Attachment E - BCS 15183 checklist — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, July 7, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 84 159 161 24 1476 71 183 2164 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.37 0.66 0.53 0.24 0.71 0.10 0.65 0.76
Control Delay 62.7 39.7 62.9 40.3 65.0 32.3 0.3 57.3 24.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.7 39.7 62.9 40.3 65.0 32.3 0.3 57.3 24.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 42 112 88 17 300 0 129 440
Queue Length 95th (ft) 135 92 227 159 56 #664 0 242 #878 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 260 413 347 499 103 2083 716 538 3078 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.20 0.46 0.32 0.23 0.71 0.10 0.34 0.70 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 455 1200 229 600 1035 236 292 895 211 329 1554 368 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.75 0.43 0.92 0.59 0.41 0.84 0.46 0.34 0.84 0.76 0.49 Control Delay 73.5 56.3 13.0 81.2 49.9 10.9 88.7 43.9 6.3 86.5 50.0 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.5 56.3 13.0 81.2 49.9 10.9 88.7 43.9 6.3 86.5 50.0 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 238 333 32 320 269 23 156 218 0 176 423 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 296 377 110 #436 319 101 #236 255 62 #257 472 79 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 679 1777 565 679 1824 589 362 2073 647 408 2158 767 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.68 0.41 0.88 0.57 0.40 0.81 0.43 0.33 0.81 0.72 0.48 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
11: Glacier Point Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 1487 107 980 343 159 174 235 192 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.78 0.75 0.60 0.49 0.84 0.49 0.79 0.44
Control Delay 68.1 35.1 87.9 36.4 5.8 89.0 32.9 68.0 29.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 68.1 35.1 87.9 36.4 5.8 89.0 32.9 68.0 29.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 378 86 247 0 129 76 181 86
Queue Length 95th (ft) 231 436 #203 301 70 #279 156 #305 165 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1050 631 505 258
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 215 100
Base Capacity (vph) 316 2355 142 1908 771 189 422 363 539 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.63 0.75 0.51 0.44 0.84 0.41 0.65 0.36 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 1116 267 180 853 246 246 219 102 335 474 316 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.81 0.47 0.65 0.71 0.45 0.73 0.31 0.34 0.82 0.53 0.59 Control Delay 62.6 46.9 14.8 60.3 46.5 9.7 59.2 46.4 12.1 60.7 45.6 9.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 46.9 14.8 60.3 46.5 9.7 59.2 46.4 12.1 60.7 45.6 9.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 164 254 32 114 194 6 155 50 0 210 108 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #419 #543 155 270 373 90 354 96 51 #549 196 84 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 497 1370 564 497 1228 550 580 1460 520 580 1460 672 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.81 0.47 0.36 0.69 0.45 0.42 0.15 0.20 0.58 0.32 0.47 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
13: Maranatha Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 1485 65 1036 98 8 94 72 25 101 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.59 0.29 0.41 0.38 0.02 0.25 0.27 0.07 0.27 Control Delay 37.7 15.5 37.9 13.5 31.8 26.6 8.5 29.6 26.7 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 37.7 15.5 37.9 13.5 31.8 26.6 8.5 29.6 26.7 8.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 149 23 93 34 3 0 25 8 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 338 87 216 100 16 39 77 35 40 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1519 790 491 364
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 310 90 90 90 90
Base Capacity (vph) 549 3947 549 3956 706 954 846 717 954 848 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.38 0.12 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.12 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
14: Diamond Bar Pl & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 1363 19 999 63 22 69 60 125
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.40 0.19 0.38 0.45 0.13 0.24 0.43 0.50
Control Delay 62.6 12.7 57.5 20.7 61.8 47.3 2.0 61.6 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.6 12.7 57.5 20.7 61.8 47.3 2.0 61.6 15.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 123 14 153 47 17 0 45 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 217 352 39 300 92 36 0 88 53
Internal Link Dist (ft) 790 329 528 581
Turn Bay Length (ft) 180 100 65 65 150
Base Capacity (vph) 374 3396 153 2624 227 393 452 227 427 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.40 0.12 0.38 0.28 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.29 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
15: West Ln & Marlette Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 74 361 330 32 188 1012 87 49 1329 111 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.28 0.84 0.78 0.12 0.55 0.53 0.13 0.39 0.89 0.20 Control Delay 36.4 40.5 32.2 47.2 22.9 49.6 27.8 3.0 55.5 42.9 6.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.4 40.5 32.2 47.2 22.9 49.6 27.8 3.0 55.5 42.9 6.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 40 67 187 8 56 189 0 29 284 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 244 89 #215 299 36 104 289 21 74 #475 39 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1914 1844 1957 2672
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Base Capacity (vph) 635 384 518 633 396 372 1913 669 134 1489 547 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.19 0.70 0.52 0.08 0.51 0.53 0.13 0.37 0.89 0.20 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 978 426 441 1223 23 363 628 249 18 531 128 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.64 0.68 0.80 0.80 0.04 0.81 0.53 0.36 0.17 0.76 0.28 Control Delay 73.6 34.4 20.9 54.7 38.3 0.1 60.4 31.9 5.7 52.5 47.9 3.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.6 34.4 20.9 54.7 38.3 0.1 60.4 31.9 5.7 52.5 47.9 3.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 170 218 121 155 286 0 130 173 0 12 185 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #313 267 238 #223 343 0 #204 269 60 36 246 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 546 4053 2672 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 165 375 375 410 410
Base Capacity (vph) 291 1627 660 599 1676 641 465 1175 685 120 789 492 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.60 0.65 0.74 0.73 0.04 0.78 0.53 0.36 0.15 0.67 0.26 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
4: Morada Ln & West Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 271 168 302 777 281 1353 361 303 1051 180 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.33 0.35 0.77 1.95 1.46 0.89 0.52 1.40 0.67 0.30 Control Delay 93.5 45.8 8.6 67.3 463.5 276.0 56.4 9.6 249.7 46.5 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.5 45.8 8.6 67.3 463.5 276.0 56.4 9.6 249.7 46.5 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 111 4 301 ~1257 ~200 473 29 ~211 337 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #228 153 63 #461 #1528 #297 #538 123 #312 390 58 Internal Link Dist (ft) 738 1289 2542 590
Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 400 300 300 320 320
Base Capacity (vph) 190 1012 549 391 399 193 1577 706 217 1613 616 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 0.31 0.77 1.95 1.46 0.86 0.51 1.40 0.65 0.29 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 98 151 8 163 2029 41 1488
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.25 0.63 0.02 0.58 0.68 0.26 0.65
Control Delay 47.3 10.2 49.0 0.1 46.7 15.6 48.6 20.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.3 10.2 49.0 0.1 46.7 15.6 48.6 20.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 2 87 0 96 308 24 225
Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 46 173 0 178 445 64 348
Internal Link Dist (ft) 308 219 1238 2542
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 415 400
Base Capacity (vph) 308 526 354 505 534 3412 534 3359
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.19 0.43 0.02 0.31 0.59 0.08 0.44 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 78 129 128 69 2080 91 126 1539 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.33 0.58 0.44 0.45 0.95 0.12 0.56 0.60
Control Delay 55.2 33.8 56.0 29.7 58.9 40.1 0.3 54.4 23.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.2 33.8 56.0 29.7 58.9 40.1 0.3 54.4 23.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 31 74 45 40 431 0 72 253
Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 79 180 108 113 #987 0 173 511 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 280 428 336 488 186 2200 753 373 2758 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.18 0.38 0.26 0.37 0.95 0.12 0.34 0.56 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 1529 203 444 1202 224 519 1560 281 274 1135 317 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.85 0.37 0.85 0.76 0.44 1.00 0.75 0.40 0.77 0.64 0.48 Control Delay 82.8 58.0 12.6 79.6 57.2 16.9 102.7 48.8 5.7 82.9 50.3 6.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 82.8 58.0 12.6 79.6 57.2 16.9 102.7 48.8 5.7 82.9 50.3 6.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 318 445 30 235 340 48 ~304 420 0 145 297 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #434 493 102 #311 384 131 #424 464 68 198 338 76 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 657 1861 565 566 1692 532 521 2241 728 385 1988 697 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.90 0.82 0.36 0.78 0.71 0.42 1.00 0.70 0.39 0.71 0.57 0.45 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
11: Glacier Point Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 978 48 1187 77 48 54 103 80
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.39 0.22 0.46 0.09 0.19 0.14 0.36 0.20
Control Delay 47.1 21.7 45.5 22.0 0.2 44.6 12.8 42.7 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.1 21.7 45.5 22.0 0.2 44.6 12.8 42.7 11.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 124 20 158 0 20 3 43 5
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 272 73 331 0 73 36 128 43
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1050 631 505 258
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 215 100
Base Capacity (vph) 273 3072 395 3309 1044 395 859 607 1004 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.12 0.36 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.08 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 693 141 154 922 273 176 360 193 180 261 159 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.47 0.26 0.59 0.66 0.44 0.63 0.43 0.46 0.64 0.31 0.40 Control Delay 54.4 32.7 7.5 53.5 36.7 6.9 54.1 39.6 9.5 54.3 38.4 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.4 32.7 7.5 53.5 36.7 6.9 54.1 39.6 9.5 54.3 38.4 9.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 119 0 86 172 0 98 72 0 100 51 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 261 264 55 219 359 74 248 134 63 253 100 57 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 481 1732 624 481 1713 706 481 1636 633 481 1636 610 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.40 0.23 0.32 0.54 0.39 0.37 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.16 0.26 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
13: Maranatha Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 1021 113 1408 30 17 102 56 17 39 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.37 0.38 0.50 0.12 0.05 0.29 0.23 0.05 0.12 Control Delay 34.7 13.9 34.0 14.3 27.0 26.1 8.5 28.4 26.1 3.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.7 13.9 34.0 14.3 27.0 26.1 8.5 28.4 26.1 3.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 87 36 127 9 5 0 18 5 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 228 129 323 39 25 39 62 25 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1519 790 491 364
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 310 90 90 90 90
Base Capacity (vph) 624 4227 624 4218 784 1052 926 784 1052 910 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.24 0.18 0.33 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.04 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
14: Diamond Bar Pl & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 893 54 1387 28 17 31 148 297
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.29 0.43 0.57 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.66 0.64
Control Delay 64.8 15.4 63.2 26.4 58.7 48.1 0.7 63.7 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.8 15.4 63.2 26.4 58.7 48.1 0.7 63.7 12.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 175 123 41 274 21 13 0 111 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 256 234 83 #551 51 31 0 174 79
Internal Link Dist (ft) 790 329 528 581
Turn Bay Length (ft) 180 100 65 65 150
Base Capacity (vph) 374 3029 153 2430 153 386 479 300 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.29 0.35 0.57 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.49 0.45 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
15: West Ln & Marlette Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative No Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 60 245 196 55 501 1245 147 60 1161 158 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.33 0.65 0.71 0.30 0.71 0.55 0.19 0.38 0.76 0.27 Control Delay 46.5 45.6 14.3 53.4 41.3 40.8 21.0 3.9 49.6 33.4 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.5 45.6 14.3 53.4 41.3 40.8 21.0 3.9 49.6 33.4 5.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 34 0 111 28 145 201 0 34 222 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #240 77 72 #235 68 215 283 37 82 328 42 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1914 1844 1957 2672
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Base Capacity (vph) 341 376 515 317 373 963 2569 872 198 1713 645 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.16 0.48 0.62 0.15 0.52 0.48 0.17 0.30 0.68 0.24 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 221 1045 520 360 1126 53 431 652 324 59 620 194 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.73 0.82 0.81 0.85 0.10 0.84 0.60 0.46 0.44 0.84 0.40 Control Delay 63.6 34.9 27.3 56.6 42.0 0.3 56.3 32.7 5.6 54.8 49.0 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.6 34.9 27.3 56.6 42.0 0.3 56.3 32.7 5.6 54.8 49.0 7.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 137 217 155 116 250 0 139 193 0 36 200 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #253 267 #333 #185 305 0 #216 255 64 78 #286 55 Internal Link Dist (ft) 546 4053 2672 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 165 375 375 410 410
Base Capacity (vph) 293 1526 660 462 1369 569 532 1087 704 146 769 497 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.68 0.79 0.78 0.82 0.09 0.81 0.60 0.46 0.40 0.81 0.39 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
2: West Ln & Project Rd (Full Access) 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 159 1326 38 66 2021
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.42 0.49 0.04 0.29 0.60
Control Delay 28.7 8.8 11.6 4.3 29.3 6.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.7 8.8 11.6 4.3 29.3 6.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 0 123 0 21 121
Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 47 193 14 63 194
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1942 1387 472
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 340
Base Capacity (vph) 595 637 2992 947 297 4189
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.25 0.44 0.04 0.22 0.48
Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
4: Morada Ln & West Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 617 439 534 418 213 549 905 428 470 1370 290 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.60 0.67 1.08 0.39 0.35 0.88 0.70 0.64 0.89 1.18 0.51 Control Delay 107.3 47.5 14.8 119.5 42.4 6.8 73.7 51.5 12.1 78.2 138.9 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 107.3 47.5 14.8 119.5 42.4 6.8 73.7 51.5 12.1 78.2 138.9 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 205 259 55 ~282 164 0 254 285 43 218 ~577 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #381 348 197 #432 232 65 #339 335 156 #320 #649 77 Internal Link Dist (ft) 738 1289 2542 590
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 300 300 300 300 320 320
Base Capacity (vph) 255 1020 651 495 1059 607 700 1324 680 579 1157 573 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.60 0.67 1.08 0.39 0.35 0.78 0.68 0.63 0.81 1.18 0.51 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 187 158 273 16 216 1563 72 2360
v/c Ratio 1.35 0.36 1.30 0.04 0.76 0.55 0.47 1.00
Control Delay 233.5 18.4 203.6 0.2 63.8 18.0 61.1 49.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 233.5 18.4 203.6 0.2 63.8 18.0 61.1 49.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~185 37 ~265 0 152 257 51 608
Queue Length 95th (ft) #340 100 #443 0 256 388 106 #923 Internal Link Dist (ft) 308 219 1238 2542
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 415 400
Base Capacity (vph) 139 439 210 417 384 2843 384 2363
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.35 0.36 1.30 0.04 0.56 0.55 0.19 1.00 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 84 159 165 24 1563 71 198 2437 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.38 0.69 0.56 0.25 0.73 0.10 0.69 0.83
Control Delay 64.4 39.7 65.5 41.5 65.9 33.1 0.3 59.3 26.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.4 39.7 65.5 41.5 65.9 33.1 0.3 59.3 26.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 62 42 112 90 17 333 0 139 549
Queue Length 95th (ft) 141 92 227 161 56 #745 0 257 #1073 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 246 395 329 478 98 2140 732 510 2920 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.21 0.48 0.35 0.24 0.73 0.10 0.39 0.83 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 1200 229 600 1035 251 292 943 211 371 1693 438 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.75 0.44 0.93 0.60 0.44 0.84 0.48 0.34 0.93 0.81 0.58 Control Delay 74.9 57.1 13.2 82.9 51.3 13.3 90.2 44.6 6.3 96.9 52.1 10.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.9 57.1 13.2 82.9 51.3 13.3 90.2 44.6 6.3 96.9 52.1 10.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 248 333 33 320 271 38 156 232 0 201 475 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 310 377 111 #436 319 124 #236 270 62 #308 526 155 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 668 1748 559 668 1772 576 356 2039 640 401 2122 768 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.69 0.41 0.90 0.58 0.44 0.82 0.46 0.33 0.93 0.80 0.57 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
8: Caywood Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 1555 79 1096 39 123 103 106
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.72 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.38
Control Delay 39.1 22.3 40.2 11.9 0.1 11.5 40.6 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.1 22.3 40.2 11.9 0.1 11.5 40.6 14.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 225 37 91 0 0 50 6
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 361 86 208 0 40 109 54
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1289 1260 552 170
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 232 2241 349 2925 966 339 442 470
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.69 0.23 0.37 0.04 0.36 0.23 0.23 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
9: Cherbourg Wy & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 1621 175 1151 39 157 216 213
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.87 0.65 0.46 0.05 0.56 0.70 0.68
Control Delay 48.1 35.7 50.4 18.4 0.1 13.3 49.1 45.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.1 35.7 50.4 18.4 0.1 13.3 49.1 45.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 314 97 168 0 0 125 114
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 #550 185 271 0 47 227 214
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1260 1170 828 237
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 350 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 191 1855 382 2550 853 334 454 453
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.87 0.46 0.45 0.05 0.47 0.48 0.47 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
11: Glacier Point Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 1974 107 1146 343 159 174 235 192 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.93 0.82 0.63 0.46 0.92 0.52 0.81 0.46
Control Delay 72.8 44.4 101.7 36.6 5.4 106.9 35.0 72.7 31.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 72.8 44.4 101.7 36.6 5.4 106.9 35.0 72.7 31.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 150 585 91 304 0 136 81 191 92
Queue Length 95th (ft) 231 #704 #203 362 70 #279 156 #305 165 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1050 631 505 258
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 215 100
Base Capacity (vph) 289 2168 130 1824 752 173 386 333 498 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.91 0.82 0.63 0.46 0.92 0.45 0.71 0.39 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 290 1525 309 180 990 246 261 219 102 335 474 327 v/c Ratio 0.81 1.07 0.55 0.66 0.84 0.48 0.76 0.31 0.33 0.83 0.54 0.61 Control Delay 65.5 85.8 23.1 62.4 52.8 14.2 61.9 47.2 11.9 63.2 47.3 10.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.5 85.8 23.1 62.4 52.8 14.2 61.9 47.2 11.9 63.2 47.3 10.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 192 ~434 78 121 249 25 174 52 0 222 114 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #496 #881 252 270 442 127 376 96 51 #549 196 86 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 477 1426 557 477 1182 513 556 1404 504 556 1404 666 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 1.07 0.55 0.38 0.84 0.48 0.47 0.16 0.20 0.60 0.34 0.49 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
13: Maranatha Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 1893 65 1174 98 8 94 72 25 101 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.66 0.34 0.41 0.42 0.03 0.27 0.31 0.08 0.29 Control Delay 44.1 16.1 44.1 12.7 38.1 30.4 9.2 35.2 31.1 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.1 16.1 44.1 12.7 38.1 30.4 9.2 35.2 31.1 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 223 31 113 46 4 0 33 11 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 480 88 252 100 16 39 77 35 41 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1519 790 491 364
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 310 90 90 90 90
Base Capacity (vph) 461 3423 461 3431 593 801 725 602 801 728 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.55 0.14 0.34 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.14 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
14: Diamond Bar Pl & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 12 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 1767 19 1136 63 22 69 60 125
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.52 0.19 0.43 0.45 0.13 0.24 0.43 0.50
Control Delay 62.6 14.4 57.5 21.5 61.8 47.3 2.0 61.6 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.6 14.4 57.5 21.5 61.8 47.3 2.0 61.6 15.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 179 14 180 47 17 0 45 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 217 503 39 349 92 36 0 88 53
Internal Link Dist (ft) 790 329 528 581
Turn Bay Length (ft) 180 100 65 65 150
Base Capacity (vph) 374 3400 153 2629 227 393 452 227 427 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.52 0.12 0.43 0.28 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.29 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
15: West Ln & Marlette Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 13 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 74 361 330 32 188 1210 87 49 1396 111 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.28 0.84 0.78 0.12 0.55 0.63 0.13 0.39 0.94 0.20 Control Delay 36.4 40.5 32.2 47.2 22.9 49.6 29.7 3.0 55.5 47.4 6.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.4 40.5 32.2 47.2 22.9 49.6 29.7 3.0 55.5 47.4 6.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 40 67 187 8 56 239 0 29 304 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 244 89 #215 299 36 104 357 21 74 #512 39 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1462 1414 1985 2672
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Base Capacity (vph) 635 384 518 633 396 372 1913 669 134 1489 547 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.19 0.70 0.52 0.08 0.51 0.63 0.13 0.37 0.94 0.20 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 978 498 466 1223 23 404 705 264 18 664 128 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.66 0.81 0.84 0.81 0.04 0.90 0.58 0.37 0.17 0.89 0.27 Control Delay 78.0 35.9 31.6 58.6 39.6 0.1 70.4 32.8 5.5 52.9 57.4 3.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.0 35.9 31.6 58.6 39.6 0.1 70.4 32.8 5.5 52.9 57.4 3.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 170 218 191 165 286 0 147 199 0 12 241 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #313 267 #348 #243 343 0 #239 307 61 36 #345 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 546 4053 2672 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 165 375 375 410 410
Base Capacity (vph) 282 1573 638 579 1620 626 450 1219 711 116 762 481 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.62 0.78 0.80 0.75 0.04 0.90 0.58 0.37 0.16 0.87 0.27 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
2: West Ln & Project Rd (Full Access) 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 111 1922 129 242 1601
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.36 0.93 0.18 0.61 0.42
Control Delay 28.3 9.8 30.2 4.7 27.9 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.3 9.8 30.2 4.7 27.9 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 0 ~250 1 78 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 39 #456 34 147 120
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1942 1387 472
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 340
Base Capacity (vph) 364 414 2077 720 911 4783
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.27 0.93 0.18 0.27 0.33
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
4: Morada Ln & West Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 295 168 491 432 328 281 1508 565 303 1114 191 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.35 0.34 0.92 0.79 0.63 1.29 1.01 0.72 0.74 0.63 0.29 Control Delay 61.9 40.7 7.9 78.5 64.7 11.3 206.1 70.4 15.6 68.3 38.2 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.9 40.7 7.9 78.5 64.7 11.3 206.1 70.4 15.6 68.3 38.2 5.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 124 110 3 231 203 0 ~180 ~586 90 140 323 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 206 152 58 #334 265 93 #275 #683 251 192 376 55 Internal Link Dist (ft) 738 1289 2542 590
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 300 300 300 300 320 320
Base Capacity (vph) 301 1143 601 602 620 544 218 1499 780 465 1864 691 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.26 0.28 0.82 0.70 0.60 1.29 1.01 0.72 0.65 0.60 0.28 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 134 98 151 8 163 2370 41 1704
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.26 0.68 0.02 0.60 0.79 0.28 0.72
Control Delay 51.5 11.4 52.3 0.1 49.1 19.4 50.4 23.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 51.5 11.4 52.3 0.1 49.1 19.4 50.4 23.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 5 84 0 92 413 23 280
Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 49 170 0 182 647 66 458
Internal Link Dist (ft) 308 219 1238 2542
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 415 400
Base Capacity (vph) 334 565 359 549 488 3019 488 2787
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.17 0.42 0.01 0.33 0.79 0.08 0.61 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 78 129 146 69 2385 91 139 1730 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.33 0.59 0.50 0.46 1.08 0.12 0.60 0.67
Control Delay 57.0 34.2 58.2 31.4 61.2 76.8 0.3 56.9 25.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.0 34.2 58.2 31.4 61.2 76.8 0.3 56.9 25.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 32 77 53 42 ~623 0 83 308
Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 79 182 119 115 #1212 0 191 #624 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 309 423 327 451 181 2199 753 363 2693 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.18 0.39 0.32 0.38 1.08 0.12 0.38 0.64 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 673 1529 203 444 1202 273 519 1732 281 302 1235 368 v/c Ratio 1.06 0.84 0.37 0.88 0.77 0.51 1.03 0.82 0.40 0.84 0.67 0.55 Control Delay 111.0 58.3 12.2 84.9 58.9 17.5 111.2 52.2 5.6 89.5 51.3 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 111.0 58.3 12.2 84.9 58.9 17.5 111.2 52.2 5.6 89.5 51.3 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~404 441 29 237 340 59 ~304 484 0 162 330 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) #532 489 100 #323 384 154 #424 530 68 #236 372 135 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 637 1846 563 527 1641 548 505 2174 714 373 1928 688 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.06 0.83 0.36 0.84 0.73 0.50 1.03 0.80 0.39 0.81 0.64 0.53 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
8: Caywood Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 1153 52 1216 135 62 72 81
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.41 0.23 0.43 0.14 0.26 0.29 0.28
Control Delay 36.0 14.8 36.0 15.2 3.8 21.5 35.1 14.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.0 14.8 36.0 15.2 3.8 21.5 35.1 14.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 142 21 154 0 9 30 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 222 64 238 33 50 84 48
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1289 1260 552 170
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 328 3413 328 3440 1114 339 623 612
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.34 0.16 0.35 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.13 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
9: Cherbourg Wy & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 1112 99 1342 138 120 155 150
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.47 0.72 0.21 0.55 0.59 0.56
Control Delay 46.2 21.5 47.2 26.9 4.9 28.5 46.6 41.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.2 21.5 47.2 26.9 4.9 28.5 46.6 41.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 170 52 226 0 22 85 73
Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 261 117 346 40 86 172 155
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1260 1170 828 237
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 350 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 420 2629 315 2356 807 266 399 400
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.42 0.31 0.57 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.38 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
11: Glacier Point Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1325 48 1780 77 48 54 103 80
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.49 0.30 0.65 0.09 0.26 0.17 0.48 0.20
Control Delay 50.9 23.1 50.0 25.5 0.2 48.7 13.0 49.8 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 50.9 23.1 50.0 25.5 0.2 48.7 13.0 49.8 11.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 187 25 282 0 25 4 53 6
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 393 73 #617 0 73 36 128 43
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1050 631 505 258
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 215 100
Base Capacity (vph) 188 2692 271 2749 893 271 606 417 728 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.49 0.18 0.65 0.09 0.18 0.09 0.25 0.11 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 976 169 154 1405 273 225 360 193 180 261 196 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.58 0.27 0.62 0.90 0.45 0.75 0.45 0.47 0.67 0.37 0.51 Control Delay 59.6 34.0 6.8 56.8 45.3 15.0 60.1 42.0 9.7 58.0 42.5 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.6 34.0 6.8 56.8 45.3 15.0 60.1 42.0 9.7 58.0 42.5 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 122 181 0 91 305 41 132 77 0 106 56 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 290 383 60 219 #669 167 #336 134 63 253 100 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 439 1678 628 439 1567 607 439 1500 596 439 1500 599 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.58 0.27 0.35 0.90 0.45 0.51 0.24 0.32 0.41 0.17 0.33 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
13: Maranatha Dr & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 1313 113 1906 30 17 102 56 17 39 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.47 0.45 0.59 0.15 0.06 0.32 0.27 0.06 0.14 Control Delay 43.3 13.9 42.7 14.7 33.8 32.3 10.0 36.1 32.3 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.3 13.9 42.7 14.7 33.8 32.3 10.0 36.1 32.3 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 127 50 209 13 7 0 25 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 309 135 496 41 27 41 65 27 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1519 790 491 364
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 310 90 90 90 90
Base Capacity (vph) 483 3587 483 3578 607 814 740 607 814 719 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.37 0.23 0.53 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.05 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
14: Diamond Bar Pl & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 12 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 1182 54 1880 28 17 31 148 297 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.39 0.43 0.77 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.66 0.64
Control Delay 64.8 16.6 63.2 30.7 58.7 48.1 0.7 63.7 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.8 16.6 63.2 30.7 58.7 48.1 0.7 63.7 12.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 175 176 41 434 21 13 0 111 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 256 325 83 #849 51 31 0 174 79
Internal Link Dist (ft) 790 329 528 581
Turn Bay Length (ft) 180 100 65 65 150
Base Capacity (vph) 374 3034 153 2440 153 386 479 300 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.39 0.35 0.77 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.49 0.45 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
15: West Ln & Marlette Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 13 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 60 245 196 55 501 1385 147 60 1403 158 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.34 0.66 0.73 0.30 0.73 0.59 0.18 0.39 0.85 0.25 Control Delay 48.3 46.1 14.6 55.7 41.7 42.3 21.5 3.8 50.3 37.2 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.3 46.1 14.6 55.7 41.7 42.3 21.5 3.8 50.3 37.2 5.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 34 0 111 28 145 232 0 34 287 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #240 77 72 #235 68 215 324 37 82 #458 42 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1462 1414 1985 2672
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Base Capacity (vph) 326 361 504 305 359 925 2508 855 190 1645 626 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.17 0.49 0.64 0.15 0.54 0.55 0.17 0.32 0.85 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix M: Existing Plus Project
(Mitigated) Queue Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 446 441 166 410 319 543 38 702 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.85 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.70 0.43 0.37 0.82
Control Delay 61.6 56.4 13.4 60.6 43.8 57.9 29.7 66.5 48.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.6 56.4 13.4 60.6 43.8 57.9 29.7 66.5 48.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 326 56 125 279 124 168 29 260 Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 #541 180 200 423 184 240 70 358 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3966 4053 4736 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 375 410
Base Capacity (vph) 398 587 737 398 621 526 1310 111 976 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.76 0.60 0.42 0.66 0.61 0.41 0.34 0.72 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 83 157 164 24 1157 70 197 1640 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.36 0.48 0.49 0.18 0.72 0.11 0.63 0.65
Control Delay 60.8 37.6 47.4 32.2 55.2 34.6 0.4 50.4 22.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.8 37.6 47.4 32.2 55.2 34.6 0.4 50.4 22.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 33 82 66 13 201 0 102 196
Queue Length 95th (ft) #186 94 217 144 54 #460 0 259 589 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 178 241 595 632 495 2107 746 713 2799 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.55 0.09 0.28 0.59 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 440 1152 220 576 993 208 280 594 202 279 1037 373 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.69 0.40 0.82 0.52 0.35 0.72 0.36 0.37 0.72 0.63 0.55 Control Delay 63.4 47.5 10.2 62.3 40.9 8.3 70.8 41.6 7.1 70.8 46.0 7.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.4 47.5 10.2 62.3 40.9 8.3 70.8 41.6 7.1 70.8 46.0 7.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 191 265 15 248 208 9 123 126 0 123 238 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 287 356 91 372 294 78 #219 168 61 #218 300 83 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 769 2079 635 848 2240 669 424 2425 716 424 2425 819 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.55 0.35 0.68 0.44 0.31 0.66 0.24 0.28 0.66 0.43 0.46 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 229 1085 269 172 788 157 240 130 98 209 292 270 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.87 0.41 0.69 0.41 0.23 0.57 0.28 0.33 0.74 0.35 0.56 Control Delay 51.7 42.3 13.3 61.0 28.2 6.2 51.5 42.8 8.9 60.8 39.5 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.7 42.3 13.3 61.0 28.2 6.2 51.5 42.8 8.9 60.8 39.5 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 330 38 104 129 0 75 41 0 126 62 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 148 #771 157 #251 282 56 154 75 36 #311 100 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 670 1254 664 345 1909 678 670 1096 558 380 1675 694 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.87 0.41 0.50 0.41 0.23 0.36 0.12 0.18 0.55 0.17 0.39 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 426 380 102 445 321 641 12 632 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.69 0.50 0.55 0.84 0.69 0.49 0.15 0.81
Control Delay 61.7 39.2 6.3 63.0 53.7 56.9 30.5 63.0 50.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.7 39.2 6.3 63.0 53.7 56.9 30.5 63.0 50.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 137 276 12 74 314 119 174 9 227
Queue Length 95th (ft) 233 407 84 142 467 187 301 32 #340 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3966 4053 4736 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 375 410
Base Capacity (vph) 364 836 907 248 713 546 1370 82 916 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.51 0.42 0.41 0.62 0.59 0.47 0.15 0.69 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 75 124 140 66 1498 86 133 1087 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.32 0.53 0.45 0.38 0.73 0.12 0.54 0.45
Control Delay 59.2 36.5 54.2 29.4 55.7 30.2 0.8 53.8 21.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.2 36.5 54.2 29.4 55.7 30.2 0.8 53.8 21.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 32 72 49 39 264 0 78 158
Queue Length 95th (ft) #161 84 179 114 111 #620 4 188 359 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 237 326 573 636 494 2501 827 494 2589 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.60 0.10 0.27 0.42 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 597 1309 195 426 1153 176 498 1030 270 240 709 322 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.69 0.33 0.80 0.74 0.35 0.83 0.56 0.42 0.66 0.51 0.55 Control Delay 66.0 45.9 8.0 69.7 52.1 11.6 68.6 42.7 6.2 71.1 47.9 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.0 45.9 8.0 69.7 52.1 11.6 68.6 42.7 6.2 71.1 47.9 8.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 251 284 5 179 260 12 212 230 0 103 164 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #421 401 70 #324 375 83 #400 294 67 179 211 80 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 827 2205 653 595 1770 542 621 2608 794 440 2270 754 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.59 0.30 0.72 0.65 0.32 0.80 0.39 0.34 0.55 0.31 0.43 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 156 703 146 148 916 174 189 219 184 114 156 139 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.70 0.27 0.57 0.56 0.28 0.46 0.37 0.44 0.50 0.17 0.35 Control Delay 45.4 33.4 6.2 48.2 26.1 5.3 44.1 34.5 8.8 49.2 31.3 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.4 33.4 6.2 48.2 26.1 5.3 44.1 34.5 8.8 49.2 31.3 7.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 164 0 70 136 0 46 54 0 54 25 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 346 47 195 268 49 120 106 54 158 52 40 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 425 1473 737 372 2557 871 510 1928 934 306 2896 955 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.48 0.20 0.40 0.36 0.20 0.37 0.11 0.20 0.37 0.05 0.15 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix N: Background Plus Project
(Mitigated) Queue Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 216 728 476 241 646 27 381 511 128 56 546 161 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.81 0.65 0.84 0.72 0.05 0.66 0.50 0.23 0.40 0.88 0.37 Control Delay 56.0 41.1 8.9 64.6 37.0 0.2 41.6 30.1 4.9 50.0 54.6 5.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.0 41.1 8.9 64.6 37.0 0.2 41.6 30.1 4.9 50.0 54.6 5.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 209 14 138 183 0 109 137 0 32 166 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #234 #313 109 #285 261 0 155 188 35 73 #278 34 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3966 4053 2672 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 165 375 375 410 410
Base Capacity (vph) 310 932 744 291 906 551 867 1213 628 155 621 439 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.78 0.64 0.83 0.71 0.05 0.44 0.42 0.20 0.36 0.88 0.37 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 83 157 164 24 1354 70 197 1958 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.38 0.52 0.51 0.19 0.74 0.10 0.67 0.73
Control Delay 64.9 38.8 50.2 34.0 56.8 34.1 0.3 54.3 24.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.9 38.8 50.2 34.0 56.8 34.1 0.3 54.3 24.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 37 91 73 14 248 0 114 258
Queue Length 95th (ft) #186 94 217 144 54 #615 0 259 #815 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 163 228 544 586 453 1927 698 652 2691 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.05 0.70 0.10 0.30 0.73 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 440 1152 220 576 993 208 280 778 202 279 1335 373 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.72 0.41 0.85 0.55 0.36 0.78 0.41 0.33 0.77 0.70 0.51 Control Delay 69.8 52.9 11.2 70.4 45.9 8.8 80.1 41.8 6.4 80.1 47.7 6.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.8 52.9 11.2 70.4 45.9 8.8 80.1 41.8 6.4 80.1 47.7 6.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 221 308 20 287 242 10 143 180 0 142 343 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 289 359 95 #375 297 79 #221 220 61 #219 400 83 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 700 1893 593 772 2037 626 386 2209 670 386 2209 779 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.61 0.37 0.75 0.49 0.33 0.73 0.35 0.30 0.72 0.60 0.48 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 1128 274 172 825 240 243 214 98 327 461 310 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 0.45 0.73 0.47 0.35 0.64 0.45 0.30 0.83 0.37 0.50 Control Delay 61.2 61.6 18.6 71.4 34.7 6.0 62.6 51.1 4.8 66.1 39.3 7.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.2 61.6 18.6 71.4 34.7 6.0 62.6 51.1 4.8 66.1 39.3 7.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 437 67 127 175 0 92 83 0 238 111 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 177 #856 199 #261 312 69 169 123 21 #551 153 72 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 564 1163 608 305 1751 688 479 1172 604 392 2102 822 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.97 0.45 0.56 0.47 0.35 0.51 0.18 0.16 0.83 0.22 0.38 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 687 420 247 712 23 367 597 119 16 514 123 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.78 0.59 0.82 0.78 0.04 0.65 0.49 0.19 0.16 0.86 0.29 Control Delay 61.1 39.0 7.0 59.4 38.2 0.1 41.1 26.0 3.7 46.8 53.8 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.1 39.0 7.0 59.4 38.2 0.1 41.1 26.0 3.7 46.8 53.8 2.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 133 193 0 140 198 0 104 133 0 9 155 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #271 273 75 #280 281 0 150 215 28 31 #265 8 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3966 4053 2672 2544
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 165 165 375 375 410 410
Base Capacity (vph) 297 952 732 317 992 584 885 1327 675 99 595 429 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.72 0.57 0.78 0.72 0.04 0.41 0.45 0.18 0.16 0.86 0.29 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
6: West Ln & Knickerbocker Dr 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 75 124 140 66 1794 86 133 1374 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.37 0.47 0.46 0.42 0.80 0.11 0.59 0.54
Control Delay 77.4 40.3 54.0 29.3 60.1 31.7 0.7 59.1 22.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 77.4 40.3 54.0 29.3 60.1 31.7 0.7 59.1 22.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 35 78 52 42 342 0 83 213
Queue Length 95th (ft) #218 89 185 114 114 #828 3 194 483 Internal Link Dist (ft) 509 757 551 600
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 70 275 130 260
Base Capacity (vph) 137 291 427 570 427 2358 788 427 2549 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.26 0.29 0.25 0.15 0.76 0.11 0.31 0.54 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 597 1309 195 426 1153 176 498 1326 270 240 996 322 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.71 0.34 0.84 0.76 0.36 0.88 0.66 0.40 0.69 0.63 0.52 Control Delay 70.6 48.8 8.1 75.9 55.7 11.8 76.8 45.3 5.9 75.3 50.1 7.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.6 48.8 8.1 75.9 55.7 11.8 76.8 45.3 5.9 75.3 50.1 7.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 285 322 6 206 300 14 245 331 0 116 253 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #426 404 71 #327 378 83 #403 392 67 179 302 79 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 777 2071 625 558 1663 519 582 2448 762 412 2131 727 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.63 0.31 0.76 0.69 0.34 0.86 0.54 0.35 0.58 0.47 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Queues
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 190 717 148 148 977 266 193 351 184 175 255 172 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.67 0.27 0.59 0.58 0.41 0.49 0.57 0.44 0.64 0.23 0.37 Control Delay 49.4 36.7 11.1 53.6 31.1 10.2 49.4 43.0 9.3 53.6 33.5 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.4 36.7 11.1 53.6 31.1 10.2 49.4 43.0 9.3 53.6 33.5 7.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 195 13 83 175 25 56 103 0 98 46 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 126 393 78 199 327 117 127 195 62 229 89 56 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 1064 1106 568 457 1685 653 887 1755 867 457 2522 862 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.65 0.26 0.32 0.58 0.41 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.38 0.10 0.20 Intersection Summary

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix O: Cumulative Plus Project
(Mitigated) Queue Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 1200 229 600 1035 251 292 943 211 371 1693 438 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.90 0.42 0.94 0.51 0.40 0.86 0.48 0.34 0.95 0.83 0.58 Control Delay 73.8 66.9 13.6 86.6 45.2 11.5 93.4 45.8 6.3 102.9 53.9 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.8 66.9 13.6 86.6 45.2 11.5 93.4 45.8 6.3 102.9 53.9 10.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 173 447 36 322 255 35 157 234 0 202 478 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 209 509 115 #436 304 117 #236 270 62 #308 526 155 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 948 1352 547 652 2041 633 348 1988 629 391 2070 758 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.89 0.42 0.92 0.51 0.40 0.84 0.47 0.34 0.95 0.82 0.58 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 290 1525 309 180 990 246 261 219 102 335 474 327 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.99 0.40 0.57 0.69 0.34 0.77 0.33 0.25 0.88 0.68 0.65 Control Delay 63.0 56.8 14.3 64.2 36.6 10.4 72.3 45.4 3.5 80.8 52.0 19.0 Queue Delay 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.0 67.7 14.3 64.2 36.6 10.4 72.3 45.4 3.5 80.8 52.0 19.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 117 633 73 73 344 33 107 82 0 140 192 61 Queue Length 95th (ft) 188 #1053 191 127 557 120 #208 122 18 #280 254 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 571 1542 766 407 1429 730 353 991 537 380 1020 620 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 60 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 1.03 0.40 0.44 0.69 0.34 0.74 0.22 0.19 0.88 0.46 0.53 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
7: West Ln & Hammer Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 673 1529 203 444 1202 273 519 1732 281 302 1235 368 v/c Ratio 0.82 1.05 0.38 0.88 0.70 0.48 1.04 0.82 0.40 0.84 0.67 0.55 Control Delay 72.7 91.6 18.5 85.6 55.1 16.8 113.4 52.6 5.6 90.3 51.6 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.7 91.6 18.5 85.6 55.1 16.8 113.4 52.6 5.6 90.3 51.6 10.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 243 ~646 56 237 333 58 ~304 484 0 162 330 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 287 #743 133 #323 384 154 #424 530 68 #236 372 135 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1522 1363 1435 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 265 340 190 390 390 390 330
Base Capacity (vph) 919 1454 536 523 1719 564 501 2158 711 370 1914 685 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 1.05 0.38 0.85 0.70 0.48 1.04 0.80 0.40 0.82 0.65 0.54 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 976 169 154 1405 273 225 360 193 180 261 196 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.22 0.51 0.92 0.36 0.68 0.57 0.44 0.57 0.42 0.46 Control Delay 59.2 28.2 6.7 56.2 41.7 12.0 60.5 44.2 8.2 57.4 41.6 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.2 28.2 6.7 56.2 41.7 12.0 60.5 44.2 8.2 57.4 41.6 10.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 266 10 53 468 49 78 124 0 61 87 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) #142 473 65 103 #864 150 #161 168 55 118 124 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 631 1519 1612 1594
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 300 215 315 215 300 225
Base Capacity (vph) 346 1551 764 346 1526 760 346 1277 687 346 1277 680 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.63 0.22 0.45 0.92 0.36 0.65 0.28 0.28 0.52 0.20 0.29 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix P: Existing Plus Project
Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 419 415 156 379 7 300 426 85 36 509 151 Future Volume (veh/h) 109 419 415 156 379 7 300 426 85 36 509 151 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 446 441 166 403 7 319 453 90 38 541 161 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 147 578 490 202 623 11 399 958 189 58 654 194 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1833 32 3456 2946 581 1781 2702 801 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 446 441 166 0 410 319 272 271 38 355 347 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1728 1777 1750 1781 1777 1726 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 21.6 26.6 9.1 0.0 18.6 9.0 12.2 12.4 2.1 18.9 19.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 21.6 26.6 9.1 0.0 18.6 9.0 12.2 12.4 2.1 18.9 19.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 147 578 490 202 0 634 399 578 569 58 430 418 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.77 0.90 0.82 0.00 0.65 0.80 0.47 0.48 0.65 0.82 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445 654 554 445 0 652 587 728 717 125 550 535 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 31.4 33.1 43.4 0.0 28.0 43.1 26.9 27.0 47.9 35.9 36.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.9 5.0 16.4 8.1 0.0 2.1 4.9 0.6 0.6 11.8 7.9 8.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 10.0 11.7 4.3 0.0 8.2 3.9 4.9 4.9 1.1 9.0 8.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.0 36.4 49.5 51.5 0.0 30.1 48.0 27.5 27.6 59.7 43.9 44.5 LnGrp LOS DDDDACDCCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1003 576 862 740
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 36.3 35.1 45.0
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 36.9 16.6 30.2 13.3 40.0 8.3 38.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 17.0 31.0 25.0 35.0 7.0 41.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.1 28.6 11.0 21.1 8.4 20.6 4.1 14.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.3 0.6 3.2 0.2 1.9 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.5
HCM 6th LOS D

ATTACHMENT E
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 161 4 139 225 16 14 191 970 62 64 1271 123 Future Volume (vph) 161 4 139 225 16 14 191 970 62 64 1271 123 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 1583 1780 1563 1770 5027 1770 5006 Flt Permitted 0.41 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 760 1583 1006 1563 1770 5027 1770 5006 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 183 5 158 256 18 16 217 1102 70 73 1444 140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 0 0 11 060090
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 188 76 0 274 5 217 1166 0 73 1575 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 6 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 61
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 18.6 52.9 8.5 42.8 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 18.6 52.9 8.5 42.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.47 0.08 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 483 307 477 295 2387 135 1923
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.23 0.04 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.05 c0.27 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.16 0.89 0.01 0.74 0.49 0.54 0.82
Uniform Delay, d1 35.8 28.2 37.0 27.0 44.1 20.0 49.6 30.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.3 0.2 26.1 0.0 9.2 0.2 4.4 2.8 Delay (s) 55.1 28.4 63.0 27.0 53.2 20.2 53.9 33.7
Level of Service E C E C D C D C
Approach Delay (s) 42.9 61.0 25.3 34.6
Approach LOS D E C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

ATTACHMENT E
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: West Ln & Eight Mile Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 183 413 369 99 423 9 311 550 72 12 494 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 183 413 369 99 423 9 311 550 72 12 494 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 426 380 102 436 9 321 567 74 12 509 123 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 229 620 525 131 504 10 414 1045 136 26 643 155 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1826 38 3456 3153 410 1781 2841 683 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 426 380 102 0 445 321 319 322 12 317 315 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1864 1728 1777 1786 1781 1777 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 17.4 18.6 5.0 0.0 20.1 8.0 12.9 13.0 0.6 14.9 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 17.4 18.6 5.0 0.0 20.1 8.0 12.9 13.0 0.6 14.9 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 620 525 131 0 515 414 589 592 26 402 395 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.69 0.72 0.78 0.00 0.86 0.78 0.54 0.54 0.47 0.79 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 444 1016 861 302 0 865 665 805 809 101 563 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.5 25.6 26.0 40.2 0.0 30.4 37.7 24.1 24.1 43.2 32.2 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 1.4 1.9 9.4 0.0 4.9 3.2 0.8 0.8 12.6 5.0 5.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 7.3 6.6 2.4 0.0 9.0 3.3 5.0 5.1 0.3 6.8 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.8 26.9 27.9 49.6 0.0 35.3 40.9 24.8 24.9 55.8 37.2 37.7 LnGrp LOS DCCDADDCCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 995 547 962 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 38.0 30.2 37.8
Approach LOS CDCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 35.3 15.6 26.0 16.4 30.4 6.3 35.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 48.0 17.0 28.0 22.0 41.0 5.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 20.6 10.0 17.0 11.1 22.1 2.6 15.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.9 0.6 3.0 0.3 2.3 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.3
HCM 6th LOS C

ATTACHMENT E
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/28/2024
Existing_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 6 90 130 9 8 150 1289 134 37 952 70 Future Volume (vph) 119 6 90 130 9 8 150 1289 134 37 952 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1583 1779 1563 1770 5001 1770 5025 Flt Permitted 0.64 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1183 1583 1207 1563 1770 5001 1770 5025 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 124 6 94 135 9 8 156 1343 140 39 992 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 63 006090080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 130 31 0 144 2 156 1474 0 39 1057 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 21
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 12.7 37.1 4.4 28.8 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 12.7 37.1 4.4 28.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.50 0.06 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 257 344 262 340 305 2524 105 1968
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.29 0.02 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 c0.12 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.09 0.55 0.01 0.51 0.58 0.37 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 22.9 25.5 22.5 27.6 12.8 33.2 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.3 2.2 0.3
Delay (s) 26.8 23.0 27.9 22.5 29.0 13.1 35.4 17.5
Level of Service C C C C C B D B
Approach Delay (s) 25.2 27.6 14.6 18.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix Q: Background Plus Project
Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated AM 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 161 4 139 225 16 14 191 1145 62 64 1554 123 Future Volume (vph) 161 4 139 225 16 14 191 1145 62 64 1554 123 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 1583 1780 1563 1770 5036 1770 5019 Flt Permitted 0.40 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 746 1583 996 1563 1770 5036 1770 5019 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 183 5 158 256 18 16 217 1301 70 73 1766 140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0 0 11 040070
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 188 83 0 274 5 217 1367 0 73 1899 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 6 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 61
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 18.7 55.3 8.7 45.3 Effective Green, g (s) 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 18.7 55.3 8.7 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.48 0.08 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 473 297 467 290 2440 134 1992
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.27 0.04 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.05 c0.28 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.18 0.92 0.01 0.75 0.56 0.54 0.95
Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 29.6 38.7 28.1 45.5 20.8 50.8 33.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.6 0.2 32.6 0.0 10.1 0.3 4.5 11.1 Delay (s) 62.1 29.8 71.3 28.1 55.6 21.1 55.3 44.5
Level of Service E C E C E C E D
Approach Delay (s) 47.4 68.9 25.8 44.9
Approach LOS D E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

ATTACHMENT E
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: West Ln & W Ln Frontage Rd 05/28/2024
Background_Project_Mitigated PM 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 6 90 130 9 8 150 1573 134 37 1227 70 Future Volume (vph) 119 6 90 130 9 8 150 1573 134 37 1227 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1583 1779 1563 1770 5014 1770 5038 Flt Permitted 0.60 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1126 1583 1193 1563 1770 5014 1770 5038 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 124 6 94 135 9 8 156 1639 140 39 1278 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 006060050
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 130 27 0 144 2 156 1773 0 39 1346 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 21
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 13.4 46.4 4.5 37.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 13.4 46.4 4.5 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.55 0.05 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 319 240 315 283 2776 95 2254
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.35 0.02 0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 c0.12 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.57 0.08 0.60 0.01 0.55 0.64 0.41 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 27.2 30.4 26.7 32.4 12.9 38.4 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.1 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.5 2.9 0.4
Delay (s) 33.7 27.3 34.4 26.7 34.7 13.4 41.2 17.9
Level of Service C C C C C B D B
Approach Delay (s) 31.0 34.0 15.1 18.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix R: Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions (COA) LOS Worksheets

ATTACHMENT E
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project AM_Mitigated 12:58 pm 09/05/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 270 1418 287 167 921 229 243 204 95 312 441 304 Future Volume (veh/h) 270 1418 287 167 921 229 243 204 95 312 441 304 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 290 1525 309 180 990 246 261 219 102 335 474 327 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 355 1525 667 238 1405 614 314 786 345 377 851 373 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1555 3456 3554 1552 3456 3554 1561 3456 3554 1557 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 290 1525 309 180 990 246 261 219 102 335 474 327 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1555 1728 1777 1552 1728 1777 1561 1728 1777 1557 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 55.0 18.2 6.6 29.9 14.6 9.5 6.6 7.0 12.3 15.0 25.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 55.0 18.2 6.6 29.9 14.6 9.5 6.6 7.0 12.3 15.0 25.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 355 1525 667 238 1405 614 314 786 345 377 851 373 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 1.00 0.46 0.76 0.70 0.40 0.83 0.28 0.30 0.89 0.56 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 566 1525 667 404 1405 614 351 943 414 377 970 425 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.3 36.6 26.1 58.6 32.5 27.8 57.3 41.4 41.6 56.3 42.8 46.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 23.0 0.5 4.9 1.6 0.4 14.2 0.2 0.5 21.7 0.6 16.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 27.3 6.6 3.0 12.8 5.4 4.7 2.8 2.7 6.4 6.5 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.4 59.6 26.6 63.5 34.1 28.3 71.5 41.6 42.1 78.0 43.3 63.8 LnGrp LOS E F C E C C E D D E D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2124 1416 582 1136
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.1 36.8 55.1 59.4
Approach LOS E D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 34.3 13.8 61.0 16.7 36.7 18.2 56.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 34.0 15.0 55.0 13.0 35.0 21.0 49.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 9.0 8.6 57.0 11.5 27.9 12.5 31.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.6 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

ATTACHMENT E
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
12: Holman Rd & Morada Ln 05/29/2024
Cumulative_Project PM_Mitigated 1:19 pm 10/11/2023 Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 199 937 162 148 1349 262 216 346 185 173 251 188 Future Volume (veh/h) 199 937 162 148 1349 262 216 346 185 173 251 188 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 976 169 154 1405 273 225 360 193 180 261 196 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 1646 724 224 1590 708 296 627 276 251 581 259 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1563 3456 3554 1582 3456 3554 1562 3456 3554 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 976 169 154 1405 273 225 360 193 180 261 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1563 1728 1777 1582 1728 1777 1562 1728 1777 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 20.1 6.4 4.3 35.7 11.4 6.3 9.2 11.5 5.0 6.5 11.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 20.1 6.4 4.3 35.7 11.4 6.3 9.2 11.5 5.0 6.5 11.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 1646 724 224 1590 708 296 627 276 251 581 259 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.59 0.23 0.69 0.88 0.39 0.76 0.57 0.70 0.72 0.45 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 385 1692 744 385 1692 753 385 1404 617 385 1404 625 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.4 19.6 15.9 45.2 24.9 18.2 44.1 37.2 38.2 44.8 37.3 39.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.5 0.2 3.8 5.7 0.3 6.3 0.8 3.2 3.8 0.5 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 7.6 2.2 1.9 15.0 4.0 2.8 3.9 4.5 2.2 2.8 4.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 20.1 16.1 48.9 30.6 18.6 50.5 38.1 41.4 48.6 37.8 43.9 LnGrp LOS D C B D C B DDDDDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1352 1832 778 637
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 30.4 42.5 42.7
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 23.4 11.4 51.7 13.5 22.1 12.9 50.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 39.0 11.0 47.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 13.5 6.3 22.1 8.3 13.7 7.8 37.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.8 0.2 7.5 0.2 2.1 0.2 6.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix F: Water Supply Assessment

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Water Supply Assessment

PREPARED FOR
City of Stockton
FINAL REPORT | NOVEMBER 2024

ATTACHMENT E
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Water Supply Assessment
Prepared for
City of Stockton
Project No. 129-60-24-60
November 20, 2024
Prepared by: Whitney Jones, PE Date
November 20, 2024
QA/QC Review: Elizabeth T. Drayer, PE Date

ATTACHMENT E
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Purpose of Water Supply Assessment.................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Overview.................................................................................................................... 1 Potable and Recycled Water Demands and Supply Availability............................................................. 1 Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency........................................................................................... 2

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Legal Requirement for Water Supply Assessment........................................................................... 3

1.2 Need for and Purpose of Water Supply Assessment ....................................................................... 3

1.3 Water Supply Assessment Preparation, Format and Organization.................................................. 3

2.0 Description of Proposed Project....................................................................................................5

2.1 Proposed Project Location and Existing Use .................................................................................... 5

2.2 Proposed Land Uses and Projected Water Demand ........................................................................ 5

2.3 Projected Water Supply.................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Required Determinations ...........................................................................................................10

3.1 Does SB 610 apply to the Proposed Project? ................................................................................. 10

3.2 Does SB 221 apply to the Proposed Project? ................................................................................. 10

3.3 Who is the Identified Public Water System?.................................................................................. 11

3.4 Does the City have an adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and does the UWMP include the projected water demand for the Proposed Project? ...................... 11

4.0 City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Service Area ..............................................12

4.1 Water Service Area......................................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Population ...................................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Climate............................................................................................................................................ 13

5.0 City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Demands ................................................14

5.1 Historical and Existing Water Demand........................................................................................... 14

5.2 Future Water Demand.................................................................................................................... 14

5.3 Dry Year Water Demand................................................................................................................. 15

6.0 City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Supplies..................................................16

6.1 Existing Potable Water Supplies..................................................................................................... 17

6.1.1 Purchased Water .................................................................................................................. 18

6.1.1.1 Stockton East Water District ....................................................................................... 18

6.1.1.2 Woodbridge Irrigation District .................................................................................... 18

6.1.2 Surface Water....................................................................................................................... 18

6.1.2.1 Water Right Permit...................................................................................................... 18

6.1.2.2 Delta Water Treatment Plant...................................................................................... 19

ATTACHMENT E

6.1.3 Groundwater......................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.3.1 Groundwater Overview............................................................................................... 20

6.1.3.2 Groundwater Basin Management............................................................................... 20

6.1.3.3 Groundwater Use ........................................................................................................ 21

6.1.3.4 Groundwater as a Future Water Supply...................................................................... 21

6.2 Additional Planned Future Potable Water Supplies....................................................................... 21

6.3 Summary of Existing and Additional Planned Future Water Supplies ........................................... 22

6.4 Water Supply Availability and Reliability........................................................................................ 22

6.4.1 Reliability by Water Source................................................................................................... 23

6.4.1.1 SEWD Supply ............................................................................................................... 23

6.4.1.2 San Joaquin River Supply............................................................................................. 23

6.4.1.3 WID Supply .................................................................................................................. 24

6.4.1.4 Groundwater Supply ................................................................................................... 24

6.4.2 Summary of Available Water Supplies Under Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years. 24

7.0 Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610 .......................27

8.0 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply Based on the Requirements of SB 221..............................29

8.1 Historical Water Deliveries............................................................................................................. 29

8.2 Projected Water Demand by Customer Sector.............................................................................. 29

8.3 Water Shortage Contingency Analysis ........................................................................................... 30

8.4 Future Water Supplies to Serve Water Demands Associated with Buildout of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................................. 31

8.5 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply .......................................................................................... 31

9.0 Water Supply Assessment Approval Process ...............................................................................32

10.0 References...............................................................................................................................33

ATTACHMENT E

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Total Projected Water Demand............................................................................................. 6 Table 4-1. Historical and Projected Population for the COSMUD Water Service Area........................ 12 Table 4-2. Monthly Average Climate Data Summary ........................................................................... 13 Table 5-1. Historical Potable Water Demand (includes Non-Revenue Water).................................... 14 Table 5-2. Summary of Future Water Demand (includes Non-Revenue Water) ................................. 14 Table 6-1. Existing (2020) Water Supplies............................................................................................ 17 Table 6-2. Historical Groundwater Volume Pumped by the COSMUD ................................................ 21 Table 6-3. Projected Water Supplies.................................................................................................... 22 Table 6-4. Anticipated San Joaquin River Water Supplies.................................................................... 24 Table 6-5. Normal Year Water Supply .................................................................................................. 25 Table 6-6. Single Dry Year Water Supply.............................................................................................. 25 Table 6-7. Multiple Dry Years Water Supply ........................................................................................ 26 Table 7-1. Summary of Water Demand Versus Water Supply During Various Hydrologic Conditions 28 Table 8-1. Actual and Projected Water Demands by Customer Sector ............................................... 30

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Proposed Project Location ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-2. Proposed Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................. 8 Figure 2-3. Proposed Project.................................................................................................................. 9

ATTACHMENT E

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AF Acre-Feet 13
AFY Acre-Feet Per Year 1/5
Cal Water California Water Service 4
City City of Stockton 1
COSMUD City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department 1/4 Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 1/4
DJWWTP Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant 16
DU Dwelling Unit
DWR California Department of Water Resources 18
DWTP Delta Water Treatment Plant 2/9
EIR Environmental Impact Report 16
ETo Evapotranspiration 9
F Fahrenheit 12
gpd Gallons Per Day
GPU General Plan Update
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan 20
GWA Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority
LDF Low Density Residential
mgd Million Gallons Per Day
Proposed Project Bear Creek South Residential Project
SB Senate Bill 4
SEWD Stockton East Water District 3
sf Square Feet 16
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 1/4
SMC Stockton Municipal Code
SOI Sphere of Influence 11
SOI/MSR City of Stockton Sphere of Influence Plan/Municipal Service Review State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation 4
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan 18
Water Code California Water Code 2/10
WID Woodbridge Irrigation District 1
WSA Water Supply Assessment 16
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan

ATTACHMENT E
Bear Creek South Residential Project
Water Supply Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Water Supply Assessment
The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is to perform the evaluation required by California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915, as established by Senate Bill (SB) 610, and verification of sufficient water supply, as established by SB 221, in connection with the proposed Bear Creek South Residential Project (Proposed Project). The Project Site consists of 530.18 acres, which includes a development area of 503.89 acres and a non-development area of 26.29 acres. The Project Site is located in the northern portion of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area, within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. The Project Site is adjacent to the City of Stockton’s northern city limits, within the City of Stockton (City) Sphere of Influence (SOI), and within the City of Stockton Urban Services Boundary.

The Project Site would be annexed into the City and the Proposed Project would receive potable water supply from the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD).

This WSA evaluates the adequacy and sufficiency of the COSMUD total projected water supplies, including existing water supplies and future planned water supplies, to meet the existing and projected future water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Proposed Project, under all hydrologic conditions (normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years).

Proposed Project Overview
The Project Site is immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Morada Lane and is bounded on the north by Bear Creek, on the west by West Lane (an existing regional arterial), on the south by Morada Lane, and on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The Proposed Project will include development of up to 2,241 residential units, five parks, an open space area along Bear Creek and public infrastructure.

With its 2,241 dwelling units, the Proposed Project meets the definition of a “Project” per California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915, as established by SB 610 in 2001, thus requiring the preparation of this WSA.

Potable and Recycled Water Demands and Supply Availability Projected potable demands for buildout of the Proposed Project total approximately 717 acre-feet per year (AFY). No recycled water demand is expected for the Proposed Project. The demands associated with the Proposed Project were not included in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

It is anticipated that potable water demands for the Proposed Project, if approved by the City, would be served by the COSMUD existing and future water supplies. The inclusion of existing and planned future water supplies is specifically allowed by the California Water Code:

California Water Code Section 10631(b): Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a).

Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10910(4) and based on the technical analyses described in this WSA, this WSA demonstrates that the COSMUD existing and additional planned future water supplies are

ATTACHMENT E
sufficient to meet the COSMUD existing water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Proposed Project.

Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency
As described in Section 7, this WSA demonstrates water supply sufficiency per the requirements of SB 610.

Water demand within the COSMUD water service area is not expected to exceed the COSMUD water supplies at buildout under any hydrologic condition through 2045. To remain conservative in planning, the City’s 2020 UWMP assumes no reduction in water demand during dry years. However, water conservation and demand reduction methods detailed in the adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan, included in Appendix I of the City’s 2020 UWMP, can reduce demands by up to and greater than 50 percent under water supply shortage conditions and other emergencies.

Section 8 of this WSA also provides written verification of supply sufficiency per the requirements of SB 221 by demonstrating that water supplies available during normal, single dry and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses.

ATTACHMENT E

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Legal Requirement for Water Supply Assessment
California Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 sought to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. It requires detailed information regarding water supply availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that prudent water supply planning has been conducted, and that planned water supplies are adequate to meet existing demands, anticipated demands from approved projects and tentative maps, and the demands of proposed projects.

SB 610 amended California Water Code (Water Code) Sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive) to require land use lead agencies to:
• Identify any public water purveyor that may supply water for a proposed development project
• Request a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) from the identified water purveyor The purpose of the WSA is to demonstrate the sufficiency of the purveyor’s water supplies to satisfy the water demands of the proposed project, while still meeting the water purveyor’s existing and planned future uses. Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915 delineate the specific information that must be included in the WSA.

1.2 Need for and Purpose of Water Supply Assessment
The purpose of this WSA is to perform the evaluation required by Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915 in connection with the Bear Creek South Residential Project (Proposed Project). It is not to reserve water, or to function as a “will serve” letter or any other form of commitment to supply water (see Water Code Section 10914). The provision of water service will continue to be undertaken in a manner consistent with applicable policies and procedures, consistent with existing law.

1.3 Water Supply Assessment Preparation, Format and Organization The format of this WSA is intended to follow Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915 to clearly delineate compliance with the specific requirements for a WSA. The WSA includes the following sections:
• Section 1: Introduction
• Section 2: Description of Proposed Project
• Section 3: Required Determinations
• Section 4: City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Service Area • Section 5: City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Demands • Section 6: City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Water Supplies • Section 7: Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610 • Section 8: Verification of Sufficient Water Supply Based on the Requirements of SB 221

ATTACHMENT E
• Section 9: Water Supply Assessment Approval Process
• Section 10: References
Relevant citations of Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915 are included throughout this WSA in italics to demonstrate compliance with the specific requirements of SB 610.

ATTACHMENT E

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project location, description, and projected water demands are discussed below. This information is based on the Project Description for the Proposed Project.1

2.1 Proposed Project Location and Existing Use
The Project Site consists of 530.18 acres, which includes a development area of 503.89 acres and a non-development area of 26.29 acres. The Project Site is located in the northern portion of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area, within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. The Project Site is adjacent to the City of Stockton’s northern city limits, within the City of Stockton (City) Sphere of Influence (SOI), and within the City of Stockton Urban Services Boundary. The Project Site would be annexed into the City and the Proposed Project would receive potable water supply from the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD).

The Project Site is immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Morada Lane and is bounded on the north by Bear Creek, on the west by West Lane (an existing regional arterial), on the south by Morada Lane, and on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The location of the Proposed Project is shown on Figure 2-1.

The Project Site is currently predominantly comprised of agricultural uses and related facilities such as associated agricultural equipment and irrigation ditches. The entire Project Site is surrounded by the City of Stockton. Lands to the east and north are designated as Low Density Residential. Lands to the south are designated as Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential. Lands to the west are designated as Parks and Recreation, and Institutional. A vicinity map for the Proposed Project is presented on Figure 2-2.

2.2 Proposed Land Uses and Projected Water Demand
The Proposed Project consists of 2,241 single-family residential units dispersed throughout multiple neighborhoods, linked by a system of parks and open spaces. Approximately 27.7 acres of parks, five in total, are proposed around a centrally located park/basin, which provides each neighborhood an opportunity to access these spaces through a network of enhanced walkways, also referred to as wellness walks. Approximately 28.9 acres of open spaces are included within the Project Site. The open space is utilized for detention (6.6 acres) and a linear buffer area along Bear Creek (22.3 acres), of which 0.7 acres is planned to be landscaped. A map of the Proposed Project is presented on Figure 2-3.

To determine the projected water demand for the Proposed Project, the updated water use factors from the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update were used. These water use factors are based on recent water consumption trends within the COSMUD service area. The total projected water demand for the Proposed Project is 717 acre-feet/year (AFY) as shown in Table 2-1. All the water demands from the Proposed Project are anticipated to be served by the COSMUD North Stockton water system. 1 City of Stockton, 2024. Project Description – Bear Creek South Residential Project, July 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 2-1. Total Projected Water Demand
Land Use Type(a)
Dwelling
Units, DU
Gross Area,
acres
Water Use
Factor(b)
Non-Revenue
Water(c),
percent
Projected
Water
Demand(d),
AFY
Low Density
Residential (LDR) 2,241 -
242 gpd/DU

0.27 AFY/DU 8 660.3
Parks - 27.7 1.85 AFY/acre 8 55.7
Bear Creek Open Space
(landscaped area) - 0.74 1.85 AFY/acre 8 1.5
Total 717
(a) Includes only land use types within the Project Site that have an associated water demand. (b) Water use factors are from the City of Stockton 2021 Water Master Plan Update. (c) Non-revenue water is 8 percent of the total water demand, with the total water demand including the non-revenue water itself. This assumption is based on the City of Stockton 2021 Water Master Plan Update. (d) The projected water demand was determined by multiplying the dwelling units or gross acres by the water use factor for each land use type and then adding 8 percent non-revenue water.
gpd/DU = gallons per day per dwelling unit; AFY/DU = acre-feet per year per dwelling unit

2.3 Projected Water Supply
Water demands for the Proposed Project will be served using the COSMUD existing and future portfolio of water supplies discussed in Section 6. The inclusion of existing and planned future water supplies is specifically allowed by the Water Code:

ATTACHMENT E
Source: City of Stockton, 2024. Project Description for Bear Creek South Residential Project.

Figure 2-1. Proposed Project Location

ATTACHMENT E
Source: City of Stockton, 2024. Project Description for Bear Creek South Residential Project.

Figure 2-2. Proposed Project Vicinity Map

ATTACHMENT E
Source: City of Stockton, 2024. Project Description for Bear Creek South Residential Project.

Figure 2-3. Proposed Project

ATTACHMENT E

3.0 REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS

3.1 Does SB 610 apply to the Proposed Project?
Water Code Section 10910 (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.

Water Code Section 10912 (a) “Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

Based on the following facts, SB 610 does apply to the Proposed Project. • The City has determined that the Proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. • The Proposed Project, with 2,241 dwelling units, meets the definition of a “project” as specified in Water Code Section 10912(a) paragraph (1) as defined for a residential development.

The Proposed Project has not been the subject of a previously adopted WSA and has not been included in an adopted WSA for a larger project. Therefore, according to Water Code Section 10910(a), a WSA is required for the Proposed Project.

3.2 Does SB 221 apply to the Proposed Project?
In 2001, SB 221 amended State law to require that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. Per California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1), a subdivision means a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. The Proposed Project, with its proposed 2,241 residential dwelling units, is therefore subject to the requirements of SB 221. Section 8 of this WSA provides the required written verification of sufficient water supply.

ATTACHMENT E

3.3 Who is the Identified Public Water System?
Water Code Section 10910(b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined by Section 10912, that may supply water for the project.

Water Code Section 10912 (c) “Public water system” means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3,000 or more service connections… The Proposed Project is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and would be annexed into the City of Stockton and served by the COSMUD. Therefore, the COSMUD is the identified public water system for the Proposed Project.

3.4 Does the City have an adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and does the UWMP include the projected water demand for the Proposed Project?
Water Code Section 10910(c)(1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).

The most recent COSMUD UWMP (2020 UWMP) was adopted by City Council in June 2021 and is incorporated by reference into this WSA.
2 The 2020 UWMP included water demand projections for
current water demands within the COSMUD water service area (baseline demand) and anticipated water demands associated with future development projects and planning areas within the COSMUD water service area through 2045. However, the Proposed Project was not included in the future development projects and planning areas considered in the 2020 UWMP, therefore, the projected water demand for the Proposed Project was not included in the 2020 UWMP.

Therefore, for the purposes of this WSA, the projected water demand for the Proposed Project has been added to the projected water demands included in the 2020 UWMP to evaluate the ability of the COSMUD to meet the projected water demands for the Proposed Project. 2 West Yost. June 2021. City of Stockton 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

ATTACHMENT E

4.0 CITY OF STOCKTON MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER SERVICE AREA

4.1 Water Service Area
The City is located in north-central California, approximately 70 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area and 50 miles south of Sacramento. California State Highway 99 and Interstate 5 run north and south through the City on the east and west boundaries, respectively, and California State Highway 4 (the Crosstown Freeway) connects the two. The San Joaquin River flows from the south and terminates at the Delta area of Central Stockton.

The COSMUD provides water service to North and South Stockton while the central portion of the City is served by California Water Service (Cal Water). North Stockton is primarily residential, and South Stockton is largely comprised of residential (on the west side), industrial and agricultural land uses. The COSMUD water service area extends beyond the City Limits into unincorporated San Joaquin County, in conjunction with the City’s General Plan. The COSMUD provides water service as new developments are approved within its water service area and/or annexed into the City.

4.2 Population
The existing (2020) population for the COSMUD water service area was estimated in the 2020 UWMP to be 184,402 people. Population projections for 2025 through 2040 presented in the 2020 UWMP were estimated in the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update3. These projections through 2040 were based on future land uses as defined in the City’s 2040 General Plan Update (GPU) and the April 2020 City of Stockton Sphere of Influence Plan/Municipal Service Review (SOI/MSR). Finally, as 2045 is outside of the SOI/MSR Report and 2021 Water Master Plan Update planning horizon, an annualized growth rate of

1.44 percent was used to estimate the 2045 projected population for the 2020 UWMP.

Table 4-1 shows the COSMUD historical and projected population in five-year increments from 1995 to 2045.

Table 4-1. Historical and Projected Population for the COSMUD Water Service Area Time Frame Year Population
Historical(a)
1995 117,303
2000 135,716
2005 177,127
2010 178,387
2015 170,417
Projected(b)
2020 184,402
2025 188,601
2030 192,800
2035 239,380
2040 285,960
2045 307,150
(a) City of Stockton 2015 UWMP, Table 2-2, July 2016.
(b) City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 3-2, June 2021.
3 West Yost. January 2021. City of Stockton 2021 Water Master Plan Update Chapter 3.

ATTACHMENT E

4.3 Climate
The COSMUD water service area is located in the Central Valley of California and generally experiences hot, dry summers with daytime temperatures well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Winter temperatures can drop to 30°F but are generally mild. A majority of the annual average 10.4 inches of rainfall generally falls from November through March. The average reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is 52.6 inches.

Table 4-2 summarizes the average temperature and rainfall data for the COSMUD water service area.

Table 4-2. Monthly Average Climate Data Summary
Month(a)
Standard Monthly
Average ET, inches
Average Total
Rainfall, inches
Average Temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
Maximum Minimum
Manteca (CIMIS Station No. 70, WRCC Station No. 045303) (a)
January 1.11 1.65 53.7 36.3
February 1.96 1.35 61.1 39.3
March 3.54 1.52 66.3 42.1
April 5.09 0.95 72.4 45.2
May 6.77 0.21 80.9 50.5
June 7.73 0.09 88.6 55.9
July 8.01 0.12 93.2 59.2
August 7.04 0.23 91.5 58.5
September 5.16 0.24 87.7 55.9
October 3.41 0.97 77.7 49.2
November 1.70 1.58 61.1 40.4
December 1.05 1.51 53.8 35.4
Totals 52.57 10.41 - -
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 3-1, June 2021. (a) Period of record is 1971 to 2000.

ATTACHMENT E

5.0 CITY OF STOCKTON MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER DEMANDS Water Code Section 10910(c)(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).

The descriptions provided below for the COSMUD water demands have been taken, for the most part, from the 2020 UWMP, which was adopted in June 2021.

5.1 Historical and Existing Water Demand
The COSMUD water demand decreased significantly from 2012 to 2015 due to drought conditions and associated conservation measures. However, water demands have rebounded somewhat in recent years with the end of drought conditions.

Table 5-1 shows the COSMUD historical water demand from 2012 to 2020.

Table 5-1. Historical Potable Water Demand (includes Non-Revenue Water), AFY Condition 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020(b) Total Water Demand 37,100 36,692 31,603 26,312 27,845 29,241 30,103 30,684 34,404 (a) 2012 through 2019 source: City of Stockton 2021 Water Master Plan Update, Table 3-1, January 2021. (b) 2020 source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 4-2, June 2021.

5.2 Future Water Demand
Projected future water demands presented in the City’s 2020 UWMP used land-use based water demand projections developed for the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update. Water demand projections were based on the anticipated growth within the COSMUD water service area as defined by City’s 2040 GPU and confirmed with the City’s Community Development Department. Projected water demands for 2045 were assumed to be the same as projected water demands in 2040 since the development of future planned developments beyond 2040 is not defined in the City’s 2040 GPU. However, as described in Section 3.4 of this WSA, the Proposed Project was not included in these projections, so projected water demands for the Proposed Project have been added to the 2020 UWMP water demand projections for the purposes of this WSA, assuming that buildout of the Proposed Project occurs by 2030.

Projected water demands for the COSMUD water service area, including projected water demands for the Proposed Project, are summarized in Table 5-2 and indicate a 43 percent increase in water demand from 2020 to 2045.

Table 5-2. Summary of Future Water Demand (includes Non-Revenue Water), AFY Demand Projection Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
2020 UWMP(a) 34,789 37,878 43,161 48,444 48,444
Proposed Project (see Table 2-1) -- 717 717 717 717
Total (including Proposed Project) 34,789 38,595 43,878 49,161 49,161 (a) Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 4-3, June 2021.

ATTACHMENT E

5.3 Dry Year Water Demand
For planning purposes, and to be conservative, the COSMUD assumes no reduction in water demand during dry years. The adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan, outlined in Appendix I of the 2020 UWMP, includes a six-stage plan describing specific actions to reduce water demand by up to and greater than 50 percent in the event of a water supply shortage or other emergency.

ATTACHMENT E

6.0 CITY OF STOCKTON MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER SUPPLIES Water Code Section 10910(c)(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g).

Water Code Section 10910(d)(1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.

Water Code Section 10910(d)(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.

Water Code Section 10910(e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an identification of the other public water systems or water service contract-holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments.

The Proposed Project, if approved by the City, is anticipated to be served from the COSMUD’s existing and future portfolio of water supplies. The inclusion of existing and planned future water supplies is specifically allowed by the Water Code:

The water supply for the Proposed Project will have the same water supply reliability and water quality as the water supply available to the other COSMUD existing and future water customers. Proponents of the Proposed Project will provide their proportionate share of required funding to the COSMUD for the acquisition and delivery of treated potable water supplies to the Proposed Project area.

The water supplies needed to serve the Proposed Project (together with existing water demands and planned future uses) are predominantly described in the City’s 2020 UWMP. When relevant, the descriptions provided below have been updated with information provided by COSMUD staff.

ATTACHMENT E

6.1 Existing Potable Water Supplies
The COSMUD currently receives water supply from the following sources:
• Surface water from the San Joaquin River that is diverted at the Intake Pump Station on Empire Tract located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and treated at the City’s Delta Water Treatment Plant (DWTP), supplemented by surface water from the Mokelumne River diverted and conveyed by Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID), and treated at the City’s DWTP, when the City’s San Joaquin River supplies are curtailed; • Surface water from the Mokelumne River diverted and conveyed by WID, and treated at the City’s DWTP;
• Potable water purchased from Stockton East Water District (SEWD); and • Groundwater pumped from City owned and operated wells from the underlying Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin.

Water from SEWD can be conveyed to both the North and South Stockton distribution systems. SEWD also supplies the COSMUD Walnut Plant service area that is surrounded by the Cal Water system through two interconnects. Cal Water conveys SEWD supply to the Walnut Plant service area via a wheeling agreement with COSMUD. Water supplies from local groundwater wells are used to supply both the COSMUD North and South Stockton water service areas. The Proposed Project will be served by the North Stockton water system.

To improve water supply resiliency and enhance water supply availability, the City plans to explore the potential of surface water/stormwater capture for the Groundwater Recharge Improvement Project. The COSMUD may pursue additional water resource exchanges or transfers. The COSMUD has no sources of ocean water, brackish water, or groundwater that provide a viable opportunity for development of desalinated water as a long-term supply.

Each of the COSMUD existing water supplies is described in more detail below. Table 6-1 shows the COSMUD source of its existing water supplies and actual volume used in 2020.

Table 6-1. Existing (2020) Water Supplies
Supply Source Additional Detail on Water Supply Actual Volume, AFY Purchased Water (treated surface water) SEWD 6,939
Purchased Water (untreated surface water) WID 8,657
Surface Water (untreated) San Joaquin River 9,970
Groundwater Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin 8,662
Total 34,228
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 6-13, June 2021.

ATTACHMENT E

6.1.1 Purchased Water
The City purchases treated potable water from SEWD and untreated surface water from WID as described below.

6.1.1.1 Stockton East Water District
SEWD is a wholesale water supplier that provides treated potable water to the urban water retailers within the Stockton Metropolitan Area, including COSMUD, Cal Water, and two small maintenance districts in the County (Urban Contractors). SEWD receives and treats surface water from New Melones Reservoir and New Hogan Reservoir through agreements with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). SEWD has filed several water right applications to divert excess wet weather flow from Calaveras River, Littlejohns Creek, and other tributaries. The applications are currently undergoing the permitting process with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).

To alleviate severe groundwater overdraft in the region, SEWD constructed the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant (DJWWTP) with a capacity of 30 million gallons per day (mgd) in the mid-1970s. Since then, the DJWWTP has been expanded to a current capacity of 65 mgd.

6.1.1.2 Woodbridge Irrigation District
WID provides agricultural water supply north of the City boundaries. When the DWTP is curtailed from diverting water from the San Joaquin River, the COSMUD obtains untreated surface water from WID to supplement its water supply. WID’s water supply is from the Mokelumne River.

In 2008, COSMUD executed a 40-year purchase agreement with WID for 6,500 AFY for municipal and industrial water use. This water augments supply to the DWTP when supply from the San Joaquin River is not available due to environmental restrictions. The water is conveyed to the DWTP through WID’s Wilkerson Canal system and Pixley lateral pipeline for treatment and conveyance to the COSMUD water service area.

The COSMUD 2008 contract with WID includes a provision for increase in water supply as WID-served agricultural lands in the northern part of the City are annexed to the City for municipal and industrial use.

Under this contract, an additional 6,500 AFY of WID supply will become available to the City at a rate of

3.0 AFY per acre annexed. WID supply may potentially increase from 6,500 AFY to 13,000 AFY by 2030.

6.1.2 Surface Water
Water supply from the San Joaquin River is a recent addition to the COSMUD water supply portfolio since the completion of the DWTP in 2012 and currently provides a significant portion of existing water supplies.

The City has a water right to Delta water because portions of the COSMUD water service area fall within the legally defined Delta and area of origin. Water supply from the San Joaquin River and substantially all of the groundwater that the COSMUD pumps are delivered primarily to the North Stockton water system.

6.1.2.1 Water Right Permit
The City’s water right Application 30531A with the State Water Board proposed diversions of up to 33,600 AFY from the Delta and the Place of Use was confined to the City’s 1990 General Plan boundary.

Through this application, the City was granted a water right permit under Water Code Section 1485. The City’s water right permit from the State Water Board was issued on March 8, 2006, under Water Right Permit 21176.

ATTACHMENT E
Under Water Code Section 1485, Water Right Permit 21176 allows the City to divert from the San Joaquin River as much water as the City’s wastewater treatment plant discharges into the San Joaquin River under an indirect potable reuse strategy. The quantity is permitted up to 33,600 AFY from the San Joaquin River under Water Right Permit 21176. However, Section 1485 water is subject to pumping restriction in some months due to environmental restrictions.

The City’s supply from the San Joaquin River is curtailed annually from February 15th to June 15th due to U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and National Marine Fisheries Service restrictions. When water diversion is curtailed, COSMUD obtains supplemental water supply from WID.

6.1.2.2 Delta Water Treatment Plant
Subsequent to the State Water Board water right permit issuance for Application 30531A, the COSMUD proceeded with Phase 1 of its Delta Water Supply Project with an initial treatment plant capacity of 30 mgd. The DWTP and associated water supply facilities were completed and commenced operation in 2012. Since completion of the DWTP, the City has exercised its water right to divert water through its intake facility on the San Joaquin River.

Surface water curtailments are possible in dry years and can be offset with additional groundwater use and/or demand reduction through implementation of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

6.1.3 Groundwater
Water Code Section 10910(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment.

Water Code Section 10910(f)(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.

Water Code Section 10910(f)(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.

Water Code Section 10910(f)(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records.

A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records.

ATTACHMENT E
Water Code Section 10910(f)(4) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project.

A water assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

6.1.3.1 Groundwater Overview
The COSMUD has groundwater wells located in the North Stockton and South Stockton water systems.

These wells are used conjunctively to meet peak summer demands or during dry years when available surface water supplies may be limited. The City has partnered with other users through the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (GWA) to manage the groundwater basin.

The City has determined that the sustainable groundwater yield is 0.75 AFY/acre, or approximately 50,000 AFY for the overall City area. To establish the projected groundwater supply that is reasonably available within the COSMUD service area, COSMUD assumes that the reasonably available groundwater supply for the current water service area (approximately 38,500 acres) is pumped at 0.6 AFY/acre, equivalent to an annual groundwater supply of 23,100 AFY.

6.1.3.2 Groundwater Basin Management
The groundwater basin underlying the City is the San Joaquin Valley Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (5-22.01, Subbasin). The Subbasin is defined by the areal extent of unconsolidated to semi consolidated sedimentary deposits that are bounded by the Mokelumne River on the north and northwest; San Joaquin River on the west; Stanislaus River on the south; and consolidated bedrock on the east.

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. The Subbasin is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a state of critical overdraft. SGMA requires preparation of a groundwater sustainability plan to address measures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin. Sustainability is generally defined as long-term reliability of the groundwater supply and the absence of undesirable results from over pumping.

The City, along with fifteen other groundwater users and groundwater sustainability agencies, formed a GWA in 2017 in response to SGMA. In 2019, the GWA completed the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to help achieve groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. In general, the GSP shows that groundwater elevations have declined since the 1950s.

Water quality issues were detected on the west side of the Subbasin, some of which are from wells underlying the City. The GSP outlined the need to reduce overdraft conditions and identified 23 projects for potential development, along with management actions, that either replace groundwater use or supplement groundwater supplies to meet current and future water demands. The list of 23 potential projects included in the GSP represent a variety of project types including direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse to be undertaken by the member agencies. The GSP determined an estimated pumping offset and/or recharge

ATTACHMENT E
need of 78,000 AFY Subbasin-wide to achieve sustainability. This amount may be reevaluated after additional data are collected and analyzed.4
From 2020 to 2045, members of the GWA, including the City, will be monitoring and reporting their progress on implementing projects and studies and the impacts of their outreach. Evaluation will be conducted every five years.

6.1.3.3 Groundwater Use
The COSMUD uses groundwater conjunctively with its surface water supply sources, with groundwater generally used to meet increased water demands primarily in the summer months or during dry years when available surface water supplies may be limited. Wells are also depended on for emergency supply in the event of surface water supply interruptions.

Historically, the local groundwater basin provided 100 percent of the COSMUD water supply. However, with SEWD surface water deliveries beginning in the 1980s and the completion and dedication of the DWTP and associated water supply infrastructure in 2012, the reliance on groundwater has significantly reduced. The annual volume of groundwater pumped by the COSMUD is shown in Table 6-2. Groundwater supply provided an average of 4,320 AFY, approximately 14 percent of the total COSMUD water supply between 2016 and 2020.

Table 6-2. Historical Groundwater Volume Pumped by the COSMUD, AFY Supply Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Groundwater 3,394 4,085 7,228 6,619 3,748 2,965 3,236 3,778 8,662 Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 6-3, June 2021.

6.1.3.4 Groundwater as a Future Water Supply
In the future, the COSMUD plans to use less groundwater in wet and average years. It plans to continue groundwater use to meet peak demand and in dry years to make up for reductions in surface water deliveries.

6.2 Additional Planned Future Potable Water Supplies
In addition to the existing potable water supplies described above, the COSMUD has additional planned future potable water supplies to meet existing and projected future water demands, including those associated with the Proposed Project. The inclusion of planned future water supplies in this WSA is specifically allowed by the Water Code:

Water Code Section 10631(b): Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). 4 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, November 2019, Section 6.

ATTACHMENT E
As discussed above, the City’s application for an additional water right from the San Joaquin River for up to 92,300 AFY, is currently unpermitted. The City plans to pursue this application in the future to meet the COSMUD ultimate water demand. Pursuant to the grant of this additional water right by the State Water Board, several expansion projects are planned for the DWTP, as needed, from the current capacity of 30 mgd, up to 160 mgd.

As discussed in Section 6.1.1.2, the City expects an additional 6,500 AFY of WID supply will become available to the City at a rate of 3.0 AFY per acre annexed, per the City’s 2008 contract with WID. This WID supply may potentially increase from 6,500 AFY to 13,000 AFY by 2030.

6.3 Summary of Existing and Additional Planned Future Water Supplies Table 6-3 provides a summary of the COSMUD projected water supply entitlements. A discussion of the future anticipated availability of these existing and additional planned future water supplies during dry years is provided in the next section.

Table 6-3. Projected Water Supplies(a)
Supply Source
Additional Detail on
Water Supply
Reasonably Available Volume, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Purchased Water
(treated surface water) SEWD 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300 Purchased Water
(untreated surface water)
WID 6,500 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Surface Water
(untreated) San Joaquin River 23,400 24,800 25,000 25,000 25,000 Groundwater Eastern
San Joaquin Subbasin 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 Total 77,300 85,200 85,400 85,400 85,400
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 6-14, June 2021 (a) A normal year is assumed.

6.4 Water Supply Availability and Reliability
Water Code Section 10910 (c)(4) requires that a WSA include a discussion with regard to “whether total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.” Accordingly, this WSA addresses these three hydrologic conditions through the year 2045. The reliability discussion presented in this section reflects Chapter 7 of the City’s 2020 UWMP.

Factors contributing to potential reductions in the COSMUD water supplies include legal limitations due to water rights and contracts that may limit the quantity of water available, environmental constraints, and reductions in availability due to climatic factors. The surface water supplies delivered to the COSMUD are subject to reductions during single and multiple dry years (seasonal and climatic shortages) as discussed below.

ATTACHMENT E
Also, in response to drought conditions and the State of Emergency proclaimed by Governor Brown, first in January 2014 and again in April 2015, this WSA provides a discussion of the availability and reliability of the COSMUD available water supplies to meet water demands in the event that the COSMUD surface water supplies are limited under emergency water supply conditions.

6.4.1 Reliability by Water Source

6.4.1.1 SEWD Supply
Review of SEWD’s water deliveries from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2018 show that COSMUD received approximately one-third of the total SEWD water supply to the Urban Contractors.5SEWD estimated that approximately 72,800 acre-feet (AF) will be available to the Urban Contractors. Thus, the normal year volume entered for the COSMUD water service area is estimated to be 24,300 AF, approximately one-third of 72,800 AF.

Per the Second Amended Contract, SEWD is required to deliver a minimum of 20,000 AF to the Urban Contractors. Thus, the water supply availability for the City during the single dry year is assumed to be approximately one-third of the SEWD contractual minimum volume of 20,000 AF.

The water supply availability for the five-consecutive-dry years reflects the City’s deliveries from SEWD during the most recent Statewide drought. Available water supplies for the first and fifth years of the five-consecutive-year drought are estimated to be normal year supplies. Available SEWD supplies are reduced in the second year, and then further reduced to minimum deliveries (one-third on the contractual minimum volume) in the third and fourth years.

6.4.1.2 San Joaquin River Supply
Under Water Code Section 1485, Water Right Permit 21176 allows the City to divert from the San Joaquin River as much water as the City’s wastewater treatment plant discharges into the San Joaquin River. The quantity is permitted up to 33,600 AFY from the San Joaquin River under Water Right Permit 21176. However, Section 1485 water is subject to pumping restrictions in some months due to environmentalrestrictions. The City’s Water Right Permit summarizes San Joaquin River water available for diversion based on the City’s wastewater treatment plant discharge and pumping restrictions due to the environmental restrictions for 2012 through 2040.

Since the Petition for Extension of Time was completed prior to 2020, the volumes for 2020 through 2040 are projections of the anticipated volume available for diversion from the San Joaquin River and are based on the historical volumes available under similar hydrologic years, as shown in Table 6-4. 5 Stockton East Water District. Fiscal Years 2012/2013 to 2018/2019. Schedule D.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 6-4. Anticipated San Joaquin River Water Supplies Year Type Base Year
Volume Available,
AFY
Percent of Average
Supply
Normal Year 2018 20,500 100
Single-Dry Year 2015 19,100 93
Consecutive Dry Year 1st Year 2013 18,300 89
Consecutive Dry Year 2nd Year 2014 19,000 93
Consecutive Dry Year 3rd Year 2015 19,100 93
Consecutive Dry Year 4th Year 2016 18,100 88
Consecutive Dry Year 5th Year 2017 21,400 104
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 7-3, June 2021.

6.4.1.3 WID Supply
Raw water from WID augments supply to the DWTP if the San Joaquin River water is not available due to environmental restrictions. Consistent with the 2020 UWMP, a slight supply reduction from 6,500 AF to 4,500 AF is assumed during a single dry year and the third and fourth years of the five-consecutive-year drought.

6.4.1.4 Groundwater Supply
COSMUD plans to use its groundwater supply conjunctively with the available treated surface water supplies and purchased water supplies. Available groundwater supply is based on the projected groundwater supply that is reasonably available. COSMUD assumes that the reasonably available groundwater for the current water service area (approximately 38,500 acres) is pumped at 0.6 AFY/ac, equivalent to an annual groundwater supply of 23,100 AFY. This volume is assumed to be available under all year types.

6.4.2 Summary of Available Water Supplies Under Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years The reliability of each of the COSMUD existing and additional planned water supplies and their projected availability during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, as described in Chapter 7 of the 2020 UWMP, is summarized in Tables 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7, respectively.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 6-5. Normal Year Water Supply, AFY
Supply Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
SEWD 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300
WID 6,500 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
San Joaquin River 23,400 24,800 25,000 25,000 25,000
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Total 77,300 85,200 85,400 85,400 85,400
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 7-6, June 2021.

Table 6-6. Single Dry Year Water Supply, AFY
Supply Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
SEWD 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
WID 4,500 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
San Joaquin River 21,800 23,100 23,300 23,300 23,300
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Total 56,100 61,900 62,100 62,100 62,100
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 7-7, June 2021.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 6-7. Multiple Dry Years Water Supply, AFY
Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
SEWD 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300
WID 6,500 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
San Joaquin River 20,900 22,100 22,300 22,300 22,300
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Supply Total 74,800 82,500 82,700 82,700 82,700
Second Year
SEWD 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500
WID 6,500 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
San Joaquin River 21,700 23,000 23,200 23,200 23,200
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Supply Total 66,800 74,600 74,800 74,800 74,800
Third Year
SEWD 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
WID 4,500 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
San Joaquin River 21,800 23,100 23,300 23,300 23,300
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Supply Total 56,100 61,900 62,100 62,100 62,100
Fourth Year
SEWD 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
WID 4,500 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
San Joaquin River 20,700 21,900 22,100 22,100 22,100
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Supply Total 55,000 60,700 60,900 60,900 60,900
Fifth Year
SEWD 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300 24,300
WID 6,500 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
San Joaquin River 24,400 25,900 26,100 26,100 26,100
Groundwater 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100 23,100
Supply Total 78,300 86,300 86,500 86,500 86,500
Source: City of Stockton 2020 UWMP, Table 7-9, June 2021.

ATTACHMENT E

7.0 DETERMINATION OF WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 610
Water Code Section 10910 states:
10910(c)(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

Table 7-1 summarizes the projected availability of the COSMUD existing and planned future potable water supplies compared with projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through buildout. As stated in Section 3.4, the Proposed Project’s water demands were not included in future water demand projections presented in the 2020 UWMP, so they have been added to the water demands shown in Table 7-1.

Pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the technical analyses described in this WSA, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 7-1. Summary of Water Demand Versus Water Supply During Various Hydrologic Conditions Hydrologic Condition
Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Available Water Supply(a) 77,300 85,200 85,400 85,400 85,400 Total Water Demand(b) 34,789 38,595 43,878 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 42,511 46,605 41,522 36,239 36,239 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Single Dry Year
Available Water Supply(c) 56,100 61,900 62,100 62,100 62,100 Total Water Demand(b) 34,789 38,595 43,878 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 21,311 23,305 18,222 12,939 12,939 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Multiple Dry Years
Multiple
Dry Year
1 Available Water Supply(d) 74,800 82,500 82,700 82,700 82,700 Total Water Demand(b) 34,789 38,595 43,878 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 40,011 43,905 38,822 33,539 33,539 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Multiple
Dry Year
2 Available Water Supply(d) 66,800 74,600 74,800 74,800 74,800 Total Water Demand(b) 35,550 39,652 44,935 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 31,250 34,948 29,865 25,639 25,639 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Multiple
Dry Year
3 Available Water Supply(d) 56,100 61,900 62,100 62,100 62,100 Total Water Demand(b) 36,311 40,708 45,991 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 19,789 21,192 16,109 12,939 12,939 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Multiple
Dry Year
4 Available Water Supply(d) 55,000 60,700 60,900 60,900 60,900 Total Water Demand(b) 37,073 41,765 47,048 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 17,927 18,935 13,852 11,739 11,739 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
Multiple
Dry Year
5 Available Water Supply(d) 78,300 86,300 86,500 86,500 86,500 Total Water Demand(b) 37,834 42,821 48,104 49,161 49,161 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 40,466 43,479 38,396 37,339 37,339 Percent Shortfall of Demand -- -- -- -- --
(a) Refer to Table 6-5.
(b) Refer to Table 5-2; includes projected water demands for the Proposed Project. For each year shown, multiple dry year demands for years 2 through 5 reflect linear increases in demand between the five-year increments. For example, Multiple Dry Year 2 for 2025 represents the demand for 2026, Multiple Dry Year 3 represents the demand for 2027, etc. (c) Refer to Table 6-6.
(d) Refer to Table 6-7.

ATTACHMENT E

8.0 VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 221
The Proposed Project, with up to 2,241 residential dwelling units, is also subject to the requirements of SB 221 (Government Code section 66473.7). SB 221 applies to projects with residential subdivisions with more than 500 dwelling units (such as the Proposed Project) and requires that the water supplier (COSMUD) provide a written verification that the water supply for the Proposed Project is sufficient.

Verification must demonstrate supply sufficiency by showing that water supplies available during normal, single dry and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses.

Per the requirements of SB 221, the following must be considered:
• Historical Water Deliveries
• Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sectors
• Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis Prepared for the UWMP • Amount of Water Expected from Specified Supply Projects The 2020 UWMP and this WSA for the Proposed Project provide the documentation required to comply with SB 221 and demonstrate that COSMUD’s supplies are sufficient to meet the projected demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The specific considerations to be evaluated for the SB 221 verification are described below and reference applicable sections of the 2020 UWMP and this WSA.

8.1 Historical Water Deliveries
COSMUD’s historical and current water supplies are summarized in Section 6 of this WSA and described in detail in Chapter 6 of the 2020 UWMP. The use of these supplies will continue into the future as described in Section 6 of this WSA and as shown in Table 6-3 of this WSA.

Water supply availability and reliability during normal, single dry and multiple dry years is summarized in Section 6 of this WSA and described in detail in Chapter 7 of the 2020 UWMP.

8.2 Projected Water Demand by Customer Sector
Projected potable water demands in COSMUD’s water service area are described in Section 5 of this WSA based on information provided in Chapter 4 of the 2020 UWMP updated to include the projected water demands for the Proposed Project. Projected water demand by customer sector within COSMUD’s water service area is documented in the 2020 UWMP and is summarized in Table 8-1.

ATTACHMENT E
Table 8-1. Actual and Projected Water Demands by Customer Sector Water Source
2020
(actual)(a) 2025(b) 2030(b) 2035(b) 2040(b) 2045(b)
Potable Water, AFY
Single Family
Residential 15,758 15,782 16,674 19,867 23,059 23,059
Multi-Family
Residential 3,030 2,927 2,976 3,494 4,012 4,012
Commercial 4,700 4,793 4,856 5,149 5,442 5,442
Industrial 709 3,397 5,797 6,076 6,355 6,355
Landscape 3,255 3,162 3,260 3,838 4,415 4,415
Sales to Other
Agencies 1,830 1,830 1,830 1,830 1,830 1,830
Other 132 0 0 0 0 0
Losses 4,991 2,898 3,202 3,625 4,048 4,048
Potable Water Demand
Total 34,404 34,789 38,595 43,878 49,161 49,161
(a) From Table 4-2 in the City of Stockton 2020 UWMP.
(b) From Table 4-3 in the City of Stockton 2020 UWMP with projected water demands for the Proposed Project added to Single Family Residential, Landscape and Losses starting in 2030.

8.3 Water Shortage Contingency Analysis
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), included as an appendix to the City’s 2020 UWMP, describes the City’s strategic plan in preparation for and responses to water shortages. It includes water shortage stages and associated actions that will be implemented in the event of a water supply shortage, including situations when catastrophic water supply interruptions occur due to regional power outage, earthquake, or other disasters; and when drought occurs. As part of the WSCP, the City’s legal authorities, communication protocols, compliance and enforcement, and monitoring and reporting are included.

Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 13.28 Water Conservation and SMC Chapter 13.32 Water Shortage Emergencies supports the City’s WSCP actions.

The six Stages of Action outlined in the City’s WSCP are intended to promote the proper management and distribution of water supplies during a drought or emergency situation. Each of the six stages describes specific actions to be taken by individual water customer sectors to achieve the water conservation requirement of that particular stage. All of the stages allow for adequate water supply to protect public health and safety and satisfy the fire protection needs of the City. Each of the six stages corresponds to a specific water demand reduction goal. These potable water demand reduction goals are based on the potential supply cutbacks during times of drought, with up to and greater than a 50 percent supply reduction as mandated by the UWMP Act.

If an emergency were to occur, or if drought conditions occurred, requiring the City to implement its WSCP, all of COSMUD’s water customers, including those within the Proposed Project, would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as included in City’s WSCP.

ATTACHMENT E

8.4 Future Water Supplies to Serve Water Demands Associated with Buildout of the Proposed Project
As described in this WSA, the following water supplies will be used to serve the projected COSMUD water demands, including the projected water demands associated with buildout of the Proposed Project:
• Surface water from the San Joaquin River that is diverted at the Intake Pump Station on Empire Tract located in the Delta and treated at the City’s DWTP, supplemented by surface water from the Mokelumne River diverted and conveyed by WID, and treated at the City’s DWTP, when the City’s San Joaquin River supplies are curtailed; • Surface water from the Mokelumne River diverted and conveyed by WID, and treated at the City’s DWTP;
• Potable water purchased from SEWD; and
• Groundwater pumped from City owned and operated wells from the underlying Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin.

The availability and reliability of these supplies are described in Section 6 of this WSA.

8.5 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply
As described in Section 7 of this WSA, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses.

ATTACHMENT E

9.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
Water Code Section 10910 (g)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.

Water Code Section 10911 (b) The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

As the approving agency for the Proposed Project, the City must adopt this WSA at a regular or special meeting. Furthermore, the City must include this WSA in the EIR that is being prepared for the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT E

10.0 REFERENCES
City of Stockton. December 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan.

City of Stockton. July 2024. Project Description – Bear Creek South Residential Project.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Authority. November 2019. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Stockton East Water District. Fiscal Years 2012/2013 to 2018/2019. Schedule D.

West Yost. January 2021. City of Stockton Water Master Plan Update.

West Yost. June 2021. City of Stockton 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix G: Examination of Bear Creek South Project relative to the General Plan and General Plan EIR

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
April 16, 2025
SUBJECT: Examination of Bear Creek South Project relative to the General Plan and General Plan EIR Following our Zoom discussion on March 11, 2025, we have examined the City of Stockton’s General Plan EIR for purposes of tiering and review of a “subsequent activity” implemented under the General Plan. More specifically, we have examined these documents for applicability in processing the Bear Creek South Project (hereinafter “Project”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (as well as 15152, 15162, and 15168(c)) of the CEQA Guidelines.

De Novo prepared a scoping memo in May 2024 to discuss the potential that the Bear Creek South Project may be statutorily exempt. The memo concluded that a full examination of the Project is necessary to determine the appropriate CEQA document, but that the preliminary presumption is that the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under Section 15183 pending a full analysis. The original scoping conclusion was based on an interpretation of the statutory language set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 as further defined in Section 15183 (as well as 15152, 15162, and 15168(c)) as it relates to the Project and the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 states: “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.” Section 15168(c) addresses “Use with Later Activities” and indicates that “…That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.

Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR…” The scoping process involved consultation with numerous members of City staff, outside counsel, and consultants.

Our analysis documented that the Initial Study would be required to validate a decision confirming the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. This memo is intended to provide a more formal examination of the City of Stockton’s General Plan EIR for purposes of tiering of a “subsequent activity” under the General Plan, and application of the Section 15183 (as well as 15152, 15162, and 15168(c)) to the Project. This analysis is intended to provide substantial evidence to support a decision that the Project does in fact meet the requirement for a Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183 statutory exemption.

ATTACHMENT E

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The following outlines a set of facts that, when combined with the information provided in the Initial Study, is intended to provide substantial evidence that the Project meets the requirements of the statutory exemption defined under Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1) Residential Land Use (Existing): The applicant proposes to develop uses that are consistent with the uses allowed under the current General Plan land use designation for the Project site (See Attachment A). It is noteworthy that the land use designation in the current Stockton General Plan for the Project site is the same land use designation that the City applied to the Project site in previous Stockton General Plans (including, but not limited to, the Stockton General Plan 2035 [City of Stockton, 2007]). This means that there were no land use modifications to the Project site under the most recent Stockton General Plan Update (Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan [City of Stockton, 2018]), and there have been no recent amendments to the land use for the Project site prior to the most recent General Plan Update. In addition, it is also noteworthy that the County has designated the Project site for residential land uses in its General Plan (San Joaquin County General Plan Policy Document [San Joaquin County, 2016]), which is consistent with the City’s anticipated residential use of the Project site. The residential land uses in these General Plans reflect the expectation from both the City and County that the Project site would be developed with residential housing. There is nothing peculiar about the land use designation, and there is no request to modify or amend the land use designation. The above facts meet the statutory requirements set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and further implemented in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 2) Densities (Existing): The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use densities. Specifically, the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation allows for single-family residential units, duplexes, triplexes, semi-detached patio homes, town homes, public and quasi-public uses, second units, and other similar and compatible uses. The maximum density allowed by the LDR designation is 6.1 units per acre (based on gross acreage) and 8.7 units per acre (based on net acreage). The proposed Project residential density would be approximately 4.45 units per acre (2,241 units proposed on the 503.89-acre Development Area).

The Project is consistent with the allowed uses and density for the existing LDR designation. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to densities. The above facts meet the statutory requirements set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and further implemented in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
3) General Plan Baseline Report - Major Development Project Map (2016): The Stockton General Plan includes a Baseline Conditions Report dated August 2015. Page 22 of the document includes a map entitled “Major Development Projects” that identifies two categories of projects, Applications Approved, and Applications Active (Attachment B). This map depicts the Project site as “Bear Creek South – 510 acres 2941 HU.” This means that the Project was established as a Baseline Condition for the General Plan at the beginning of the General Plan process in 2015. The City did not change the baseline condition, instead they adopted the General Plan Update with the same land uses that existed in the Baseline Condition.

There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to the Baseline Conditions at the beginning of the General Plan Update process. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183. 4) General Plan Technical Memorandum Report - Major Development Project Map (2017): The Stockton General Plan included a Technical Memorandum prepared for Land Use in 2017 about a year before the General Plan was approved. On page 13 of the document a map entitled “Existing General Plan Land Use”

ATTACHMENT E
is provided (see Attachment C). The map is consistent with the General Plan Baseline Report published in 2015, as well as the adopted General Plan Land Use Map adopted in 2018. The map depicts the Project site with the residential land use consistent with what is currently proposed. In addition, in the same Technical Memorandum on page 31 a map entitled “Major Development Projects” shows the Project site as “Bear Creek South” (see Attachment D). Here again, the City has reiterated what was established as a Baseline Condition for the Project site. The City established residential uses as baseline condition for the Project site, and reiterated that land use in a Technical Memorandum for the General Plan during the General Plan Update process. These maps establish an expectation that the Project site is part of the development assumption for the General Plan even before the General Plan was adopted in 2018, which is later reflected in the General Plan that was adopted. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to the anticipated land use and development assumptions for the Project site throughout the General Plan Update process leading into the adoption of the General Plan, and the certification of the EIR. The above facts meet the statutory requirements outlined in Sections 21083.3/ 15183. 5) General Plan EIR Study Area: The Stockton General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-4) states “this EIR focuses on the analysis of potential changes within the SOI (i.e., the “EIR Study Area”).” The General Plan EIR provides Figure 3-1, Regional Location (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-3), which depicts the Project site within the boundary of the SOI, which is defined as EIR Study Area. This means that the physical location of the Project site is within the physical and spatial limits of the area that was studied in the General Plan EIR. There is nothing peculiar about the physical and spatial limits of the Project site, it is clearly depicted as being within the boundary of the General Plan EIR Study Area. The above facts meet the statutory requirements outlined in Sections 21083.3/ 15183. 6) General Plan Development Projection: The Stockton General Plan EIR (the EIR) provides the Development Projections that are used in the EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-20). The EIR explains that it uses a “horizon-year projection,” which is based on an estimate of the amount of development that would occur by 2040. The EIR also uses a Buildout Projection which represents full buildout of the General Plan, but with a date uncertain. Each projection is described below:

The horizon-year projection includes the following (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-20):
• 40,900 new dwelling units, including:
o 26,300 new single-family units
o 14,600 new multi-family units
• 132,200 new residents
• 13.8 million square feet of new commercial and office space • 35.6 million square feet of new industrial space
The full buildout projection includes the following (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-22):
• 119,700 new dwelling units, including:
o 43,800 new single-family units
o 75,900 new multi-family units
• 386,700 new residents
• 50.9 million square feet of new commercial and office space • 242.4 million square feet of new industrial space

ATTACHMENT E
The EIR indicates that there are almost 7,000 acres of vacant within the SOI (i.e. the EIR Study Area) (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp.3-22), which specifically includes the 530.18-acre Project site. The EIR indicates that a land use demand forecast (prepared as part of a Market Analysis that supports the projections for the General Plan) for Stockton in 2040 results in between 19,800 and 41,000 new housing units, including between 13,800 and 28,700 new single-family units and between 5,900 and 12,300 new multi-family units (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-24). These projections are based in part on the land use inventory from the General Plan land use map, in addition to market and economic factors that drive growth. The Project site provides approximately 5% of the total housing demand through the Horizon-Year Projection, and approximately 1.8% of the total housing demand through the Full Buildout Projection. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to house capacity/demand provided in the Horizon-Year Projection, Full Buildout Projection, or the Market Study Projections. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183.
7) Actual Development vs Projections: As shown in the bullet above, the Stockton General Plan EIR assumes 40,900 new residential units to be constructed through the Horizon Year of 2040. This represents an estimated 1,859 units that should be constructed each year for a total of 9,295 units constructed during the first five-year period. However, a review of building permits in the first five-year period (2019-2023) shows that an average of 661 units has been constructed each year for a total of 3,305 units (see table below).
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Units 464 736 855 759 491
Single Family 302 518 548 451 491
Multifamily 162 218 307 308 0
This actual development rate represents an overestimate in the General Plan EIR of 5,990 units during the first five-year period for the EIR analysis. Using the actual build rate during the first five-year period extrapolated out to the 2040 horizon year, there is an estimated 14,542 residential units that would be constructed, whereas the EIR analysis assumed 40,900 units would be constructed. This represents an overestimate in the environmental analysis of approximately 181%. The number of units within the Project are assumed within the Development Projection presented in Bullet 6, and are well within the actual development that can be anticipated through 2040 based on the build rate through the first five years of the General Plan. Additionally, as described in the environmental checklist completed for the Project, all impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to development projections from the General Plan EIR, or revised development projections estimated with actual build rates for housing in the first five years.

The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183. 8) General Plan EIR Evaluation: The EIR states “All of the analyses in this EIR are based on a consistent interpretation of the proposed General Plan land use map and policies, and the type and amount of growth that the General Plan would allow…” (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-28). There are two different types of data inputs in the EIR; some require spatial inputs only and some require both quantitative and spatial inputs. Each are discussed below:

ATTACHMENT E
• Analyses in the General Plan EIR that are based on spatial location include aesthetics, agriculture, exposure to localized air pollution and noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality, and land use (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3- 28). For these analyses, the question is not how much development the General Plan would allow, but where that development could potentially be located. Therefore, all potential development allowed by the land use map was evaluated in the General Plan EIR to assess impacts in these topics (i.e., full buildout of the proposed General Plan). This means that the Project site, which falls within the EIR Study Area, is within the geographical/spatial location for the General Plan analysis for each of these topics. A site-specific supplemental analysis has been performed and documented in the Initial Study for the Project to determine if there are any sitespecific conditions that are peculiar and not consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR.

As described in the environmental checklist completed for the Project, all impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. The Initial Study confirms that there are no peculiar conditions present on the Project site. • Analyses in the General Plan EIR that require a quantitative estimate of growth include topics such as traffic generation, air pollution emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Impacts in these areas are generated by an increase in the number of people living and working in Stockton, which generates consequent increases in traffic, noise, emissions, and use of services. Therefore, a reliable analysis depends on a reasonable, quantitative estimate of new population and employment. For these analyses, the horizon-year projection (i.e., the projected amount of development that could occur under the proposed General Plan through its horizon year of 2040) was considered “reasonably foreseeable” and was used in the analysis. The development projections from Bullet 6 above (i.e. 40,900) were used. It can be confirmed that in Appendix B from the General Plan EIR, the model inputs are consistent with the development projections (see page 682 of the Draft EIR). For air quality modeling, for example, as stated on page 6 of Appendix B from the General Plan EIR, and as also described in Table 4.3-7 of the General Plan EIR:
o Transportation emissions were modeled based on on-road VMT provided by Fehr & Peers and modeled using EMFAC2014-PL. EMFAC2014-PL provided the future year emissions rates, based on location and year;
o Energy emissions were based on energy use data provided by the PG&E. Emissions forecasts were estimated based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy). These emissions were based on a three‐year average (2014‐2016) of energy data as provided by PG&E. o Area source (Landscaping, Lighting, and Commercial Equipment) emissions were estimated using the OFFROAD2007 model to calculate emission rates for commercial equipment. Emissions forecasts were estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City of Stockton as a percentage of San Joaquin County.
o Area source (Consumer Product) emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, following a methodology utilized to calculate VOC emissions from use of household consumer

ATTACHMENT E
cleaning products. Emissions forecasts account for the correct number of residential units in the SOI by 2040 (40,900 new units) (see page 187 of the Appendix). o Other (Construction and Agricultural Equipment) emissions were estimated utilized the OFFROAD2007 model to agricultural equipment rates for construction and agricultural equipment. Agricultural equipment emissions are based on the proportion of farmland within the City of Stockton compared to San Joaquin County; emissions forecasts for agricultural equipment are based on the decrease in agricultural land, based on forecasted rate of change for the County of San Joaquin for years from 2000 to 2014).

Construction emissions estimated based on housing permit data for San Joaquin County and City of Stockton from the US Census.

This is also consistent with the GP EIR’s description of what was analyzed quantitatively in the EIR, which is defined as all land within the SOI (i.e. the EIR Study Area). The Bear Creek South project is within the SOI and it represents approximately 5% of the total units anticipated to be built in the Horizon Project Year 2040. Additionally, as further confirmation that the Bear Creek South project was modeled within the General Plan EIR, City staff confirmed with Placeworks (i.e. the consultants who developed the GP EIR) that these model inputs were carried out through all the modeling (per. Communication Nicole Moore March 14, 2025). In addition, it was confirmed with Fehr and Peers (per. Communication Ian Barns March 17, 2025) that the VMT modeling assumed “+40,000 household was in fact used to populate VMT metrics in the model.” While much of the General Plan EIR focuses on more detailed LOS analysis by roadway, the VMT analysis is focused on total VMT in the aggregate based on a service population and average trip length. The service population is calculated based on the assumed development projection of over 40,000 new households within the Horizon Year. However, as shown in Bullet 7 above, this represents an overestimate in the environmental analysis of approximately 181%. Nevertheless, the number of units within the Project are assumed within the Development Projection presented in Bullet 6, and are well within the actual development that can be anticipated through 2040 based on the build rate through the first five years of the General Plan. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to development projections from the General Plan EIR that were used for the original modeling, and those projections are proving to be a very large overestimate of development. The Initial Study confirms that there are no peculiar conditions present on the Project site.

The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183. 9) Applicability Statutes Regarding Subsequent Analysis: Section 15162 addresses scenarios where subsequent analysis would be warranted for the approval of subsequent projects consistent with the General Plan evaluated in the prior the General Plan EIR. This includes scenarios where there are “Substantial changes” proposed, or that have occurred, that warrant revisions to the previous environmental document (Section 15162(a)(1-2). Another scenario where subsequent analysis would be warranted includes “New Information” that has become available that shows a new or more severe significant environmental effect, or new mitigation or alternatives have become feasible that would significantly reduce an environmental effect (Section 15162(a)(3). The Project does not trigger the criteria for subsequent environmental review under Section 15162 t. The Project does not propose changes to the General Plan, and there are no relevant mitigation or alternatives that require subsequent analysis. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to CEQA’s requirements triggering subsequent environmental review. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183.

ATTACHMENT E
10) Applicability of Statutes Regarding Use with Later Activities: Section 15168(c) provides that “If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” The Project does not propose changes to the General Plan, and there are no relevant mitigation or alternatives that require subsequent analysis under Section 15162, as discussed above. Section 15168(c) states “Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.” As has been discussed earlier in this memo, the Project is consistent with: 1) the allowable land use, 2) overall planned density and building intensity, 3) the geographic area analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and 4) covered infrastructure as described in the General Plan EIR. The Project is also within the Development Projections included in the EIR, and only represents 5% of the Horizon-year Projection and

1.8% of the Full Buildout Projection. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to the “Use with Later Activities” CEQA provisions. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183. 11) Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Section 15168(c) requires that the “agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.” The City has adopted General Plan policies, and various design and engineering standards that function as “uniformly applied development policies or standards.” All projects in Stockton, including the Project, are conditioned to comply with these existing uniformly applied development policies or standards, which collectively are designed to minimize and/or avoid environmental impacts.

The Project will also comply with these existing policies and standards. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to existing policies and standards. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183.
12) Existing Conditions: The existing Project site conditions consist of predominantly agricultural uses and related facilities such as associated agricultural equipment and irrigation ditches. There are six dirt/gravel roadways that bisect the Project site, including three dirt roadways extending south to north from Morada Lane, and three other dirt roadways trending west to east, including one along the base of the Bear Creek levee. The irrigation canals are operated by the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) and run along the northeast and central portions of the Project site. Outside of the Project site to the east is the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, which is a rail line that has existed for over 100 years and bisects the City of Stockton. The existing conditions are not peculiar to the area; instead, they represent typical agricultural crops/orchards with irrigation ditches, and have no natural wetlands or other sensitive habitats. As such, there is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to the existing conditions. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183.
13) Adopted SOI: San Joaquin County LAFCo has adopted a Sphere of Influence Map for the City of Stockton, which reflects a revision date of February 22, 2022 by Placerworks, the author of the GP EIR. The document is labeled as Figure 7-10 and is titled “10-year Planning Horizon Annexation Areas.” The map labels two categories of land within the SOI. Areas in yellow are within the SOI, but not within the 10-year planning horizon, and areas with orange are within the SOI, and within the 10-year planning horizon. The Project is labeled with the orange, depicting that is within the 10-year planning horizon. This reflects the fact that the Project is anticipated to be annexed and developed in the reasonably foreseeable future (i.e.

ATTACHMENT E
10-year horizon). When you combine this fact, with the fact that GP EIR (Page 3-4) states “this EIR focuses on the analysis of potential changes within the SOI (i.e., the “EIR Study Area”),” and the fact that the GP EIR provides Figure 3-1 depicting the Project site within EIR Study Area, it can be concluded that the Project is in fact included in both spatial and quantitative analysis in the GP EIR. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to City’s adopted SOI and the expectation that the Project will be developed within the 10-year horizon. The above facts meet CEQA’s requirements outlined in Section 15183. 14) Adopted MSR: San Joaquin County LAFCo has adopted a Municipal Service Review for the City of Stockton, which reflects a date of April 23, 2020 by Placerworks, the author of the GP EIR. The document is consistent with the information reflected in the City’s SOI, which shows the Project site as being within the “10-year Planning Horizon Annexation Areas.” This again reflects the fact that the Project is anticipated to be annexed and developed in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to City’s adopted MSR and the expectation that the Project will be developed within the 10-year horizon. The above facts meet the requirements outlined in Section 15183.

In conclusion, a full examination of the Project in the Initial Study, combined with the examination of the Project within the context of the General Plan supporting documents, the adopted General Plan, the certified General Plan EIR, adopted Sphere of Influence, and adopted Municipal Service Review as summarized herein, confirms our opinion that the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Steve McMurtry, Principal
Attachments
A - General Plan Land Use Map (2018)
Attachment B – General Plan Baseline Report – Major Development Projects (2015) B - General Plan Baseline Conditions Report – Major Development Projects (2015) C – General Plan Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum Existing General Plan Land Use Map (2016) D – General Plan Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum Major Development Projects (2016)

ATTACHMENT E
Attachment A – General Plan Land Use Map (2018)

ATTACHMENT E
Attachment B – General Plan Baseline Report – Major Development Projects (2015)

ATTACHMENT E
Attachment C – Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum Existing General Plan Land Use Map (2016)

ATTACHMENT E
Attachment D – Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum Major Development Projects (2016)

ATTACHMENT E

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesJuly 7, 2026

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
July 7, 2026