompson and West
1879 History of San Joaquin County, California, with Illustrations. Reprinted in 1968 by Howell-North Books, Berkeley.

ATTACHMENT E
Wallace, William J.
1978 Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462-470.

Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

ATTACHMENT E
APPENDIX 1
Resumes

ATTACHMENT E
PEAK & ASSOCIATES,INC.

RESUME
MELINDA A. PEAK January 2024
Senior Historian/Archeologist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Peak has served as the principal investigator on a wide range of prehistoric and historic excavations throughout California. She has directed laboratory analyses of archeological materials, including the historic period. She has also conducted a wide variety of cultural resource assessments in California, including documentary research, field survey, Native American coordination and consultation, and report preparation.

In addition, Ms. Peak has developed a second field of expertise in applied history, specializing in sitespecific research for historic period resources. She is a registered professional historian and has completed many historical research projects for a wide variety of site types.

Through her education and experience, Ms. Peak meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historian, architectural historian, prehistoric archeologist, and historic archeologist.

EDUCATION
M.A. - History - California State University, Sacramento, 1989 Thesis: The Bellevue Mine: A Historical Resources Management Site Study in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California
B.A. - Anthropology - University of California, Berkeley

PROJECTS
In recent months, Ms. Peak has completed several determinations of eligibility and effect documents in coordination with the Corps of Engineers for projects requiring federal permits, assessing the eligibility of many sites for the National Register of Historic Places.

She has also completed historical research projects on a wide variety of topics for any projects including the development of navigation and landings on the Napa River, wineries, farmhouses dating to the 1860s, bridges, an early roadhouse, Folsom Dam, and a section of an electric railway line.

In recent years, Ms. Peak has prepared a number of cultural resource overviews and predictive models for blocks of land proposed for future development for general and specific plans. She has been able to direct several surveys of these areas, allowing the model to be tested.

ATTACHMENT E
She served as principal investigator for the multi-phase Twelve Bridges Golf Club project in Placer County. She served as liaison with the various agencies, helped prepare the historic properties treatment plan, managed the various phases of test and data recovery excavations, and completed the final report on the analysis of the test phase excavations of several prehistoric sites. She is currently involved as the principal investigator for the Teichert Quarry project adjacent to Twelve Bridges in the City of Rocklin, coordinating contacts with Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Historic Preservation.

Ms. Peak has served as project manager for several major survey and excavation projects in recent years, including the many surveys and site definition excavations for the 172-mile-long Pacific Pipeline proposed for construction in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. She also completed an archival study in the City of Los Angeles for the project. She also served as principal investigator for a major coaxial cable removal project for AT&T.

Additionally, she completed several small surveys, served as a construction monitor at several urban sites, and conducted emergency recovery excavations for sites found during monitoring. She has directed the excavations ofseveral historic complexesin Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties.

Ms. Peak is the author of a chapter and two sections of a published history (1999) of Sacramento County, Sacramento: Gold Rush Legacy, Metropolitan Legacy. She served as the consultant for a children’s book on California, published by Capstone Press in 2003 in the Land of Liberty series.

ATTACHMENT E
PEAK & ASSOCIATES,INC.

RESUME
MICHAEL LAWSON January 2024
Archeological Field Director
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95672
(916) 939-2405

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Lawson has compiled an excellent record of undertaking excavation and survey projects for both the public and private sectors over the past thirty years. He has conducted numerous surveys throughout northern and central California and Hawaii, as well as serving as an archeological technician, site monitor, crew chief and field director for a number of excavation projects.

Mr. Lawson is qualified by the Bureau of Land Management as a field director for archeological surveys and excavations. In 2022, he led teams as the field director on several field surveys in the Sierras for the proposed undergrounding of PG&E transmission lines, dealing with both historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Lawson works for several firms based in the Sacramento Area and Bay Area.

EDUCATION
B.A. - Anthropology - California State University, Sacramento Special Course: Comparative Osteology. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Forensic Anthropology Center. January 2018.

The special course included: intensive lab and outdoor study with human example from outdoor research facility, including typical and non-metric examples, compared with fifty non-human species commonly confused with human remains. Work at the outdoor research facility “The Body Farm” study included survey, photography, collection, and identification of faunal and human bone fragments, with a Power Point presentation discussing finds.

EXPERIENCE
• Extensive monitoring of open space, streets and project development areas for prehistoric period and historic period resources. Areas monitored include Sutter Street in Folsom; Mud Creek Archeological District in Chico; Camp Roberts, San Luis Obispo County; Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County; Edgewood Golf Course, South Lake Tahoe; Davis Water Project, Davis; Star Bend levee section, Sutter County; Feather River levees, Sutter County; Bodega Bay, Sonoma County; San Jose BART line extension, Santa Clara County; and numerous sites for PG&E in San Francisco.

ATTACHMENT E
• Over thirty years of experience working in cultural resource management, volunteer, and academic settings in California historic, proto-historic, and prehistoric archaeology. • Expertise in pedestrian survey, excavation, feature (including burial) exposure, laboratory techniques, research. Field positions include field director, assistant field director, crew chief and lead technician.

ATTACHMENT E
APPENDIX 2
Record Search

ATTACHMENT E

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties Date: 4/11/2022 Records Search File No.: 12149L
Access Agreement: #137
Project: Bear Creek South
Robert Gerry
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Suite 30-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916-939-2405 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gerry:

The Central California Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Lodi South 7.5’ quadrangle in San Joaquin County. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project study area and radius:

As per data currently available at the CCaIC, the locations of resources/reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS Data/shape files ☐ hand-drawn maps Summary Data:

Resources within the project area: 5: P-39-000005, 363, 4641, 4642, 4875 Resources within the 1/4-mile radius: 6: P-39-000003, 4, 4491, 4693, 5250 1 Informal Resource: Lithic scatter 5607-1 (refers to
Report SJ-05607)
Reports within the project area: 6: SJ-00805, 2016, 3128, 6507, 6541, 6843 Reports within the 1/4-mile radius: 16: SJ-00791, 829, 847, 2824, 3129, 3130, 3995, 4996, 5165, 5488, 5607, 6132, 6345, 6851, 8066, 8302
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

ATTACHMENT E
OHP Historic Properties Directory: New Excel File: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Dated 11/17/2021
Not all resources listed in the BERD are mapped in GIS, nor do we have records on file for; if you identify additional resources in the BERD that you need copies of, contact the IC. ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

ATTACHMENT E
Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email by our Financial Services office *($344.55), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

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

ATTACHMENT E
Insert topo figure

ATTACHMENT E
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-00791 NADB-R - 1361613 1989 Napton, L. K. Cultural Resource Investigation of the Preliminary Alternative Alignments for the
Eight Mile Road Specific Plan, San Joaquin
County, California.

CSDU Stanislaus, Institute
for Archaeological
Research; for Omni-Means
39-000226
SJ-00805 NADB-R - 1361624 1990 Napton, L. K. Cultural Resource Investigation of the Kaufman Broad EIR, 398.5 Acres in North
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California.

L. K. Napton
SJ-00829 NADB-R - 1364356 1966 Riddell, F. A. and William H. Olsen
An Archaeological Survey of Mosher Creek,
San Joaquin County, California.

Francis A. Riddell and
William H. Olsen; for CA
State Parks and Recreation
Dept.
39-000244, 39-000267, 39-000268
SJ-00847 NADB-R - 1361666 1988 Werner, R. H. Cultural Resource Investigation Morada Lane Development Project, Stockton, California.

ASI, for Jones and Stokes
Associates
SJ-02016 NADB-R - 1360522 1993 Hinshaw, J. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Three Possible High School Site Locations
(Approx. 240 Acres) North of Stockton, San
Joaquin County, California.

The Planning Center 39-000003, 39-000004, 39-000005
SJ-02824 NADB-R - 1362195 1996 Busby, C., S. Guedon, Cultural Resources Assessment, San Basin Research 39-000002, 39-000004, 39-000075, and M. Tannam Joaquin Area Flood Control Restoration Plan, Associates, Inc. 39-000155, 39-000162, 39-000211, San Joaquin County, California (Oct. 1995) 39-000226, 39-000229, 39-000231, [2824a] (and) Cultural Resources 39-000234, 39-000241, 39-000244, Assessment Addendum San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan (Draft, Jan.
1996) [2824b].
39-000271, 39-002516
SJ-03128 NADB-R - 1363282 1996 Busby, C. I. Letter to Ms. Cathy McAfee of EIP Associates, Regarding Cultural Resources
Inventory in Compliance with Mitigation
Measure 4.5-1(a), Middle Bear Creek and
Two Detention Basins, San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan.

Basin Research Associates 39-000226
SJ-03129 NADB-R - 1363283 1996 Busby, C. I. Letter to Ms. Cathy McAfee, EIP Associates, RE: Cultural Resources Inventory - In
Compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a),
Lower Bear Creek and Mosher Slough, San
Joaquin Area Flood Control Restoration Plan.

Basin Research
Associates; for EIP
39-000244
SJ-03130 NADB-R - 1363286 1997 Busby, C. I., S. Guedon, and M. Tannam
Cultural Resources Assessment, Addendum
for Supplementary EIR, San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan, San Joaquin
County, California, Revised Draft.

Basin Research
Associates; for EIP
39-000212, 39-000244, 39-000363

ATTACHMENT E
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-03995 NADB-R - 1366235 2000 Nelson, W. J. Cultural Resource Survey for the Level (3) Far Western 39-000002, 39-000354, 50-000001, Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics
Project; Segment WS04: Sacramento to
Bakersfield
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.; for Parsons,
Brinckerhoff Network
Services
50-000439
SJ-04996 NADB-R - 1364883 2003 Jensen, P. and S. Jensen Archaeological Inventory Survey, Cannery Park Multi-Use Development Project, c. 448
Acres Adjacent to Eightmile Road and State
Route 99, San Joaquin County, California.

Jensen & Associates
SJ-05165 NADB-R - 1365045 2003 Jensen, P. Archaeological Inventory Survey: Proposed Lodi Unified School District's High School
Project, c. 75-Acres Along Bear Creek Near
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California.

Jensen & Associates 39-000003, 39-000004
SJ-05488 NADB-R - 1365372 2004 Jensen, Peter Archaeological Inventory Survey, Alpine Jensen & Associates 39-000098, 39-004489, 39-004490, Packing Annexation and Specific Plan
Project, c. 1,100 Acres Along Eightmile Road,
San Joaquin County, California.
39-004491
SJ-05607 NADB-R - 1365491 2004 Jensen, P. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Proposed Bear Creek East Development Project, c. 315
Acres Along Eightmile Road, San Joaquin
County, California.

Jensen & Associates 39-005250
SJ-06132 NADB-R - 1366151 2006 Marvin, J. and T. Brejla Historical Resources Survey and Constraints Analysis for the Bear Creek West
Development Project Area, Lower
Sacramento Road, West Lane, and Eight
Mile Road, San Joaquin County, California
LSA Associates 39-004489, 39-004490
SJ-06345 NADB-R - 1366576 2006 SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring
and Findings for the QWest Network
Construction Project, State of California.

SWCA Project No. 10715-180.

SWCA Environmental
Consultants, for Qwest
Communications
39-000002, 39-000354
SJ-06507 NADB-R - 1366739 2007 URS Corporation Cultural Resources Report for Geotechnical Evaluations of the San Joaquin Area Flood
Control Agency Project Levees
URS Corporation; for DWR 39-000220, 39-004639, 39-004640 SJ-06541 NADB-R - 1366774 2008 Jurich, D., J. Martinez, A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of PBS&J 39-000005, 39-004641, 39-004642, and S. Smith Approximately 510 Acres For The Bear Creek South, Environmental Impact Report, San
Joaquin County, California
39-004643
SJ-06843 NADB-R - 1367119 2007 ESA Stockton Delta Water Supply Project Cultural Resources Inventory Report.

ESA; for the City of Stockton

ATTACHMENT E
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-06851 NADB-R - 1367106;
Other - Ron MCNair
HS; SAC-446B
2008 Billat, L. New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet FCC
Form 620 Project Name: Ron McNair HS,
Project Number: SAC-446B
Earth Touch, Inc.

SJ-08066 2003 Werner, R., and R. P. Archaeological Investigations, McNair High ASI for Lodi Unified School 39-000003, 39-000004, 39-004491, Hampson School Campus, Ca. 75 Acres North
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California
District 39-004640
SJ-08302 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to: The Matthews Company; RE:

Status Report upon Completion of
Delineation/Evaluation of Areas 1 and 2, and
Initiation of Monitoring of Structure Demolition
at Area 2.

Genesis Society 39-005250
SJ-08302A 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Bear Creek East, Completion of Burial Recovery.

Genesis Society
SJ-08302B 2006 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Status Report upon Continuation of Monitoring of
Ground Disturbing Activities at Area 2.

Genesis Society
SJ-08302C 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Status Report for Monitoring of Structure Demolition
and Shovel Test Pit Work in Vicinity of
Potential Prehistoric Site.

Genesis Society
SJ-08302D 2011 Unknown 8. Cultural Resources (120384/STO11R233) Unknown; Cultural Resources Element of an
EIR

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix D: Environmental Noise Assessment

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
Environmental Noise Assessment
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, California
March 27, 2025
Project #240309
Prepared for:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Prepared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE)

ATTACHMENT E
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE ........................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS ........................................................................... 6 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 6 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS ..................................................... 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 7 EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE ............................................ 10 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 12 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 12 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 13 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................ 13 STATE .................................................................................................................................................... 13 LOCAL .................................................................................................................................................... 13 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION ........................................................................................................ 17 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................... 19 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................. 19 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 20 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 28 List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations ....................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Future Transportation Noise Levels on Project Site .................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Recommended Sound Wall Locations ......................................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Interior Noise Control Measures ................................................................................................. 25

ATTACHMENT E
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 7 Table 3: Existing Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases .............................. 8 Table 4: EPAP Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases .................................. 9 Table 5: Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases ...................... 10 Table 6: Construction Equipment Noise ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment .................................................................. 12 Table 8: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure .............................................................. 14 Table 9: Transportation-Related Noise Standards (Outdoor/Indoor) ........................................................ 16 Table 10: Land Use-Related Noise Standards ............................................................................................. 16 Table 11: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings .............................................................................. 18 Table 12: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ................................................................................. 20 Table 13: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors ........................................................................ 21 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
Appendix D: Interior Noise Reduction Calculations

ATTACHMENT E
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

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

ATTACHMENT E
Morada Lane

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

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix D: Exterior to Interior
Noise Reduction Calculations

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

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

De Novo Planning Group
Prepared by:

July 25, 2024
BTC-0021

ATTACHMENT E
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

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

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix A: Traffic Counts (Provided
Electronically)

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix B: Existing Conditions
LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
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