Agenda — Waterford City Council, November 20, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
California Land Development
331 Santa Rosa Drive

7 | Page
Los Gatos, CA 95032

6. EXISTING SETTING
The Project site to be subdivided and developed, parcel 080-003-050, presently functions as an Almond Orchard for the entire site and does not contain any residential, agricultural or any other type of dwellings or structures; the surrounding areas are primarily utilized as agriculture and residential land uses. The Project site sits north of Richard M. Moon Primary School, separated by a Modesto Irrigation District (M.I.D.) lateral and an unimproved farm road. An existing homesite fronting North Reinway Avenue, parcel 080-003-049, included in the Annexation portion of the Proposed Project, is surrounded on its’ north, south and west boundaries by the Project site to be subdivided and developed.

The surrounding areas in each direction are composed of agriculture and residential uses with Space in the Shade Mobile Home Park abutting Yosemite Boulevard and being the most southern parcel included in the Annexation component of the Proposed Project.

7. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The entire Project site is designated for Low-Density Residential land uses per the City’s General Plan, dated June 21, 2007.

8. EXISTING ZONING
The Project site is located outside of the City of Waterford’s city limits. The Project site is currently within the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County. According to a review of the County’s Public Inquiry Map, the Project site is within the General Ag. – 10 Acre zone district.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The Proposed Project is bounded by existing agriculture uses and an M.I.D. canal to the north, Waterford Unified School District’s Richard M. Moon Primary School and State Route 132, Yosemite Boulevard to the south, north Reinway Avenue to the east, and north Eucalyptus Avenue to the west.

Table 1, below, provides the Project site’s surrounding uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning districts.

8 | Page
Table 2 - Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Existing Use General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning Classification
North Agriculture Low Density Residential General AG 10 Acre (County)
South Public School
and Mobile Home Park
Low Density Residential
/ Public / Government
Public / Semi Public /
Commercial Highway
East Single Family Dwellings Low Density Residential Residential Single (RS) West Agriculture Residential Estates General AG 10 Acre (County)

10. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Overview
The Proposed Project consists of the Pre-Zoning and Annexation of approximately 43.27-acres to the City of Waterford, and the subdivision of 19.2 acres of the 43.27-acre annexation area into 98 single-family residential lots. No new development is proposed for the remaining 24.07 acres.

Below, this Project Description is organized to describe the actions of the Annexation and Pre-zone followed by the actions of the Tentative Subdivision Map.

Annexation and Pre-Zone:

The Project site is currently within Stanislaus County, and within the City of Waterford’s Primary Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Proposed Project would result in the annexation of six (6) legal parcels into the City of Waterford, identified as the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN):
x 080-003-050;
x 080-003-012;
x 080-003-015;
x 080-003-034;
x 080-003-040; and,
x 080-003-049.

A majority of the proposed annexation area is undeveloped, containing a few estate homes and a Mobile Home and RV Park. The Mobile Home and RV Park is located at 11819 Yosemite Boulevard on APN No. 080-003-040 and consists of forty-three (43) spaces available for occupancy, most of which are currently occupied.

9 | Page
The proposed annexation area is contiguous with the existing City limits along the eastern and southern boundary. It is bounded by Reinway Avenue to the east, SR 132 to the south, MID Main Canal and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west. Figure 1, Annexation Area Exhibit, illustrates the Proposed Project’s total annexation boundary. The proposed annexation area, including the lands proposed to be developed into single-family homes, allows for a logical boundary that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and adopted Sphere of Influence and does not create “islands.” In terms of the pre-zoning designation of each of the parcels described above, the table below depicts each parcel (identified by APN), its respective General Plan land use designation, followed by development assumptions based upon land use designations defined in the City’s General Plan.

Table 1 – Pre-Zone Designations and Development Assumptions APN No. Acres 2025 General Plan
Land Use
DesignaƟon
Pre-Zone
DesignaƟon
Development Capacity*
(# of residenƟal units)
080-003-012 4.93 Low Density
ResidenƟal (LD)
RS, ResidenƟal
Single
25 080-003-015 1.98 LD RS 10
080-003-034 5.12 LD RS 26
080-003-040 6.15 LD RS 43
(Space in the Shade Mobile
Home and RV Park
080-003-049 0.95 LD RS 5
080-003-050 19.13 LD PC 98
N/A (right-ofway, MID
Canal)

5.01 - - -
Total 43.27 - - 207
Notes:
*Development capacity is based upon average Density per 2025 General Plan LD land use designation: 5 dwelling units per gross acre.

As depicted above, development capacity within the proposed annexation area is assumed to be 207 single-family residential units, 43 of which exist within the Mobile Home and RV Park and 98 proposed as part of the Proposed Project. It is important to note that in terms of new development, 98 single-family residential units are proposed at this time.

APN No. 080-003-050 is proposed to be pre-zoned to Planned Community (PC) to allow for lot sizes below the minimum lot size requirement of the RS zone district. All other development standards, including setbacks, shall conform to the RS zone district for property within the PC zone district.

Figures 4 and 5 provide illustration of the existing and proposed zoning designations.

10 | Page
Tentative Subdivision Map
As noted previously, the Proposed Project also consists of a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the subdivision of approximately 19.2-acres into ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots and a parcel set aside for a sanitary sewer pump station. Sewer will be pumped through a six (6) inch force main south along N. Reinway Avenue approximately 2,470 feet to an existing manhole located at the intersection of N. Reinway Avenue and Washington Road.

Storm drainage runoff will be conveyed via a gravity system to the future storm drainage trunk main in N.

Eucalyptus Avenue. Stormwater will be discharged through a metering structure and overflow pipe to the existing twelve (12) inch storm drainage line in N. Reinway Avenue. The proposed discharge to N. Reinway Avenue will be metered to discharge at the pre-development flow condition so as not to inundate downstream stormwater systems. Stagnant water in the proposed pipe network will empty via underground percolation system along N. Eucalyptus Avenue implementing either a series of Drywells or French Drain system(s).

A looped water system will be installed in the proposed roadways. An eight (8) inch main will be installed in N. Eucalyptus Avenue along the Project frontage for future extension. The water system will have two (2) connection points to the existing water main within N. Reinway Avenue from the Project’s entrance, and through an easement on lots ninety (90) and ninety-three (93). A water line will be installed within the stub street to the north for future connection.

Physical development of the individual lots is not proposed at this time, but it can be assumed that future development within the Project site will conform to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including Section 17.20 General Residential Districts. Ultimately, the Proposed Project will consist of uses consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and specifically, permitted uses within the Residential Single (RS) Zone.

Typical lot size of new parcels created as part of the Proposed Project are approximately 6,000 square feet in size. Primary access to the Project site will be provided via N. Reinway Avenue, N. Eucalyptus Avenue, and proposed "Street A.”
Along the Proposed Project’s frontage, N. Eucalyptus Avenue will be improved as shown in the following cross section:

11 | Page
South of the Proposed Project’s frontage, and south of the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) canal, N.

Eucalyptus Avenue will be improved as shown in the following cross-section:

12 | Page
Figure 1 – Annexation Area Exhibit

13 | Page

11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will review and consider the annexation request included as part of the Proposed Project.

For any roadway or intersection improvements located at the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and State Highway 132, Encroachment Permits from Caltrans, District 10, will be required as long as the roadway/intersection work is located within Caltrans right-of-way.

12. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY AND CULTURALLY AFFILIATED

WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1?
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, notification letters were sent to tribal representatives of California Native American tribes that have requested to be notified of projects within the project area for the City of Waterford. Tribal representatives were advised of the Proposed Project and invited to request formal consultation with the City of Waterford regarding the Proposed Project within thirty (30) days of receiving the notification letters. On March 8, 2024, notification letters were sent to representatives of the following tribes – (1) Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
(2) Tule River Indian Tribe
(3) Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
(4) Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians
(5) Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
(6) Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe
(7) Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe
As of the preparation of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, more than thirty (30) days following the City’s transmittal of notification letters, no tribal representatives requested consultation. No tribal cultural resources have been identified associated with the Proposed Project site.

14 | Page
Figure 2 – Waterford Sphere of Influence

15 | Page
Figure 3 – Existing General Plan

16 | Page
Figure 4 – Existing Zoning

17 | Page
Figure 5 – Proposed Pre-Zoning

18 | Page
Figure 6 – Tentative Subdivision Map

19 | Page

13. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

20 | Page

14. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
________________________________________________________ Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager Date

21 | Page
SECTION 2.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

22 | Page
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

23 | Page

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

1. AESTHETICS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? Within the City of Waterford, most views are of the surrounding urban development. Much like other areas located within the San Joaquin Valley, surrounding views typically include agricultural and grazing lands interrupted by agricultural buildings and trees. Apart from views to the south of the Tuolumne River corridor, the Waterford area has been largely defined by its immediate agricultural surroundings. The Sierra Nevada Mountains may be visible from some parts of the built-up community and views of expansive agricultural fields are visible from the urban fringes of the City.

24 | Page
The Project site is similarly characterized by surrounding agricultural land uses while abutting existing residential development and is contiguous to public and semi-public uses, e.g., Waterford Unified School District school site. The Proposed Project would be a natural, uniform extension of the surrounding environment and due to the lack of scenic vistas and scenic resources in the vicinity, the Proposed Project would have minor impact on such resources. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Project site sits just outside of the city limits and functions as an almond orchard; the visual character of the area is a combination of non-urbanized and urbanized area. Urban development, including the recently constructed Edgewater subdivision, is within the Project’s immediate area. The addition of this Project would continue the urban growth of the west side of Waterford. Further, the Proposed Project would be conditioned to make improvements to public infrastructure thereby providing greater access to the area for general public access to the surrounding area. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Waterford’s General Plan Land Use designation and consistent with the city’s zoning for the area. The Proposed Project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
While exterior street lighting and lights from adjacent public/government and residential areas already exist near the Project site, development of the Proposed Project would create new sources of light typical of urban development found near the Project site. The new source of lighting generated by the Proposed Project would include lights from inside and outside homes, entrance lighting, accent lights and streetlights typical of single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed lighting would be directed, oriented, and shielded to prevent light from shining onto adjacent properties. Little to no light exists on the project site under current conditions as the site is utilized for agriculture. Once developed, new light sources will be similar to those of the surrounding uses and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Further, all future development under the Proposed Project would have to comply with Section 16.11.090 of the Waterford Municipal Code, which ensures that lighting improvements would be consistent with the City’s improvement standards and in compliance with the policies and procedures of the department of Public Works and the City Engineer. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

25 | Page

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

26 | Page
As discussed in the Project Description above, the Proposed Project is multifaceted consisting of an annexation, pre-zone, and a tentative subdivision map with a principal objective to allow for the development of ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots on a single parcel 19.2-acres in size, located in the northwest portion of Waterford’s Sphere of Influence. Due to the additional parcels included in the annexation component of the Proposed Project, there are varying types of land and soil types included within the bounds of the Proposed Project. The entirety of the proposed annexation area equals 43.27-acres in sum, while the area proposed for new development consists of the Project site to be subdivided and developed totals 19.2-acres in size.

According to the California Department of Conservation – 2020 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (Stanislaus County North), the farmland contained within the boundaries of the Proposed Project include Prime Farmland, Urban and Built-Up Land, Unique Farmland, and Rural Residential Land. A portion of the Proposed Project contains Prime Farmland.

The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluated the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. The Vision 2025 General Plan determined that while the conversion of this farmland to a non-agricultural use would be significant, it also determined that mitigation was not feasible, thereby concluding to a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The Proposed Project has been deemed to be consistent with the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan and therefore, this impact is considered to be consistent with findings of the Vision 2025 General Plan EIR.

However, the Proposed Project also consists of an annexation request to the City of Waterford.

Annexations are reviewed and considered by the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo. In 2019, the Stanislaus LAFCo Board amended Policy 22 – Agricultural Preservation Policy, which requires a Plan For Agricultural Preservation for annexation requests. Additionally, Policy 22 encourages the following:

1. Removal of agricultural lands from the existing sphere of influence in order to offset, in whole or in part, a proposed sphere of influence expansion or direction.

2. An adopted policy or condition requiring agricultural mitigation at a ratio of at least 1:1. This can be achieved by acquisition and dedication of agricultural land, development rights and/or conservation easements to permanently protect agricultural land, or payment of in-lieu fees to an established, qualified, mitigation program to fully fund the acquisition and maintenance of such agricultural land, development rights of easements, consistent with Section B-2 of Policy 22.

3. A voter approved urban growth boundary designed to limit the extent to which urban development can occur during a specified period of time.

As noted above, the Proposed Project will result in the loss of farmland, of which will be converted to a non-agricultural use. As such, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Mitigation Measure AG-1, provided in detail below, will require the Developer and/or Project Proponent to comply with Stanislaus LAFCO Policy 22 to mitigate impacts to the conversion of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use.

27 | Page
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Each parcel included in the Proposed Project has a current zoning designation of General AG 10 Acre (General Agriculture 10 Acre) within Stanislaus County. The Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will require the Plan Area be pre-zoned by the City of Waterford in conjunction with the proposed annexation. The City’s pre-zoning will follow the land use designation intent of the General Plan Land Use Map (Low-Density Residential), as such the site will be zoned Residential Single (RS) and Planned Community (PC) The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Waterford. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Proposed Project would result in the annexation of the Project site from Stanislaus County into the City of Waterford, prezoning the site for residential use. The City of Waterford General Plan has not designated the Project site or surrounding areas as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. The Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use at the site. With regard to loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, the Proposed Project would have No Impact.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The Project site is partially developed and partially within existing agricultural uses. The Proposed Project will convert farmland to a non-agricultural use, which is consistent with the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan. The land use designation of the Project site is Low Density Residential (LD) and the Vision 2025 General Plan contemplated urban development within the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:

28 | Page
Mitigation Measure Ag.--1: Prior to the filing of an annexation request to the Stanislaus LAFCo, the Developer and/or Project Proponent shall provide to the City of Waterford Planning Department a Plan for Agricultural Preservation which shall include written evidence of compliance with Stanislaus LAFCo Policy 22.

29 | Page

3. AIR QUALITY -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

REGULATORY SETTING
The Proposed Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which includes Stanislaus County, has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Air Basin.

The Federal and State governments have adopted ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for the primary air pollutants of concern, known as “criteria” air pollutants. Air quality is managed by the SJVAPCD to attain these standards. Primary standards are established to protect the public health; secondary standards are established to protect the public welfare. The attainment statuses of the SJVAB for Stanislaus County with respect to the applicable AAQS are shown in the table below.

The SJVAB is considered non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), because the AAQS for the pollutants are sometimes exceeded. The SJVAB is in Attainment/Unclassified for carbon monoxide, but select areas are required to abide by adopted carbon monoxide maintenance plans.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) through the Air Toxics Program is responsible for the identification and control of exposure to air toxics, and notification of people that are subject to significant air toxic exposure. A principal air toxic is diesel particulate matter, which is a component of diesel engine exhaust.

30 | Page
The SJVAPCD has adopted regulations establishing control over air pollutant emissions associated with land development and related activities. These regulations include:

Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules)
Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FEDERAL AND STATE

AAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Designation / Classification
Federal Standardsa State Standardsb
Ozone, 1-hour No Federal standardf Nonattainment / Severe Ozone, 8-hour Nonattainment / Extremee Nonattainment
PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment / Unclassified Attainment / Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment / Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment / Unclassified Attainment
Lead (particulate) No designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal standard Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles No Federal standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal standard Attainment
a
See 40 CFR Part 81
bSee CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c
On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to Attainment for the PM10 National AAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan
dThe Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009).
e
Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved reclassification of the Valley to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f
Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the Federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA has previously classified the SJV as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

The SJVAPCD has adopted a CEQA impact analysis guideline titled Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The GAMAQI is utilized in the following air quality impact analysis where applicable. The GAMAQI establishes impact significance thresholds for the non-attainment pollutant PM10 and precursors to the non-attainment pollutant ozone: reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

31 | Page
Pollutant/Precursor Construction Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Projects that do not generate emissions in excess of these thresholds are considered to have less than significant air quality impacts. Furthermore, within the GAMAQI, the SJVAPCD has established and outlined a three-tiered approach to determining significance related to a project’s quantified ozone precursor emissions. Each tier or level requires a different degree of complexity of emissions calculation and modeling to determine air quality significance. The three tiers established to date (from least significant to most significant) are: Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL), Cursory Analysis Level (CAL), and Full Analysis Level (FAL). In each of the tiers, the SJVAPCD has pre-calculated the emissions on a large number and types of projects to identify the level at which they have no possibility of exceeding the emissions thresholds. Table 1 of the GAMAQI, dated November 13, 2020, includes the threshold for single-family residential projects as resulting in less than 155 dwelling units and less than 800 Average Daily One-Way Trips for all fleet types (except Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT)).

In accordance with Table 1 of the GAMAQI, while the Proposed Project consists of ninety-eight (98) singlefamily dwelling units, well less than the established threshold of 155 dwelling units, the Proposed Project has been determined to exceed the 800 daily trips threshold required to qualify for Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL), as indicated in the Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared by Wood Rogers (990 daily trips for subdivision; 704 daily trips for annexation area).

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD) was used to estimate both construction and operational emissions from the Proposed Project. A detailed report of the complete CALEEMOD results is shown in Appendix A of this document. The table below shows the maximum project construction emissions in a calendar year, the annual operational emissions, and the SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds.

32 | Page
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds and Proposed Project Emissions ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

SJVAPCD
Significance
Threshold
10 10 100 27 15 15
Construction
Emissions

0.65 1.62 2.07 < 0.005 0.14 0.09
Above
Threshold?
No No No No No No
Operational
Emissions

1.64 0.79 5.77 0.04 1.11 0.39
Above
Threshold?
No No No No No No

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? SJVAPCD has attainment plans for ozone and particulate matter, while the State has a CO attainment plan. As indicated in the table above, construction and operational emissions will not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD significance threshold for any criteria pollutant.

Per the letter received from the SJVAPCD, dated January 5, 2024, regarding the Air Impact assessment, the District has determined that the Proposed Project’s mitigated baseline emissions for construction and operation will be less than two (2) tons of NOx per year and two (2) tons of PM10 per year. Further, the District has determined that the Proposed Project complies with the emission reduction requirements of Rule 9510, and, as such, is exempt from the general mitigation requirements and offsite emission reduction fees pursuant to District Rule 9510. Since the Proposed Project’s emissions are estimated to be well below the respective SJVAPCD significance thresholds, the Proposed Project will be consistent with the adopted reduction plans for ozone, particulate matter, and CO. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact related to air quality plans. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
The Proposed Project would not generate operational emissions above SJVAPCD established significance threshold; the significance thresholds are applied to evaluate regional impacts of projectspecific emissions of air pollutants. Regional impacts of a project can be characterized in terms of total annual emissions of criteria pollutants and their impact on SJVAPCD’s ability to reach attainment of criteria pollutant standards. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a considerable

33 | Page
contribution to a significant cumulative air quality impact in the Air Basin. Consequently, the Proposed Project impacts related to cumulative emissions will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive Receptors, as defined in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, include residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals (SJVAPCD March 2015). Potential sensitive receptors near the Proposed Project site include the single-family residences to the northeast and east, the populace of Richard M Moon Primary School and Lucille Whitehead Intermediate School to the south, as well as residents of the Space in the Shade Mobile Home Park to the south, and the ranch homes to the north and to the west. However, as noted, Project construction and operational emissions would be below SJVAPCD significance threshold for criteria pollutants. Further, implementation of applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations would further reduce the emissions that could potentially reach any potential sensitive receptors in proximity to the Proposed Project.

According to the CALEEMOD analysis for the Proposed Project, construction activities would generate approximately 198 pounds of exhaust PM2.5 for the estimated twelve-month construction period, or approximately 0.47 pounds per day. This amount is readily dissipated and likely would not be concentrated such that nearby sensitive receptors would be affected. Construction impacts would cease at the completion of the Proposed Project, and the length of time nearby properties experiencing exposure would be relatively short. Additionally, per the CALEEMOD analysis, Project operations would generate markedly less emissions. Consequently, neither Project construction nor Project operations would generate particulate matter emissions in quantities that would present a significant health risk to nearby properties. Further, assumptions utilized in the CALEEMOD analysis provided mitigation measures to curb the impact to surrounding receptors by limiting any heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling, and ensuring exposed surfaces are watered on a regular basis.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project will not be anticipated to result in an increase in exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of criteria pollutants that would exceed the relevant standards or thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
In part, the Proposed Project consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the subdivision of approximately 19.2 acres into ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots. As such, residential development typically does not generate substantial odors that would affect nearby land uses or a substantial number of people, nor would the Proposed Project generate substantial amounts of any other emissions such as TACs. The Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact related to odors or other emissions.

34 | Page
MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:

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

35 | Page

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

36 | Page
The following analysis is largely based upon a Biological Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants (Appendix B). The Biological Assessment evaluated the 19-acre proposed development site, or the boundary in which the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map has identified. For the remainder of the Project site, the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan and EIR were evaluated.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
For the Proposed Project, a Biological Assessment was completed by Moore Biological Consultants and as a part of the Biological Assessment, a field survey was conducted on January 12, 2023. The survey consisted of observations of surrounding land uses, general habitat types, and plant and wildlife species. Additionally, a search was conducted via California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2023). This information was used to identify wildlife and plant species that have been documented in the Project vicinity or which have the potential to occur based on suitable habitat and geographical distribution.

The Biological Assessment determined that the grasslands found were highly disturbed; tree species adjacent the Project site were primarily ornamental species used for landscaping; only common bird species were observed; due to lack of a suitable habitat, only common reptiles are expected to occur; no special-status plants were observed in the Project site. Intensive farming and surrounding development have substantially modified natural habitats in the Project vicinity. Further, the Project site does not provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and the trees found on-site are too small for nesting. There is no suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird in or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Finally, the Northern California legless lizard is not expected to occur in the Project site due to the presence of compacted soils from decades of orchard farming. In sum, the Project site is not hospitable for many different types of special species and due to a lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that specialstatus plants and special-status wildlife species occur in the Project site.

As noted above, the remainder of the Project site was not included as part of the Biological Assessment. As such, to determine potential impacts to biological resources, the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR was reviewed. A review of Page 109 of the Vision 2025 General Plan EIR states, “As part of the city’s development review program, individual development projects are typically required to prepare biological studies to evaluate the project’s impact on biological resources. As a result of these studies, specific project level mitigation measures are required as part of the project’s conditions of approval. Detailed development project impacts cannot be determined at this “policy level” document until specific development proposals are available for review.”

37 | Page
Based on a review of the Biological Assessment and the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The specific mitigation measures are provided below.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (b) and (c):
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Jurisdictional wetlands are vegetated areas that meet specific vegetation, soil, and hydrological criteria defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These wetlands include, but are not limited to, perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, springs, emergent marshes, riparian wetlands and seasonal wetlands. Wetlands provide critical habitat components, such as nest sites and reliable sources of water for a wide variety of wildlife species. There exists no potential wetlands or areas in the Project site that meet the technical criteria of wetlands (i.e., presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology).

The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) concrete-lined lateral situated just south of the site is considered a potential jurisdictional Water of the U.S. due to its hydrologic connectivity with the Tuolumne River.

However, this lateral is outside of the Project site boundary and will not be impacted or disturbed by the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The Project site may have provided habitat for wildlife species of some kind at some time in the past; however, intensive farming and surrounding development have substantially modified the natural habitat in the greater Project vicinity. The on-site habitats which do exist are biologically unremarkable. For example, there are no riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, wildlife movement corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites in the Project area.

Due to a lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special-status wildlife species will occur in the Project site. For example, Swainson’s Hawk and other special-status birds are not expected to nest in the Project site due to the small size of the orchard trees and ongoing disturbance from agricultural activities. Further, the Project site is not in a designated critical habitat of federally listed species.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

38 | Page
As previously discussed, the Project site presently functions as an almond orchard, so there exist numerous trees on the Project site. Although the Project site currently sits outside the city limits, the Project site will be annexed into the City of Waterford. Consequently, upon annexation, the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the regulations and standards spelled out in the City of Waterford’s Tree Ordinance, found in the Waterford Municipal Code, Chapter 12.20 – Trees, as it relates to the removal and replacement of trees. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan as none currently exists within the City of Waterford. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

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

Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Pre-construction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawks within 0.25 miles of the Project site are conservatively recommended if construction commences between March 1 and September 15. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist should determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction using criteria set forth by CDFW (CDFG, 1994) and the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHTAC, 2000).

Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Trees in the site could be used by birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 or Fish and Game Coder of California. If vegetation removal or construction commences during the general avian nesting season (March 1 through July 31), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds is recommended. If active nests are found, work in the vicinity of the nests should be delayed until the young fledge.

Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Prior to the approval of any development project within the Project site that does not include the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, the Developer and/or Project Proponent shall prepare a Biological Assessment. This Biological Assessment shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department for their review and evaluation of said development project.

39 | Page

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
The Project site is not known to contain any historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to a review of the California Office of Historic Preservation (www.ohp.parks.ca.gov) that are no structures identified on either the National Register or State Register of Historic Places near or on the Project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (b) and (c):
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Although there are no formal cemeteries or Native American burial grounds known to exist on or near the Project site, there is a potential that construction activities could inadvertently disturb or uncover human remains. The City of Waterford’s Vision 2025 General Plan Update Program EIR echoes this sentiment by acknowledging the potential for damaging or disturbing cultural resources as open land is developed. In accordance with State Law and Policy SD-2.1b of the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan, in the event of an inadvertent discovery of previously unknown archaeological sites during excavation or construction, all construction affecting the Project site shall cease and the contractor shall contact the appropriate agency.

The Stanislaus County Coroner shall be notified, and the Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American or otherwise. If Native American human remains are discovered, the

40 | Page
City shall work with local Native American representatives to ensure that the remains and any associated artifact(s) are treated in a respectful and dignified manner. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

41 | Page

6. ENERGY -- Would the project:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of build out of the Proposed Project. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod Model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by construction of the Proposed Project was also estimated.

Trips generated by the Proposed Project include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the construction associated with the Proposed Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB 2017 Emissions Factors model.

California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five (5) minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction vehicles and equipment.

In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of construction associated with the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 859,890 kilowatthours and 1,656,299 therms of natural gas*. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Energy Code regulating energy efficiency of homes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact.
* Emissions for the Proposed Project were calculated using the CalEEMod Output files Version 2022.1.1.23. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

42 | Page
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

43 | Page

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a.1, a.2, a.3 and a.4):

44 | Page
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Based on a review of the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, the City of Waterford is not located within an earthquake fault zone, as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (California Geological Survey 2008) and the Project site is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. Further, the Proposed Project is not located within the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults located in the immediate area. The nearest active fault is the Ortigalita fault in the western portion of Stanislaus County, which is approximately 30 miles west of the City of Waterford. The last known activity from the Ortigalita Fault was approximately more than 10,000 years ago.

Although there are no specific liquefaction hazard areas identified in the City of Waterford, the potential for liquefaction is recognized in the Waterford General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified within the City of Waterford, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

Using the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils located within the Project site to be subdivided and developed consist of Hanford fine sandy loam and Madera sandy loam, which are considered well-drained and moderately well drained soils respectively. These represent a low risk for liquefaction and a low risk of seismic-related ground failure.

Lastly, landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project site is located in a general area where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. The existing conditions, when considered individually and in conjunction with one another, clearly illustrate that the Proposed Project, directly or indirectly, will not cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The potential for grading and earth moving activities during construction resulting in erosion or the loss of topsoil could be a potentially significant impact. Exposed soils entrained in stormwater runoff

45 | Page
and transported off the Project site can be potentially significant. Per the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, soil erosion from water runoff is minimal due to the relatively flat terrain of the Project site and surrounding vicinity. However, if precautions are not taken or preventative measures are not in place, soil can be lost due to wind erosion. The Proposed Project is required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as well as implementation of Best Management Practices related to stormwater runoff. As a result, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The topography of the Proposed Project area is relatively flat, with little to no slope. On or off-site landslide potential is minimal. As a Standard Condition of Approval, the Project Proponent will be required to prepare and submit a Geotechnical Report as part of the Improvement Plan and Final Map process. The Geotechnical Report will include analysis of the site and provide recommendations for the structures proposed as part of the buildout of the Proposed Project. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Based on an examination of the Soils Maps found on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website (https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) the Proposed Project features Hanford Fine Sandy Loam (HbA) and Madera Sandy Loam (MdA). According to the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, concentrations of expansive soils are known to exist in the developable area of the City and its urban expansion area. Implementation of the Uniform Building Code reduces the risk of buildings or structures on expansive soils to a less than significant level. The Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code as well as the California Building Code.

As a result of the soil conditions found on the project site in conjunction with adherence to both the Uniform and California Building Code, risk to life or property is not substantial. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Proposed Project will not be installing septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system.

Rather, the Proposed Project will connect to the City of Waterford’s domestic wastewater system and will be served by City sewer infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

46 | Page
According to the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, due to the nature of the area in and around the City of Waterford, it is not likely that any paleontological resources exist in the Project site or surrounding area. There are no unique geologic features within the City’s urban area or the urban expansion area. However, the 2016 Stanislaus County General Plan Draft EIR (Figure 3.6-5 General Paleontological Sensitivity Map of Stanislaus County) identifies the City of Waterford in a high paleontological sensitivity zone. Therefore, it is possible that paleontological resources could be accidentally discovered during excavations or other related construction activities associated with development of the Project site. Directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological site is considered a significant, adverse environmental impact and must be avoided. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

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

Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Should paleontological resources be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, and a final report. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Waterford for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

47 | Page

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

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

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

By 2025, when rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, the governor issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA]). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) (CalEPA 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty

48 | Page
truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. In April 2015 the governor issued EO B-30-15, calling for a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
A consequence of the Proposed Project will be the generation of short-term and long-term Greenhouse Gas emissions. In the short-term, construction related activities will be the main driver of GHG emissions through site preparation, grading, heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling, and motor vehicles going to and from the project site. The level of emissions resulting from construction activities will vary day-to-day dependent on the level of intensity each day.

Although not originally intended to reduce GHGs, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with recognition that energy efficient buildings require less

50 | Page
electricity and reduce fuel consumption, which in turn decreases GHG emissions. The current Title 24 standards were adopted in response to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 32. Specifically, new development projects within California, after January 1, 2011, are subject to mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). As such, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with any plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Waterford’s General Plan Goals and Policies which ensure compliance with the emission reduction strategies employed by the City of Waterford, which by default, support City-wide efforts to meet statewide emission reduction goals consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

51 | Page

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

52 | Page
The Proposed Project is primarily centered around the development and subdivision of 19.2-acres into a ninety-eight (98) residential lot subdivision. The residential development will not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction may include the use of hazardous materials given that construction activities involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses marginal amounts of oils and fuels and other potentially flammable substances. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials used during construction. Should the release of hazardous materials occur, or if hazardous materials need to be used, transported, or disposed of, the Project Proponent must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to hazardous materials.

The operational phase of the Proposed Project will be made up of residential uses. The types of hazardous materials that would be associated with the Proposed Project are those typical of residential developments: household cleaners, landscape maintenance, soaps, pesticides, etc. It is not expected that the Proposed Project would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials other than those typical of residential uses and such materials would not be of the type or quantity that would pose a significant hazard to the Public.

A potential accidental release of standard fuels, solvents, or other chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision is always a possibility. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the Proposed Project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The Project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing school, the Waterford Unified School District’s Richard M. Moon Primary School. However, as discussed previously, the Proposed Project includes the development of ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots. Thus, the Proposed Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Proposed Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code §65962.5. A review of the State hazardous material

53 | Page
site databases* found one record near the project site: Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site—Ashlock Farms, 509 N. Reinway; case reported 7/30/1992 and closed 7/10/1996.

An online search was also conducted on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) website.

It was discovered that there was one record found: Richard Moon Elementary School. The eight-acre site is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing Richard Moon Elementary School.

The site was historically used for agricultural purposes, including an orchard from at least 1957 through to 1980, and row crops from the late 1980s. Three structures were located in the southeastern portion of the subject site. The site was investigated for CAM-17 metals, organo-chlorine pesticides, and PCBs. Due to the date of construction of the on-site structures, the site was also investigated for lead impacted soils from the potential leaching of lead-based paint application(s).

Investigation activities identified the presence of elevated levels of lead as high as 316 mg/kg in the area of the northeast structure. A Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) was developed to evaluate the elevated levels of lead. The SSI found no additional soil samples with lead above the DTSC screening level of 255 mg/kg. On November 3, 2005, DTSC approved the Supplemental Site Investigation report with a no further action determination. As a result of existing conditions in concert with the DTSC SSI report, the Proposed Project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment; therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
In order to determine if the Proposed Project is within an airport land use plan, the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Stanislaus County ALUCP, 2016) was consulted. The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of any private or public airport and the Project site is not within two (2) miles of the Stanislaus County Modesto City-County Airport, which is the closest airport to the Project site, located 10.4 miles to the west. As a result, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (f) and (g):
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Included in the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan are Goals and Policies for the City to maintain the Emergency Operations Plan in accordance with State and Federal rule and regulations. The purpose of the Emergency Operations Plan is to provide emergency planning/organization and response. The document deals with emergency management, law enforcement, traffic control, fire, medical, rescue, * https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0609900380

54 | Page
radiological material, and shelter. The implementation of the Proposed Project will not interfere with these Plans and the Proposed Project would be required to keep emergency routes free of traffic impediments resulting from project construction and operation. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies; the project would undergo review by the City’s Building and Fire authorities to ensure construction plans for roadway modifications and to establish the proposed roadways and driveways meet all ordinance and California Building Code requirements for emergency access.

The public roadway system, owned and maintained by the city, is critical for providing emergency access and evacuation to and through the city. The Proposed Project would not prevent or inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities.

The Proposed Project will make improvements to the existing infrastructure including N. Eucalyptus Avenue which will be widened to accommodate a portion of the future 92-foot wide right of way per the City’s General Plan. Further, N. Reinway Avenue will be widened to 60 feet along the Proposed Project frontage to complete the ultimate section of the roadway.

The Project site currently operates as an almond orchard with varied uses neighboring the property including single-family residential properties to the east and northeast, Public uses to the south; the neighboring properties to the north and west are used for agriculture purposes some with existing estate homes. The Valley’s long, dry summers and extensive vegetation make for a fire season that extends from late spring to early fall. Irrigated agricultural land, however, is less susceptible to wildland fires than grazing areas. Although the Proposed Project would not create a huge risk of wildland fire given the existing agriculture use, the Project will add ninety-eight (98) new single-family dwellings. The current Project site would be developed and would increase demand for fire protection services.

The Proposed Project, and other projects that are undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the policies and standards of the City of Waterford General Plan, and that comply with all appropriate federal, state and local Uniform Building Code (UBC) construction, Uniform Fire Code (UFC), OSHA or State Department of Health Services regulations will not result in the creation of a significant adverse physical impact from hazardous conditions in the City of Waterford. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

55 | Page

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

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

X
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion
or siltation; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

56 | Page
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would cause disturbance of soil during excavation work, which could adversely affect water quality. Contaminants from construction vehicles, equipment, and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters during development. Any construction related activities, not limited to grading, which would result in the disturbance of one (1) acre or more would require compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity.

The 19.2-acre site of the Proposed Project to be subdivided would be subject to the provisions of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts on surface water quality through the Project construction phase. Also, new development is required to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize grading and control runoff, which pollutes storm drains and can eventually lead to the pollution of groundwater sources.

Operation of the Proposed Project could also be a source of various stormwater pollutants. Pollutants associated with the proposed residential development may include those associated with vehicle parking and landscaping, not limited to oil and grease, but also organic compounds such as pesticides, trash and debris.

In an effort to minimize the impact to water quality, the Proposed Project would be required to include Low-Impact Development (LID) design measures and a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan must be prepared to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained and funded for the life of the Proposed Project. Finally, the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan Goals and Policies, the Waterford Municipal Code, and adopted sewer, wastewater treatment, water and storm drain master plans. As a result, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Groundwater is a primary source of water used to supply water throughout the state of California— approximately 30% of total agricultural and urban use. This water supply strategy has worked fairly well over the last 100 years for many Central Valley communities because it has been able to meet water needs at relatively low capital and operational costs. Unfortunately, over time, this has led to declining groundwater tables. While the state of California has taken action to overt unsustainable groundwater pumping and the county of Stanislaus has acted by limiting the number of new wells being constructed in non-incorporated areas, greater management of groundwater is required. To that aim, the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) is the management entity for the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin. Because the City of Waterford sits within the Modesto Subbasin, the City of Waterford is now participating in the STRGBA, and the City will continue participation in the STRGBA to effectively manage their groundwater. Additionally, the City of Waterford has prepared and must maintain an Urban Water Management Plan; the plan reflects

57 | Page
the urban growth area of the City and has identified the future water resources necessary to support that growth. A Water System Master Plan has also been prepared for the City that identifies the strategy for developing these water resources as the population of the City continues its growth towards the Urban Expansion Area.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the population for the City of Waterford in 2022 was 9,335 people and had an average of 3.78 persons per household. Per the City of Waterford, the estimated water consumption for the Proposed Project would be approximately 78,400 gallons per day; this would result in approximately 87.82-acre feet per year for the Proposed Project.

The City of Waterford relies on groundwater exclusively; the City does not currently use surface water as a resource. The City owns and operates six (6) water production wells, with an additional two (2) in the River Pointe system. The total production capacity for the systems is 2,875 GPM and 1,800 GPM, respectively.

The Waterford region is situated on a large underground aquifer; ground water in the area recharges from deep percolation rainfall and irrigation water, seepage from the rivers, underflow from the Sierra Nevada foothills, and upward flow from the formations that underlie the Mehrten Formations.

According to the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan EIR, total average withdrawals from the groundwater basin is about 313,000 acre-feet per year and the average total recharge, likewise, is about 313,000 acre-feet per year. Overall, the Modesto groundwater basin is in a quasi-equilibrium state according to the River Ranch Project Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts.

Although the Proposed Project would utilize ground water for domestic purposes, the amount of water used is not considered significant and would not substantially lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer. Additionally, the Proposed Project would pay its fair share of installation of improvements and pay all development fees related to water service. The Proposed Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the subbasin. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

58 | Page
The Project site is located approximately one (1) mile north of the Tuolumne River; no alteration of a stream or river is proposed. Thus, the Proposed Project will not alter the course of any stream or river.

The Proposed Project will be required to adhere to construction and operation-phase stormwater requirements via a SWPPP and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) and would ensure that development of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. There the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Proposed Project is not located adjacent to the ocean or other large body of water; the city of Waterford is not at risk from tsunami due to its inland location. The project site, therefore, is not susceptible to flooding or seiches, and as a result, the Proposed Project would not result in a risk of pollutant release during a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche event. Therefore, the project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Ther Proposed Project is consistent with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Proposed Project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management.

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

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

59 | Page

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Proposed Project is located adjacent to the City of Waterford City Limits and includes development of residential uses, similar to the uses found east, northeast and southeast of the Project site. To the west of the Project site exists agricultural land. The Proposed Project will not physically divide any of the established, surrounding communities and uses and the Proposed Project will construct roadways that are publicly accessible. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Proposed Project would not conflict with or cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Proposed Project is centered around subdividing and developing a ninetyeight (98) single-family residential, low-density residential subdivision on an approximately 19.2-acre Project site in addition to the annexation of 43.27-acres within the City’s SOI. The City of Waterford’s Vision 2025 General Plan land use diagram designates the Project site as Low-Density Residential.

Properties within the Project site will carry prezoning designations consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. The Proposed Project will not conflict with any City of Waterford General Plan policy; therefore, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation since it would be consistent with land use designation standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

60 | Page

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

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Due to the fact that there are no mineral resources in the region of commercial value, there are no lands designated on the City of Waterford’s General Plan Land Use Map for mineral resource recovery.

Further, based on a review of the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan, the Proposed Project is not located within a site known to contain mineral resources of regional or statewide value, nor is it located on a mineral resource recovery site. The Proposed Project site and surrounding area are absent of any mineral extraction activities. Public Resources Code Section 2762(a) requires that local governments establish mineral resource management policies within their General Plan if any mineral resources of statewide or regional significance are designated within their jurisdiction. According to the City of Waterford’s Vision 2025 General Plan, no such areas have been designated or established within the City of Waterford. As a result, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

61 | Page

13. NOISE -- WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Development of the Proposed Project will result in a periodic increase of ambient noise levels, primarily due to the activity of construction and the use of construction equipment. However, as a Standard Condition of Approval, construction activities as part of the Proposed Project must occur between the times established by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.22 of the Waterford Municipal Code). Further, ambient noise originating from construction activities will be diminished upon completion of the Proposed Project construction phase. Additionally, residential developments do not typically generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels.

Further, the Vision 2025 General Plan Noise Element establishes noise level standards within the City of Waterford. Noise levels within the Project site will increase by the addition of new residents of the Proposed Project; however, the Proposed Project and the operational phase will be required to comply with these noise level standards, and therefore, will not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

62 | Page
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, and is not located within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

63 | Page

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in one area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project consists of the mapping and development of ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots on land that would be annexed into the City as a part of the Proposed Project. Per the City’s 2014-2023 Housing Element of its Vision 2025 General Plan, the average household size is approximately 3.52 persons per household. As such, the Proposed Project will result in a population increase of approximately 729 residents. The City of Waterford’s current population (2023) is 9,042 residents
. Thus, an increase of 729 residents, because of the Proposed Project, represents just over an eight (8) percent increase to the City’s overall population and does not represent a substantial inducement of population growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Project site's existing land use is row crops with irrigation structures traversing the property from east to west and the Project site to be developed surrounds an existing homesite on the north, south, and west. This existing home and homesite will not be displaced. The Proposed Project will develop ninety-eight (98) single-family residential lots and thus would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

dof.ca.gov

64 | Page
MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

65 | Page

15. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:

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

a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection?

Fire protection in the City of Waterford is contracted through and provided by Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (SCFPD). The Waterford SCFPD Station 24 is located at 129 E Street in downtown Waterford. This station is 7,600 sq. ft. and was built in 2017. This station houses one (1) Type 1 (one) Engine, one (1) Type 3 (three) Brush Rig, one (1) water rescue boat, and one (1) OES Type 1 (one) Engine. This station’s water rescue boat covers Modesto reservoir, Turlock lake, and a large portion of the Tuolumne river. The station is staffed around the clock, 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week with three (3) full-time personnel. While the City of Waterford’s General Plan expresses some concern of maintaining adequate response time at full buildout, the marginal growth resulting from the Proposed Project would not hinder nor cause significant impacts to Fire protection, service, or response times. In addition, the Proposed Project will pay the applicable impact fees and special assessments required by the SCFPD at the time of Building Permit issuance. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

66 | Page
b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection? The Project site is located within the City’s Primary Sphere of Influence and will be annexed into the City of Waterford. In July of 1998, the City of Waterford entered into an agreement with the County of Stanislaus to provide law enforcement services for the City of Waterford; Waterford Police Department became Waterford Police Services. Both full-time and extra-help employees of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department staff Waterford’s Police Services. Of the eleven (11) positions assigned to the City of Waterford, one (1) sergeant, seven (7) Deputy Sheriffs, and two (2) administrative positions are fully funded by the City. The Waterford Police Services station is located at 115 E Street, approximately 1.25 miles east of the Project site. While the Proposed Project may result in the need for additional police staff, the Waterford Police Services facility is adequate in size to accommodate additional officers, and within a distance that would allow the Sheriff’s Department to maintain acceptable response times. The Proposed Project will not warrant the need for new or physically altered police facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios and meet performance objectives. Further, as a standard Condition of Approval, the Proposed Project will be required to pay the applicable Capital Facilities Fees (CFF) which includes a specific allocation for Police services; payment of these fees are intended to offset or mitigate any impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? The Waterford Unified School District (WUSD) is a Pre-K-12 district made up of five (5) schools with a TK-12 enrollment of around 1,840 students. WUSD has a broad scope of education offerings, from Preschool through Adult Education, and is the regional provider of Special Education grade seven (7) through adult. WUSD is home to Sentinel High School, a continuation school that provides students the opportunity to recover credits to complete their graduation requirements. The Sentinel office also manages the Waterford Adult Education Center, which offers a variety of career and technical training. Further, WUSD sponsors Connecting Water Charter School, a home school charter serving 2,100 students in a seven-county geographical region.

According to the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan, the City has limited jurisdiction with respect to the location decisions of the local school districts; however, the City is committed to supporting school districts in their efforts to expand facilities to meet growth demands. As part of the general plan and annexation process, the WUSD has prepared a comprehensive master plan in order to determine the projected district need for new facilities. The school district has identified the need for an additional seven (7) or eight (8) schools based on a forecast population of 30,000. Given the City’s current population in conjunction with the Proposed Project, ultimately resulting in the construction of

67 | Page
ninety-eight (98) new single-family residences, an incremental increase in population will occur. This result could impact demand for school services within the WUSD. Based on this increase, the Proposed Project was referred to the WUSD for review and comment. On May 14, 2024, the WUSD provided the City with a letter summarizing their review of the Proposed Project. The WUSD stated that the Proposed Project would affect the WUSD and said impacts would need to be mitigated through the payment of State mandated impact fees. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, it is standard protocol for the City to require written documentation that said school impact fees have been paid.

As provided in the Government Code, payment of these fees constitutes adequate mitigation of impacts to the provision of school facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? The Proposed Project will result in a new residential subdivision and result in an increase in population. As a new subdivision, the Proposed Project is subject to the payment of CFFs and the Quimby Act. Thus, to offset any potential impacts, the Proposed Project shall be subject to Park Facility Impact Fees and the Quimby Act, whose funding goes towards the acquisition and development of park space. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? The marginal population increase generated by the Proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in use of public facilities; this impact would be negligible. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

68 | Page

16. RECREATION -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Development of the Proposed Project will increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. As a result, the Proposed Project will be required to contribute Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) funds. These CFF funds will be used to develop park facilities that meet the City’s park standards. The Proposed Project does not require the construction of recreational facilities. Thus, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

69 | Page

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
The following analysis is based upon review of the Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared by Wood Rodgers. For more detail, refer to Appendix D of this Initial Study.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The City of Waterford’s Vision 2025 General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element states that all major intersections should maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better for two-hour peak periods (AM and PM). The Transportation Impact Study referenced above analyzed the Proposed Project’s impact to LOS at the following intersections:
x North Reinway Avenue and Primary School Ingress Driveway; x North Reinway Avenue and Pecan Avenue;
x North Reinway Avenue and Primary School Egress Driveway; x North Reinway Avenue and Yosemite Boulevard; and,
x Eucalyptus Avenue and Yosemite Boulevard.

Table 4-2 of the Transportation Impact Study concluded that the Proposed Project would result in LOS D or better at all of the above intersections and is therefore consistent with the Vision 2025 General Plan LOS standard.

70 | Page
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The following is based upon a review of Section 8.3 of the Transportation Impact Study.

The estimated Project Study Area VMT of 47.7 VMT per resident is approximately 15% lower than the Replica data based existing average baseline City VMT of 47.8 VMT per resident. In addition, the Project is consistent with existing land uses in the Project Study Area and would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area.

The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance states that typically, a Project may be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if the Project site’s VMT per resident is at least 15% below the City or regional average. However, the OPR Technical Advisory also states that in more rural areas, VMT significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis, and clustered small town/city development may have substantial VMT benefits comparted to isolated rural development.

Due to the relatively rural nature of the Project area, small geographic footprint of the City, and lack of transit and multi-modal facilities, it is likely infeasible for new development within the City to meet the 15% below average threshold. As such, reasonable expectations for new development within the City would be to not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. As noted above, the Proposed Project does not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident and will therefore have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Proposed Project will include roadway and intersection improvements, particularly to Eucalyptus Avenue, in accordance with City standards and specifications. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project has been reviewed by Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (District) and no comments were provided. The Proposed Project provides access to North Reinway Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue. In addition, as new development occurs within the proposed annexation area, these developments will be reviewed by the District to ensure adequate emergency access is being provided. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

71 | Page

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:

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

72 | Page
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a significant adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) consider the value of a resource to tribal cultural tradition, heritage, and identity to establish potential mitigation options for TCRs, and to recognize that California Native American tribes have expertise concerning their tribal history and tribal practices.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires lead agencies to conduct formal consultations with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to identify TRCs that may be subject to significant impacts by a project. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss the impact and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation

73 | Page
measures could avoid or substantially lessen the impact. This consultation requirement applies only if the tribes have sent written requests for notification of projects to lead agencies.

While the City of Waterford has not received any written request for notification of projects in accordance with AB 52, the City of Waterford provided a notice of the Proposed Project pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 to seven (7) separate Tribes who have been identified as possible interested parties by the Native American Heritage Commission. On March 6, 2024, the City of Waterford sent letters to the following:
(1) Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
(2) Tule River Indian Tribe
(3) Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
(4) Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians
(5) Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
(6) Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe
(7) Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe
To date, no Tribes have responded with a request for consultation or with any Project related comments. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

74 | Page

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

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Proposed Project will be within the City limits upon annexation, and will be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. For the lands proposed to be developed under the proposed TSM, a looped water system will be installed and an eight (8) inch main will be installed in N. Eucalyptus. The looped system will also connect to the existing water main located in

75 | Page
N. Reinway Avenue. Wastewater will be conveyed via a gravity system within the Proposed Project along with a wastewater pump station located in Lot A. Wastewater will be pumped through a six (6) inch force main south to N. Reinway Avenue approximately 2,470 linear feet to an existing manhole located at the intersection of N. Reinway Avenue and Washington Road. The Proposed Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? It is estimated that the Proposed Project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project site presently and on into the future upon connecting to City services. It is also anticipated that the City of Waterford will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing resources. According to the City of Waterford’s Water Master Plan (April 2016), current population capacity of the water system will sufficiently meet current demands until additional storage and conservation are implemented. As noted above, the increase in population resulting from the Proposed Project will not result in exceeding the City’s water capacity nor require additional water supply outside of which is already provided to the City of Waterford. As a result, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Per the City’s Municipal Service Review (July 2007), the City of Waterford’s wastewater treatment system currently operates and maintains a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system with a capacity of one million gallons per day (mgd). The Proposed Project is not expected to exceed the capacity of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Any future improvements to the City’s existing facilities that are required as a result of the new development will be funded from applicable fees and charges as a result of new construction. The Project Proponent will be required to pay the fees and charges at the time the proposed residences connect to the sewer system.

For the Proposed Project, sewer will be conveyed via a new gravity system within the proposed streets to a sanitary sewer pump station which will be located on Lot A. Sewer will be pumped through a six (6) inch force main south to north Reinway Avenue approximately 2,470 feet to an existing manhole located at the intersection of north Reinway Avenue and Washington Road. As a result, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (d) and (e):
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

76 | Page
e. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The City of Waterford is served by the Stanislaus County Solid Waste facility, Fink Road Sanitary Landfill, for solid waste disposal services. As a result, solid waste generated by the Proposed Project will be collected and transported to the County Solid Waste facility for processing. The complex is located at 400 Fink Road, Crows Land, CA and is a 219-acre disposal site. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Project will have a significant impact as it relates to the capacity of the County Solid Waste facility. Further, the Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste and would not cause waste providers to be out of compliance with applicable statues and regulations. As such, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

77 | Page

20. WILDFIRE -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a), (b), (c), and (d):
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Would the project require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Proposed Project and Project site are not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CalFire). The Proposed Project will result in the construction of a new ninety-eight (98) lot subdivision to be annexed into the City of

78 | Page
Waterford. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfires nor exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

Mitigation is not required for this topic.

79 | Page

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

IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Proposed Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts due to implementation of the Proposed Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in this analysis. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.

80 | Page
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in the connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.

The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Proposed Project, in part, would include the development of a new residential subdivision and associated infrastructure to connect the subdivision to the City of Waterford. The Project site was anticipated for urbanization with the development of the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into the Proposed Project’s design. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Proposed Project would have a less than substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

81 | Page

REFERENCES
In accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following expert opinion, technical studies, and substantial evidence has been referenced and/or cited in the discussion included in the Initial Study Checklist:
- City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated June 21, 2007.
- City of Waterford Municipal Code, Title 17 (Zoning).
- CalEEMod Results, dated May 20, 2024.
- Waterford Development Project Biological Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants.
- Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared by Wood Rodgers.
- Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance.
- California Department of Conservation 2020 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. - San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Letter, dated January 5, 0224. - United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website and soils maps. - Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission Plan, dated 2016.

82 | Page
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results

83 | Page
Appendix B
Waterford Development Project Biological Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants

$4&+

46(9$46$+0;
$/,)241,$$1'(8(/230(16

$16$
25$4,8(
25$625

! <#

($46(9$46
+$1.;27)24$5.,1*224(,2/2*,&$/2157/6$1656234(3$4($,2/2*,&$/ 55(550(16)246+,5342-(&6,1#$6(4)24',16$1,5/$752716;$/,)241,$ ,*74(5 $1'
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

+(342325('342-(&6,5$
/264(5,'(16,$/57%',8,5,2166$&+0(16&&(55
626+(5,6(9,//%()420246+7&$/;36758(17(216+(9(56('*(2)6+(5,6($1' 246+
(,19$;8(17(216+(($56('*(2)6+(5,6(#$6(4$1'5(9(45(48,&(5 9,//%(3428,'('%;6+(,6;2)#$6(4)24' +(342-(&69,//$/526,(,1626+(,6;>5 (:,56,1*56240'4$,15;56(0

"
!

. 02 1,000 ,000
Figure 2
Map Date: 11/09/2022
USGS
C:\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Fahmy Subdivision\MXD\fahmy_subdivision_usgs_figure_2.mxd City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
:DWHUIRUG'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFW
Moore Biological
Consultants
Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangles

WATERFORD, CA
Section: 29
Township: 03S
Range: 11E
^_
Study Area
Project Site

Waterford Development Project: Biology 4 March 15, 2023

,741:=94,0;,=?809?:14>3,9/*47/7410J>*,741:=94,!,?@=,74A0=>4?D ,?,-,>0!

B,>>0,=.30/;=4:=?:?301407/>@=A0D'30!
>0,=.349.7@/0/?30(&&
849@?0*,?0=1:=/#,@7>07709,4=,9/
:9?;0740=?:;:2=,;34.<@,/=,9270>B34.309.:8;,>>,;;=:C48,?07D

><@,=08470>>@==:@9/492?30>4?0'30(94?0/&?,?0>4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0 (&*&
#,'=@>?%0;:=?:10/0=,77D'3=0,?090/,9/9/,920=0/>;0.40> ?3,?8,D:..@=49:=-0,110.?0/-D;=:50.?>49?30;=:50.?J>20:2=,;34.,7,=0, B,>,7>:=0A40B0/??,.3809?'34>491:=8,?4:9B,>@>0/?:4/09?41DB47/7410 ,9/;7,9?>;0.40>?3,?3,A0-009/:.@809?0/49?30;=:50.?A4.494?D:=3,A0?30 ;:?09?4,7?::..@=-,>0/:9>@4?,-703,-4?,?,9/20:2=,;34.,7/4>?=4-@?4:9*0 ,7>:=0A40B0/(&*&:974908,;>:1/0>429,?0/.=4?4.,73,-4?,? 1407/>@=A0DB,>.:9/@.?0/:9
,9@,=D

'30>@=A0D.:9>4>?0/:1
B,76492?3=:@23:@??30>4?08,6492:->0=A,?4:9>:1>4?0.:9/4?4:9>,9/9:?492 >@==:@9/4927,9/@>02090=,73,-4?,??D;0>,9/;7,9?,9/B47/7410>;0.40>'30 >@=A0D49.7@/0/,9,>>0>>809?:1?30>4?01:=?30;=0>09.0:=,->09.0:1 ;:?09?4,77D5@=4>/4.?4:9,7*,?0=>:1?30(&,?0=8?3,?49.7@/0>B0?7,9/>,> /01490/-D?30(&=8D:=;>:1924900=>" >;0.4,7>?,?@>
>;0.40>,9/>@4?,-703,-4?,?1:=>;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40>02-7@007/0=-0==D >3=@->A0=9,7;::7>//4?4:9,77D?=00>49,9/90,=?30>4?0B0=0,>>0>>0/1:= ?30;:?09?4,7@>0-D90>?492=,;?:=>0>;0.4,77D&B,49>:9J>3,B6)(# '+
"'#"
'30>4?0B,>,7>:>0,=.30/1:=-@==:B492:B7>(
")"
) &

:=2=:@9/><@4==07-@==:B>?3,?.:@7/-0@?474E0/-D-@==:B492:B7>

&

'30;=:50.?>4?04>49*,?0=1:=/49&?,94>7,@>:@9?D ,741:=94,42@=0 '30>4?04>49&0.?4:9
49':B9>34;
&:@?3%,920
,>?:1?30(&&
849@?0*,?0=1:=/?:;:2=,;34.<@,/=,927042@=0
'30
>4?04>70A07,9/,?,9070A,?4:9:1,;;=:C48,?07D

100?,-:A080,9>0,70A07

Waterford Development Project: Biology 5 March 15, 2023 '3009?4=0>4?04>,9,78:9/:=.3,=/42@=0
,9/;3:?:2=,;3>49??,.3809?
9@9/0=2=:@9/4==42,?4:97490=@9>?3=:@23?30>4?01=:80,>??:B0>? ;=:A4/492B,?0=?:?30:=.3,=/'30=04>,3:80>4?01=:9?492!:=?3%049B,D A09@0,/5,.09??:?30:=.3,=/>49?30>4?0?3,?4>9:?B4?349?30>4?0-:@9/,=D ,9/B477-0>@==:@9/0/:9?3=00>4/0>-D?3090B>@-/4A4>4:9 ,9/@>0>49?34>;:=?4:9:1&?,94>7,@>:@9?D,=0;=48,=47D=0>4/09?4,7,9/ ,2=4.@7?@=,742@=0
!:=?3%049B,DA09@0-:=/0=>?300,>?0/20:1?30>4?0 ,9/!:=?3@.,7D;?@>A09@0-:=/0=>?30B0>?0/20:1?30>4?0 :/0>?:

==42,?4:94>?=4.?
4==42,?4:97,?0=,74>>4?@,?0/5@>?>:@?3:1?30>4?0 >0;,=,?0/1=:8?30>4?0-D,1,=8=:,/'30=0,10B3:80>,9/,9,78:9/ :=.3,=/?:?309:=?3:1?30>4?0
)

'30=04>=@/0=,72=,>>7,9/A020?,?4:9:9?3017::=:1?30:=.3,=/ ,9/,7:92=:,/?300/20>:1?30>4?0?302=,>>7,9/>,=034237D/4>?@=-0/1=:8 49?09>4A01,=84921:=/0.,/0>>00;3:?:2=,;3>49??,.3809?'30,741:=94, ,99@,72=,>>7,9/>0=40>&,BD0=,9/
0070=*:71
-0>?/0>.=4-0>?30
A020?,?4:949?30>4?0%4;2@?-=:80&#!)'
"&)',9/0=8@/,2=,>>
-"##"(- #",=0?30/:849,9?2=,>>0>49?30>4?0"?30=2=,>>7,9/ >;0.40>>@.3,>3,4=D170,-,90&
&#"#"&
"'
';=4.67D[email protected]
()
'&&
# =:>0.7:A0=&
#
)!

&()!,9/147,=00&#
)!'$,=049?0=84C0/
B4?3?302=,>>0>#7,9?>;0.40>:->0=A0/49?30>4?0,=074>?0/49',-70

9,//4?4:9?:?30;7,9?0/,78:9/?=00>?30=0,=0,10B=07,?4A07D>8,77,78:9/ ?=00>,9/,;0.,9?=00>?=,//7492?309:=?3109.07490?3,?,;;0,=?:-05@>?:11 >4?0'30=0,=0>0A0=,7?=00>,9/>3=@->49.7:>0;=:C484?D?:?30>4?0,8,5:=4?D :1B34.3,=0,>>:.4,?0/B4?3=0>4/09?4,7>@-/4A4>4:9>,9/7,=20=3:80>4?0>49?30 ,=0,'30=0,=0,10B9:?,-70.7@>?0=>:17,=20?=00>49.7:>0;=:C484?D?:?30>4?0 '=00>;0.40>90,=?30>4?0,=0;=48,=47D:=9,809?,7>;0.40>@>0/1:=7,9/>.,;492 >@.3,>-7@02@8) -$()''$=0/B::/%)#
'!$&*
&"'
:=9,809?,7;490
")''$,741:=94,;0;;0=?=00

")'!# :=9,809?,7
.0/,=&)''$A,=4:@>1=@4??=00>,9/:?30=.:88:97,9/>.,;0A,=40?40>

N Reinway Ave
N Eucalyptus Ave
. 0 100 200
Figure 3
Map Date: 01/11/2023
Aerial Source: Google Earth (04/06/2022)
Aerial
C:\FEC_INC\Projects\Moore Biological\Fahmy Subdivision\MXD\fahmy_subdivision_aerial_figure_3.mxd City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
:DWHUIRUG'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFW
Moore Biological
Consultants
Project Site

Waterford Development Project: Biology 7 March 15, 2023 '
#!'&#
&"&%)
!'&
'
*">; :,?
&''
"
& -7,.68@>?,=/
&#!)'
"&)' =4;2@?-=:80
&#!)'
#&)' >:1?.30>>-=:80
$' )&'*&$'(#&
' >30;30=/J>;@=>0
&'(
)! #!&()! 8:@>00,=0/.34.6B00/
))&
(#(

''
! @11,7:2:@=/
-"##"(- #" 0=8@/,2=,>>
$
#
)!&
-&$)! B477:B30=-
&
&#"#"&
"'
' 3,4=D170,-,90
&#
)!#(&-' 147,=00

()'&&
# ;=4.67D[email protected]

#
)!$&"" ;0=0994,7=D02=,>>

*" ( .:88:98,77:B
"(# "# ( ;7,9?,49
$
")''(
*)' B47/=,/4>3
#"
)'# &)' .:88:9>:B?34>?70
#&
)!
$"'
:39>:92=,>>
&
#
)!

&()! =:>0.7:A0=

'$ A0?.3
!:-7@007/0=-0==D>3=@->!))'"
&''$&) B0=0:->0=A0/49:=
,/5,.09??:?30>4?0
*

&0A0=,7.:88:9-4=/>;0.40>B0=0:->0=A0//@=492?301407/>@=A0D 80=4.,9.=:B#&*)'&
-&
-"
#'=:.6/:A0# )!
*
8:@=9492
/:A0"
!&#)&,741:=94,>.=@-5,D$
##!
#&"
,9/
=0B0=J>-7,.6-4=/)$
)'-"#$
)',=0=0;=0>09?,?4A0-4=/>;0.40>
:->0=A0/49,9/90,=?30>4?0',-70
!:>;0.4,7>?,?@>-4=/>B0=0:->0=A0/
/@=492?30>@=A0D

Waterford Development Project: Biology 8 March 15, 2023 '

*

&#
&"( !'
!'&
'
=0,?02=0? '!&#
)' )'
,741:=94,2@77
&)'
#&"
)'
'@=60DA@7?@=0 (
&(')&
%0/?,470/3,B6 )(#
!
"'
'
%0/>3:@7/0=0/3,B6 )(#
"()'
%:.6/:A0 # )!
*

:@=9492/:A0 "
!&#)&
7,.6;3:0-0 -#&"
'"
&
"'
,741:=94,>.=@-5,D $
##!
#&"

80=4.,9.=:B #&*)'&
-&
-"
#'
%@-D.=:B90/649270? ) )' ")
80=4.,9=:-49 )&)'!
&(#&
)'
!:=?30=98:.6492-4=/

!)'$# - #((#'
@=:;0,9>?,=7492 ()&")'*) &
'
&;:??0/?:B300
$
#!) ()'
*34?0.=:B90/>;,==:B #"#(&

)#$
&-'
=0B0=J>-7,.6-4=/ )$
)'-"#$
)'
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
&&
)'*#
&#)'8,D90>?:9?302=:@9/49?30>4?0

Waterford Development Project: Biology 9 March 15, 2023 A,=40?D:18,88,7>.:88:9?:@=-,9,9/,2=4.@7?@=,7,=0,>8,D:..@=49?30 >4?010B-@==:B>1=:8-:?3:??,J>;:.60?2:;30=
#!#!-'#((,9/
,741:=94,2=:@9/><@4==07>
(#'$&!#$

)'
-
B0=0:->0=A0/49?30
>4?0;=48,=47D7:.,?0/,??30-,>0:1,10B:=.3,=/?=00>9:,741:=94,2=:@9/ ><@4==07>B0=0>009/@=492?30>@=A0D:88:9>;0.40>>@.3,>.:D:?0" '
(&"'=,..::9&#-#" #(#&/0>0=?.:??:9?,47- * )'))#"

>?=4;0/
>6@96
$

(
'!$

(
'-7,.6?,470/3,=0
$)'
#&"
)',9/)4=2494,
:;:>>@8
$

'*
&
"
"8,D:..@=49?30>4?0:9:..,>4:99@8-0=:1
>;0.40>:1>8,77=:/09?>49.7@/49284.0
)'!)') )'
(
&##"(#!-'
! #(
',9/&#!-')'!"
) ()',9/A:70>

&#()'
#&"
)',7>:
74607D:..@=
@0?:7,.6:1>@4?,-703,-4?,?:97D,10B,8;34-4,9>,9/=0;?470>,=00C;0.?0/ ?::..@=49?30>4?0,9/9:90B0=0>009/@=492?30>@=A0D:88:9=0;?470> >@.3,>B0>?0=9109.074E,=/ #$#&)'#
"(
'#,.414..3:=@>1=:2
')&
'&
B0>?0=9>6496)!''
(#"
")',9/B0>?0=9
?0==0>?=4,72,=?0=>9,60
!"#$

' "'8,D:..@=:9?30>4?0
*
(&
*

*,?0=>:1?30(&49.7@/492B0?7,9/>,=0
-=:,/7D/01490/@9/0=

:/0:10/0=,7%02@7,?4:9>%

?:49.7@/0
9,A42,-70B,?0=B,D>?304=?=4-@?,=40>,9/,/5,.09?B0?7,9/>&?,?0,9/10/0=,7 ,209.40>=02@7,?0?30>03,-4?,?>,9/&0.?4:9

:1?3070,9*,?0=.?
=0<@4=0>?3,?,;0=84?-0>0.@=0/;=4:=?:?30/4>.3,=20:1/=0/20/:=1477 8,?0=4,7>49?:,9DB,?0=>:1?30(&49.7@/492B0?7,9/>&:805@=4>/4.?4:9,7 B,?0=>:1?30(&,7>:1,77@9/0=?305@=4>/4.?4:9:1*,9/:=?30,741:=94, %024:9,7*,?0=$@,74?D:9?=:7:,=/%*$
H*,?0=>:1?30(&I,>/01490/49

09.:8;,>>0>'0==4?:=4,7&0,>
'4/,7*,?0=>,9/!:9'4/,7*,?0=>!:9'4/,7*,?0=>49.7@/0>49?0=>?,?0,9/ 49?=,>?,?0=4A0=>,9/>?=0,8>,>B077,>?304=?=4-@?,=40>'307484?:110/0=,7 5@=4>/4.?4:9:1!:9'4/,7*,?0=>:1?30(&0C?09/>?:?30H:=/49,=D3423B,?0= 8,=6I"* '30"* 4>0>?,-74>30/-D;3D>4.,7.3,=,.?0=4>?4.>>@.3,>,

Waterford Development Project: Biology 10 March 15, 2023 9,?@=,7B,?0=749048;=0>>0/:9?30-,96;=0>09.0:1>307A0>/0>?=@.?4:9:1 ?0==0>?=4,7A020?,?4:9:=?30;=0>09.0:174??0=,9//0-=4>

@=4>/4.?4:9,7B0?7,9/>,=0A020?,?0/,=0,>?3,?800?>;0.414.A020?,?4:9>:47 ,9/3D/=:7:24..=4?0=4,/01490/-D?30"( "' "(
#"
") ,9/
%024:9,7&@;;70809?"

@=4>/4.?4:9,7B0?7,9/>,=0@>@,77D
,/5,.09??::=3D/=:7:24.,77D,>>:.4,?0/B4?3*,?0=>:1?30(& >:7,?0/
B0?7,9/>,=0:@?>4/010/0=,75@=4>/4.?4:9-@?8,D-0=02@7,?0/-D%*$@9/0= ?30&?,?0*0?7,9/>#=:2=,8

@=4>/4.?4:9,7B0?7,9/>,9/*,?0=>:1?30(&49.7@/0-@?,=09:?7484?0/?: ;0=0994,7,9/49?0=84??09?.=006>,9//=,49,20>7,60>>00;>,9/>;=492> 080=209?8,=>30>=4;,=4,9B0?7,9/>,9/>0,>:9,7B0?7,9/>*0?7,9/>,9/ *,?0=>:1?30(&;=:A4/0.=4?4.,73,-4?,?.:8;:909?>>@.3,>90>?>4?0>,9/, =074,-70>:@=.0:1B,?0=1:=,B4/0A,=40?D:1B47/7410>;0.40> '30=0,=09:;:?09?4,77D5@=4>/4.?4:9,7*,?0=>:1?30(&49?30>4?0'30=0,=09: ,=0,>49?30>4?0?3,?800??30?0.394.,7.=4?0=4,:1B0?7,9/>40;=0>09.0:1 3D/=:;3D?4.A020?,?4:93D/=4.>:47>,9/B0?7,9/3D/=:7:2D'30 :/0>?:

==42,?4:94>?=4.?
.:9.=0?07490/7,?0=,7>4?@,?0/5@>?>:@?3:1?30>4?04>, ;:?09?4,77D5@=4>/4.?4:9,7*,?0=:1?30(&/@0?:4?>3D/=:7:24..:990.?4A4?DB4?3 ?30'@:7@890%4A0='34>7,?0=,74>:@?>4/0?30;=:50.?-:@9/,=D,9/B4779:?-0 48;,.?0/-D?30;=:;:>0/;=:50.?
&

&&
&;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40>,=0;7,9?>,9/,948,7>?3,?,=0 702,77D;=:?0.?0/@9/0=?30>?,?0,9/:=10/0=,79/,920=0/&;0.40>.?:=:?30= =02@7,?4:9>'300/0=,79/,920=0/&;0.40>.?&:1 /0.7,=0>?3,?
,7710/0=,7/0;,=?809?>,9/,209.40>>3,77@?474E0?304=,@?3:=4?D?:.:9>0=A0 09/,920=0/,9/?3=0,?090/;7,9?,9/,948,7>;0.40>'30,741:=94, 9/,920=0/&;0.40>.?&:1
;,=,7707>?30;:74.40>:1&,9/
;0=?,49>?:9,?4A0,741:=94,>;0.40>

Waterford Development Project: Biology 11 March 15, 2023 &;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40>,7>:49.7@/0:?30=>;0.40>?3,?,=0.:9>4/0=0/=,=0 09:@23-D?30>.409?414..:88@94?D,9/?=@>?00,209.40>?:B,==,9?>;0.4,7 .:9>4/0=,?4:9;,=?4.@7,=7DB4?3=02,=/?:;=:?0.?4:9:14>:7,?0/;:;@7,?4:9> 90>?492:=/0994927:.,?4:9>.:88@9,7=::>?>,9/:?30=0>>09?4,73,-4?,?>'30 ;=0>09.0:1>;0.40>B4?3702,7;=:?0.?4:9@9/0=?309/,920=0/&;0.40>.? :1?09=0;=0>09?>,.:9>?=,49??:/0A07:;809?;,=?4.@7,=7DB309?30>;0.40>,=0 B4/0=,92492:=34237D>09>4?4A0?:3,-4?,?/4>?@=-,9.0,9/B30=0;=:;:>0/ /0A07:;809?B:@7/=0>@7?49,?,60 :1?30>0>;0.40>
&;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>,=0?3:>0B34.3,=0/0>429,?0/=,=0?3=0,?090/:= 09/,920=0/,9/.,9/4/,?0>;0.40>1:=74>?492-D?30(&*&&;0.4,7>?,?@> ;7,9?>,7>:49.7@/0>;0.40>.:9>4/0=0/=,=0:=09/,920=0/@9/0=?30.:9/4?4:9> :1&0.?4:9

:1?30,741:=94,9A4=:9809?,7$@,74?D.?@4/07490>>@.3,> ?3:>0;7,9?>;0.40>4/09?4140/:94>?> ,9/
49?30
9A09?:=D:1%,=0,9/
9/,920=0/),>.@7,=#7,9?>:1,741:=94,-D?30,741:=94,!,?4A0#7,9?&:.40?D !#&

49,77D>;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>8,D49.7@/0:?30=>;0.40>?3,?,=0 .:9>4/0=0/>09>4?4A0:=:1>;0.4,7.:9.0=9/@0?:7484?0//4>?=4-@?4:9:=7,.6:1 ,/0<@,?0491:=8,?4:9?:;0=84?74>?492:==050.?4:91:=>?,?0:=10/0=,7>?,?@>>@.3 ,>?3:>049.7@/0/:94>?
49?30!#&
9A09?:=D
'307460743::/:1:..@==09.0:174>?0/.,9/4/,?0,9/:?30=>;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40> 49?30B:=6,=0,>4>0C?=0807D7:B',-70
;=:A4/0>,>@88,=D:1?3074>?492
>?,?@>,9/3,-4?,?=0<@4=0809?>:1>;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40>?3,?3,A0-009 /:.@809?0/49?302=0,?0=;=:50.?A4.494?D:=1:=B34.3?30=04>;:?09?4,77D>@4?,-70 3,-4?,?49?302=0,?0=;=:50.?A4.494?D'34>?,-70,7>:49.7@/0>,9,>>0>>809?:1 ?307460743::/:1:..@==09.0:10,.3:1?30>0>;0.40>49?30>4?0'300A,7@,?4:9 :1?30;:?09?4,71:=:..@==09.0:10,.3>;0.40>4>-,>0/:9?30/4>?=4-@?4:9:1 =024:9,7:..@==09.0>41,9D3,-4?,?>@4?,-474?D,9/1407/:->0=A,?4:9> &

&#

0,=?>.,70(&
$ ,#&) (>@-?70:=,.30(&
$ ,
')(

'::A0=J>.,7D.,/094, -"

##*&
-0,60/.7,=64, &

&#'(&(::A0=J>>;@=20)$
#&

##*&
:7@>,2=,>>
#'($

!
75576
)5- $+1-6<1.1+ )5-
-,-:)4
$<)<=;
$<)<-
$<)<=;
"$

1;<

)*1<)<
13-416-;;7.!++=::-6+-16<0-":72-+<$1<-
"1%0&.0$%2%+./,%-10.*%#1

).+.'3 "0#(

-):<;+)4- !
%

"!
76- 76- ')44-A)6,.77<0144
/:);;4)6,+0-6787,
;+:=*?1<016):-);?1<0
)43)416-7:;)416-;714;
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: 0-):<;+)4-67):-);7.)43)416-7:;)416-;714;?-:-
7*;-:>-,%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01;;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A514-;
;7=<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-
$=*<4-7:)+0- !
%
"!
76- 76- ')44-A)6,.77<0144
/:);;4)6,16):-);?1<0
)43)416-;714;
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: ;=*<4-7:)+0-67)43)416-;714;?-:-7*;-:>-,%0-
6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01;;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A514-;;7=<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-

77>-:C;
+)4A+),-61)
&

#
76- 76- #7+3A):-);?1<016>)44-A
)6,.77<0144/:);;4)6,)6,
+1;576<)6-?77,4)6,;
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7:

77>-:C;+)4A+),-61)%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01;
;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A
514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-
-)3-,+4):31)

!!
76- 76- 1;576<)6-?77,4)6,)6,
>)44-A)6,.77<0144/:);;4)6,
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: *-)3-,+4):31)%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.*-)3-,+4):31)16 <0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;
67:<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-

77>-:C;
;8=:/-
"

#
76- 76- '-:6)48774; &6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7:

77>-:C;;8=:/-<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4
?-<4)6,;16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-
77>-:C;
;8=:/-16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-

!
75576
)5- $+1-6<1.1+ )5-
-,-:)4
$<)<=;
$<)<-
$<)<=;
"$

1;<

)*1<)<
13-416-;;7.!++=::-6+-16<0-":72-+<$1<-
"1%0&.0$%2%+./,%-10.*%#1

).+.'3 "0#(
74=;)/:);;

!

"
%
):/-,--8>-:6)48774; &6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: 74=;)/:);;<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4
?-<4)6,;16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.74=;) /:);;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;67:<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-%0-;1<-1;67<16,-;1/6)<-, +:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:74=;)/:);;&$($

)
$)6
7)9=16
')44-A!:+=<<
/:);;

"!!

"
% '-:6)48774; &6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7:$)6

7)9=16')44-A!:+=<</:);;<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7: ;-);76)4?-<4)6,;16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7. <01;;8-+1-;:-+7:,-,16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;
)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;67:<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-

)1:A!:+=<<
/:);;

"!!

'-:6)48774;6,-51+<7
<0-$)+:)5-6<7')44-A
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: )1:A
!:+=<</:);;<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4
?-<4)6,;16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01;
;8-+1-;:-+7:,-,16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;
)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-%0-;1<-1;
67<16,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:0)1:A!:+=<</:);;7: 7<0-:>-:6)4877484)6<;8-+1-;&$($

)

:--6-C;
<=+<7:1)

"!

# '-:6)48774;?1<016<0-
-6<:)4')44-A
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: :--6-C;<=+<7:1)<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4 ?-<4)6,;16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-;7.<01;
;8-+1-;:-+7:,-,16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;
)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;67:<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-

%:1+747:-,
*4)+3*1:,
"
!

76- % -;<;16,-6;-*:)5*4-;
)6,-5-:/-6<?-<4)6,
>-/-<)<176);;7+1)<-,?1<0
78-6?)<-:0)*1<)<
&6413-4A<0-:-1;6778-6?)<-:7:8)<+0-;7.?1447?; *4)+3*-::1-;)6,-5-:/-6<?-<4)6,>-/-<)<17616<0-;1<- %0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<:1+747:-,*4)+3*1:,16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A
514-;
;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-

!
75576
)5- $+1-6<1.1+ )5-
-,-:)4
$<)<=;
$<)<-
$<)<=;
"$

1;<

)*1<)<
13-416-;;7.!++=::-6+-16<0-":72-+<$1<-
"1%0&.0$%2%+./,%-10.*%#1

).+.'3 "0#(
$?)16;76C;
0)?3
"!

$

76- % :--,;16;<)6,;7.<)44
<:--;1678-6):-);
#-9=1:-;),2)+-6<;=1<)*4-
.7:)/16/0)*1<)<;;=+0);
/:);;4)6,;7:)4.)4.).1-4,;
;=887:<16/:7,-6<;
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-6-;<16/7: .7:)/16/0)*1<)<.7:$?)16;76C;0)?3
7?->-:<0-:-):-
;->-:)44):/-<:--;6-):<0-;1<-;=1<)*4-.7:6-;<16/%0- 6-):-;<7++=::-6+-;7.6-;<16/$?)16;76C;0)?3;16<0-

;-):+0):-)):-)88:7@15)<-4A514-;67:<0
)6,;7=<07.<0-;1<-
=::7?16/7?4 !
""
76- $ !8-6,:A)66=)47:
8-:-661)4/:);;4)6,;
,-;-:<;)6,;+:=*4)6,;
+0):)+<-:1B-,*A47?
/:7?16/>-/-<)<176
&6413-4A764A).-?/:7=6,;9=1::-4*=::7?;?-:-7*;-:>-, 16<0-;1<-8:15):14A47+)<-,)<<0-*);-7.).-?7:+0):, <:--; 7*=::7?16/7?4;?-:-7*;-:>-,)6,676-7.<0- *=::7?;0),->1,-6+-7.8);<7:8:-;-6<*=::7?16/7?4
)+<1>1<A%0-:-):-677++=::-6+-;7.<01;;8-+1-;?1<016<0-

;-):+0):-)

$)6
7)9=1631<
.7@
"

!
"!
% 66=)4/:);;4)6,;7:
/:);;A78-6;<)/-;?1<0
;+)<<-:-,;0:=**A
>-/-<)<176
&6413-4A<0-8:72-+<;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)< .7:$)6
7)9=1631<.7@$)6
7)9=1631<.7@1;67<367?6
.:75<0-):-))6,<0-:-):-677++=::-6+-;7.<01;;8-+1-; 16<0-

;-):+0):-)

)41.7:61)<1/-:
;)4)5)6,-:
& !

% % :--,;16;-);76)4?)<-:
*7,1-;;=+0);,--8>-:6)4
8774;7:;<7+3876,;
#-9=1:-;;5)445)55)4
*=::7?;.7:;=55-:
:-.=/1)
&6413-4A<0-:-):-6787<-6<1)4*:--,16/876,;167:6-): <0-;1<-.7:)41.7:61)<1/-:;)4)5)6,-:<0-;1<-1;)4;767< ;=1<)*4-.7:)-;<1>)<176%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01; ;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-%0-;1<-1;67<16,-;1/6)<-, +:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:)41.7:61)<1/-:;)4)5)6,-:&$($

*
7:<0-:6
)41.7:61)
4-/4-;;41B):,

"
76- $ $)6,A7:477;-47)5A;714;
=6,-:;8):;->-/-<)<176
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7: 7:<0-:6)41.7:61)4-/4-;;41B):,%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-

7.<01;;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;
)88:7@15)<-4A 514-;;7=<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-

!
75576
)5- $+1-6<1.1+ )5-
-,-:)4
$<)<=;
$<)<-
$<)<=;
"$

1;<

)*1<)<
13-416-;;7.!++=::-6+-16<0-":72-+<$1<-
"1%0&.0$%2%+./,%-10.*%#1

).+.'3 "0#(
(-;<-:6
;8),-.77<

76- $ :--,;)6,4)A;-//;16
;-);76)4?)<-:*7,1-;;=+0
);,--8>-:6)48774;7:
;<7+3876,;
&6413-4A<0-:-1;67;=1<)*4-)9=)<1+0)*1<)<.7:?-;<-:6 ;8),-.77<167:6-):<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7. ?-;<-:6;8),-.77<16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;
)88:7@15)<-4A
514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-

-4<);5-4< &

"
!
"
% % $0)447?47?-:,-4<)
?)<-:?)A;?1<0;=*5-:;-,
)9=)<1+84)6<;)6,7<0-:
;=1<)*4-:-.=/1)
76-<0-:-1;67)9=)<1+0)*1<)<16<0-;1<-%0-:-):-67 7++=::-6+-;7.,-4<);5-4<:-+7:,-,16<0-

?1<016<0-;-):+0):-)%0-:-1;67,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)4 0)*1<)<.7:,-4<);5-4<&$($
167:6-):<0-;1<-

):,0-), &

"
76- $ 4-):,--88774;?1<0;)6,
)6,/:)>-4*7<<75;16
<:1*=<):1-;<7<0-$)6

7)9=16)6,$)+:)5-6<7
#1>-:
76-<0-:-1;67)9=)<1+0)*1<)<16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;< 7++=::-6+-7.0):,0-),16<0-

;-):+0):-)
1; 514-;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-
-6<:)4')44-A
;<--40-),

&"
&
% 76- #1..4-)6,8774+7584-@-;
?1<0),-9=)<-;8)?616/
;=*;<:)<-;?1<016-6<:)4
')44-A,:)16)/-;
76-<0-:-1;67)9=)<1+0)*1<)<16<0-;1<-%0-6-):-;< 7++=::-6+-7.-6<:)4')44-A;<--40-),16<0-

;-):+01;16<0-%=74=56-#1>-:)88:7@15)<-4A
514-;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-%0-%=74=56-#1>-:1;
,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:-6<:)4')44-A;<--40-), !

76;-:>)6+A
.)1:A;0:158
!

#!

76- '-:6)48774;)6,;-);76)44A
16=6,)<-,,-8:-;;176;16
<0--6<:)4')44-A
76-<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4?-<4)6,;16<0- ;1<-%0-:-):-677++=::-6+-;7.76;-:>)6+A.)1:A;0:158 :-+7:,-,16<0-

;-):+0):-)%0-;1<-1;67<
?1<016,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:)6A>-:6)48774;0:158 ;8-+1-;&$($

)
'-:6)48774
<),874-;0:158

""

76- '-:6)48774;)6,
;-);76)44A?-<,-8:-;;176;
?1<016<0--6<:)4')44-A
76-<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4?-<4)6,;16 <0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.>-:6)48774<),874- ;0:15816<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-%0-;1<-1;67<?1<016
,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:>-:6)48774<),874-;0:158 &$($

)

!
75576
)5- $+1-6<1.1+ )5-
-,-:)4
$<)<=;
$<)<-
$<)<=;
"$

1;<

)*1<)<
13-416-;;7.!++=::-6+-16<0-":72-+<$1<-
"1%0&.0$%2%+./,%-10.*%#1

).+.'3
"0#(
'-:6)48774
.)1:A;0:158
!
&
% 76- '-:6)48774;)6,;-);76)44A
16=6,)<-,,-8:-;;176;16
<0--6<:)4')44-A
76-<0-:-):-67>-:6)48774;7:;-);76)4?-<4)6,;16 <0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.>-:6)48774.)1:A
;0:15816<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A

514-;;7=<0-);<7.<0-;1<-%0-;1<-1;67<?1<016
,-;1/6)<-,+:1<1+)40)*1<)<.7:>-:6)48774.)1:A;0:158 &$($

)
')44-A
-4,-:*-::A
476/07:6*--<4-

"

"

"
% 76- 4,-:*-::A;0:=*;16<0-
-6<:)4')44-A)6,
;=::7=6,16/.77<0144;
76-<0-:-):-67*4=--4,-:*-::A;0:=*;167:),2)+-6<<7 <0-;1<-%0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.>)44-A-4,-:*-::A
476/07:6*--<4-:-+7:,-,16<0-

;-):+0):-)
1;)88:7@15)<-4A
514-;;7=<0?-;<7.<0-;1<-
:7<+0*=5*4-
*--

"

!
76- !8-6/:);;4)6,)6,;+:=*
0)*1<)<;<0:7=/07=<
)41.7:61):):-4A.7=6,16
<0--6<:)4')44-A
&6413-4A<0-;1<-,7-;67<8:7>1,-;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<.7::7<+0 *=5*4-*--<01;;8-+1-;5)A.4A7>-:<0-;1<-767++);176 %0-6-):-;<7++=::-6+-7.<01;;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)1;)88:7@15)<-4A 514-;;7=<0?-;<7.
<0-;1<-
76):+0
*=<<-:.4A
"

"
76- 76- '):1-<A7.0)*1<)<;16
)41.7:61)8:15):14A
);;7+1)<-,?1<0+7);<)4
-6>1:765-6<;4):>)-
,-8-6,-6<765143?--,
&6413-4A<0-:-1;67;=1<)*4-0)*1<)<16<0-;1<-<7;=887:< 576):+0*=<<-:.4A)6,67-@<-6;1>-):-);7.5143?--,16 ?01+0<0-4):>)-7.<01;;8-+1-;,-8-6,76?);7*;-:>-,16 <0-;1<-,=:16/<0-.1-4,;=:>-A76):+0*=<<-:.4A5)A.4A 7>-:<0-;1<-,=:16/1<;51/:)<176%0-:-):-677++=::-6+-;

7.<01;;8-+1-;16<0-

;-):+0):-)
7<-;
%%0:-)<-6-,6,)6/-:-,)6,1,)<-.7:6,)6/-:-,$$8-+1-;7.$8-+1)476+-:68-:)41.7:61)-8):<5-6<7.1;0)6, (14,41.-)6,1,)<-.7:
1;<16/

"$
1;< 16+4=,-;;8-+1-;<0)<):-:):-<0:-)<-6-,7:-6,)6/-:-,16)41.7:61))6,-4;-?0-:-

Waterford Development Project: Biology 17 March 15, 2023 # )'"&,9
:,<@49),770D"=.@??2=,>>
&)((

"%)
'3,4=D"=.@??
2=,>>
&)((
$
#',9/=0090J>?@.?:=4,)(#&
&"
,=0?30:97D
>;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>4/09?4140/49?30!

>0,=.3!:,//4?4:9,7
>;0.4,7>?,?@>>;0.40>,=04/09?4140/49?30(&*&
#,'=@>?%0;:=?
??,.3809?
&;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>2090=,77D:..@=49=07,?4A07D@9/4>?@=-0/,=0,>49A020?,?4:9 .:88@94?40>>@.3,>A0=9,7;::7>8,=>30>,9/>B,8;>>0,>:9,7B0?7,9/> =4;,=4,9>.=@-,9/,=0,>B4?3@9@>@,7>:47>77:1?30>;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?> 4/09?4140/49',-70
:..@=493,-4?,??D;0>?3,?,=09:?;=0>09?49?30>4?0!: >;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>:=;:?09?4,77D>@4?,-703,-4?,?1:=>;0.4,7>?,?@>;7,9?>B0=0 :->0=A0/49?30>4?0@0?:7,.6:1>@4?,-703,-4?,?4?4>@974607D?3,?>;0.4,7 >?,?@>;7,9?>:..@=49?30>4?0
&

&*

&;0.4,7>?,?@>B47/7410>;0.40>=0.:=/0/49
;=:50.?,=0,49?30!

<@0=D49.7@/0&B,49>:9J>3,B6?=4.:7:=0/
-7,.6-4=/
)'(&
# #&,741:=94,?420=>,7,8,9/0=!-'(#!

#&"
"'9:=?30=9,741:=94,70270>>74E,=/""
$)
&B0>?0=9
>;,/01::?$
!!#"

09?=,7A,770D>?00730,/
"#&
-"
)'!-
''
3,=/30,/
- #$
&##"#"#$
)'A0=9,7;::71,4=D>3=48;&"

"(
-"

A0=9,7;::7?,/;:70>3=48;
$
)&)'$&
A,770D07/0=-0==D
7:923:=9-00?70'!#&)'
#&"
)'
!#&$
)',9/=:?.3-@8-70-00
#!)'&#(

&,9
:,<@4964?1:C) $'!&#(
'!)(
/07?,>807?
-$#!')'(&"'$

)':9>0=A,9.D1,4=D>3=48;&"

"(
#"'&*(
#,9/8:9,=.3-@??0=17D")'$ ,
$$)',=09:?=0.:=/0/49?30
!

B4?349?30>0,=.3,=0,-@?,=0:9?30(&*&
#,'=@>?%0;:=?
??,.3809?7?3:@239:?4/09?4140/49?30!

>0,=.3,=0,:=
B4?349?30
#,'=@>?%0;:=?-@==:B492:B7B,>,//0/?:',-70
,>4?4>69:B9
?::..@=49,2=4.@7?@=,7,=0,>49&?,94>7,@>:@9?D
*3470?30;=:50.?>4?08,D3,A0;=:A4/0/3,-4?,?1:=>0A0=,7:1?30>;0.4,7>?,?@> B47/7410>;0.40>74>?0/49',-70
,?>:80?48049?30;,>?49?09>4A01,=8492,9/

Waterford Development Project: Biology 18 March 15, 2023 /0A07:;809?3,A0>@->?,9?4,77D8:/4140/9,?@=,73,-4?,?>49?302=0,?0=;=:50.? A4.494?D49.7@/492?3:>049?30>4?0@0?:,7,.6:13,-4?,?9:90:1?30>;0.4,7 >?,?@>>;0.40>4/09?4140/3,A0;:?09?4,7?::..@=49?30>4?0:98:=0?3,9,9 :..,>4:9,7:=?=,9>4?:=D-,>4>
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
'30:=.3,=//:0>9:?;=:A4/0>@4?,-70/0994923,-4?,?1:=&,9 :,<@4964?1:C
,9/?34>>;0.40>4>9:?69:B91=:8?30,=0,!:&,9
:,<@4964?1:C/09>B0=0
:->0=A0/49?30>4?0/@=492?301407/>@=A0D
!:=?30=9,741:=94,70270>>74E,=/4>9:?0C;0.?0/?::..@=49?30>4?0/@0?:?30 ;=0>09.0:1.:8;,.?0/>:47>1=:8/0.,/0>:1:=.3,=/1,=8492?34>>;0.40>4> 69:B91=:88:=09,?@=,709A4=:9809?>9:?>@-50.??:/4>?@=-,9.0'30>4?0/:0> 9:?;=:A4/0,<@,?4.3,-4?,??:>@;;:=?,741:=94,?420=>,7,8,9/0=,9/B0>?0=9 >;,/01::??30=0,=0,7>:9:>0,>:9,7B,?0=-:/40>49:=90,=?30>4?01:=

Waterford Development Project: Biology 19 March 15, 2023 ,741:=94,?420=>,7,8,9/0=,9/2=,>>7,9/,=0,>49,9/90,=?30>4?0,=034237D /4>?@=-0/,9//:9:?;=:A4/0>@4?,-70,0>?4A,?4:93,-4?,?1:=?34>>;0.40> '30>4?0/:0>9:?.:9?,49,<@,?4.3,-4?,??:>@;;:=?09?=,7),770D>?00730,/ /07?,>807?3,=/30,/:=:?30=>;0.4,7>?,?@>14>3
!:-7@007/0=-0==D>3=@->B0=0:->0=A0/49:=90,=?30>4?0;=0.7@/492?30 ;:?09?4,7:..@==09.0:1A,770D07/0=-0==D7:923:=9-00?70'30=0,=09:A0=9,7 ;::7>:=>0,>:9,7B0?7,9/>49?30>4?01:=A0=9,7;::7-=,9.34:;:/>401,4=D,9/ ?,/;:70>3=48; :9,=.3-@??0=17D8,D17D:A0=?30>4?0/@=4924?>842=,?4:9-@? B:@7/9:?-00C;0.?0/?:@?474E0?30>4?049,80,94921@7.,;,.4?D/@0?:,7,.6:1 >@4?,-703,-4?,?=:?.3-@8-70-008,D,7>:17D:A0=?30,=0,:9:..,>4:9-@? ?30>4?0/:0>9:?.:9?,49>@4?,-703,-4?,??:>@;;:=??34>>;0.40>

'30>4?04>9:?49/0>429,?0/.=4?4.,73,-4?,?1:=10/0=,77D74>?0/ A0=9,7;::7>3=48;:=;7,9?>(&*&

,,741:=94,?420=>,7,8,9/0=
(&*&

-A,770D07/0=-0==D7:923:=9-00?70(&*& /07?,>807? (&*&
09?=,7),770D>?00730,/!"

:=:?30=10/0=,77D74>?0/
>;0.40>??,.3809?

F '30>4?04>,9,78:9/:=.3,=/:9>4?03,-4?,?>,=0-4:7:24.,77D @9=08,=6,-70'30=0,=09:=4;,=4,93,-4?,?>>09>4?4A09,?@=,7 .:88@94?40>B47/74108:A0809?.:==4/:=>:=9,?4A0B47/74109@=>0=D >4?0>49?30>4?0
F '30=0,=09:;:?09?4,77D5@=4>/4.?4:9,7*,?0=>:1?30(&:=B0?7,9/> B0=049?30>4?0;:?09?4,77D5@=4>/4.?4:9,7
4==42,?4:97,?0=,75@>?
>:@?3:1?30>4?0B4779:?-0/4>?@=-0/-D?30;=:50.?

Waterford Development Project: Biology 21 March 15, 2023

"(&=8D:=;>:1924900=> '0.394.,7%0;:=?+ (& =8D:=;>:1924900=>*,?0=B,D>C;0=4809?&?,?4:9)4.6>-@=2
"
%024:9,7&@;;70809??:?30:=;>:1924900=>*0?7,9/ 07490,?4:9 ,9@,7=4/*0>?%024:9(&=8D924900=%0>0,=.3,9/ 0A07:;809?09?0=)4.6>-@=2 &&0;?08-0=
,741:=94,0;,=?809?:14>3,9/,80
&?,11%0;:=?=02,=/492
4?42,?4:91:=
8;,.?>?:&B,49>:9J>,B6>)(#+
"'#"
49?3009?=,7
),770D:1,741:=94,!:A08-0=

&?,11%0;:=?:9@==:B492"B7 4?42,?4:9,741:=94,0;,=?809? :14>3,9/*47/7410&,.=,809?:,741:=94, ,=.3 !,741:=94,!,?@=,74A0=>4?D,?,-,>0

,741:=94,0;,=?809?:1
4>3,9/*47/7410J>!,?@=,70=4?,20#=:2=,8&,.=,809?:,741:=94, ,741:=94,!,?4A0#7,9?&:.40?D%,=0#7,9?#=:2=,8

9A09?:=D:1%,=0,9/
9/,920=0/#7,9?>:1,741:=94,:974900/4?4:9A *0->4?0 3??;BBB=,=0;7,9?>.9;>:=2
!,?4:9,7".0,94.,9/?8:>;30=4./8494>?=,?4:9!"
9/,920=0/
,9/'3=0,?090/&;0.40>0>429,?4:9:1=4?4.,7,-4?,?1:=&0A09A:7@?4:9,=47D &429414.,9?(94?>:1#,.414.&,78:9,9/&?00730,/49,741:=94,49,7%@70 0/0=,7%024>?0=

&0;?08-0=

&,BD0=
",9/'
0070=*:71
,9@,7:1,741:=94,)020?,?4:9
,741:=94,!,?4A0#7,9?&:.40?D&,.=,809?:,741:=94, &*'&B,49>:9J>,B6'0.394.,7/A4>:=D:884??00
0?0=849492,#=:50.?J>#:?09?4,71:=
8;,.?492&B,49>:9J>,B6>#=0;,=0/-D
?30&B,49>:9J>,B6'0.394.,7/A4>:=D:884??00,9:9;=:14?:=2,94E,?4:9

Waterford Development Project: Biology 22 March 15, 2023 (&*&(94?0/&?,?0>4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0 #,=?

0;,=?809?:1
?30
9?0=4:=4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0
%#,=? 4>?492?30),770D
7/0=-0==D:923:=900?70,>,'3=0,?090/&;0.40>B4?3=4?4.,7,-4?,? 0/0=,7%024>?0=

;;

@2@>?
(&*&
#,=?

0;,=?809?:1?30
9?0=4:=4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0

%#,=? 9/,920=0/,9/'3=0,?090/*47/7410,9/#7,9?>49,7=4?4.,7 ,-4?,?1:=?3007?,&807? -$#!')'(&"'$

)'0/0=,7%024>?0=):7

!:

;;

G
0.08-0=
(&*&

,#,=?

0;,=?809?:1?30
9?0=4:=4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0

%#,=? 9/,920=0/,9/'3=0,?090/*47/7410,9/#7,9?>0>429,?4:9:1 =4?4.,7,-4?,?1:=?30,741:=94,'420=&,7,8,9/0=09?=,7#:;@7,?4:949,7 %@700/0=,7%024>?0=):7!:
;;

G

@2@>?

(&*&

-#,=?

0;,=?809?:1?30
9?0=4:=4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0

%#,=? 9/,920=0/,9/'3=0,?090/*47/7410,9/#7,9?>49,70>429,?4:9 :1=4?4.,7,-4?,?1:=:@=)0=9,7#::7=@>?,.0,9>,9/70A09)0=9,7#::7 #7,9?>49,741:=94,,9/&:@?30=9"=02:9A,7@,?4:9,9/.:9:84.C.7@>4:9> 1=:8@2@>?

49,70>429,?4:949,7%@700/0=,7%024>?0=):7!:

@2@>?
(&*&
#,=?

0;,=?809?:1?30
9?0=4:=4>3,9/*47/7410&0=A4.0

%#,=? 9/,920=0/,9/'3=0,?090/*47/7410,9/#7,9?>0>429,?4:9:1 =4?4.,7,-4?,?1:=,741:=94,%0/0220/=:2,9/&;0.4,7%@70C08;?4:9 >>:.4,?0/B4?349,74>?4921:=C4>?492%:@?490%,9.3492.?4A4?40>49,7%@70 0/0=,7%024>?0=):7 !: ;=47

$WWDFKPHQW$
7HQWDWLYH0DS

TP
PP
PP
PP
PP
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
EX. HOUSE
EX.

BLDG.

N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
KADOTA
AVENUE

N REINWAY AVENUE
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 19 18 17 16 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44 45
46 47
50 49 48
51 52
53 55 54
56 57
58 61 60 59
62 63
64 66 65
67 68
69 72 71 70
73 74
75 77 76
78 79
83 82 81
84 85
86 87
88*
89* 90*
91*
92 93 94 95
96 B
C

MID CANAL
LOT A

REID COURT
80 ALL STREETS WILL UTILIZE THIS CROSS

SECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
50'
10'
25' 25'

R/W R/W
P.U.E. F/C
C/L
5'
SIDEWALK
10' 10' P.U.E.

TRAVEL LANE

VERTICAL CURB AND
SIDEWALK PER C.O.W.

STANDARD DETAIL 311
8'

PARKING LANE
2' F/C 5'
SIDEWALK
10'

TRAVEL LANE
8'

PARKING LANE
2' F/L
EX. R/W

MASONRY

SOUND WALL

PROPOSED DEDICATION
BIKE
PATH

FUTURE MEDIAN TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
95'
20' 27.5'
14' 11.5' 11' 8'
C/L
R/W
SIDEWALK
5'
LSING
5'
SAWCUT 3.5'± EX. PAVEMENT

27.5' 20'
EX. R/W

FUTURE R/W

40.5'

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

FUTURE DEDICATION
EX. 16'± ROADWAY
40'
25' 25'
R/W EX. R/W
F/C
C/L
5'
SIDEWALK
10' P.U.E. 17'± F/C 5'
SIDEWALK
12'

TRAVEL LANE
8'

PARKING LANE

VERTICAL CURB AND
SIDEWALK PER C.O.W.

STANDARD DETAIL 311

PROPOSED PAVEMENT
SAWCUT 2' EX. PAVEMENT
3'±
10'

DEDICATION
EX. R/W
EX. IMPROVEMENTS

APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER

DATE DESCRIPTIONS

REVISIONS
NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 04/25/2022 09:07 PLOTTED BY: Phurban
DWGNAME: F:\21-2842 Waterford Development Project\Planning\TM\TM1.1.dwg 70 COPYRIGHT © 2022 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842
TPD

PMH/ NB
PMH
04/25/2022 :$7(5)25''(9(/230(17352-(&7
:$7(5)25'
35(/,0,1$5<

127)25
&216758&7,21 7(17$7,9(68%',9,6,210$3 AS SHOWN
0 1" =
80 40 80
80'
7(17$7,9(68%',9,6,210$3
:$7(5)25''(9(/230(17352-(&7
:$7(5)25'&$/,)251,$
STAR AVE.

YOSEMITE BLVD. (CA 132)
WASHINTGON RD.

MID MAIN CANAL

WASHINGTON
ROAD

YOSEMITE
BLVD. (SR 132)
6"SSFM 6"SSFM

CONNECT FORCE
MAIN TO EXISTING 8"

SEWER MAIN
45° BEND
2,470± 6" FORCE MAIN
4"SSFM
4"SSFM
TP
PP
PP
PP
JP
JP
JP
JP
WV
ICV

ICV ICV

ICV ICV ICV ICV
WV
MAIL
MAIL
JP
JP
EX. HOUSE
EX.

BLDG.

N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
KADOTA
AVENUE

N REINWAY AVENUE
4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 15 14 13 12 11 19 18 17 16 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44 45
46 47
50 49 48
51 52
53 55 54
56 57
58 61 60 59
62 63
64 66 65
67 68
69 72 71 70
73 74
75 77 76
78 79
83 82 81
84 85
86 87
88*
89* 90*
91*
92 93 94 95
96 55.0'

98.7' 100.0'

58.2' 58.0'

98.7'

61.4'

98.7' 100.0'

76.0'

65.0' 66.0'

70.0'

60.0'

60.0'
100.0'

64.0'

95.0' 95.0'

64.0'

95.0' 95.0'

64.0'

95.0' 95.0'

64.0'

94.0' 96.5' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.5' 65.0' 62.2' 65.0' 65.0'

65.0'
100.0'

75.0'

98.7' 100.0'

66.2'

82.3'

47.0' 25.3'
100.0'

60.0'
100.0'

63.4'

96.7'

63.3'

47.3'
132.1'
125.4'

42.0'

97.7'
142.0'

38.1'

60.2'
103.0'

60.0'

60.0'
103.8'

60.0'
104.7'

60.0'
105.6'
106.5'

47.0'

71.1' 25.5'

46.8'

61.0'

99.5'

60.0'
100.0'

45.8'

82.3' 25.3'

77.0' 25.5' 47.0'

65.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

47.0'

77.0' 25.5'

82.0' 25.5'

47.0'
100.0'

60.0'
100.0'

47.0' 25.5' 82.0'

82.0' 25.5'

47.0'
100.0'

60.0'
100.0'

47.0' 25.5' 82.0' 64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0' 64.0'

95.0'

95.0' 95.0'

64.0' 47.0'

77.0' 77.0' 25.5'

25.5' 47.0'

82.0' 25.5'

47.0'
100.0'

60.0'
100.0'

47.0' 25.5' 82.0'

82.0' 25.5'

47.0'
100.0'

60.0'
100.0'

48.7' 25.6' 81.7' 64.0'

94.0' 95.5'

94.0' 94.6'

64.0'

94.0' 93.6'

47.0'

76.0' 25.5'

47.3'

74.9' 25.3'

77.0' 25.5' 47.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

64.0'

95.0'

47.0'

77.0' 25.5'

75.1'

74.9'
100.0'

53.1' 25.6' 75.0'

93.3'

93.4'

66.0'

93.9'

93.7'

66.0'

94.0'

66.0'

94.2'

66.0'

94.3'

66.0'

94.5'

66.0'

94.6'

66.0'

94.8'

65.0'

94.9'

65.0'

95.1'

65.0'

95.2'

65.0'

95.4'

65.0'

95.5'

23.1'

56.9'
6000 SF 6000 SF 6478 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6305 SF 6000 SF 8713 SF
12088 SF
6030 SF
6203 SF
6256 SF
6309 SF
6361 SF
6205 SF 6195 SF 6186 SF 6176 SF 6167 SF 6157 SF 6242 SF 6232 SF 6222 SF 6212 SF 6202 SF 6192 SF 6182 SF 6172 SF 6529 SF 5986 SF
6022 SF
6084 SF
6146 SF
6430 SF 6000 SF 6554 SF
6016 SF
6016 SF
6016 SF
6105 SF 6040 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6430 SF 6000 SF 6430 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6105 SF 6105 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6430 SF 6000 SF 6430 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6105 SF 6105 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6430 SF 6000 SF 6430 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6080 SF
6105 SF
5976 SF
5506 SF 5741 SF
5883 SF
7406 SF 7493 SF
6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
8"SS 6"SS
8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W
8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
6"SSFM

78.0' 23.5'

98.7'

81.7'

12.7'
8"W

BARRICADE

BARRICADE STUB WATER

CONNECT TO
EX. WATER
CONNECT TO EX.

SEWER MANHOLE
6355 SF 5992 SF 6084 SF
7072 SF
6743 SF
12"SD
36"SD
36"SD
12"SD
15"SD 12"SD
36"SD 36"SD
12"SD
30"SD
12"SD
24"SD 24"SD
12"SD

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN

METERING STRUCTURE

CONNECT TO EXISTING
12" STORM DRAIN MAIN
(INTERIM CONNECTION)

STUB FOR FUTURE

STORM DRAIN

CONNECTION IN

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
10' S.D. EASEMENT
10' P.U.E.
(4) PROPOSED DRY WELLS TO PERCOLATE
STORM WATER RUNOFF (TYP.)
10' WATER EASEMENT
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.

22.6'
100.0'

SANITARY SEWER

LIFT STATION

CONNECT TO
EX. WATER

BARRICADE

BARRICADE
10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.
10' P.U.E.

STUB FOR FUTURE WATER

CONNECTION IN EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

MID CANAL
LOT A

EXISTING IRRIGATION

STRUCTURES TO BE
REMOVED (TYP.) 80

APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER

DATE DESCRIPTIONS

REVISIONS
NO.

JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

CHK'D:

PLOTTED: 04/25/2022 09:07 PLOTTED BY: Phurban
DWGNAME: F:\21-2842 Waterford Development Project\Planning\TM\TM2.1.dwg 70 COPYRIGHT © 2022 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842
TPD

PMH/ NB
PMH
04/25/2022 :$7(5)25''(9(/230(17352-(&7
:$7(5)25'
35(/,0,1$5<

127)25
&216758&7,21 7(17$7,9(68%',9,6,210$3 AS SHOWN
0 1" =
50 25 50
50'
0 1" =
50 25 50
50'

EXISTING PROPOSED
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4"SSFM 6"SSFM

ICV ICV
N/A
N/A
/ / N/A

$WWDFKPHQW%
&1''%6XPPDU\5HSRUW
86):6,3D&7UXVW5HVRXUFH5HSRUW

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
Calycadenia hooveri
Hoover's calycadenia
PDAST1P040 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Clarkia rostrata
beaked clarkia
PDONA050Y0 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T2T3 S3
Euphorbia hooveri
Hoover's spurge
PDEUP0D150 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Mylopharodon conocephalus
hardhead
AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 SSC
Myrmosula pacifica
Antioch multilid wasp
IIHYM15010 None None GH SH
Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
PMPOA4C010 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
Quad IS (Paulsell (3712066) OR Waterford (3712067) OR Montpelier (3712056) OR Denair (3712057)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Friday, January 06, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 2 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2
Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Orcuttia pilosa
hairy Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G040 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Tuctoria greenei
Greene's tuctoria
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Record Count: 24
Report Printed on Friday, January 06, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 2 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Colusa grass
Greene's tuctoria
heartscale
dwarf downingia
subtle orache
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Colusa grass
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Hoover's spurge
hairy Orcutt grass
stinkbells
Hoover's calycadenia
Hartweg's golden sunburst
Colusa grass
beaked clarkia
Greene's tuctoria
Greene's tuctoria
hairy Orcutt grass
succulent owl's-clover
forked hare-leaf
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Hoover's calycadenia
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
Colusa grass
DENAIR

WATERFORD PAULSELL

MONTPELIER

TURLOCK CRESSEY

OAKDALE KNIGHTS FERRY
CERES

HATCH WINTON

ESCALON

RIVERBANK

TURLOCK LAKE

COOPERSTOWN

CNDDB PLANT
:DWHUIRUG'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFW
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: CDFW
± 02 1
Miles
Project Site

hoary bat
western spadefoot
tricolored blackbird
Crotch bumble bee
tricolored blackbird
tricolored blackbird
hardhead
Antioch multilid wasp
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Northern California legless lizard
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
western spadefoot
California linderiella
vernal pool fairy shrimp
western spadefoot
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
green sturgeon - southern DPS
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
least Bell's vireo
tricolored blackbird
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Yuma myotis
Swainson's hawk
tricolored blackbird
hoary bat
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
vernal pool fairy shrimp
California linderiella
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
western mastiff bat
hardhead
hardhead
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Swainson's hawk
western spadefoot
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Swainson's hawk
vernal pool fairy shrimp
vernal pool fairy shrimp
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
DENAIR

WATERFORD PAULSELL

MONTPELIER

TURLOCK CRESSEY

OAKDALE

KNIGHTS FERRY
CERES

HATCH WINTON

ESCALON

RIVERBANK

TURLOCK LAKE

COOPERSTOWN
CNDDB WILDLIFE
:DWHUIRUG'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFW
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: CDFW
± 02 1
Miles
Project Site

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 1/15 


1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 2/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 3/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 4/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 5/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 6/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 7/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 8/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 9/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 10/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 11/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 12/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 13/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 14/15

1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 15/15

$WWDFKPHQW&
3KRWRJUDSKV

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
$OPRQGWUHHVLQWKHFHQWUDOSDUWRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJQRUWKIURPWKHDSSUR[LPDWHFHQWUDO SDUWRIWKHVLWH

$OPRQGWUHHVLQWKHVRXWKSDUWRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJQRUWKIURPWKHVRXWKHGJHRIWKHVLWH

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
8QGHUJURXQGLUULJDWLRQODWHUDOVSDQQLQJDFURVVWKHVLWHORRNLQJHDVWIURPWKHZHVWHGJH RIWKHVLWH

$OPRQGWUHHVLQWKHQRUWKSDUWRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJVRXWKZHVWIURPWKHQRUWKHGJHRIWKH VLWH

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
:HVWHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJVRXWKDORQJ1RUWK(XFDO\SWXV$YHQXHIURPWKHQRUWKZHVW FRUQHURIWKHVLWH

:HVWHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJQRUWKDORQJ1RUWK(XFDO\SWXV$YHQXHIURPWKHVRXWKZHVW FRUQHURIWKHVLWH

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
1RUWKHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJHDVWIURPWKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWH
1RUWKHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJZHVWIURPWKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWH

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
6RXWKHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJZHVWIURPWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWH
(DVWHGJHRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJVRXWKDORQJ1RUWK5HLQZD\$YHQXHIURPWKHQRUWKHDVW FRUQHURIWKHVLWH

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
0RGHVWR,UULJDWLRQ'LVWULFWODWHUDOVLWXDWHGMXVWVRXWKDQGRIIVLWHORRNLQJZHVW
*URXQGVTXLUUHOEXUURZVDWWKHEDVHRIDQRUFKDUGWUHHLQWKHQRUWKHDVWSDUWRIWKHVLWH ORRNLQJZHVW
7KHUHDUHDIHZJURXQGVTXLUUHOVEXUURZVLQWKHVLWHEXWQRQH VKRZHGHYLGHQFHRIEXURZLQJRZO

0225(%,2/2*,&$/
&OXVWHURIODUJHWUHHVMXVWQRUWKRIWKHQRUWKZHVWSDUWRIWKHVLWHORRNLQJQRUWKZHVW
7KHUHDUHVHYHUDOWUHHVVXLWDEOHIRUQHVWLQJUDSWRUVLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKH VLWH
&OXVWHURIODUJHWUHHVQHDUWKHVRXWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWHORRNLQJQRUWKZHVWIURPWKH VRXWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWH

$WWDFKPHQW'
'HVLJQDWHG&ULWLFDO+DELWDW

DENAIR

WATERFORD PAULSELL

MONTPELIER

TURLOCK CRESSEY

OAKDALE KNIGHTS FERRY
CERES

HATCH WINTON

ESCALON

RIVERBANK

TURLOCK LAKE

COOPERSTOWN

KEYSTONE

CRITICAL HABITAT
:DWHUIRUG'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFW
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: USFWS; NOAA
± 02 1
Miles
Project Site
Steelhead
Colusa grass/Greene's tuctoria/Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Hoover's spurge
Fleshy owl's-clover
Hairy Orcutt grass
Vernal pool fairy shrimp

84 | Page
Appendix C
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared by Wood Rodger

Waterford, CA
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project Transportation Impact Study

FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:

California Land Development
Prepared By
3301 C Street, Building 100-B
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 341-7760
May 2024
J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\Traffic\Reports\Waterford_TIS_20240508.docx

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ ͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵ ͳǤͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵ ͳǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵ ͳǤʹǤͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵ ͳǤ͵
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͵ ͳǤͶ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͸ ͳǤͶǤͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͸ ͳǤͶǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͸ ͳǤͷ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͸ ͳǤ͸ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͹ ʹ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͹ ʹǤͳ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͹ ʹǤʹ ǡ

ǡ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͹ ʹǤ͵

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͺ ʹǤ͵Ǥͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͺ ʹǤ͵Ǥʹ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͺ ͵

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵Ǥͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵ǤͳǤͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵Ǥʹ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵ǤʹǤͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵ǤʹǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵ǤʹǤ͵

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͶ Ͷ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤͳ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤͳǤͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤʹ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤʹǤͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤʹǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͹ ͶǤʹǤ͵

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͹
ͷ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͲ ͸

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͳ ͹

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͳ ͹Ǥͳ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͳ ͹Ǥʹ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͳ ͹Ǥ͵ Ǧ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹʹ ͹ǤͶ ǡ

ǡ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹʹ ͺ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹʹ ͺǤͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ͵ ͺǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ͵ ͺǤ͵
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͶ ͺǤͶ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͶ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
ͳǤͳǣ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͶ ͳǤʹǣ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͷ ʹǤͳǣ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͲ ʹǤʹǣ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͳ ͵Ǥͳǣ
ǦǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͵ ͵Ǥʹǣ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͷ ͶǤͳǣǦǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͺ ͶǤʹǣ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͻ

LIST OF TABLES
ͳǤͳǤ
͸

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ͸ ʹǤͳǤ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͻ ͵ǤͳǤ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳʹ ͵ǤʹǤ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͶ ͶǤͳǤ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͸ ͶǤʹǤ

ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͹ ͷǤͳǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͲ ͺǤͳ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ͵ ͺǤʹǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͶ

APPENDICES
Ȃ

Ȃ

͸
Ȃ
ȂǦ

Ȃ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ǡ

Ǥ
ǡͳͻǤͻ
Ǥ

ͻͺ Ǧ Ǥ

Ǥ

ͻͻͲ͹͵ǦͻͺǦ Ǥ

ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION

Ǥ
ȋ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͲȌ
ͳͳͺͳͻ
ǡ

Ͷ͵

Ǥ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳʹǡ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳͷǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲ͵ͶǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͻȌ

͸͸ǦǤ

ǡ Ǥ

Ǥ

͹ͲͶ ͷ͵Ǧ͸ͺǦǡǤ

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Ǥ

͓͵

Ǥ
ͻͷ

Ƭ

ǡ ǡ

Ǥ
ǡͻͷ

Ǥ ǡ ͻͷ

Ǥ
Ǧ
Ƭ

ʹͳͶ

Ǥ

ʹͳͷǦ

Ǥ Ƭ

Ǧ
Ǥ

PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION

ǡ

Ǥ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 2

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS

ͳʹǦǦͳͶǦȋ

ȌʹǦ
Ǥ
͸Ǧ ͷǦ
ǡͷǦ

ȋȌ

ͷǡ͹ͲͲ

Ǥ
Ƭ

ͶͲ͵ͷǤ

Ƭ

ͶͲ

POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

Ǧ

Ǧ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǧ

ǦǦ

Ǥ͹Ͳ ȋ

Ȍ

ǦǤ

ǦǤ ǡ

Ǥ
ǡ

Ǧ

ǡ
Ǧǡ

Ǥ

PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

ǡ

ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡ

Ǥ

VMT ANALYSIS

Ͷ͹Ǥ͹ ͲǤͳͷΨ
Ͷ͹ǤͺǤ ǡ

Ǥǡ ǡ

ǡ ͳͷΨǤ
ǡ

ǯǤ
ǡ

ǯǤ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡ

ǯǤ

ȋȌ

Ǥǡ

ǡͶ͹Ǥ͹ǡ

ͲǤͳͷΨͶ͹ǤͺǤ

ǡ
ǡǤ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 3
1 INTRODUCTION

ȋ
Ȍ
ǡ

Ǥ
ȋ
Ȍ

ǡ
ȋȌǤ

Figure

1.1Ǥ

ǯ

ȋȌ
ǯǦǦ
Ǥ

ǯ

ȋȌǡ

ǯ

Ǥ

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ǡ
Ǥ

Ǥ

ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͷͲȌ

Ȁ
ͳͻǤͻ
Ǥ

Ǥ
ͻͺǦ
Ǥ

Figure 1.2Ǥ

Ǥ
ȋ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͲȌ
ͳͳͺͳͻ
ǡ

Ͷ͵

Ǥ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳʹǡ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳͷǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲ͵ͶǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͻȌ

͸͸ǦǤ

ǡ Ǥ

Ǥ

1.2 STUDY AREA

Ǥ

1.2.1 Intersections

ǡ

ǤȋͷȌ
ǣ
ͳǤ Ƭ

ʹǤ Ƭ

͵Ǥ Ƭ

ͶǤ Ƭ
ȋȋȌͳ͵ʹȌ
ͷǤ
Ƭ
ȋͳ͵ʹȌ

Figure 1.1Ǥ

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS

ǣ
x Existing Conditions:

Ǥ
x Existing Plus Project Conditions:

Ǥ
x Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions:

Ǥ

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Project Location
Project Location and Study Vicinity
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\Fig_1_Location_and_Facilities_Map.mxd 3/13/2024 6:04:13 PM nfeyli Figure 1.1
NORTH
05 250 00
Feet
Legend
!( Study Intersection
Project Location
Annexation Area
#

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 5
Figure 1.2: Project Site Plan

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 6

1.4 ANALYSIS METHODS

̶ ̶ȋȌǤ

ǡ̶̶
̶ ̶
ǡ
ǤǲǳǦ
ǡǲ ǳ Ǧ

Ǥ

1.4.1 Intersections

Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition ȋHCM 6Ȍȋ
ǡ ʹͲͳ͸ȌǤ

Table 1.1ǡ
ͳͻǦͺʹͲǦʹHighway Capacity Manual, 6th Editionȋ
͸ȌǤ
Table 1.1. HCM 6th Edition Based Intersection LOS Thresholds Level of
Service Description
Intersection Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Signalized
Ǧ
Ǥ ζͳͲǤͲ ζͳͲǤͲ
Ǥ ͳͲǤͲδζͳͷǤͲ ͳͲǤͲδζʹͲǤͲ Ǥ ͳͷǤͲδζʹͷǤͲ ʹͲǤͲδζ͵ͷǤͲ

Ǥ ʹͷǤͲδζ͵ͷǤͲ ͵ͷǤͲδζͷͷǤͲ

Ǥ ͵ͷǤͲδζͷͲǤͲ ͷͷǤͲδζͺͲǤͲ

Ǧ

Ǥ εͷͲǤͲ εͺͲǤͲ
Source: HCM 6th Edition Exhibit 19-8 and 20-2.

͸ Synchro
11Ǥ

1.4.2 Signal Warrants

ȋȌ
͓͵

Ǥ

͓͵ȋ͹ͲΨ
Ȍ
ǡ

ͳͲǡͲͲͲǤ

1.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025ȋ ʹͲͲ͹Ȍ

ͷǤͶǤͳ

Ǧ ȋȌǤ

ͳ͵ʹȋ
Ȍ
Ǥ
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studiesȋ ʹͲͲʹȌ
ǣ
ǲǲǳǲǳ
ǡ ǡ

ǳ ǡ ǲǳǤ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 7

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
ǣ
x Chapter 2: Existing ConditionsȂ

ǡǡ
ǡ

Ǥ
x Chapter 3: Existing Plus Project Conditions Ȃ

Ǥ
x Chapter 4: Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation ConditionsȂ

Ǥ
x Chapter 5: Queueing Analysis Ȃ

Ǥ
x Chapter 6: Project-Related Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements Ȃ

Ǥ
x Chapter 7: Project Site Access and Internal Circulation Ȃ

Ǥ
x Chapter 8ǣVehicle Miles Traveled AnalysisȂ

ǯ
Ǥ
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

ǡ ǡ
ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ

2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

Ǥ
Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132)Ǧ

Ǥ
ǡ

ʹǦ

City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025Ǥ ͳ͵ʹ Ͷͷ
ǡʹͷ
ǡ͵ͷ Ǥ
Reinway AvenueǦ
ʹǦ
City of Waterford General Plan
Update Vision 2025, ǡ Ǥ

ȋͳ͵ʹȌͳǡ͵ͷͲ Ǥ
ʹͷǤ
Pecan Avenue Ǧ
Ǥ
ʹͷǤ
Eucalyptus AvenueǦ
ʹǦ
City of Waterford General
Plan Update Vision 2025
ȋ
Ȍ
͸ͲͲǤ

ȋͳ͵ʹȌͳǡ͵ͷͲ Ǥ

ͶͲǤ

2.2 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

͸ͷͲ
Ǥ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 8
ʹͲͲ ͶͲͲ Ǥ
Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ

Ǥ

Ƭ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ

Ƭ

ǡȋȌǤ

Ǥ
͵ Ǥ

ͳʹ
Ǥ
ͷͲǡ
ͳ͵ʹȋ
Ȍ
Ǥ ͷͲ ȋȌ Ǧ ͸ ͹ ͺ͸Ǥ

2.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

2.3.1 Existing Traffic Counts

Ǥ

͹ǣͲͲͻǣͲͲ
Ǥ

ͶǣͲͲ͸ǣͲͲ

Ǥ

ȋͷȌ

ǡʹ͵ǡʹͲʹ͵Ǥ

Appendix AǤ

ȋ

͓ͳȌ

Ǥ

Ǥ

ȋǤǤǡ
ǦȌ

Ǥ
Figure 2.1

Ǥ
Figure 2.2

Ǥ

2.3.2 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Table 2.1

ȋFigure 2.1Ȍ ȋFigure 2.2ȌǤ

ͳͳǤ
Table 2.1ǡ

Ǥ
͸

Appendix BǤ

͓͵

Ǥ
Appendix CǤ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 9
Table 2.1. Existing Intersection Operations
# Intersection Control
Type
LOS
Criteria
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec/veh)3 LOS4 Wrnt Met?4
ͳ Ƭ

ͳ
ͺǤͳ
͹Ǥ͸
ʹ Ƭ

ʹ
ͺǤͺ
ͺǤ͵
͵ Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͳǤͶ
ͳͳǤͳ
Ͷ Ƭ

ʹ͹ǤͶ ǦǦ
ͳ͵Ǥͺ ǦǦ
ͷ
Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͺǤ͸
ͳ͹Ǥ͸
Notes: 1 OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled (i.e., minor street stop-controlled) 2 AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled 3 For OWSC, the worst approach/movement delay and LOS is reported. For Signalized and AWSC intersections, average intersection delay is reported. 4 Wrnt Met? = Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 (70%)

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Existing Conditions Lane Geometrics and Control
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\LaneGeometrics\Fig_LaneGeom_LaneGeom.mxd 3/13/2024 6:08:57 PM nfeyli Figure 2.1
NORTH
07 350 00
Feet
Stop Controlled Movement
Signalized Intersection
Turning Movement
Legend
Project Location
!(# Study Intersection

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
N Reinway Avenue &
87 (34)131 (110)
N Reinway Avenue
90 (35)73 (78)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Ingress
1 Primary School Ingress N Reinway Avenue & 101 (104) 26 (6) N Reinway Avenue 55 (11)
68 (20)
Pecan Avenue 47 (41) 111 (102)
N Reinway Avenue
2 Pecan Avenue
N Reinway Avenue &
167 (127)
N Reinway Avenue
129 (120)
N Reinway Avenue
29 (23)
98 (46)
Primary School Egress
3 Primary School Egress N Reinway Avenue & 55 (46) 63 (38) 159 (69) N Reinway Avenue 108 (54)
429 (241)
102 (19)
Yosemite Boulevard 103 (15)
71 (22)72 (18)
N Reinway Avenue
68 (66)
253 (413)
54 (32)
Yosemite Boulevard
4 Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue &
2 (1)0 (1)4 (2)
Eucalyptus Avenue
4 (2)
545 (327)
4 (5)
Yosemite Boulevard
1 (3)0 (1)6 (6)
Eucalyptus Avenue
2 (2)
349 (514)
2 (4)
Yosemite Boulevard
5 Yosemite Boulevard
J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_Exist.mxd 3/18/2024 5:43:59 PM nfeyli Figure 2.2
07 350 00
Feet
NORTH
Legend
Project Location
!( Study Intersection
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 12
3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

ǡ

Ȁ
ǡ

Ǥ

3.1 PROJECT SITE

3.1.1 Project Site Description

ǡ
Ǥ

Ǥ

ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͷͲȌ

Ȁ
ͳͻǤͻ
Ǥ

Ǥ
ͻͺǦ
Ǥ

Figure 1.2Ǥ

Ǥ

Ǥ

3.2 PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS

3.2.1 Trip Generation

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Ǥ

Ǧ

ȋ
ʹͳͲȌ
Ǥ Table 3.1

Ǥ
Table 3.1. Project Trip Generation
ITE
Code Land Use Category Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 In Out Total In Out Total
ʹͳͲ Ǧ

ͻͺ ʹ ͻͻͲ ͳͺ ͷͷ ͹͵ ͸ʹ ͵͸ ͻͺ
Notes:
1Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2DU = Dwelling Units Table 3.1ǡ
ͻͻͲ͹͵ ǦͻͺǦǤ

3.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment

ǡ
ǡǤ

Ǥ
ǡ

ǡ

Ǧ
Ǥ
Figure 3.1Ǥ

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Project-Only Trips and Distribution
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
N Reinway Avenue &
19 (19)
N Reinway Avenue
6 (32)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Ingress
1 Primary School Ingress N Reinway Avenue & 19 (19) N Reinway Avenue Pecan Avenue 6 (32)
N Reinway Avenue
2 Pecan Avenue
N Reinway Avenue &
19 (19)
N Reinway Avenue
6 (32)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Egress
3 Primary School Egress N Reinway Avenue & 7 (9) 3 (1) 9 (9) N Reinway Avenue 3 (15)
4 (10)
Yosemite Boulevard
2 (1)1 (2)
N Reinway Avenue
2 (15)
13 (6)
5 (1)
Yosemite Boulevard
4 Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue &
10 (6)18 (7)
Eucalyptus Avenue
6 (11)
7 (9)
Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue
3 (12)
2 (15)
Yosemite Boulevard
5 Yosemite Boulevard
J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_Proj_With_Arrows.mxd 3/11/2024 11:23:03 AM nfeyli Figure 3.1
0 350 700
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersection
Project Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
30%
40%
40%
40%
5% 15%
10% 10%
5%
5%
AM Project Trip Distribution
PM Project Trip Distribution

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 14

3.2.3 Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service

ǡ Figure 3.2. Table 3.2

ȋ Figure 2.1Ȍ

ǤTable 3.2

Ǥ

ͳͳǤ
Table 3.2. Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations # Intersection Control
Type
LOS
Criteria
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Delay
(S/V)1 LOS Wrnt Met?2
Delay
(S/V)1 LOS Wrnt Met?2
ͳ
Ƭ

ͳ
ͺǤͳ ͺǤʹ
͹Ǥ͸ ͹Ǥͺ
ʹ Ƭ

ʹ
ͺǤͺ ͺǤͻ
ͺǤ͵ ͺǤ͹
͵
Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͳǤͶ ͳͳǤ͹
ͳͳǤͳ ͳͳǤͺ
Ͷ Ƭ

ʹ͹ǤͶ ǦǦ ʹͺǤͶ ǦǦ
ͳ͵Ǥͺ ǦǦ ͳͶǤͻ ǦǦ
ͷ
Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͺǤ͸ ʹͲǤ͸
ͳ͹Ǥ͸ ͳ͹Ǥͺ
Notes:
1 OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled (i.e., minor street stop-controlled) 2 AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled 3 For OWSC, the worst approach/movement delay and LOS is reported. For Signalized and AWSC intersections, average intersection delay is reported.
4 Wrnt Met? = Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 (70%)
Table 3.2ǡ

Ǥ
͸

Appendix BǤ

͓͵

Ǥ
Appendix CǤ

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
N Reinway Avenue &
87 (34)150 (129)
N Reinway Avenue
79 (110)
90 (35)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Ingress
1 Primary School Ingress N Reinway Avenue & 120 (123) 26 (6) N Reinway Avenue 55 (11)
68 (20)
Pecan Avenue 47 (41) 117 (134)
N Reinway Avenue
2 Pecan Avenue
N Reinway Avenue &
186 (146)
N Reinway Avenue
135 (152)
N Reinway Avenue
29 (23)
98 (46)
Primary School Egress
3 Primary School Egress N Reinway Avenue & 62 (55) 66 (39) 168 (78) N Reinway Avenue 111 (69)
433 (251)
102 (19)
Yosemite Boulevard 103 (15)
73 (23)73 (20)
N Reinway Avenue
70 (81)
266 (419)
59 (33)
Yosemite Boulevard
4 Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue &
12 (7)0 (1)22 (9)
Eucalyptus Avenue
10 (13)
552 (336)
4 (5)
Yosemite Boulevard
1 (3)0 (1)6 (6)
Eucalyptus Avenue
5 (14)
351 (529)
2 (4)
Yosemite Boulevard
5 Yosemite Boulevard
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_E+P.mxd 3/8/2024 10:15:11 AM nfeyli Figure 3.2
07 350 00
Feet
NORTH
Legend
Project Location
!( Study Intersection
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 16
4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS ANNEXATION CONDITIONS

ǡ

Ȁ ǡ

Ǥ

4.1 ANNEXATION AREA

4.1.1 Annexation Site Description

ȋͶ͵
Ȍ
Ǥ

ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͷͲȌǤ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͲȌ

ͳͳͺͳͻ
ǡ

Ͷ͵

Ǥ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳʹǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳͷǡ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲ͵ͶǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͻȌ
Ȁ

ǦǡͳʹǤͻͺ Ǥ

ǡ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳʹǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳͷǡͲͺͲǦ
ͲͲ͵ǦͲ͵ͶȌ

͸ͳǦ

Ǥ
ȋͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͻȌ

Ǧ

Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ

ȋȌǤ

Appendix DǤ
ǡ Ǧ

Appendix DǤ

4.2 ANNEXATION GENERATED TRIPS

4.2.1 Trip Generation

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition,ǡ Ǧ

Ǥ

Ǧ

ȋ
ʹͳͲȌǤ Table 4.1 Ǥ
Table 4.1. Annexation Area Trip Generation
ITE
Code Land Use Category Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 In Out Total In Out Total
ʹͳͲ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳʹǡͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͳͷǡ
ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲ͵ͶǣǦ

͸ͳ ʹ ͸ͶͲ ͳʹ ͵͸ Ͷͺ ͵ͻ ʹ͵ ͸ʹ
ʹͳͲ ͲͺͲǦͲͲ͵ǦͲͶͻǣǦ

ͷ ʹ ͸Ͷ ͳ Ͷ ͷ Ͷ ʹ ͸
Total Annexation Area Trips 704 13 40 53 43 25 68
Notes:
1Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2DU = Dwelling Units Table 4.1ǡ͹ͲͶͷ͵ Ǧ͸ͺǦǤ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 17

4.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Ǥ͸ͳ

Ǥ
Figure 4.1Ǥ

4.2.3 Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions Intersection Level of Service

ǡFigure 4.2ǤTable 4.2

ȋ Figure 2.1Ȍ
Ǥ
Table 4.2

Ǥ

ͳͳǤ
Table 4.2. Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Intersection Operations # Intersection Control
Type
LOS
Criteria
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Plus
Annexation Conditions
Delay
(S/V)1 LOS Wrnt Met?2
Delay
(S/V)1 LOS Wrnt Met?2
ͳ

Ƭ

ͳ
ͺǤͳ ͺǤʹ
͹Ǥ͸ ͹Ǥͻ
ʹ
Ƭ
ʹ
ͺǤͺ ͻǤͲ
ͺǤ͵ ͺǤͻ
͵

Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͳǤͶ ͳͳǤͺ
ͳͳǤͳ ͳʹǤͲ
Ͷ
Ƭ

ʹ͹ǤͶ ǦǦ ʹͻǤʹ ǦǦ
ͳ͵Ǥͺ ǦǦ ͳͷǤͳ ǦǦ
ͷ
Ƭ

ͳ
ͳͺǤ͸ ʹͶǤͺ
ͳ͹Ǥ͸ ʹͲǤͻ
Notes:
1 OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled (i.e., minor street stop-controlled) 2 AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled 3 For OWSC, the worst approach/movement delay and LOS is reported. For Signalized and AWSC intersections, average intersection delay is reported.
4 Wrnt Met? = Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 (70%)
Table 4.2ǡ

Ǥ
͸

Appendix BǤ

͓͵

Ǥ
Appendix CǤ

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Annexation-Only Trips and Distribution
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
N Reinway Avenue &
5 (8)
N Reinway Avenue
6 (6)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Ingress
1 Primary School Ingress N Reinway Avenue & 5 (8) N Reinway Avenue Pecan Avenue 6 (6)
N Reinway Avenue
2 Pecan Avenue
N Reinway Avenue &
5 (8)
N Reinway Avenue
6 (6)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Egress
3 Primary School Egress N Reinway Avenue & 3 (7) 1 (0) 1 (1) N Reinway Avenue 1 (2)
4 (15)
Yosemite Boulevard
2 (2)
N Reinway Avenue
5 (4)
15 (10)
5 (1)
Yosemite Boulevard
4 Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue &
11 (9)25 (14)
Eucalyptus Avenue
8 (23)
1 (1)
Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue
4 (16)
0 (1)
Yosemite Boulevard
5 Yosemite Boulevard
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_Annex.mxd 3/18/2024 5:24:30 PM nfeyli Figure 4.1
0 350 700
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersection
Project Location
Annexation Area
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
30%
40%
5% 15%
40%
40%
5%
5%
10% 10%
PM Annexation Trip Distribution
AM Annexation Trip Distribution

!(
!(
!(
!(5 !(4
3 2
1 Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Traffic Volumes Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
N Reinway Avenue &
87 (34)155 (137)
N Reinway Avenue
85 (116)
90 (35)
N Reinway Avenue
Primary School Ingress
1 Primary School Ingress N Reinway Avenue & 125 (131) 26 (6) N Reinway Avenue 55 (11)
68 (20)
Pecan Avenue 47 (41) 123 (140)
N Reinway Avenue
2 Pecan Avenue
N Reinway Avenue &
191 (154)
N Reinway Avenue
141 (158)
N Reinway Avenue
29 (23)
98 (46)
Primary School Egress
3 Primary School Egress N Reinway Avenue & 65 (62) 67 (39) 169 (79) N Reinway Avenue 112 (71)
437 (266)
102 (19)
Yosemite Boulevard 103 (15)
75 (25)73 (20)
N Reinway Avenue
75 (85)
281 (429)
64 (34)
Yosemite Boulevard
4 Yosemite Boulevard
Eucalyptus Avenue &
23 (16)0 (1)47 (23)
Eucalyptus Avenue
18 (36)
553 (337)
4 (5)
Yosemite Boulevard
1 (3)0 (1)6 (6)
Eucalyptus Avenue
9 (30)
351 (530)
2 (4)
Yosemite Boulevard
5 Yosemite Boulevard
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\GIS\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_E+P+A.mxd 3/11/2024 10:39:52 AM nfeyli Figure 4.2
0 350 700
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersection
Project Location
Annexation Area
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 20
5 QUEUEING ANALYSIS

Ǧ

ǤTable 5.1 ͻͷ

Ǥ Table 5.1ǡ
Ǧ Ƭ

ǡ
ǡ

Ǥͻͷ

Ǥ

Appendix BǤ
Table 5.1. Queueing Analysis Results
Intersection Movement/
Approach
Available
Storage
(ft)1
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue (ft)2
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Existing Plus
Project Plus
Annexation
͓ͳ
Ƭ

ǦǦ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
͓ʹ
Ƭ

ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
ǦǦ δʹͲ ʹͲ ʹʹ
δʹͲ ʹ͸ ʹ͸
ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ ʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ ʹͲ
͓͵
Ƭ

ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
͓Ͷ
Ƭ

ͳͳͲ ͳͲͷ ͳͲ͹ ͳͳͲ
͵ͻ Ͷ͸ ͷͳ
ͳͶͲ δʹͲ ʹ͵ ʹ͵
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
͸Ͳ 200 212 214
86 112 114
Ͷ͹Ͳ ͳͲͳ ͳͲͷ ͳͳͲ
ͺͶ ͳͳͶ ͳʹͲ
ͶͷͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
ʹͲͷ ͳͶͳ ͳͶͳ ͳͶͳ
͵ͳ Ͷʹ Ͷʹ
ʹͲͲ δʹͲ ͵Ͷ ͵ͷ
δʹͲ Ͷͺ ͷͳ
͓ͷ
Ƭ

ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
ǦǦ δʹͲ δʹͲ ʹͶ
δʹͲ δʹͲ δʹͲ
Notes: Bold values indicate queue exceeds storage. 1 For stop-controlled movements, available storage represents the distance to the nearest cross-street. 2 Queues reported as “<20” indicate queues are less than one vehicle length long.

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 21
6 OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS

Ǥ
͓͵

Ǥ
ǡ ͻͷ

Ƭ
Ǥ

ǡͻͷ

Ǥ
ǡͻͷ

Ǥ

Ǥ
Ǧ
Ƭ

ʹͳͶ

Ǥ

ʹͳͷǦ

Ǥ Ƭ

Ǧ
Ǥ
7 PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS

7.1 PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION

Ǥ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ
City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ
Ƭ

ͶͲ ͵ͷǤ͵ͲǦǦ
ʹͻǡͶͲǦǦ
͵͹
ȋ
Ȍ
Ǥǡ

Ƭ

ͶͲ

Ǥ

7.2 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS

ͳʹǦǦͳͶǦȋ

ȌʹǦ
Ǥ
͸Ǧ ͷǦ
ǡͷǦ

ȋȌ

Ǥ

ͶǤ
ͷǤʹCity of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025
ʹͲ͵Ͳ

ȋȌͷǡ͹ͲͲ

ǤʹǦ
ͳʹǦǦͳͶǦ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 22

Ǥ

Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ȋ

ǡ ʹͲͳ͸Ȍǡ

ͷǡͻͲͲǯǤǡ

7.3 POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

Ǧ

Ǧ

Ǥ

ǡ

͵ǡʹͲͲ ǦǦ
Ǥ ͵Ͳǡ ͳǤʹ ǦǦ
Ǥ ǡ

Ͷǡ͸ͲͲ ǦǦ
Ǥ͵Ͳǡ ͳǤ͹ͷ ǦǦ Ǥ
ǦǦ

ǡ

Ǧ

Ǥ

ǡʹͲͲǦ
Ǧ

ǤǡʹͲͲ ǡ͵ͷ
Ȁ
ǡ͸ͷ
Ȁ
Ǥ
Ȁ

Ǧ

ǦǦ
Ǥǡ͹Ͳ

ǦǤ

Ǧ
Ǥ ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǧ
ǡ

Ǧǡ

Ǥ

7.4 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ

Ǥ
͵ͲͲǦ

Ǥ
ͲǤ͵ͷ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡ

Ǥ
8 VMT ANALYSIS
͹Ͷ͵ ȋ͹Ͷ͵ȌǡʹͲͳ͵ǡ

Ǥ

ʹͲͳͺ

ȋȌ

Ǥ

ͳǡʹͲʹͲǤ
ǯ

ȋȌ

ȋ

Ȍ ȋ

ʹͲͳͺȌǡ

ǡ
ǡ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 23
Ǥ

Ǥǡ

Ǥ

Ǧ

Ǥ

ǣ ǣȀȀ
Ǥ
ȀȀǤ

ʹͲʹʹǤ Ǧǡ

Ǥ Ǧǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ

8.1 PROJECT AREA RESIDENTIAL VMT PER RESIDENT

Ǧ ǡ ǲ
ǳ

ǡǤǤ Ǧ Ǥ

Appendix E Ǥ

Ǥ

Ǥ

Table 8.1Ǥ
Table 8.1 Project Study Area VMT per Resident Data
Project Study Area Metrics Value
ͳǡʹ͹Ͳ
ͷǡ͵͸ͻ

Ǧͳ ͸Ͳǡͷ͹Ͷ
VMT Per Resident 47.7
Notes:

All vales are based on average Thursday daily conditions (Fall of 2022) data obtained from Replica. 1Calculated by summing all resident trip lengths reported by Replica. Table 8.1ǡ

Ͷ͹Ǥ͹

Ǥ

8.2 CITY EXISTING BASELINE RESIDENTIAL VMT PER RESIDENT

Ǥ

ʹͲʹʹ
Ǥ

Ǥ

Table 8.2.

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 24
Table 8.2 City of Waterford VMT per Resident Data
City Metrics Value
ͻǡͳͷͲ
͵Ͷǡ͵ʹ͹

Ǧͳ Ͷ͵͹ǡͲ͸͵
VMT Per Resident 47.8
Notes:

All vales are based on average Thursday daily conditions (Fall of 2021) data obtained from Replica. 1Calculated by summing all resident trip lengths reported by Replica. Table 8.2ǡͶ͹Ǥͺ ʹͲʹʹ
Ǥ

8.3 VMT SCREENING FINDING

Ͷ͹Ǥ͹ ͲǤͳͷΨ
Ͷ͹ǤͺǤ ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ
ǦǦ

ǯͳͷΨǤ ǡ

ǡ

ǦǦ
ǡ
Ȁ

Ǥ
ǡ ǡ

ǡͳͷΨ Ǥ
ǡ

ǯǤ
ǡ

ǯǤ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡ

ǯǤ

8.4 ANNEXATION AREA VMT

ȋ Ȍ

Ǥ ǡ

ǡͶ͹Ǥ͹ǡ

ͲǤͳͷΨͶ͹ǤͺǤ ǡ ǡ

ǡͳͷΨ Ǥ
ǡ

ǯ Ǥ
ǡ

ǯ Ǥ

ǡ ǡ Ǥ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix A
Traffic Counts

!

"##

%&%% %
' %
%

! %
% ( )*) % % %
% + %,*%

% %%&%

!-
.

/ !
0-
.

!-
./ !
0-
./

-
-
.
-- !0-/
!-
.
/ !
0-
.
/

!"
#$$%

& '
(
)('

*
+,(
+-.

! /0
#
1% ! /
20
#
1%

! /0
#% ! /
20
#%
304 0
#4!00 /20%
! /0
#1% ! /
20
#1%

!"
#

!

"
##
$

%

!

"
##
$

&'&& &
( &
& ')%

"
*+ &
& , -./ & /'0 &
' 1 &230 &200

& &&'&

!4
*

+ !
54
*

!4
*+ !
54
*+

4
4
*
44 !54+
!4
*
+ !
54
*
+

!
"
#

!

" #$%

& '

(
''
)*

+ #,
-
./

+ #
0,
-
./

+ #,
-/ + #
0,
-/
%,1 ,
-1+,, #0,/
+ #,
-./ + #
0,
-./

!
"
#

!
!! !

"

! #

$

%&' !

! ( )
) ! *+* !

, !-) !-)

! !!
!

$

%.' $

/

%.'

%' $

/

%'
0

%1$

3/
'
$

%.' $

/

%.'

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix B
Synchro HCM 6th Edition LOS and Queueing Reports

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress AM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 73 131 87
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 73 131 87
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 108008
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 113 91 164 109
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 237 281 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 802 1282 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 788 1272 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.5 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1272 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave AM Existing Peak Hour
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 55 111 47 26 101
Future Vol, veh/h 68 55 111 47 26 101
Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 87 71 142 60 33 129
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.7 8.8

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 55% 20%
Vol Thru, % 70% 0% 80%
Vol Right, % 30% 45% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 158 123 127
LT Vol 0 68 26
Through Vol 111 0 101
RT Vol 47 55 0
Lane Flow Rate 203 158 163
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.243 0.201 0.207
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.316 4.591 4.568
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 833 782 786
Service Time 2.341 2.62 2.595
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.244 0.202 0.207
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.8 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.7 0.8

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress AM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 129 167 0
Future Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 129 167 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 12 2 60 0 0 60
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 38 129 0 170 220 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 402 222 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 220 -----
Stage 2 182 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 604 818 0 - - 0
Stage 1 817 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 849 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 604 816 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 604 - - - - -
Stage 1 817 -----
Stage 2 849 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 604 816 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.063 0.158 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.4 10.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.6 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Peak Hour
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 329 70 132 557 140 92 94 134 206 153 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.48 0.11 0.68 0.72 0.20 0.59 0.28 0.34 0.74 0.33 Control Delay 64.6 30.6 2.6 64.8 35.6 6.2 64.6 39.4 7.7 60.3 27.0 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 64.6 30.6 2.6 64.8 35.6 6.2 64.6 39.4 7.7 60.3 27.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 172 0 87 325 4 61 54 0 134 64 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 251 6 141 450 31 105 91 24 200 107 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 361 874 777 270 779 711 270 836 769 361 824 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.38 0.09 0.49 0.72 0.20 0.34 0.11 0.17 0.57 0.19 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Peak Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 253 54 102 429 108 71 72 103 159 63 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 253 54 102 429 108 71 72 103 159 63 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 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 88 329 70 132 557 140 92 94 134 206 82 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 113 561 474 166 617 518 118 423 356 246 260 225 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 873 756 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 329 70 132 557 140 92 94 134 206 0 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 0 1629 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 11.2 2.4 5.5 21.4 4.9 3.8 3.1 5.4 8.5 0.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 11.2 2.4 5.5 21.4 4.9 3.8 3.1 5.4 8.5 0.0 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 561 474 166 617 518 118 423 356 246 0 486 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.59 0.15 0.79 0.90 0.27 0.78 0.22 0.38 0.84 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 474 1145 967 355 1020 857 355 1095 920 474 0 954 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.7 22.4 19.3 33.4 24.1 18.5 34.5 23.7 24.6 31.6 0.0 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.4 0.1 3.2 4.1 0.1 4.1 0.1 0.2 2.9 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 4.8 0.9 2.5 9.7 1.8 1.8 1.3 2.0 3.8 0.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.9 22.7 19.3 36.6 28.2 18.6 38.6 23.8 24.8 34.4 0.0 20.6 LnGrp LOS D C B D C B D C C C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 487 829 320 359
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 27.9 28.5 28.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 28.5 9.0 26.6 8.8 30.8 14.4 21.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 46.0 15.0 * 44 20.0 41.0 20.0 * 44 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 13.2 5.8 7.5 5.7 23.4 10.5 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 349 2 4 545 4 1 0 6 4 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 349 2 4 545 4 1 0 6 4 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 379 2 4 592 4 1 0 7 4 0 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 596 0 0 381 0 0 987 988 380 990 987 594 Stage 1 - - - - - - 384 384 - 602 602 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 603 604 - 388 385 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 980 - - 1177 - - 226 247 667 225 247 505 Stage 1 - - - - - - 639 611 - 486 489 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 486 488 - 636 611 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 980 - - 1177 - - 224 245 667 221 245 505 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 224 245 - 221 245 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 637 609 - 485 487 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 481 486 - 628 609 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 12 18.6

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 520 980 - - 1177 - - 272
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.002 - - 0.004 - - 0.024
HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.7 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress PM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 78 110 34
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 78 110 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 53 118 167 52
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 193 219 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 849 1350 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 849 1350 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.4 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1350 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave PM Existing Peak Hour
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 11 102 41 6 104
Future Vol, veh/h 20 11 102 41 6 104
Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 17 157 63 9 160
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8 8.3 8.3

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 65% 5%
Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 95%
Vol Right, % 29% 35% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 143 31 110
LT Vol 0 20 6
Through Vol 102 0 104
RT Vol 41 11 0
Lane Flow Rate 220 48 169
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.243 0.062 0.197
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.972 4.676 4.195
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 891 771 844
Service Time 2.053 2.676 2.276
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.247 0.062 0.2
HCM Control Delay 8.3 8 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.7

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress PM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 120 127 0
Future Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 120 127 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 35 70 0 182 192 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 377 192 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 192 -----
Stage 2 185 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 625 850 0 - - 0
Stage 1 841 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 847 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 625 850 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 625 - - - - -
Stage 1 841 -----
Stage 2 847 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 625 850 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.056 0.082 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.1 9.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.3 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Peak Hour
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 492 38 23 287 64 26 21 18 82 100 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.44 0.04 0.20 0.30 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.09 0.44 0.32 Control Delay 42.0 15.6 5.9 42.3 17.5 10.0 42.3 30.7 1.7 41.9 23.0 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 42.0 15.6 5.9 42.3 17.5 10.0 42.3 30.7 1.7 41.9 23.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 95 0 9 75 5 10 8 0 31 24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 365 18 39 217 38 43 28 1 94 70 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 1195 1409 1181 1195 1409 1166 1195 1765 1460 1195 1598 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Peak Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 413 32 19 241 54 22 18 15 69 38 46 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 413 32 19 241 54 22 18 15 69 38 46 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 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 79 492 38 23 287 64 26 21 18 82 45 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 107 604 501 41 534 441 45 186 156 110 104 127 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1546 1781 1870 1570 1781 764 934 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 79 492 38 23 287 64 26 21 18 82 0 100 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1546 1781 1870 1570 1781 0 1698 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 8.9 0.6 0.5 4.8 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 8.9 0.6 0.5 4.8 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 604 501 41 534 441 45 186 156 110 0 230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.81 0.08 0.57 0.54 0.15 0.58 0.11 0.12 0.75 0.00 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2415 2840 2356 2415 2586 2138 2415 4006 3364 2415 0 3637 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 11.5 8.7 17.8 11.1 9.8 17.8 15.1 15.1 17.0 0.0 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 1.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.5 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 0.6 2.4 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.7 12.5 8.7 22.4 11.4 9.9 22.0 15.2 15.3 20.8 0.0 15.1 LnGrp LOS C B A C B A C B B C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 609 374 65 182
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.3 11.8 17.9 17.7
Approach LOS BBBB
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 17.9 4.9 9.2 6.2 16.5 6.3 7.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 56.0 50.0 * 79 50.0 51.0 50.0 * 79 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 10.9 2.5 4.0 3.6 6.8 3.7 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 514 4 5 327 2 3 1 6 2 1 1
Future Vol, veh/h 2 514 4 5 327 2 3 1 6 2 1 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 565 4 5 359 2 3 1 7 2 1 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 361 0 0 569 0 0 942 942 567 945 943 360 Stage 1 - - - - - - 571 571 - 370 370 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 371 371 - 575 573 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1198 - - 1003 - - 243 263 523 242 263 684 Stage 1 - - - - - - 506 505 - 650 620 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 649 620 - 503 504 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1198 - - 1003 - - 240 261 523 237 261 684 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 240 261 - 237 261 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 505 504 - 649 616 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 643 616 - 495 503 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 15.3 17.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 360 1198 - - 1003 - - 291
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.002 - - 0.005 - - 0.015
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.3 8 0 - 8.6 0 - 17.6
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 79 150 87
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 79 150 87
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 108000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 113 99 188 109
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 261 305 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 778 1256 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 765 1246 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.4 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1246 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 55 117 47 26 120
Future Vol, veh/h 68 55 117 47 26 120
Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 87 71 150 60 33 154
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.9 9

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 55% 18%
Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 82%
Vol Right, % 29% 45% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 164 123 146
LT Vol 0 68 26
Through Vol 117 0 120
RT Vol 47 55 0
Lane Flow Rate 210 158 187
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.254 0.204 0.238
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.355 4.661 4.578
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 824 770 784
Service Time 2.382 2.695 2.606
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 0.205 0.239
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.9 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.8 0.9

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 135 186 0
Future Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 135 186 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 12 2 60 0 0 60
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 38 129 0 178 245 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 435 247 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 245 -----
Stage 2 190 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 578 792 0 - - 0
Stage 1 796 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 842 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 578 790 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 578 - - - - -
Stage 1 796 -----
Stage 2 842 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.7 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 578 790 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.066 0.163 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.7 10.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.6 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 345 77 132 562 144 95 95 134 218 167 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.51 0.12 0.68 0.73 0.20 0.60 0.29 0.35 0.74 0.39 Control Delay 64.8 31.3 3.4 64.9 36.2 6.6 64.6 40.1 7.9 59.4 28.2 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 64.8 31.3 3.4 64.9 36.2 6.6 64.6 40.1 7.9 59.4 28.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 183 0 88 332 5 64 56 0 141 71 Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 264 10 141 457 34 107 91 23 212 116 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 357 864 770 267 770 705 267 826 762 357 812 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.40 0.10 0.49 0.73 0.20 0.36 0.12 0.18 0.61 0.21 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 266 59 102 433 111 73 73 103 168 66 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 266 59 102 433 111 73 73 103 168 66 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 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 91 345 77 132 562 144 95 95 134 218 86 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 117 558 472 175 620 520 122 418 351 258 250 236 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 834 786 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 91 345 77 132 562 144 95 95 134 218 0 167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 0 1620 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 12.3 2.8 5.6 22.3 5.2 4.1 3.2 5.6 9.2 0.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 12.3 2.8 5.6 22.3 5.2 4.1 3.2 5.6 9.2 0.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 117 558 472 175 620 520 122 418 351 258 0 486 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.62 0.16 0.75 0.91 0.28 0.78 0.23 0.38 0.85 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 460 1110 937 345 989 831 345 1062 892 460 0 919 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.7 23.4 20.0 34.0 24.8 19.1 35.5 24.6 25.5 32.3 0.0 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.4 0.1 2.5 5.2 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.3 2.9 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 5.3 1.0 2.5 10.3 1.9 1.9 1.4 2.1 4.1 0.0 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 23.8 20.1 36.5 30.0 19.2 39.5 24.7 25.8 35.3 0.0 21.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B D C C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 513 838 324 385
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.1 29.1 29.5 29.2
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 29.1 9.3 27.4 9.1 31.7 15.2 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 46.0 15.0 * 44 20.0 41.0 20.0 * 44 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 14.3 6.1 8.2 5.9 24.3 11.2 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 351 2 4 552 10 1 0 6 22 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 5 351 2 4 552 10 1 0 6 22 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 5 382 2 4 600 11 1 0 7 24 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 611 0 0 384 0 0 1013 1012 383 1011 1008 606 Stage 1 - - - - - - 393 393 - 614 614 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 620 619 - 397 394 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 968 - - 1174 - - 217 239 664 218 240 497 Stage 1 - - - - - - 632 606 - 479 483 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 476 480 - 629 605 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 968 - - 1174 - - 209 236 664 214 237 497 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 209 236 - 214 237 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 628 602 - 476 481 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 461 478 - 618 601 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12.2 20.6

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 506 968 - - 1174 - - 268
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.006 - - 0.004 - - 0.138
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 8.7 0 - 8.1 0 - 20.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.5

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 110 129 34
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 110 129 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 53 167 195 52
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 221 247 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 819 1319 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 819 1319 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.9 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1319 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 11 134 41 6 123
Future Vol, veh/h 20 11 134 41 6 123
Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 17 206 63 9 189
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.9 8.6

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 65% 5%
Vol Thru, % 77% 0% 95%
Vol Right, % 23% 35% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 175 31 129
LT Vol 0 20 6
Through Vol 134 0 123
RT Vol 41 11 0
Lane Flow Rate 269 48 198
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.301 0.064 0.233
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.026 4.845 4.229
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 878 744 836
Service Time 2.12 2.845 2.328
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.306 0.065 0.237
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.2 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.2 0.9

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 152 146 0
Future Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 152 146 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 35 70 0 230 221 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 454 221 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 221 -----
Stage 2 233 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 564 819 0 - - 0
Stage 1 816 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 806 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 564 819 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 564 - - - - -
Stage 1 816 -----
Stage 2 806 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 564 819 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.062 0.085 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.8 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.3 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 499 39 23 299 82 27 24 18 93 111 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.43 0.04 0.21 0.32 0.10 0.24 0.13 0.09 0.50 0.43 Control Delay 47.3 14.8 5.5 47.5 17.8 10.3 47.4 35.5 1.3 47.4 28.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.3 14.8 5.5 47.5 17.8 10.3 47.4 35.5 1.3 47.4 28.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 101 0 10 84 9 12 11 0 41 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 114 373 18 42 233 48 46 34 1 112 84 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 1103 1301 1093 1103 1301 1082 1103 1741 1440 1103 1567 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.04 0.02 0.23 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.07 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 419 33 19 251 69 23 20 15 78 39 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 419 33 19 251 69 23 20 15 78 39 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 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 96 499 39 23 299 82 27 24 18 93 46 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 122 770 639 40 684 566 45 170 142 118 92 130 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1547 1781 1870 1568 1781 700 988 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 96 499 39 23 299 82 27 24 18 93 0 111 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1547 1781 1870 1568 1781 0 1688 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 9.5 0.7 0.6 5.4 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.0 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 9.5 0.7 0.6 5.4 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.0 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 122 770 639 40 684 566 45 170 142 118 0 222 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.65 0.06 0.58 0.44 0.14 0.59 0.14 0.13 0.79 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1999 2351 1951 1999 2141 1772 1999 3317 2780 1999 0 2994 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 10.5 7.9 21.6 10.7 9.5 21.5 18.7 18.6 20.5 0.0 18.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 1.8 0.1 4.9 0.9 0.2 4.5 0.1 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 2.9 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 12.3 8.0 26.5 11.5 9.7 26.0 18.8 18.8 24.7 0.0 18.6 LnGrp LOS C B A C B A C B B C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 634 404 69 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.9 12.0 21.6 21.4
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 24.3 5.1 10.1 7.1 22.3 7.0 8.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 56.0 50.0 * 79 50.0 51.0 50.0 * 79 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 11.5 2.7 4.7 4.4 7.4 4.3 2.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM Existing Plus Proj Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 529 4 5 336 13 3 1 6 9 1 7
Future Vol, veh/h 14 529 4 5 336 13 3 1 6 9 1 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 15 581 4 5 369 14 3 1 7 10 1 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 383 0 0 585 0 0 1004 1006 583 1003 1001 376 Stage 1 - - - - - - 613 613 - 386 386 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 391 393 - 617 615 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1175 - - 990 - - 220 241 512 221 243 670 Stage 1 - - - - - - 480 483 - 637 610 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 633 606 - 477 482 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1175 - - 990 - - 213 235 512 213 237 670 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 213 235 - 213 237 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 471 474 - 625 606 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 602 - 461 473 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.1 16.2 17.8

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 333 1175 - - 990 - - 299
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.013 - - 0.006 - - 0.062
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 8.1 0 - 8.7 0 - 17.8
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress AM E+P+A Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 85 155 87
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 90 85 155 87
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 108000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 113 106 194 109
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 267 311 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 772 1249 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 759 1239 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.2 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1239 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave AM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 55 123 47 26 125
Future Vol, veh/h 68 55 123 47 26 125
Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 87 71 158 60 33 160
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 9 9 9.1

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 55% 17%
Vol Thru, % 72% 0% 83%
Vol Right, % 28% 45% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 170 123 151
LT Vol 0 68 26
Through Vol 123 0 125
RT Vol 47 55 0
Lane Flow Rate 218 158 194
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.265 0.206 0.247
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.372 4.695 4.588
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 822 763 782
Service Time 2.401 2.731 2.619
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.265 0.207 0.248
HCM Control Delay 9 9 9.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 0.8 1

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress AM E+P+A Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 141 191 0
Future Vol, veh/h 29 98 0 141 191 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 12 2 60 0 0 60
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 38 129 0 186 251 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 449 253 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 251 -----
Stage 2 198 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 568 786 0 - - 0
Stage 1 791 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 835 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 568 785 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 568 - - - - -
Stage 1 791 -----
Stage 2 835 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 568 785 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.067 0.164 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.8 10.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.6 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM E+P+A Peak Hour
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 365 83 132 568 145 97 95 134 219 171 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.52 0.13 0.69 0.76 0.21 0.62 0.30 0.35 0.76 0.40 Control Delay 65.8 31.3 4.2 66.7 38.4 6.8 65.8 40.5 7.9 61.5 28.9 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 65.8 31.3 4.2 66.7 38.4 6.8 65.8 40.5 7.9 61.5 28.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 197 0 88 339 6 65 57 0 142 73 Queue Length 95th (ft) 110 280 13 141 467 35 110 92 23 214 121 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 344 833 746 258 743 685 258 797 740 344 783 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.44 0.11 0.51 0.76 0.21 0.38 0.12 0.18 0.64 0.22 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 281 64 102 437 112 75 73 103 169 67 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 281 64 102 437 112 75 73 103 169 67 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 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 97 365 83 132 568 145 97 95 134 219 87 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 124 572 483 174 624 524 124 415 348 258 244 236 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 822 794 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 365 83 132 568 145 97 95 134 219 0 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1580 1781 1870 1571 1781 1870 1571 1781 0 1616 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 13.3 3.0 5.7 23.0 5.4 4.2 3.3 5.7 9.5 0.0 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 13.3 3.0 5.7 23.0 5.4 4.2 3.3 5.7 9.5 0.0 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 572 483 174 624 524 124 415 348 258 0 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.64 0.17 0.76 0.91 0.28 0.78 0.23 0.38 0.85 0.00 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 450 1087 918 337 968 813 337 1039 873 450 0 898 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.2 23.7 20.1 34.8 25.2 19.4 36.2 25.3 26.2 33.0 0.0 21.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.4 0.1 2.5 6.1 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 5.8 1.1 2.6 10.8 1.9 2.0 1.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 24.2 20.2 37.3 31.3 19.5 40.2 25.4 26.5 36.0 0.0 22.1 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B D C C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 545 845 326 390
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 30.2 30.2 29.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 30.2 9.5 27.7 9.5 32.4 15.5 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 46.0 15.0 * 44 20.0 41.0 20.0 * 44 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 15.3 6.2 8.6 6.2 25.0 11.5 7.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd AM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 351 2 4 553 18 1 0 6 47 0 23
Future Vol, veh/h 9 351 2 4 553 18 1 0 6 47 0 23
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 10 382 2 4 601 20 1 0 7 51 0 25
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 621 0 0 384 0 0 1035 1032 383 1026 1023 611 Stage 1 - - - - - - 403 403 - 619 619 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 632 629 - 407 404 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 960 - - 1174 - - 210 233 664 213 236 494 Stage 1 - - - - - - 624 600 - 476 480 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 468 475 - 621 599 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 960 - - 1174 - - 197 229 664 208 232 494 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 197 229 - 208 232 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 592 - 470 478 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 442 473 - 607 591 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.1 12.4 24.8

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 496 960 - - 1174 - - 257
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.01 - - 0.004 - - 0.296
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 8.8 0 - 8.1 0 - 24.8
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 1.2

Waterford Subdivision TIS
1: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress PM E+P+A Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 116 137 34
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 35 116 137 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 53 176 208 52
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 234 260 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 805 1304 - - -
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 805 1304 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1304 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
2: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave PM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 11 140 41 6 131
Future Vol, veh/h 20 11 140 41 6 131
Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 17 215 63 9 202
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.2 9 8.8

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 65% 4%
Vol Thru, % 77% 0% 96%
Vol Right, % 23% 35% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 181 31 137
LT Vol 0 20 6
Through Vol 140 0 131
RT Vol 41 11 0
Lane Flow Rate 278 48 211
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.312 0.065 0.254
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.144 4.891 4.339
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 872 735 833
Service Time 2.144 2.901 2.339
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.319 0.065 0.253
HCM Control Delay 9 8.2 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.2 1

Waterford Subdivision TIS
3: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress PM E+P+A Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 158 154 0
Future Vol, veh/h 23 46 0 158 154 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 35 70 0 239 233 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 475 233 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 233 -----
Stage 2 242 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 548 806 0 - - 0
Stage 1 806 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 798 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 548 806 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 548 - - - - -
Stage 1 806 -----
Stage 2 798 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 548 806 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.064 0.086 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 12 9.9 -
HCM Lane LOS - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0.3 -

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM E+P+A Peak Hour
Queues Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 511 40 23 317 85 30 24 18 94 120 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.44 0.04 0.22 0.34 0.11 0.26 0.13 0.09 0.51 0.46 Control Delay 48.4 15.0 5.6 48.6 18.2 10.8 48.8 36.2 1.3 48.6 29.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.4 15.0 5.6 48.6 18.2 10.8 48.8 36.2 1.3 48.6 29.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 108 0 11 93 10 14 11 0 43 40
Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 385 18 42 249 51 51 34 0 114 90 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1317 3935 2233 652
Turn Bay Length (ft) 470 450 205 200 100 140 60
Base Capacity (vph) 1084 1278 1075 1084 1278 1063 1084 1726 1429 1084 1544 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.40 0.04 0.02 0.25 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 Intersection Summary

Waterford Subdivision TIS
4: N Reinway Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 429 34 19 266 71 25 20 15 79 39 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 85 429 34 19 266 71 25 20 15 79 39 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 00000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 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 101 511 40 23 317 85 30 24 18 94 46 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 129 782 649 40 688 569 49 170 143 120 84 135 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1548 1781 1870 1568 1781 644 1036 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 511 40 23 317 85 30 24 18 94 0 120 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1552 1781 1870 1548 1781 1870 1568 1781 0 1679 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 9.9 0.7 0.6 5.8 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 2.4 0.0 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 9.9 0.7 0.6 5.8 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 2.4 0.0 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 129 782 649 40 688 569 49 170 143 120 0 219 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.65 0.06 0.58 0.46 0.15 0.61 0.14 0.13 0.78 0.00 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1965 2311 1918 1965 2105 1741 1965 3260 2733 1965 0 2927 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 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 10.6 7.9 21.9 10.9 9.6 21.8 19.0 18.9 20.8 0.0 18.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 1.8 0.1 4.9 0.9 0.2 4.4 0.1 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.8 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 1.0 3.0 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 12.4 8.0 26.9 11.9 9.8 26.2 19.1 19.1 25.0 0.0 19.2 LnGrp LOS C B A C B A C B B C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 652 425 72 214
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.0 12.3 22.0 21.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 45678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 24.9 5.3 10.1 7.3 22.7 7.0 8.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 56.0 50.0 * 79 50.0 51.0 50.0 * 79 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 11.9 2.8 5.0 4.5 7.8 4.4 2.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Waterford Subdivision TIS
5: Eucalyptus Ave & Yosemite Blvd PM E+P+A Peak Hour
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 530 4 5 337 36 3 1 6 23 1 16
Future Vol, veh/h 30 530 4 5 337 36 3 1 6 23 1 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 33 582 4 5 370 40 3 1 7 25 1 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 410 0 0 586 0 0 1060 1070 584 1054 1052 390 Stage 1 - - - - - - 650 650 - 400 400 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 410 420 - 654 652 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1149 - - 989 - - 202 221 512 204 227 658 Stage 1 - - - - - - 458 465 - 626 602 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 619 589 - 456 464 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1149 - - 989 - - 188 210 512 193 216 658 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 188 210 - 193 216 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 438 445 - 599 598 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 597 585 - 430 444 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.1 17.1 20.9

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 308 1149 - - 989 - - 270
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 0.029 - - 0.006 - - 0.163
HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 8.2 0 - 8.7 0 - 20.9
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.6

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix C
Signal Warrant Worksheets

CA SIGNAL WARRANT 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS: "AM/PM PEAK HOUR" CONDITIONS Date: June 26, 2023 Intersection No.: 1

MAJOR MINOR
EXST_AM 381 0 NO Intersection: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Ingress EXST_PM 257 0 NO
E+P_AM 405 0 NO Number of lanes on MAJOR street: 1
E+P_PM 34 0 NO
BLANK1 0 0 Number of lanes on MINOR street: 1
BLANK2 0 0
BLANK3 0 0
BLANK4 0 0

SCENARIO

APPROACH(ES) WARRANT
MET?
Note: Major approach is the total of both approaches. Minor approach is the highest of both approaches.
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET--HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH VPH

MAJOR STREET--TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES VPH
FIGURE 4C-4 WARRANT 3 PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR)
(COMMUNITIES LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREETS) (CALIFORNIA MUTCD 2014 Edition)
EXST_AM
EXST_PM
E+P_AM
E+P_PM
BLANK1
BLANK2
BLANK3
BLANK4
Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minorstreet approach with one lane. 1 LANE & 1 LANE
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
BLANK4 *100
*75
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
8341.008 TCTM 2014 Update
Tuolumne County, CA
Wood Rodgers, Inc. J:\4000-s\4743001_Waterford_Subdivision\Traffic\Analysis\CA_MUTCDSigWarrantNo3AM_PM_WAR-70% INT1

CA SIGNAL WARRANT 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS: "AM/PM PEAK HOUR" CONDITIONS Date: June 26, 2023 Intersection No.: 2

MAJOR MINOR
EXST_AM 285 123 NO Intersection: N Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave EXST_PM 253 31 NO
E+P_AM 309 123 NO Number of lanes on MAJOR street: 1
E+P_PM 287 31 NO
BLANK1 0 0 Number of lanes on MINOR street: 1
BLANK2 0 0
BLANK3 0 0
BLANK4 0 0

SCENARIO

APPROACH(ES) WARRANT
MET?
Note: Major approach is the total of both approaches. Minor approach is the highest of both approaches.
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET--HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH VPH

CA SIGNAL WARRANT 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS: "AM/PM PEAK HOUR" CONDITIONS Date: June 26, 2023 Intersection No.: 3

MAJOR MINOR
EXST_AM 296 127 NO Intersection: N Reinway Ave & Primary School Egress EXST_PM 247 69 NO
E+P_AM 320 127 NO Number of lanes on MAJOR street: 1
E+P_PM 281 69 NO
BLANK1 0 0 Number of lanes on MINOR street: 2
BLANK2 0 0
BLANK3 0 0
BLANK4 0 0

SCENARIO

APPROACH(ES) WARRANT
MET?
Note: Major approach is the total of both approaches. Minor approach is the highest of both approaches.
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET--HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH VPH

CA SIGNAL WARRANT 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS: "AM/PM PEAK HOUR" CONDITIONS Date: June 26, 2023 Intersection No.: 5

MAJOR MINOR
EXST_AM 906 7 NO Intersection: Eucalyptus Ave & SR 132
EXST_PM 854 10 NO
E+P_AM 923 34 NO Number of lanes on MAJOR street: 1
E+P_PM 900 23 NO
BLANK1 0 0 Number of lanes on MINOR street: 1
BLANK2 0 0
BLANK3 0 0
BLANK4 0 0

SCENARIO

APPROACH(ES) WARRANT
MET?
Note: Major approach is the total of both approaches. Minor approach is the highest of both approaches.
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET--HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH VPH

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix D
Annexation Area Exhibit and Development Assumptions

&ĂŚŵǇŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ͕WƌĞǌŽŶĞ͕ĂŶĚd^DƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ŝůĞEŽ͘ϮϬϮϮͲϬϬϬϭ
ŝƚǇŽĨtĂƚĞƌĨŽƌĚ
ƌĂĨƚWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
KǀĞƌǀŝĞǁ
dŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞWƌĞͲŽŶĞĂŶĚĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϰϯ͘ϮϳͲĂĐƌĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ tĂƚĞƌĨŽƌĚ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ϭϵ͘Ϯ ĂĐƌĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ϰϯ͘ϮϳͲĂĐƌĞ ĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ ĂƌĞĂ ŝŶƚŽ ϵϴ ƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůŽƚƐ͘EŽŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐϮϰ͘ϬϳĂĐƌĞƐ͘ ĞůŽǁ͕ ƚŚŝƐ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĞĚ ƚŽ ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞ ƚŚĞ ĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ WƌĞǌŽŶĞ ĨŽůůŽǁĞĚďǇƚŚĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞdĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶDĂƉ͘ ŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWƌĞͲŽŶĞ͗
dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶ^ƚĂŶŝƐůĂƵƐŽƵŶƚǇ͕ĂŶĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨtĂƚĞƌĨŽƌĚ͛ƐWƌŝŵĂƌǇ^ƉŚĞƌĞ ŽĨ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞ;^K/Ϳ͘dŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŝǆ;ϲͿůĞŐĂůƉĂƌĐĞůƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇ ŽĨtĂƚĞƌĨŽƌĚ͕ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƐĞƐƐŽƌWĂƌĐĞůEƵŵďĞƌƐ;WEͿ͗ • ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϱϬ͖
• ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϭϮ͖
• ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϭϱ͖
• ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϯϰ͖
• ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϬ͖ĂŶĚ͕
• ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϵ͘
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶĂƌĞĂŝƐƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͕ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĨĞǁĞƐƚĂƚĞŚŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĂDŽďŝůĞ ,ŽŵĞĂŶĚZsWĂƌŬ͘dŚĞDŽďŝůĞ,ŽŵĞĂŶĚZsWĂƌŬŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϭϭϴϭϵzŽƐĞŵŝƚĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚŽŶWEEŽ͘ ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϬĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĨŽƌƚǇͲƚŚƌĞĞ;ϰϯͿƐƉĂĐĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŽĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇ͕ŵŽƐƚŽĨǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ ŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ͘
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶĂƌĞĂŝƐĐŽŶƚŝŐƵŽƵƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŝƚǇůŝŵŝƚƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘/ƚŝƐďŽƵŶĚĞĚďǇZĞŝŶǁĂǇǀĞŶƵĞƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕^ZϭϯϮƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ͕t/DĂŝŶĂŶĂůĂŶĚ ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐ
ǀĞŶƵĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽďĞƐƵďĚŝǀŝĚĞĚ͕WEϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϵ ƚŽƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚ͕ĂŶĚŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϰϯ͘ϮϳͲĂĐƌĞƐ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͕ŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ǆŚŝďŝƚ͕ŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐƚŽƚĂůĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͘

/ŶƚĞƌŵƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌĞͲǌŽŶŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ƚŚĞƚĂďůĞďĞůŽǁĚĞƉŝĐƚƐ ĞĂĐŚƉĂƌĐĞů;ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇWEͿ͕ŝƚƐƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶůĂŶĚƵƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĨŽůůŽǁĞĚďǇĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶůĂŶĚƵƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ͛Ɛ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ͘ dĂďůĞϭʹWƌĞͲŽŶĞĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ WEEŽ͘ ĐƌĞƐ ϮϬϮϱ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ
>ĂŶĚhƐĞ
ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ
WƌĞͲŽŶĞ
ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƉĂĐŝƚǇΎ
;ηŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐͿ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϭϮ ϰ͘ϵϯ >ŽǁĞŶƐŝƚǇ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;>Ϳ
Z^͕ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů
^ŝŶŐůĞ
Ϯϱ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϭϱ ϭ͘ϵϴ > Z^ ϭϬ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϯϰ ϱ͘ϭϮ > Z^ Ϯϲ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϬ ϲ͘ϭϱ > Z^ ϰϯ
;^ƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞ^ŚĂĚĞDŽďŝůĞ
,ŽŵĞĂŶĚZsWĂƌŬ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϰϵ Ϭ͘ϵϱ > Z^ ϱ
ϬϴϬͲϬϬϯͲϬϱϬ ϭϵ͘ϭϯ > Z^ ϵϴ
Eͬ;ƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲ
ǁĂǇ͕D/
ĂŶĂůͿ
ϱ͘Ϭϭ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
dŽƚĂů ϰϯ͘Ϯϳ Ͳ Ͳ ϮϬϳ
EŽƚĞƐ͗
ΎĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŝƐďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĞŶƐŝƚǇƉĞƌϮϬϮϱ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ>ůĂŶĚƵƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϱĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐƉĞƌ ŐƌŽƐƐĂĐƌĞ͘
Ɛ ĚĞƉŝĐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶĂƌĞĂŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞϮϬϳ ƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐ͕ϰϯŽĨǁŚŝĐŚĞǆŝƐƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞDŽďŝůĞ,ŽŵĞĂŶĚZsWĂƌŬĂŶĚϵϴƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƐ ƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘/ƚŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚŝŶƚĞƌŵƐŽĨŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ϵϴƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͘
dĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶDĂƉ
ƐŶŽƚĞĚƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚĂůƐŽĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨĂdĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶDĂƉƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞ ƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϵ͘ϮͲĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƚŽŶŝŶĞƚǇͲĞŝŐŚƚ;ϵϴͿƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůŽƚƐĂŶĚĂƉĂƌĐĞů ƐĞƚĂƐŝĚĞĨŽƌĂƐĂŶŝƚĂƌǇƐĞǁĞƌƉƵŵƉƐƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘^ĞǁĞƌǁŝůůďĞƉƵŵƉĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƐŝǆ;ϲͿŝŶĐŚĨŽƌĐĞŵĂŝŶƐŽƵƚŚ ĂůŽŶŐE͘ZĞŝŶǁĂǇǀĞŶƵĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮ͕ϰϳϬĨĞĞƚƚŽĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŵĂŶŚŽůĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ E͘ZĞŝŶǁĂǇǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚtĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶZŽĂĚ͘
^ƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƌƵŶŽĨĨǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶǀĞǇĞĚǀŝĂĂŐƌĂǀŝƚǇƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŽƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞƐƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƚƌƵŶŬŵĂŝŶŝŶE͘

ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐǀĞŶƵĞ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŵĞƚĞƌŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁƉŝƉĞƚŽƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚǁĞůǀĞ;ϭϮͿŝŶĐŚƐƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞůŝŶĞŝŶE͘ZĞŝŶǁĂǇǀĞŶƵĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽE͘ZĞŝŶǁĂǇ ǀĞŶƵĞ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŵĞƚĞƌĞĚ ƚŽ ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĨůŽǁ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ ƐŽ ĂƐ ŶŽƚ ƚŽ ŝŶƵŶĚĂƚĞ

ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵ ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘ ^ƚĂŐŶĂŶƚ ǁĂƚĞƌ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƉŝƉĞ ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬ ǁŝůů ĞŵƉƚǇ ǀŝĂ ƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĞƌĐŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵĂůŽŶŐE͘
ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐǀĞŶƵĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĞŝƚŚĞƌĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨƌǇǁĞůůƐŽƌ &ƌĞŶĐŚƌĂŝŶƐǇƐƚĞŵ;ƐͿ͘
ůŽŽƉĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵǁŝůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌŽĂĚǁĂǇƐ͘ŶĞŝŐŚƚ;ϴͿŝŶĐŚŵĂŝŶǁŝůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚ ŝŶE͘
ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐǀĞŶƵĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶ͘dŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵǁŝůůŚĂǀĞƚǁŽ ;ϮͿĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƉŽŝŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶǁŝƚŚŝŶE͘ZĞŝŶǁĂǇǀĞŶƵĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ͕ ĂŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶůŽƚƐŶŝŶĞƚǇ;ϵϬͿĂŶĚŶŝŶĞƚǇͲƚŚƌĞĞ;ϵϯͿ͘ǁĂƚĞƌůŝŶĞǁŝůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞƐƚƵďƐƚƌĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůůŽƚƐŝƐŶŽƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͕ďƵƚŝƚĐĂŶďĞĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŚĂƚĨƵƚƵƌĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞǁŝůůĐŽŶĨŽƌŵƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇ͛ƐŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϳ͘ϮϬ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͘hůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇ͕ ƚŚĞ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚ ŽĨ ƵƐĞƐ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚǇ͛ƐŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇ͕ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚƵƐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů^ŝŶŐůĞ;Z^ͿŽŶĞ͘ dǇƉŝĐĂůůŽƚƐŝǌĞŽĨŶĞǁƉĂƌĐĞůƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞ ĨĞĞƚ ŝŶ ƐŝǌĞ͘ WƌŝŵĂƌǇ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ƐŝƚĞ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǀŝĂE͘ ZĞŝŶǁĂǇ ǀĞŶƵĞ͕E͘ ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐ
ǀĞŶƵĞ͕ĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚΗ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘͟
ůŽŶŐƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͕E͘
ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐǀĞŶƵĞǁŝůůďĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ĐƌŽƐƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͗
^ŽƵƚŚŽĨ ƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͛Ɛ ĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƐŽƵƚŚŽĨ ƚŚĞDŽĚĞƐƚŽ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ;D/ͿĐĂŶĂů͕E͘

ƵĐĂůǇƉƚƵƐǀĞŶƵĞǁŝůůďĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐƌŽƐƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͗

&ŝŐƵƌĞϭʹŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ
ǆŚŝďŝƚ

Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix E
Project Study Area for Project VMT per Resident Calculation

Project Study Area for Project VMT per Resident Calculation Project Site
Project Study Area

EXHIBIT B – MITIGATION MONIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING/

REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE

FAHMY ANNEXATION
(File No. Annexation, Prezone, and VTSM 2022-0001)
Waterford, CA
Prepared for:

City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
Prepared by:

J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, CA 95366

Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification (Date/Initials)
Agricultural Resources
Development of the
Proposed Project will
result in the loss of Prime
Farmland.

Ag- 1:

Prior to the filing of an annexation request to the
Stanislaus LAFCo, the Developer and/or Project
Proponent shall provide to the City of Waterford
Planning Department a Plan for Agricultural
Preservation which shall include written evidence
of compliance with Stanislaus LAFCo Policy 22.

Planning
Manager
Prior to the
filing of an
annexation
application
with
Stanislaus
LAFCo.

Air Quality
Construction activities
related to the Proposed
Project will create dust.

Air-1:

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

Planning
Manager and
City Engineer
Prior to any
construction
activities.

Biological Resources
The Proposed Project
could result in potentially
significant impacts to
Swaison’s Hawk habitat.

Bio-1:

Pre-construction surveys for nesting Swainson’s
hawks within 0.25 miles of the Project site are
conservatively recommended if construction
commences between March 1 and September 15.

Planning
Manager
Prior to any
construction
activities.

Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification (Date/Initials)
If active nests are found, a qualified biologist
should determine the need (if any) for temporal
restrictions on construction using criteria set forth
by CDFW (CDFG, 1994) and the Swainson’s Hawk
Technical Advisory Committee (SWHTAC, 2000).

The Proposed Project
could result in potentially
significant impacts to
migratory birds.

Bio-2:

Trees in the site could be used by birds protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 or Fish
and Game Coder of California. If vegetation
removal or construction commences during the
general avian nesting season (March 1 through July
31), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds is
recommended. If active nests are found, work in
the vicinity of the nests should be delayed until the
young fledge.

Planning
Manager
Prior to any
construction
activities.

The Proposed Project
could result in potentially
significant impacts to
biological resources.

Bio-3:

Prior to the approval of any development project
within the Project site that does not include the
proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, the
Developer and/or Project Proponent shall prepare
a Biological Assessment. This Biological
Planning
Manager
Prior to the
approval of
any Tentative
Subdivision
Map.

Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification (Date/Initials)
Assessment shall be submitted to the City’s
Planning Department for their review and
evaluation of said development project.

WATERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST TO STANISLAUS LAFCO

TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AUTHORIZING
ANNEXATION OF 43.27 ACRES INTO THE CITY OF
WATERFORD, APN’S 080-003, 012, 015, 034, 040, 049, AND
050
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford has received a request from the Applicant (California Land Development, 331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032), on behalf of the Property Owner of Record (Fahmy Living Trust) to annex and prezone 43.27-acres into the City of Waterford, Assessor Parcel Numbers 080-003, 012, 015, 034, 040, 049, and 050; and, WHEREAS, the City of Waterford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, Government Code Section 56658, provisions of Part 3, Division 3, of Title 5 of said code, commencing with Section 56650, for a change in organization (annexation) of the Subject Properties; and, WHEREAS, the Subject Properties are located within the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI); and,
WHEREAS, the notice of the public hearing on the proposed Rezone was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on September 23, 2025; and WHEREAS, notices of the special public hearing on the proposed Rezone were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on September 23, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered an Initial Study, which concluded that the proposed Rezone is within the scope of the previously certified City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and in accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Waterford makes the following findings and determinations:

1. The proposed Zoning District is consistent with the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan, and specifically, the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation assigned by the Vision 2025 General Plan.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

2. The site is physically suitable for the density and/or intensity of the proposed Zoning District. The proposed density is approximately six (6) dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the LD land use density range of 4 – 6 dwelling units per acre.

3. The proposed Zoning District is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. a. As per Sections 15182 and 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, this Project is within the scope of the projects covered by the Vision 2025 General Plan Final EIR, and no new environmental document or findings are required by CEQA. Relevant mitigation measures from EIR have been made conditions of project approval.
b. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project, which result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects and, therefore, no major revisions to the EIR are required.
c. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects and therefore, no major revisions to the EIR are required. d. There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the EIR was adopted which shows any of the following: one or more significant effects which is not discussed in the EIR; or, significant effects which were previously examined will be substantially more severe than previously shown; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or, mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
e. In accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared a Negative Declaration tiered from the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan EIR based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines.

4. The Zoning District is required for public convenience and necessity.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 a. The proposed Planned Community is consistent with the Vision 2025 General Plan because the project is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation for the site in both type and intensity of development. b. The project will provide needed single-family residential housing for the City of Waterford and assist in accommodating the City’s regional housing need as prescribed by State Housing Law.
c. The proposed Planned Community Zone, by reason of its design and conditions of approval will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

5. Constitutionality, severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word of this resolution is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The Planning Commission of the City of Waterford hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), phrase(s), or word(s) be declared invalid.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE WATERFORD
PLANNING COMMISSION that it recommends to the City Council the Project site be annexed into the City of Waterford and Prezoned as depicted and illustrated in Exhibit B.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, at a meeting held on October 21, 2025, moved for adoption by Commissioner Gray and duly seconded by Commissioner Vera ; passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES:Rivers, Gray, Vera
NOES:None
ABSENT: Barnes, Esther
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
_______________________________ _____________________________ Chairperson Brandon Rivers Marissa Martinez, Secretary
Attachments:

Exhibit “A” – Annexation Area
Exhibit “B” – Draft Prezone Ordinance
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 EXHIBIT A – ANNEXATION AREA
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 EXHIBIT B – DRAFT PREZONE ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PREZONING OF 43.27-ACRES AS TO ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 080-003-050, 012, 015, 034, 040, AND 049 WHEREAS, the City of Waterford is authorized by Title 17 Chapter 17.77, to initiate a prezone whenever public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 23, 2025 to consider the proposed Rezone to PC #2024-01.

WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Waterford has made the following findings for adoption.

1. An application has been received from California Land Development (331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032) with a proposal to annex and prezone approximately

43.27± acres on property assigned the following assessor parcel number: 080-003- 050,012, 015, 040, and 049; and,

2. The project site is currently under the zoning regulation of Stanislaus County and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (LD); and

3. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Subject Properties to RS and Planned Community 2022-01 (PC #2022-01); and

4. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed Prezone was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on _____________; and

5. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed Rezone were mailed to all property owners affected by this action on ____________; and

6. Notices of the public hearing on the proposed Rezone were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on _____________; and

7. The City finds that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Lead Agency (Waterford) has prepared an Initial Study and concludes that the proposed project is within the scope of the previously certified City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and in accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and considered.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 23, 2025 and all comments were heard and considered by the City Council.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. ZONING MAP. The Zoning Map of the City of Waterford is hereby amended in the area described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS. The approval of this ordinance is based on the following findings and determinations:

A. The Planning Commission, on September 23, 2025, held a noticed public hearing and made its written recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezoning to RS and Planned Community 2022-01 (PC #2022-01), as illustrated in Exhibit A of this Ordinance.

B. The proposed prezoning is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation measures and Low Density Residential (LD) land use of the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan.

C. A noticed Public Hearing before the City Council was given in the form and manner required by State statute and the Waterford Municipal Code.

SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. The development is subject to the conditions and standards adopted in the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan for development which includes the following terms and conditions:

SECTION 4. The Zoning Map of the City of Waterford, which is attached as part of Title 17 of the City Code, is hereby amended and changed, and from and after the effective date of the Ordinance, the property illustrated in Exhibit A hereof shall be referred to and described on said zoning map of the City of Waterford as RS and Planned Community 2022-01 (PC #2022- 01).

A. Approval of this Prezone authorizes the Zoning Map of the City of Waterford to be amended to include APN 080-003-034, 012, 015, and 040 to be zoned RS, Residential Single.

B. Approval of Prezone to Planned Community 2022-01 authorizes a 98-lot singlefamily residential development shall expire within two years from the date of the annexation approval by the Stanislaus Location Agency Formation Commission unless acted upon or the applicant or property owner obtains a time extension for the subdivision map.

SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following development standards are hereby associated with Planned Community 2022-01 (PC #2022-01):

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Development Standard Planned Community 2022-01
Lot Dimensions
Lot Size (Minimum) 5,000 square feet
Lot Width (Minimum) Interior – 55-feet
Corner – 65-feet
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 15-feet
Rear 10-feet
Side Interior – 5-feet
Corner – 10-feet
For properties prezoned RS, development standards shall adhere to the City of Waterford Zoning Ordinance.

SECTION 6. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by the California Constitution and State law.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. To the extent the provisions of the Waterford Municipal Code as amended by this Ordinance are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as they read immediately prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, then those provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 10. ENACTMENT: Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage and adoption thereof, this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, together with names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Waterford this 21st day of October 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CITY OF WATERFORD
_______________________
CHARLIE GOEKIN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
CORBETT J. BROWNING
City Clerk City Attorney
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

EXHIBIT A
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

WATERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-08

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 2022-0001 (VTSM 2022-01);
LOCATED ON N. REINWAY AVENUE, WATERFORD, CA
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 080-003-050
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by California Land Development (331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032) Applicant on behalf of the Property Owner of Record (Fahmy Living Trust) as to Assessor Parcel Number 080-003-050 to subdivide 19.20± acres into ninetyeight (98) residential lots located on N. Reinway Avenue. The project will connect to the City of Waterford sewer, water and storm drain services. The project site is designated by the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan as Low Density Residential (LDR) and is currently zoned Residential Single (RS); and
WHEREAS, said tentative subdivision map was received in the office of the Secretary of the Planning Commission in 2022, and was accepted for filing and deemed complete on in September 2024, in accordance with the provisions of Title 16: Subdivisions of the Waterford Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, copies of said vesting tentative subdivision map have been sent to the Waterford Unified School District, Modesto Irrigation District, the local utility companies, and the City Departments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered an Initial Study, which concluded that the proposed tentative subdivision map is within the scope of the previously certified City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and in accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024090068) has been prepared and considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Waterford makes the following findings and determinations:

1. The proposed vesting tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, and subject to the conditions is consistent with the Vision 2025 General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.

2. The discharge of waste as a result of the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements by the California Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California.

3. As per Sections 15182 and 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, this Project is within the scope of the projects covered by the Vision 2025 General Plan EIR.

4. Based on the project’s Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024050940) has been prepared for the project and it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect and no mitigation measures are required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE WATERFORD
PLANNING COMMISSION that it recommends to the City Council to approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-0001 (VTSM 2022-01), subject to the following conditions:

Project Authorization

1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies.

The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this approval but shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and polices not so listed.

2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and zoning designations. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted in the Planned Community (PC) zoning district as applicable, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

3. The VTSM approval shall not be in effect until such time the Subject Property has been annexed into the City of Waterford.

4. The VTSM shall expire by: two (2) years upon its effective date unless a building permit is issued, or a request for an extension is received by the City prior to the expiration of the VTSM and approved by the Planning Commission.

5. The applicant and/or outside party have the right to appeal, within 10 days, any decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council per the provisions contained in the Waterford Municipal Code.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Conditions of Approval
Planning Department

1. Prior to the issuance of a Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and Public Works Department: The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained in this document and its attachments. Responses shall describe how the condition has been met and shall; where applicable, direct the plan checker to the page and/or drawing detail that demonstrates compliance with the condition. A copy of these responses shall be provided with each set of the final Site Plan and improvement plans.

2. Development shall conform to the map designated by the City Planning Department as Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall consist of the submitted map amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit any required amended maps to the Planning Department within 90 days of project approval. Failure to submit the amended map will result in a delay in processing and/or approval of the final map.

3. The development impact fees and project processing fees due in connection with this project shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid unless modified by a Development Agreement or other mechanism approved by the City. All developers of property within this project site shall pay the appropriate City Capital Facilities Fees and County Public Facilities Fees, Waterford Unified School District fees, and any other applicable fees in place. These fees may be adjusted annually based on the construction cost index or other method as approved by the City.

4. The Planning Department may approve minor amendments to the permit, provided that the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval. A request for a minor amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Department.

5. Any plans associated with the permit shall be in substantial conformance to the approved site plan and the development shall be consistent with the applicable sections of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plan (if applicable). Violation of any provision(s) may result in Code Enforcement action, which may include revocation of permit and/or monetary penalties.

6. All signage shall be consistent with the standards and guidelines established in Chapter 17.60 of the Waterford Municipal Code. If applicable, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to the construction of any project signage if said permit was not obtained with the original project approval.

7. Roadway stub located at Street G shall include bollards and/or other barriers as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

8. The final map shall be in substantial compliance to the approved VTSM 2022-01 and the development shall be consistent with applicable section of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

9. Prior to the approval and recordation of the Project’s Final Map, the applicant shall annex the Project into Community Facilities District No. 2019-01.

10. Consistent with the development standards of Planning Community (PC) No. 2022-01, lots developed within the Project shall contain the following development standards:

Development Standard PC 2022-01
Lot Dimensions
Lot Size (Minimum) 5,500 square feet
Lot Width (Minimum) Interior – 55 feet
Corner – 65 feet
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 15 feet
Rear 10 feet
Side Interior – 5 feet
Corner – (Street Side) – 10 feet

11. The developer shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement prior to the recordation of the final map. The subdivision improvement agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Waterford City Council prior to the recordation and acceptance of the Final Map.

12. The developer will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, lawsuits or causes of action (whether brought solely against the City or jointly against both City, developer, or others), damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising in any manner out of the approval or the application approved herein, including, without limitation, all actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the permit granted pursuant to the City’s approval of the application referenced herein, provided the City notifies the developer within a reasonable time of any such claim, action or proceeding, and cooperates in the defense of such claims, actions or proceedings.

13. Any overhead utilities along the frontage of the Project site shall be relocated or placed underground in accordance with Modesto Irrigation District (MID) requirements.

14. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer/Project Proponent shall have installed roadway improvements to N Eucalyptus Avenue, from the Project’s frontage south to Yosemite Boulevard/SR 132. Said improvements shall also be accepted by the City Council. The scope of improvements shall be as follows:

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Along Project Frontage:

From Southern Edge of Project to Yosemite Boulevard:

15. In addition to roadway improvements installed in N. Eucalyptus Avenue, the Developer/Project Proponent shall install domestic water along the Project’s frontage. Said improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer

16. The Developer/Project Proponent shall install frontage improvements to N. Reinway Avenue.

Said improvements shall be designed in accordance with City Standards, and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

17. Perimeter wall treatment for the Proposed Project shall consist of the following:
a. Six (6) foot decorative masonry wall along Project’s southern edge, adjacent to MID’s Waterford Lower Main Canal.
b. 6-foot masonry wall on the eastern edge of the Proposed Project where the project abuts APN No. 080-003-049.
c. All other perimeters; 6-foot “good neighbor” fence.

18. Sewer line stubs and service connections shall be provided for APN No. 080-003-049. The design and location of these stubs and service connections shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. In addition, the Developer/Project Proponent shall remove the existing sewer septic system located within APN No. 080-003-049 and pay the applicable connection fees associated with providing domestic sewer service to APN No. 080-003-049. (Amended by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2025).

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

19. The existing irrigation line that runs through APN No. 080-003-049 shall be capped and filled at the expense of the Project Proponent.

20. Two-story homes shall be prohibited for Lots 29 through 45, 90 through 94, and Lot 98.

21. The sewer pump station shall be located in Lot A.

22. Construction activities shall adhere to Chapter 8.22 (Noise Control) of the Waterford Municipal Code.

Building Department

1. Approval of the VTSM 2024-01 is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Department through issuance of any required permits.

2. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide written proof that the applicable Waterford School District fees have been paid.

3. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Stanislaus County Public Facilities Fee.

4. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District Capital Facilities Fee.

5. All construction shall meet the requirements of the currently adopted California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Energy Codes, as well as all Administrative, Residential and Green Building referenced standards.

6. A sprinkler system shall be required for any construction. The applicant shall mark the location of fire walls on the exterior of the building in a manner approved by the Building Department.

7. The applicant shall provide on-site restroom facilities during construction.

Public Works/Engineering

1. Improvement Plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All required structures such as walls, fences, drainage facilities, water mains, sewer lines and streetlights shall be shown on the plans along with curb, gutter, sidewalk, edge of pavement and utilities. All existing structures not shown on the tentative map or shown as “to be removed” shall be removed prior to the recording of the final map.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer prior to the start of work at the site. No grade severance to adjacent properties shall be created.

All structures such as walls, fences, drainage facilities, water mains and streetlights shall be shown on the plan.

3. Encroachment permits shall be required for all work within the current and proposed public right-of-way. Any work done in the current and proposed public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. Bonding for those improvements will be required as specified by Public Works/City Engineer.

4. Lighting: The lighting system shall be designed to best serve the area and to minimize the length of service runs from the points of connection to the streetlights. All lighting shall be installed according to current City Standards.

5. Cable Television: Cable television facilities including pedestals and junction boxes shall be underground in street right-of-ways or easements with service provided to each lot.

6. Prior to the start of underground work/digging the developer shall contact USA (Underground Service Alert) at 1-800-642-2444.

7. Appropriate dust control shall be provided at the contractor’s expense to minimize any dust nuisance and shall be in accordance with Section 10 of Caltrans standard specifications.

8. The developer shall be responsible for all work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

9. The contractor shall provide all lights, signs, barricades, flagmen or other devices necessary for public safety in accordance with the current issue of “Manual of Traffic Controls, Warning Signs, Lights and Devices for Use in Performance of Work Upon Highways,” published by the State of California Business and Transportation Agency.

10. Materials testing required by the City Engineer for work shall be provided by the Developer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All costs associated with material testing shall be at the Developer’s expense.

11. Prior to final acceptance of the improvements, the developer shall provide a set of “as-built” drawings to the City Engineer. These drawings shall be in black ink on Mylar, meeting the requirements of Sections 66434 of the Subdivision Map Act.

12. Developer shall remove all septic tanks and abandon existing water wells to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Streets:

13. Public streets shall be built to City of Waterford Standards in accordance with Waterford Municipal Codes Title 16 and Title 17 and the Waterford General Plan.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

14. Through review of the project’s Improvement Plans, the City Engineer and developer shall establish and agree upon the project’s area of impact, specifically related to the project’s construction impacts to N. Reinway Avenue and S. Reinway Avenue via the connection and installation of underground improvements. Construction impacts to these roadways shall be mitigated by the developer via overlay improvements on said roadways. The scope of these impacts and overlay improvements shall be defined in the project’s Improvement Plans and Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

15. A ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement shall be provided on all street frontages within the development.

16. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be constructed and/or repaired in accordance with the City Standards and the requirements of Title 16 of the Waterford Municipal Code.

17. Street survey monuments and covers shall be placed on the centerline of each street at all intersections, beginnings and ends of curves, changes of direction, and other locations as directed by the City Engineer.

18. Curb ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and shall comply with Section 2-7103 in the current edition of the State Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

19. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining soil R-value tests, specifically supervised by the City Engineer, in sufficient quantity to establish the quality of the soil and a basis for the preliminary structural section.

Water:

20. Individual water services shall be provided to each parcel from the public water main in all public streets.

21. Provide a looped water system, a minimum of two connections to the City water system are required throughout all phases.

22. Provide locations of all water valves and fire hydrants within the development. All water valves and fire hydrants shall have a maximum spacing in accordance with the current City Design Standards.

Sanitary Sewer:

23. A sewer service shall be installed by the developer to each lot and shall be sized to carry the quantity of sewage which will be discharged from the service area with a minimum design flow of 300 gallons/day plus infiltration. For the purpose of sewer capacity calculations, a peaking factor of 2.5 shall be used. All sewer laterals shall have a minimum cover of 3 feet, 6 inches from the top of the pipe to finished grade at center line. Sewers within 100 feet of Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 domestic wells shall be cast iron or ductile iron. All sewer mains shall extend to the center of property frontage. Sewer mains shall be designed according to current City Standards.

24. Single family residential properties shall be served by 4-inch sewer service laterals. Other uses such as commercial and multi-family residential uses shall install laterals according to City Standard and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Storm Drainage:

25. Project design and construction shall be in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Phase II MS4 permit.

26. All storm drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the design criteria set forth in Chapter 4 of the Stanislaus County Standards and Specifications.

27. All storm drainage improvements shall be tied into existing storm drain lines. The engineer shall provide calculations to verify downstream capacity. In the event that downstream improvements are required, the developer shall construct all necessary improvements or contribute this project’s fair share of improvements.

Modesto Irrigation District:

1. The Developer and/or Project Proponent shall install a six (6) foot decorative masonry wall along the northside of MID’s Waterford Main Canal lateral located immediately south of APN’s 080-003-050.

2. The developer must construct a proper drainage system to avoid standing water or stormwater runoff from seeping or flowing from the MID lateral into the new development.

Stormwater runoff shall drain away from MID’s lateral right-of-way.

3. MID will require, at a minimum but not limited to, the new development place the masonry wall on a berm and construct a bioswale on the MID lateral side of the wall. MID will not be responsible for storm flooding, dust, or other impacts from its existing lateral as a result of the new development’s change in use.

4. AConsent to Common Use Agreement between MID and the City of Waterford is required for the proposed utility and roadway improvements within MID’s Waterford Main Canal right-of-way at N. Reinway Avenue and N. Eucalyptus Avenue prior to development and buildout. The proposed improvements will need to adhere to MID Standard Details and requirements.

5. MID’s W-11 pipeline within Eucalyptus Avenue must be replaced with Class IV rubbergasketed reinforced concrete pipe (RGRCP) prior to development and buildout of Eucalyptus Avenue. If Class III RGRCP is proposed, the Developer must provide calculations to support the proposed design meets AASHTO HS20-44 loading.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

6. A License Agreement between MID and the utility agency is required for any proposed crossings at MID W-11 on Eucalyptus Avenue prior to development and buildout. Proposed crossings will need to adhere to MID Standard Detail and requirements.

7. Irrigation to the parcels west of Eucalyptus Avenue must be maintained through the existing private irrigation pipelines. Improvements to maintain irrigation from APN 080-003-050 to APN’s 080-003-063, 064, and 006 shall be approved by MID, such that MID standards are met, and costs shall be borne by the developer. The developer is required to coordinate the construction schedules with the downstream landowners and MID. MID will act as a liaison between the developer and the landowners.

8. The pipelines shall be replaced within the limits of the proposed project with a RGRCP that meets HS20-44 pipeline strength loading requirements.

9. The twelve (12) inch private pipeline will need be replaced with RGRCP or 100 psi rated PVC pipe that meets HS20-44 pipeline strength loading requirements within the project limits prior to development and buildout of Eucalytpus Avenue. Improvements are to be approved by MID, such that MID standards are met, and costs shall be borne by the developer. The developer is required to coordinate the construction schedules with the downstream landowners and MID. MID will act as a liaison between the developer and the landowners.

10. The developer must consult with downstream landowners to discuss potential construction schedules and requirements. MID will act as a liaison for privately-owned facilities but both MID and the landowner(s) must approve the plans. If the Developer has made a good faith effort to coordinate the construction of the private lines with the downstream landowners, but an agreement cannot be completed, MID will provide the ultimate approvals for the improvements, such that MID standards are met.

11. All privately-owned facilities that will be improved, or have its alignment changed or relocated, must be protected by a fifteen (15) foot irrigation easement dedicated by a separate instrument to the downstream landowner(s) that are served by the existing private infrastructure. The easement must be separate from a PUE and the final recorded document must be referenced on the Final Map.

12. There may be additional existing privately owned infrastructure not recorded by MID. If it is determined that any of the existing infrastructure will be affected by the proposed project, the project proponent must consult with the affected landowner(s) and MID to discuss the potential improvement plans for review and approval.

13. The landowner(s) of APN’s 080-003-050 must request a Signoff of Irrigation Facilities form.

Please contact MID’s Water Operations Department at (209) 526-7562 for the appropriate procedure. No development of construction shall occur until the subject parcels have been signed off and MID reviews and approves the final subdivision map and plans.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6

14. All existing private irrigation facilities serving the subject parcel shall be removed and disconnected from MID’s irrigation facilities upon development.

15. Draft improvement plans and maps must be submitted to MID’s Civil Engineering Department for review and approval. The developer is required to coordinate the construction schedules with the downstream landowners and MID prior to the start of any construction.

The size, depth, and location of the existing irrigation facilities that lie within the project area must be located and verified in the field and shown on the proposed plans. Submittal details can be found in MID’s letter, dated January 25, 2024.

16. Regarding MID’s electrical facilities within and surrounding the Project site, refer to MID’s letter, dated January 25, 2024.

Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee:

1. A solid, 6-foot wood fence shall be installed along the Project’s northern edge where it abuts existing agricultural uses.

Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources:

1. The Applicant should contact the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) regarding appropriate permitting requirements for hazardous materials and/or waste. Applicant and/or occupants handling hazardous materials or generating hazardous materials must notify the DER relative to the following:
a. Permit for the underground storage of hazardous materials at facility. b. Notify DER for storing hazardous materials on aboveground tanks. c. Requirements for registering as a handler of hazardous materials in the County and submittal of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) into the California Environmental Reporting System by handlers of materials in excess of 55 gallons, 500 pounds of a hazardous material, or of 200 cubic feet of compressed gas. d. Generators of hazardous waste must notify DER relative to the; quantities of waste generated, proposed waste disposal practices.
e. Generators of hazardous waste must also use the CERS data base to submit chemical and facility information to the DER.
f. Requirement to obtain and maintain an active EPA ID number with the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District:

1. The Developer and/or Project Proponent shall comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District letter, dated January 11, 2024. A copy of said letter can be obtained from the City’s Planning Department.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 CEQA Mitigation Measures:

1. The Developer and/or Project Proponent shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP), dated December 2024, prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024090068). A copy of the MMRP is on file with the Waterford Planning Department.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, at a special meeting held on October 21, 2025, moved for adoption by Commissioner ________ and duly seconded by Commissioner _________; passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
_______________________________ _____________________________ Chairperson Brandon Rivers Marissa Martinez, Secretary
Gray Vera
Rivers, Gray, Vera
Barnes, Esther
None
None
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 Exhibit A – VTSM 2022-01
Docusign Envelope ID: 2BFF08BE-FECB-4AAE-BEE9-66D599A156D6 General Business 6a
November 20, 2025
Lonnie Statzer Public Works Director
City Council Staff Report
Resolution: Approving Resolution 2025-64, Accepting Improvements for Project No. 2025-02, “Old Police Substation Demo” and Authorizing the City Engineer to File a Notice of Completion with the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office.

SUMMARY:

City Council is being asked to accept the improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office.

ANALYSIS:

The City Council requested the demolition of the old police substation due to its prolonged disuse and its deteriorated condition, which posed a public safety hazard. .

The table below provides the City Council of an accounting of funding approved to date; Action Scope of Work Approval Amount
Award of Bid Original Contract City Council $29,890.00
Change Order #1 Remove existing
Concrete Vault City Manager >10% $1,500.00
Final Contract Price $31,390.00
All work has been completed in accordance with the Plans, Specifications and Standard Plans. Staff recommends City Council accept the improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project will come from the General Fund budget number 1010-110-7420 for fiscal year 2024/2025.

The project budget is as follows:

Expenses
Total Project Cost Construction Contract Change Order
$31,390.00 $29,890.00 $1,500.00
Revenues:

Funding Title Funding Required Budget Number
General Fund $31,390.00 1010-110-7420
Total $31,390.00

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is categorically exempted according to Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with Section 15301 “Existing Facilities.”
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Council could choose not accept the NOC.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2025-64
• Notice of Completion
• Change Order #1
RESOLUTION 2025-64

Page 1 of 2 ends

Waterford City CouncilNovember 20, 2025

Waterford City Council
November 20, 2025