AGENDA
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
WATERFORD CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS 101 “E” STREET, WATERFORD, CA
CALL TO ORDER &
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Goeken
INVOCATION: Pastor Dave McGaffee, Assembly of God Church ROLL CALL:
Mayor: Charlie Goeken
Vice Mayor: Jamie Hilton
Council Members: Guadalupe Gutierrez, Christine Harris, Elizabeth Talbott ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
A member of the City Council motions to accept the items on the agenda for consideration as presented, or motions for any additions, including emergency items, or items pulled from consideration.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION:
Declaration by City Council members who may have a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered.
1. 2.
This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite public comments regarding any matters not appearing on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the Successor Agency. Individual audience participation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. We encourage you to share your name and address or submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
3. All Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Council and will be adopted by one action of the Council unless any Council Member desires to discuss any item or items separately. In that event, the Mayor will remove that item from the Consent Calendar and action will be considered separately.
3a: MOTION: Waiving all Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title. 3b: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-60, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $706,162.24 for the Period of October 29 to November 10, 2025. 3c: MOTION: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held November 6, 2025.
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – November 20, 2025 - 6:30 PM
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
PRESENTATIONS
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
3d: MOTION: Accept Compliance with Senate Bill 165 – Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
4. 4.
4a: ORDINANCE: 2nd Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2025-04 Amending Waterford Municipal Code Title 15, Entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 Entitled “California Building Codes,” by Amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.020. (Pitcock)
5. 5a: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-61 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024090068) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
ORDINANCE: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 2025-05 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to introduce an Ordinance Approving the Prezoning of APN’s 080-003- 012, 015, 034, and 040 to RS, Single Family Residential, and APN’s 080-003-049 and 080-003-050 to PC, Planned Community 2022-0001.
RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-62 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Application to Initiate Proceedings for the Reorganization of the Project site.
RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-63 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to Adopt a Resolution to approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-0001 to subdivide 19.21 acres into ninety-eight (98) single family residential lots.(Niskanen)
6. 6a: 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. (Statzer)
6b: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-65, a Resolution of Intention Declaring the City Council’s Intention to Transition from At-Large to by District Elections and to Initiate Procedures for Establishing and Implementing By-District Elections for City Council Members. (Browning)
7. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER WATERFORD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
GENERAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL READINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ELECTION:
8. 8a: City Project List
8b: My Waterford Request Report
9. 9a: City Staff
9b: City Council
10. 11.
12. NOTICE
REPORTS: Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall during normal business hours.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: If you wish to address the City Council or the Successor Agency on any item not on the printed agenda, prior to the start of the meeting, or prior to addressing the City Council or the Successor Agency, complete and submit a speaker card and deliver it to the City Clerk. (Please note, speaker cards are not required, however completing a speaker card enables staff to better follow up with you later, if necessary and attribute your comments to you in the minutes of the meeting). When the Mayor calls for “Communications from the Audience,” stand or raise your hand and the Mayor will ask you to approach the podium and state your name and city of residence. It is the policy of the City Council that they will not act on any matter not appearing on the posted agenda. The purpose of the discussion is to permit a member of the public to raise an issue or problem and to permit the City Council to ask questions for clarification of the issue or problem, provide information to the public, provide direction of the City Staff, or schedule the matter for a future meeting. Please hold all comments to five (5) minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THE PRINTED AGENDA: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council or the Successor Agency concerning any item that is described on the agenda during consideration of that item. If during a public hearing, the Mayor will direct when the hearing has opened for public comment. If you wish to address the City Council or the Successor Agency on any item listed on this agenda, please complete a speaker card and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of that item. (Please note, speaker cards are not required, however completing a speaker card enables staff to better follow up with you later, if necessary and attribute your comments to you in the minutes of the meeting.) When your name is called proceed to the podium and state your name and city of residence.
WRITTEN MATERIAL INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD: Citizens wishing to introduce written material into the record at the public hearing on any item are requested to provide a copy of the written material to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing date and/or prior to the opening of the public hearing so that the material may be distributed to the City Council prior to the public hearing.
NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any decisions (regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
LIVE AND ON-DEMAND VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY: The meeting of the Waterford City Council/Successor Agency can be watched live and on-demand from the City’s website at www.cityofwaterford.org.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA): In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (209) 874-2328 ext. 101 or email:
[email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two-full business days before the start of the meeting General Information: The Waterford City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of each month at 6:30PM., unless otherwise noticed.
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT / RECESS
STAFF/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND MEETING REPORTS
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Council Agenda’s: Copies of City Council Agenda and agenda related writings or documents will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall located at 101 “E” Street, Waterford, CA 72 hours prior to the meeting, or at the time of the scheduled meeting. 11/12/2025
Patricia Krause, CMC, City Clerk Date
Consent Calendar 3a
November 20, 2025
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Motion: Waive Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, Except by Title.
SUMMARY:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the waiver of readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to California Government Code §36934, approval of the waiver of readings will allow Ordinances and Resolutions to be introduced by title only and acted upon without the need to read the entire text of the item into the public record. The documents related to proposed Ordinances and Resolutions are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct the City Clerk to read the entire text of resolutions and ordinances prior to approval and adoption.
2. Take no action.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
Consent Calendar 3b
November 20, 2025
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Resolution: Adopting Resolution 2025-60, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $706,162.24 for the Period of October 29 to November 10, 2025.
SUMMARY:
Consider approving the Warrant Register for the period of October 29 to November 10, 2025.
ANALYSIS:
As per Government Code Section §41004, a listing of all payments the City has made for goods and services need to be approved by City Council on a regular basis. This Warrant Register includes payments and payroll made for the period of October 29 to November 10, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Payments for this period total $706,162.24.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action.
2. Provide staff with further direction.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution #2025-60
• Check Register Report
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
DATE TOTAL
PAYROLL 11/10/2025 $ 53,719.58
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 10/29/2025 $ 294,459.14
11/6/2025 $ 330,016.09
11/10/2025 $ 27,967.43
TOTAL $ 706,162.24
Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Waterford at a regular meeting held on By the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC, CITY CLERK CHARLIE GOEKEN, MAYOR
RESOLUTION 2025-60
RESOLUTION # 2025-60
November 20, 2025
The City of Waterford does hereby reserve, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1: That in accordance with Section 37202 of the Government Code that the City Manager hereby certifies to the accuracy of the following demands and the availability of funds for the payment thereof.
SECTION 2: That the following claims and demands are subject to audit as required by law, and that the same are hereby set forth.
User:
Printed: 11/10/2025 - 9:18AM
'trish'
Payroll
Include Partial: FALSE
ACH Check Register
Batch: 00010.11.2025
Check Date Check Number Employee No Employee Name Amount 11/10/2025 0 1002 7,154.81
11/10/2025 0 1006 3,578.73
11/10/2025 0 1008 2,314.03
11/10/2025 0 1017 2,077.41
11/10/2025 0 1018 1,576.98
11/10/2025 0 1020 885.79
11/10/2025 0 2005 3,804.85
11/10/2025 0 2006 5,319.01
11/10/2025 0 2010 1,005.97
11/10/2025 0 2012 2,314.54
11/10/2025 0 2020 4,248.70
11/10/2025 0 2028 2,324.11
11/10/2025 0 2030 2,125.49
11/10/2025 0 2031 3,779.87
11/10/2025 0 2033 2,179.87
11/10/2025 0 2034 2,124.74
11/10/2025 0 2035 1,761.78
11/10/2025 0 2037 1,769.00
11/10/2025 0 2040 1,381.29
11/10/2025 0 2041 1,355.13
11/10/2025 0 3002 134.79
11/10/2025 0 3010 124.06
11/10/2025 0 3013 126.21
11/10/2025 0 3014 126.21
11/10/2025 0 3015 126.21
Total Employees: 25 Total: 53,719.58
PR- ACH Check Register (11/10/2025 - 9:18 AM) Page 1
User:
Printed: 10/29/2025 - 11:38AM
tina
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00029.10.2025
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 102200 ABS DIRECT, INC Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 141152 STATEMENTS - OCTOBER 2025 348.48 10/29/2025 5050-700-7190 141152 STATEMENTS - OCTOBER 2025 348.47 10/29/2025 5071-800-7190 141152 STATEMENTS - OCTOBER 2025 87.12 10/29/2025 5072-800-7190 141152 STATEMENTS - OCTOBER 2025 87.12 10/29/2025 5070-800-7190 MP-20251024 PREPAID POSTAGE 800.00 10/29/2025 5071-800-7540 MP-20251024 PREPAID POSTAGE 200.00 10/29/2025 5072-800-7540 MP-20251024 PREPAID POSTAGE 800.00 10/29/2025 5050-700-7540 MP-20251024 PREPAID POSTAGE 200.00 10/29/2025 5070-800-7540 Check Total: 2,871.19
Vendor: 104730 AUTOZONE, INC. Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: False 03683485610 WELL #302 - GENERATOR COOLANT 21.56 10/29/2025 5071-800-7420 Check Total: 21.56
Vendor: 108800 CALTRAFFIC Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 20994 SIGNAGE: STOP, DUMPING, UTILITY VEHICLES & SAND BAGS 1,012.54 10/29/2025 1010-310-7510 Check Total: 1,012.54
Vendor: 144410 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (7173) Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 0061316101925 INTERNET & VOICE: MUSEUM 126.23 10/29/2025 1010-550-7811 Check Total: 126.23
Vendor: 114310 DE LAGE LANDEN Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False 592679810 COPIER LEASE: 10/15 THROUGH 11/14/2025 246.62 10/29/2025 1010-110-7600 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (10/29/2025 - 11:38 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 246.62
Vendor: 115200 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: False SL260212 SIGNALS & LIGHTING BILLING: 07/01 THROUGH 09/30/25 4,054.84 10/29/2025 1010-310-7820 Check Total: 4,054.84
Vendor: 115705 DG TIRES & WHEELS Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: False 989861 MOWER: VALVE STEM 20.00 10/29/2025 1010-580-7420 Check Total: 20.00
Vendor: UB*01990 ANGELICA GOMEZ Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 011623-001, 12223 QUICKSILVER ST 724.13 10/24/2025 5071-000-2010 Check Total: 724.13
Vendor: 1001041 MIRIAM MARTINEZ -ANGUIANO Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 08302025 DEPOSIT REFUND LESS CLEANING & CALL OUT FEES -145.22 10/29/2025 1010-560-6560 08302025 DEPOSIT REFUND LESS CLEANING & CALL OUT FEES 500.00 10/29/2025 1010-000-2510 Check Total: 354.78
Vendor: 131000 MCR ENGINEERING, INC. Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 21614 LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE FOR 2025 540.00 10/29/2025 2210-260-7190 21614* HICKMAN WATER CONSOLIDATION 9,600.00 10/29/2025 5075-800-8022 21614** YOSEMITE ATP PROJECT 12,190.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8292 21614*** YOSEMITE/HWY 132 & PASADENA SIGNALIZATION 3,010.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8293 21614**** 2023 SURDACE IMPROVEMENTS - COUNTRY GARDENS 8,760.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8290 21614***** TIM BELL ATP - DESIGN 5,280.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8299 21614****** BONNIE BRAE IMPROVEMENTS 7,000.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8296 21614******* E STREET DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS 5,840.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-8294 21614******** FITZPATRICK - WATERSTONE E & F STREET BASIN 5,970.00 10/29/2025 1010-430-7196 21614********* G STREET IMPROVEMENTS 13,890.00 10/29/2025 2080-460-8290 21614********** 2025 CALL FOR PROJECTS 4,210.00 10/29/2025 6310-310-7196 21614********** BEARD PARK TENNIS COURTS REMODEL 1,080.00 10/29/2025 1010-580-8010 21614********** WATER RATE NEEDS 3,600.00 10/29/2025 5075-800-7196 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (10/29/2025 - 11:38 AM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 80,970.00
Vendor: 139760 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False 11823 SUNRISE VISTA - HOME ANNUAL MONITORING 540.00 10/29/2025 1010-410-7190 Check Total: 540.00
Vendor: 136641 RED INC. ARCHITECTS Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: False 7511 COMMUINTY CENTER - FINAL BILLING 1,330.00 10/29/2025 1010-560-8020 Check Total: 1,330.00
Vendor: 142450 SEEGERS PRINTING Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 0146695-IN CODE ENFORCEMENT STICKERS 412.08 10/29/2025 1010-410-7510 Check Total: 412.08
Vendor: 200771 SNEED AUTO & RV REPAIR Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: False 107383 CRANE TRUCK: LOF & REPLACE FILTERS 712.93 10/29/2025 5050-700-7430 Check Total: 712.93
Vendor: 146900 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 2526-12 SHERIFF CONTRACT: SEPTEMBER 2025 199,875.44 10/29/2025 1010-210-7170 Check Total: 199,875.44
Vendor: 148025 SWRCB - DWOCP Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False 10292025 WATER DISTRIBUTION #2 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - JOSH GREEN 42.00 10/29/2025 5071-800-7740 10292025 WATER DISTRIBUTION #2 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - JOSH GREEN 12.00 10/29/2025 5070-800-7740 10292025 WATER DISTRIBUTION #2 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - JOSH GREEN 6.00 10/29/2025 5072-800-7740 Check Total: 60.00
Vendor: 148025 SWRCB - DWOCP Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 10282025 WWTP TREATMENT OPERATOR RENEWAL CERTIFICATE - GREEN 201.00 10/29/2025 5050-700-7740 Check Total: 201.00
Vendor: 150567 TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False 10212025 HICKMAN POWER: 09/21 THROUGH 10/21/2025 925.80 10/29/2025 5072-800-7820 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (10/29/2025 - 11:38 AM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 925.80
Total for Check Run:
Total of Number of Checks:
294,459.14
18 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (10/29/2025 - 11:38 AM) Page 4 User:
Printed: 11/06/2025 - 12:16PM
tina
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00005.11.2025
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 105896 AYERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 722632 INTERNET - CITY HALL 174.00 11/05/2025 1010-110-7811 722710 INTERNET - WWTP 84.00 11/05/2025 5050-700-7811
Check Total: 258.00
Vendor: 105610 BAY CITY ELECTRIC WORKS Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: False W320327 HICKMAN WELL #272 - R & R EXPANSION & PCB BOARDS 5,708.85 11/05/2025 5072-800-7420 Check Total: 5,708.85
Vendor: 106525 BOYETT PETROLEUM Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 169.58 11/05/2025 5072-800-7520 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 757.67 11/05/2025 1010-580-7520 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 665.50 11/05/2025 1010-310-7520 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 339.18 11/05/2025 5070-800-7520 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 490.28 11/05/2025 5050-700-7520 370063 FUEL EXPENSE - OCTOBER 2025 1,186.85 11/05/2025 5071-800-7520 Check Total: 3,609.06
Vendor: 108025 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 7506 GRANT WRITING RETAINER - NOVEMBER 3,500.00 11/05/2025 1010-110-7190 Check Total: 3,500.00
Vendor: 121433 GO TO COMMUNICATIONS INC Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 2.62 11/05/2025 5072-800-7810 IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 7.88 11/05/2025 5070-800-7810 IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 26.28 11/05/2025 5050-700-7810 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 28.15 11/05/2025 1010-210-7810 IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 15.77 11/05/2025 5071-800-7810 IN7104327038 VOIP SERVICES - NOVEMBER 2025 256.79 11/05/2025 1010-110-7810 Check Total: 337.49
Vendor: 1001042 GISELLE GONZALEZ Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: False 12112025 REFUND CANCELLATION DEPOSIT FOR COMMUNITY CENTER 550.00 11/05/2025 1010-000-2510 Check Total: 550.00
Vendor: 124500 HOWK SYSTEMS Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: False 0326190-IN WWTP - PROVIDE & WIRE SEWAGE PUMP 5,027.38 11/05/2025 5050-700-7420 Check Total: 5,027.38
Vendor: 153140 HUGHSON VALLEY FARM SUPPLY Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: False S114727 NEW VRISMO ORCHARD MOWER 15,329.03 11/05/2025 1010-580-8020 Check Total: 15,329.03
Vendor: 200759 JARED STEELEY WATER & WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 55453 WATER CONSULTANT - OCTOBER 2025 3,924.75 11/05/2025 5072-800-7190 55453 WATER CONSULTANT - OCTOBER 2025 4,879.50 11/05/2025 5071-800-7190 55453 WATER CONSULTANT - OCTOBER 2025 1,807.00 11/05/2025 5070-800-7190 Check Total: 10,611.25
Vendor: 128906 LECHOWICZ & TSENG Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 003 WATER RATE STUDY PROGRESS #3 - 44.1% COMPLETE 7,860.00 11/05/2025 5075-800-7190 Check Total: 7,860.00
Vendor: UB*01992 AVIS MCGINNIS Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 010680-000, 305 G STREET #A 20.00 10/31/2025 5050-000-2010 Refund Check 010680-000, 305 G STREET #A 49.72 10/31/2025 5071-000-2010 Check Total: 69.72
Vendor: 131936 MICROBAC LABORATORIES INC C/O DOLLAR BANK Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: False 725000302 WWTP - SAMPLES TESTING 210.00 11/05/2025 5050-700-7190 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 210.00
Vendor: 131898 MID VALLEY IT Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 202145972 NEW PC FOR TRISH KRAUSE CITY CLERK 1,274.80 11/05/2025 1010-110-7516 Check Total: 1,274.80
Vendor: 132700 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: False 10292025 SERVICE PERIOD: 09/29 THROUGH 10/29/2025 69.43 11/05/2025 2240-270-7821 Check Total: 69.43
Vendor: 132742 MOUNTAIN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 6596 CROSS CONNECT - DECEMBER 2025 140.00 11/05/2025 5071-800-7190 6596 CROSS CONNECT - DECEMBER 2025 20.00 11/05/2025 5072-800-7190 6596 CROSS CONNECT - DECEMBER 2025 40.00 11/05/2025 5070-800-7190 Check Total: 200.00
Vendor: 200738 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False 11032739 COBRA ADMIN - OCTOBER 2025 200.00 11/05/2025 1010-110-7730 Check Total: 200.00
Vendor: 137888 PLATINUM GENERAL ENGINEERING LLC Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 003 YOSEMITE BLVD FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 243,475.40 11/05/2025 6310-310-8292 Check Total: 243,475.40
Vendor: 130200 ROBBINS BROWNING GODWIN & MARCHINI LLP Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False 74511 CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT - OCTOBER 2025 3,949.20 11/05/2025 1010-110-7194 74513 DAVID BURIAGO - OCTOBER 247.50 11/05/2025 1010-110-7194 74514 VOTING RIGHTS - OCTOBER 4,682.50 11/05/2025 1010-110-7194 75412 UNION NEGOTIATION DISPUTE - OCTOBER 630.00 11/05/2025 1010-110-7194 Check Total: 9,509.20
Vendor: UB*01991 GERARDO SANCHEZ Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 011538-000, 12199 QUICKSILVER ST 556.43 10/31/2025 5071-000-2010 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 556.43
Vendor: 142475 SHRED-IT, C/O STERICYCLE, INC. Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: False 8012539541 SHREDDING SERVICES - OCTOBER 2025 123.91 11/05/2025 1010-110-7190 Check Total: 123.91
Vendor: 1001016 DANIEL SNEDEGAR Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: False 11052025 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE F/Y 25.26 210.00 11/05/2025 5071-800-7580 11052025 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE F/Y 25.26 30.00 11/05/2025 5072-800-7580 11052025 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE F/Y 25.26 60.00 11/05/2025 5070-800-7580 Check Total: 300.00
Vendor: 200771 SNEED AUTO & RV REPAIR Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: False 107321 2016 CHEV 1500: LOF & TUNE UP 171.18 11/05/2025 5070-800-7430 107321 2016 CHEV 1500: LOF & TUNE UP 85.59 11/05/2025 5072-800-7430 107321 2016 CHEV 1500: LOF & TUNE UP 599.17 11/05/2025 5071-800-7430 107416 2022 FORD F250 SD: THERMOSTAT REPLACEMENT 55.37 11/05/2025 5072-800-7430 107416 2022 FORD F250 SD: THERMOSTAT REPLACEMENT 110.74 11/05/2025 5070-800-7430 107416 2022 FORD F250 SD: THERMOSTAT REPLACEMENT 387.57 11/05/2025 5071-800-7430 Check Total: 1,409.62
Vendor: 144700 SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLC Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: False INV-022249 CIVIC PAY - PAYPAD TRANSACTON FEES: OCTOBER 461.30 11/05/2025 5071-800-7610 INV-022249 CIVIC PAY - PAYPAD TRANSACTON FEES: OCTOBER 131.80 11/05/2025 5070-800-7610 INV-022249 CIVIC PAY - PAYPAD TRANSACTON FEES: OCTOBER 659.00 11/05/2025 5050-700-7610 INV-022249 CIVIC PAY - PAYPAD TRANSACTON FEES: OCTOBER 65.90 11/05/2025 5072-800-7610 Check Total: 1,318.00
Vendor: 148636 SUNBELT RENTALS, INC Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: False 176387952-0001 LIGHTS FOR TRUNK & TREAT 533.71 11/05/2025 1010-110-7731 Check Total: 533.71
Vendor: 148626 SUTTER HEALTH PLUS Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: False 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 208.12 11/05/2025 2210-260-7120 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 4,457.33 11/05/2025 5071-800-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 387.29 11/05/2025 5072-800-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 712.83 11/05/2025 1010-110-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 294.84 11/05/2025 1010-210-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 1,530.43 11/05/2025 1010-310-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 41.62 11/05/2025 1010-430-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 123.15 11/05/2025 1010-410-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 4,149.10 11/05/2025 5050-700-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 208.12 11/05/2025 1010-560-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 603.55 11/05/2025 1010-580-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 877.07 11/05/2025 5070-800-7120 4126380 DECEMBER PREMIUMS 147.41 11/05/2025 5090-110-7120 Check Total: 13,740.86
Vendor: 201831 VESTIS Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: False 27570724 SHIRT FOR JOSH GREEN 5.50 11/05/2025 5070-800-7580 27570724 SHIRT FOR JOSH GREEN 1.83 11/05/2025 5072-800-7580 27570724 SHIRT FOR JOSH GREEN 29.32 11/05/2025 5071-800-7580 Check Total: 36.65
Vendor: 155600 WATERFORD FARM SUPPLY, INC. Check Sequence: 27 ACH Enabled: False 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 544.47 11/05/2025 5071-800-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 155.50 11/05/2025 5070-800-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 29.43 11/05/2025 5071-800-7550 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 340.63 11/05/2025 5050-700-7550 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 96.73 11/05/2025 5050-700-7420 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 17.89 11/05/2025 1010-310-7430 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 19.43 11/05/2025 5050-700-7410 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 325.39 11/05/2025 1010-580-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 64.70 11/05/2025 1010-580-7550 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 8.42 11/05/2025 5070-800-7550 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 6.25 11/05/2025 5072-800-7420 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 163.19 11/05/2025 1010-310-7420 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 293.66 11/05/2025 1010-580-7420 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 4.21 11/05/2025 5072-800-7550 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 123.27 11/05/2025 1010-310-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 43.79 11/05/2025 5071-800-7420 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 225.97 11/05/2025 1010-580-7410 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 77.75 11/05/2025 5072-800-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 17.24 11/05/2025 1010-110-7510 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 484.14 11/05/2025 1010-310-7410 10312025 SEE AP FILE FOR BACK UP 12.50 11/05/2025 5070-800-7420 Check Total: 3,054.56
Vendor: 157700 WILSON FAMILY PLUMBING, INC. Check Sequence: 28 ACH Enabled: False 13493 REPAIR DRINKING FOUNTAIN @ TENNIS COURTS 1,142.74 11/05/2025 1010-580-7410 Check Total: 1,142.74
Total for Check Run:
Total of Number of Checks:
330,016.09
28 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/06/2025 - 12:16 PM) Page 6 User:
Printed: 11/10/2025 - 10:24AM
trish
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00010.11.2025
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 105201 BANK OF THE WEST (IRS TAXES) Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Medicare Employer Portion 1,097.17 11/10/2025 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Medicare Employee Portion 1,119.91 11/10/2025 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00010.11.2025 FICA Employer Portion 306.60 11/10/2025 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Federal Income Tax 7,503.55 11/10/2025 1010-000-2220 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00010.11.2025 FICA Employee Portion 306.60 11/10/2025 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 FICA Employee Portion Check Total: 10,333.83
Vendor: 108350 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00010.11.2025 State Income Tax 2,929.45 11/10/2025 1010-000-2230 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 State Income Tax PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EDD TRAINING TAX 0.70 11/10/2025 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EDD TRAINING TAX PR Batch 00010.11.2025 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT 10.92 11/10/2025 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT PR Batch 00010.11.2025 CALIFORNIA SDI 907.97 11/10/2025 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 CALIFORNIA SDI Check Total: 3,849.04
Vendor: 154101 MISSION SQUARE - 303352 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COM-457 - EMPLOYER PD 238.18 11/10/2025 1010-000-2285 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COM-457 - EM PR Batch 00010.11.2025 457 LOAN REPAY 385.27 11/10/2025 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 457 LOAN REPAY PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COMP-457 1,070.00 11/10/2025 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COMP-457 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % 1,032.10 11/10/2025 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % Check Total: 2,725.55
Vendor: 139400 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTRIBUTION 4,593.17 11/10/2025 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTR PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EMPLOYER PAID PERS 6,191.57 11/10/2025 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 EMPLOYER PAID PERS AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/10/2025 - 10:24 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 10,784.74
Vendor: 148050 STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00010.11.2025 UNION DUES 274.27 11/10/2025 1010-000-2290 PR Batch 00010.11.2025 UNION DUES Check Total: 274.27
Total for Check Run:
Total of Number of Checks:
27,967.43
5 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (11/10/2025 - 10:24 AM) Page 2 Consent Calendar 3c
November 20, 2025
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Motion: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held November 6, 2025.
SUMMARY:
Consider approving minutes from the November 6, 2025 Regular City Council meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Approve Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on November 6, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct the City Clerk to make amendments to the minutes and bring them back for approval at a future City Council meeting.
2. Take no action.
ATTACHMENTS:
• City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2025.
MINUTES
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR
MEETING WATERFORD CITY HALL, CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 101 “E” STREET,
WATERFORD, CA
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR GOEKEN AT: 6:30 pm
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Goeken
INVOCATION: Elder Fred Webb, The Seventh Day Adventist Church ROLL CALL PRESENT:
Mayor Goeken
Vice Mayor Hilton
Councilmember Harris
Councilmember Gutierrez
Councilmember Talbott
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Michael Pitcock, City Manager
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director Lonnie Statzer, Public Works Director
Corbett Browning, City Attorney
Chief David Mullins
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (VM Hilton / CM Talbott / 5-0) to adopt the Agenda.
AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – November 6, 2025 - 6:30 PM CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION:
None.
1. 1a: PROCLAMATION: National First Responders Day.
Mayor Goeken presented the National Responders Day Proclamation to Station 24 and Chief Mullins of Waterford Police Department.
2. Jamie Francella asked for clarification of the consumption for his water bill.
Harlan Devon spoke about their experiences with Councilmember Talbott.
Ken Ayers spoke about Charlie Kirk and the recall. He asked Councilmember Talbott to step down.
Beverly Henry asked Councilmember Talbott to step down.
Sharolyn Casey gave information about the upcoming Veteran’s Day celebration at the Museum.
Uriel Munguia addressed comments made by previous speakers and experience with discourse on community social media pages.
3. 3a: MOTION: Waiving all Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title. 3b: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2025-58, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $716,633.20 for the Period of September 29 to October 27, 2025. 3c: MOTION: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held October 2, 2025. 3d: MOTION: Accept Compliance with Developer Fees report in accordance with the requirements of Section 66006 of the Government Code.
3e: MOTION: Accepting the Treasurer’s Report for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2025.
ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (VM Hilton/ CM Talbott/ 5-0) to adopt the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
PRESENTATION
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
4. 5.
5a: ORDINANCE: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 2025-04 Amending Waterford Municipal Code Title 15, Entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 Entitled “California Building Codes,” by Amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.020. (Pitcock) Public Hearing Opened: 6:54 pm
Public Hearing Closed: 6:54 pm
ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (CM Talbott / VM Hilton/ 5-0) to approve the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 2025-04 Amending Waterford Municipal Code Title 15, Entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 Entitled “California Building Codes,” by Amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.020.
AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
6. 6a: RESOLUTION: Resolution 2025-59, Authorizing a Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Waterford to Annex Property into Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (Maintenance Services) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein (Envia) ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (VM Hilton / CM Talbott/ 5-0) to Approve Resolution 2025-59, Authorizing a Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Waterford to Annex Property into Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (Maintenance Services) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
6b: MOTION: Receive Information from Lechowicz + Tseng Municipal Consultants (LTMC) on the prosed Water Rate Fee Study Options and Provide Staff Direction (Envia) Public comment was received and Council discussion had over the Water Rate Study.
ACTION: Direction was given to staff to explore more options for fees in the Water Rate Fee Study.
GENERAL BUSINESS
FINAL READINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6c: MOTION: A Motion of the City Council of the City of Waterford authorizing the City Manager to execute the final Installment Sale Agreement with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank as previously authorized by the Waterford City Council Resolution No. 2025- 40 in the amount of $1,200,000.00.(Envia)
ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (CM Hilton / CM Gutierrez / 5-0) to authorize the City Manager to execute the final Installment Sale Agreement with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank as previously authorized by the Waterford City Council Resolution No. 2025-40 in the amount of $1,200,000.00.
AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
6d: MOTION: Awarding Bid and Approving an Agreement with Mountain Cascade Inc, in the Amount of $796,885.00 for Project No. 2025-09, “Hickman Water Consolidation Project” and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Public Improvement Agreement. (Statzer) ACTION: Moving and seconded by motion (VM Hilton / CM Talbott / 5-0) to Award Bid and Approve an Agreement with Mountain Cascade Inc, in the Amount of $796,885.00 for Project No. 2025-09, “Hickman Water Consolidation Project” and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Public Improvement Agreement.
AYES: Goeken, Gutierrez, Harris, Hilton, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
7. 8.
8a: City Project List
8b: My Waterford Request Report
9. 9a: City Staff
Public Works Director Statzer commended staff on doing a great job on Heritage Days and Trunk or
STAFF/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND MEETING REPORTS
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER WATERFORD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Treat Events. Mr. Statzer gave updates on the current project happening in the City.
City Clerk Krause had no comments.
City Attorney Browning gave information on the Closed Session items.
City Manager Pitcock gave updates on the surface water agreement and received the tentative parcel map for the Highland Point subdivision. Mr. Pitcock thanked the community for their patience during construction season.
9b: City Council
Councilmember Harris thanked the community for coming to the meeting and announced the youth sports events happening during the weekend.
Councilmember Gutierrez gave an update on the grand opening of the Subway store, as well as the Trunk or Treat. Ms. Gutierrez spoke about the new Chamber of Commerce and the store front window contest, as well as the upcoming Mazzletov Soap and the free market events.
Councilmember Talbott gave information on numerous resources that citizens can use to find food and other items if needed.
Vice Mayor Hilton stated that the Trunk or Treat was a great event.
Mayor Goeken wished everyone Happy Veteran’s Day.
10. Meeting Recessed 8:15 PM.
Mayor Goeken recessed the City Council meeting at 8:15 PM to convene to Closed Session directly following the recess. Adjournment of the City Council meeting followed the Report out of Closed Session.
11. 11a: “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION” (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9)
- Burciago V. City of Waterford
11b: “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION” (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9)
- Barker – Claim # 2025-03
-
11c: “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION” (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9)
- California Voting Rights Act Letter
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT / RECESS
12. 12.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council at a regular meeting held on November 20, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD:
________________________
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia Krause, CMC, City Clerk
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Consent Calendar 3d
November 20, 2025
Tina Envia, Finance Manager
City Council Staff Report
Motion: Accept Compliance with Senate Bill 165 – Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 165 -Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act requires each local agency to make a public report regarding the financial status of certain special tax assessments for each fiscal year.
The required report consists of the amount of funds collected and expended and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded. The required information is included in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report for: Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 dated November 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
See attached Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report for: Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 dated November 2025.
ANALYSIS:
The City is complying with the requirements of Senate Bill 165.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report for: Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 dated November 2025.
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report for:
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2019-1
November 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
District Summary ...................................................................................................................1
1. SB 165: Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act ........................................2
2. Special Tax Analysis........................................................................................................3
2.1 Levy Summary ...........................................................................................................3
2.2 Special Tax Rates.......................................................................................................4
2.3 Annual Special Tax Rate Increase..............................................................................4
2.4 Special Tax Rate Comparison ....................................................................................5 Appendix A. District Boundary ...............................................................................................A Appendix B. Rate And Method Of Apportionment..................................................................B Appendix C. Delinquency Summary Report ............................................................................C Appendix D. Final Billing Detail Report.................................................................................. D City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 1
DISTRICT SUMMARY
On June 6, 2019, the City Council of the City of Waterford (the “City”) established Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (the “District”) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, commencing with Section 53311 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”).
The services funded by the special tax revenue of the District include maintenance of public infrastructure, maintenance of streets and street trees, street lighting, landscaping in public areas and medians including turf, trees, shrubs and associated irrigation systems, as well as the provision of other public services authorized to be funded under the Act.
Levy
The following table provides a summary of the Fiscal Year 2025/26 final levy amount.
District Parcel Count
FY 2025/26
Levy
Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 75 $18,816.00
Delinquencies
As of June 30, 2025, there were no delinquencies from the Fiscal Year 2024/25 levy. Please refer to Appendix C for summary information. NBS will continue to monitor delinquencies and recommend the appropriate delinquency management actions to the City as needed.
NBS
Adriene Henderson, Administrator
Melissa Ellico, Project Manager
Tim Seufert, Client Success Ambassador
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 2
1. SB 165: LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND BOND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Senate Bill 165, filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). This Act requires that any local special tax or local bond measure subject to voter approval contain a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, require that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to those purposes, require the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited, and require an annual report containing specified information concerning the use of the proceeds. The Act only applies to any local special tax measure or local bond measure adopted on or after January 1, 2001, in accordance with Section 50075.1.
Some of the requirements of the Act are handled at the formation of the Special Tax District and others are handled through annual reports. This section of this report intends to comply with Sections 50075.3 of the California Government Code that states:
“The chief fiscal officer of the issuing local agency shall file a report with its governing body no later than January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter. The annual report shall contain both of the following:
1. The amount of funds collected and expended.
2. The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Sections 50075.1.”
The requirements of the Act apply to the Funds for the following:
City of Waterford
Community Facilities District No. 2019-1
Purpose of Special Tax
The special tax provides funding for the costs of services which may include, but not be limited to, the maintenance of streets and street trees; street lighting; landscaping in public areas and medians including turf, trees, shrubs and associated irrigation systems; as well as the provision of other public services authorized to be funded under Section 53313(d) or (e) of the California Government Code.
The project(s) are on an annual basis.
Collections and Expenditures
Fund Name
06/30/2024
Balance
Amount
Collected
Amount
Expended
06/30/2025
Balance
Operating Fund $13,128.44 $18,223.51 $12,315.86 $19,036.09
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 3
2. SPECIAL TAX ANALYSIS
2.1 Levy Summary
A summary of the levy for Fiscal Year 2025/26 is shown in the table and chart below.
Description Amount
Maintenance Services $13,487.11
Administrative Fees/Expenses (1) 5,328.89
Total Special Tax Levy Amount: $18,816.00
Levied Parcel Count 75
(1) Includes County collection fees and installment rounding for tax roll purposes.
Maintenance
Services
72%
Administrative
Fees/Expenses
28%
FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 BUDGET
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 4
2.2 Special Tax Rates
The Fiscal Year 2025/26 applied rates and special tax levy are shown in the table below.
Land Use
Classification
Per
Unit
FY 2025/26
Maximum
Tax Rate
FY 2025/26
Applied
Tax Rate
Total FY
2025/26
Special Tax Levy
Single Family Detached 75 $250.89 $250.88 $18,816.00
2.3 Annual Special Tax Rate Increase
The maximum special tax for future years is authorized to automatically increase by the Tax Escalation Factor of three percent (3.0%).
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 5
2.4 Special Tax Rate Comparison
The Fiscal Year 2025/26 maximum tax rates and applied tax rates compared to the prior year are shown below.
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 % Change in
Applied Tax
Rate (2)
Land Use
Classification Rate Per
Maximum
Tax Rate (1)
Applied Tax
Rate
% of
Maximum
Maximum
Tax Rate (1)
Applied Tax
Rate
% of
Maximum
Single Family Detached Unit $243.58 $243.58 100.0% $250.89 $250.88 100.0% 3.0% (1) Maximum Tax Rate increases by the Tax Escalation Factor of three percent (3.0%). (2) Represents the change between the current and prior year applied tax rates.
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 A APPENDIX A. DISTRICT BOUNDARY
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 B APPENDIX B. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The following pages show the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax.
CITY OF WATERFORD
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2019-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax shall be levied and collected in City of Waterford Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (Maintenance Services) (the “District”) each Fiscal Year, in an amount determined by the application of the procedures described below. All of the Taxable Property (as defined below) in the District, unless exempted by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.
I. DEFINITIONS
The terms used herein shall have the following meanings:
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a secondary residential unit of limited size (e.g., granny cottage, second unit) that shares a Parcel with a Unit of Single Family Detached Property. "Acre or Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map or in the Assessor’s Data for each Assessor’s Parcel. In the event the Assessor’s Parcel Map or Assessor’s Data shows no acreage, the Acreage for any Assessor’s parcel shall be determined by the CFD Administrator based upon the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County parcel map or calculated using available spatial data and GIS. The square footage of an Assessor’s Parcel is equal to the Acreage of such parcel multiplied by 43,560.
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Act of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the District: the costs of computing the Annual Special Tax Requirement and the annual Special Tax and of preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules; the costs of collecting the Special Taxes, including any charges levied by the County Auditor’s Office, Tax Collector’s Office or Treasurer’s Office; the costs of the City or designee in complying with the disclosure requirements of the California Government Code (including the Act), including public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City or designee related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs of commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure action arising from delinquent Special Taxes in the District.
Administrative Expenses shall also include costs related to the formation of the District and of annexing territory to the District as well as any amounts advanced by the City for any administrative purposes of the District and an allocable share of the salaries of City staff and an allocable portion of City overhead costs relating to the foregoing, or costs of the City in any way related to the establishment or administration of the District.
“Affordable Housing Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all or a portion of any Assessor’s Parcel within the boundaries of the District that is subject to a deed restriction, resale restriction, or regulatory agreement recorded in favor of the City that restricts Unit rents or prices chargeable to lower income households.
“Affordable Multi-Family Property” means Multi-Family Property that is also Affordable Housing
Property.
“Affordable Single Family Property” means Single Family Property that is also Affordable Housing Property.
“Annual Services Costs” means the amounts required to fund services authorized to be funded by the District.
“Annual Special Tax Requirement” means that amount with respect to the District determined by the Council or designee as required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) the Administrative Expenses, (2) the Annual Services Costs, (3) any amount required to establish or replenish any reserve or replacement fund established in connection with the District, and (4) reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year. “Assessor’s Data” means Acreage or other Parcel information contained in the records of the County Assessor.
“Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel, that number assigned to such Assessment’s Parcel by the County for purposes of identification. “Boundary Map” means that map recorded with the County recorder’s office on April 29, 2019 in Book 5 at Page 84 as Document Number 2019-0025772-00.
“City” means the City of Waterford, County of Stanislaus. “Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of the District. “County” means the County of Stanislaus, California.
“Developed Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property in the District for which a building permit for new construction was issued by the City prior to June 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year, but not prior to June 1, 2019.
“District” means the City of Waterford Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 (Maintenance Services). “District Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee or agent or consultant, responsible for administering the Special Tax in accordance with this Rate and Method of Apportionment. “Exempt Property” means all property located within the boundaries of the District which is exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section V below.
“Fiscal Year” means the period from July 1st of any calendar year through June 30th of the following
calendar year.
“Maximum Special Tax Rate” means the maximum Special Tax authorized for levy in any Fiscal Year that may apply to Taxable Property as described in Section III. “Multi-Family Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit or use permit has been issued for construction of a residential structure with five or more Units that share a single Assessor’s Parcel Number, are offered for rent to the general public, and cannot be purchased by individual homebuyers.
“Non-Residential Property” means all property that is not used for people to live in, and does not include Public Property.
“Proportionately” means, in any Fiscal Year, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax to the Maximum Special Tax Rate is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels authorized to be levied in that Fiscal Year. “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of the District owned by, irrevocably offered or dedicated to, or for which an easement for purposes of public or private road right-of-way making the property unusable for any other purpose has been granted to the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City, or any local government or other public agency. “Single Family Attached Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit or use permit was issued for construction of a residential structure consisting of two or more Units that share common walls, have separate Assessor’s Parcel Numbers assigned to them (except for a duplex triplex, or fourplex unit, which may share a Parcel with another duplex, triplex or fourplex Unit(s)), and may be purchased by individual homebuyers (which shall still be the case even if the Units are purchased and subsequently offered for rent by the owner of the Unit), including such residential structures that meet the statutory definition of a condominium project contained in Civil Code Section 4125.
“Single Family Detached Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a Unit that does not share a common wall with another Unit.
“Special Tax” means the amount levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement.
“Tax Escalation Factor” means a factor of 3 percent that will be applied annually after Fiscal Year 2019/20 to increase the Maximum Special Tax Rates shown in Section III. “Tax Zone” means a mutually exclusive geographic area within which the Special Tax may be levied pursuant to this Rate and Method of Apportionment. All of the Taxable Property within the District at the time of its formation is within a Tax Zone as specified on the District Boundary Map. Additional Tax Zones may be created when property is annexed to the District, and a separate Maximum Special Tax shall be identified for property within the new Tax Zone at the time of such annexation. The Assessor’s Parcels included within a new Tax Zone when such Parcels are annexed to the District shall be identified by Assessor’s Parcel number in the annexation documents at the time of annexation.
“Taxable Property” means all Parcels within the boundary of the District that are not Exempt Property, exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to the Act or Section V below. “Unit” means an individual single family detached or attached home, townhome, condominium, apartment, or other residential dwelling unit, including each separate living area within a half-plex, duplex, triplex, fourplex, or other residential structure. An Accessory Dwelling Unit that shares a Parcel with a Unit of Single Family Detached Property shall not be considered a separate Unit for purposes of calculating the Special Tax.
II. DETERMINATION OF TAXABLE PARCELS
On or about July 1 of each Fiscal Year, the District Administrator shall determine the valid Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for all Taxable Property within the District. If any Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are no longer valid from the previous Fiscal Year, the District Administrator shall determine the new Assessor’s Parcel Number or Numbers that are in effect for the current Fiscal Year. To the extent a Parcel or Parcels of Taxable Property are subdivided, consolidated or otherwise reconfigured, the Special Tax rates shall be assigned to the new Assessor’s Parcels pursuant to Section III. The District Administrator shall also determine: (i) the Tax Zone within which each Parcel is located; (ii) which Parcels are Developed Property; (iii) the number of Units each Parcel contains; and (iv) the Annual Special Tax Requirement for the Fiscal Year.
III. ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX - METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
All Taxable Property shall be subject to a Special Tax defined as follows.
The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year by the District Administrator. The Annual Special Tax Requirement shall be apportioned to each Parcel of Developed Property within the District by the method shown below.
First. Determine the Annual Special Tax Requirement.
Second. Levy the Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property, Proportionately, up to the Maximum Special Tax Rate described in the tables below to satisfy the Annual Special Tax Requirement.
TABLE 1
SPECIAL TAX RATES – TAX ZONE NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2019/20*
Property Type Special Tax Rate Per
Single Family Detached Property $210.12 Unit
*On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2019, the Maximum Special Tax Rate for each Tax Zone shall be increased by 3%, the Tax Escalation Factor.
A different Maximum Special Tax Rate may be identified in Tax Zones added to the District as a result of future annexations.
In some instances, an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one type of property. The Maximum Special Taxes levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Units located on that Assessor’s Parcel.
IV. FORMULA FOR PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATIONS
The Special Tax may not be prepaid.
V. EXEMPTIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Taxes shall be levied on Public Property, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3 and 53317.5 of the Act.
VI. INTERPRETATION OF RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Tax. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be at the City’s discretion. Interpretations may be made by the City by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.
VII. MANNER AND DURATION OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided that the City may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect the Special Tax at a different time or in a different manner if needed to meet the financial obligations of the District, and may collect delinquent Special Taxes through foreclosure or other available methods.
A Special Tax shall continue to be levied and collected within the District, as needed to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement, in perpetuity.
VIII. APPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY
Any property owner may file a written appeal of the Special Tax with the District Administrator claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct. The appeal must be filed not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Taxesthat are disputed, and the appellant must be current in all payments of Special Taxes. In addition, during the term of the appeal process, all Special Taxes levied must be paid on or before the payment date established when the levy was made.
The appeal must specify the reasons why the appellant claims the Special Taxes are in error. The District Administrator shall review the appeal, meet with the appellant if the District Administrator deems necessary, and advise the appellant of its determination.
If the property owner disagrees with the District Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may then file a written appeal with the City Council whose subsequent decision shall be final and binding on all interested parties. If the decision of the District Administrator or subsequent decision by the City Council requires the Special Taxes to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, no cash
refund shall be made for prior years’ Special Taxes, but an adjustment shall be made to credit future Special Taxes.
This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal action by such owner.
City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 C APPENDIX C. DELINQUENCY SUMMARY REPORT
The following page shows the current Delinquency Summary Report.
City of Waterford
Delinquency Summary Report
As of: 06/30/2025
Delinquent
Amount %
Billed
Installments
Paid
Installments
Delinquent
Installments
Delinquent
District Due Date Installments %
Billed
Amount
Paid
Amount
Delinquent
Amount
CFD No. 2019-1 - Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 08/01/2020 Billing:
12/10/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 2 0 0 0.00%
04/10/2021 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 2 0 0 0.00%
Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 4 0 0 0.00%
08/01/2021 Billing:
12/10/2021 $2,786.45 $2,786.45 $0.00 0.00% 2 1 0 0.00%
04/10/2022 $2,786.45 $2,786.45 $0.00 0.00% 2 1 0 0.00%
Subtotal: $5,572.90 $5,572.90 $0.00 0.00% 4 2 0 0.00%
08/01/2022 Billing:
12/10/2022 $8,610.00 $8,610.00 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% 04/10/2023 $8,610.00 $8,610.00 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% Subtotal: $17,220.00 $17,220.00 $0.00 0.00% 154 150 0 0.00% 08/01/2023 Billing:
12/10/2023 $8,868.00 $8,868.00 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% 04/10/2024 $8,868.00 $8,868.00 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% Subtotal: $17,736.00 $17,736.00 $0.00 0.00% 154 150 0 0.00% 08/01/2024 Billing:
12/10/2024 $9,134.25 $9,134.25 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% 04/10/2025 $9,134.25 $9,134.25 $0.00 0.00% 77 75 0 0.00% Subtotal: $18,268.50 $18,268.50 $0.00 0.00% 154 150 0 0.00% CFD No. 2019-1 Total: $58,797.40 $58,797.40 $0.00 0.00% 470 452 0 0.00% Copyright © 2012 by NBS Page 1 of 1 08/27/2025 08:24:48AM City of Waterford
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Annual Report – Community Facilities District No. 2019-1 D APPENDIX D. FINAL BILLING DETAIL REPORT
The following pages show the Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
City of Waterford
Community Facilities District No. 2019-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Account ID Property Type Levy Rounding Total Levy
080-072-001-000 SFR detached $250.89 ($0.01) $250.88
080-072-002-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-003-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-004-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-005-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-006-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-007-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-008-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-009-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-010-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-011-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-012-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-013-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-014-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-015-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-016-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-017-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-018-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-019-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-020-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-021-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-022-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-023-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-024-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-025-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-026-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-027-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-028-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-029-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-030-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-031-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-032-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-033-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-034-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-035-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-036-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-037-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-038-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-072-039-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-001-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-002-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-003-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 1 of 2 08/27/2025 08:30:55AM City of Waterford
Community Facilities District No. 2019-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2025/26
Account ID Property Type Levy Rounding Total Levy
080-073-004-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-005-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-006-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-007-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-008-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-009-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-010-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-011-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-012-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-013-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-014-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-015-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-016-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-017-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-018-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-019-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-020-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-021-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-022-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-023-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-024-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-025-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-026-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-027-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-028-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-029-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-030-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-031-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-032-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-033-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-034-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-035-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
080-073-036-000 SFR detached 250.89 (0.01) 250.88
75 Accounts $18,816.75 ($0.75) $18,816.00
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 2 of 2 08/27/2025 08:30:55AM Public Hearing 4a
November 6, 2025
Mike Pitcock, City Manager
City Council Staff Report
Ordinance: 2
nd Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2025-04 Amending Waterford Municipal Code Title 15, Entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 Entitled “California Building Codes,” by Amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.020.
SUMMARY:
The City Council is being asked to Amend the Waterford Municipal Code Ordinance Title 15 entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 entitled “California Building Codes,” by amending Sections
15.04.010 entitled “Definitions” and 15.04.020 entitled “California Building Codes adopted,” and formally adopt the 2025 California Building Codes.
ANALYSIS:
The California Building Codes are reviewed and updated triennially to reflect the latest construction standards and requirements to provide for the health and safety of the public. The City of Waterford ordinance was last updated in December 2022 to reflect the adoption of the 2022 California Building Codes. The 2025 California Building Codes have been adopted by the State of California and will go into effect January 1, 2026. Municipalities, generally, formally adopt the building codes and indicate any modifications they would like to make to the codes. While the California Building Code does allow municipalities to make changes to the codes, any changes shall be more restrictive. A municipality can’t dismiss or choose to reduce standards called for in the California Building Codes.
It is recommended City Council amend Sections 15.04.010 entitled “Definitions” and 15.04.020 entitled “California Building Codes adopted,” to specify the new 2025 California Building Codes. The proposed changes only adopt the 2025 California Building Codes and does not recommend any changes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The ordinance revision itself does not impact the City financially as the revisions are only adding regulations required by the State of California as it relates to building codes and permitting requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City finds and determines with certainty that Code Text Amendment 2025-04 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and that the activity is covered under the general rule that CEQA applies to only projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, a Public Notice was published in the Waterford News on October 14, 2025.
ODINANCE REVISION PROCESS:
Ordinance 2025-04 is before the City Council for a public hearing to consider approving the 2 nd reading
and adoption by title only. After adoption, an Ordinance Summary will be published in the Waterford News and will become effective and in full force on and after thirty (30) days of its passage and adoption.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Not approve the ordinance revision. This is not recommended as the proposed ordinance edits and additions are state mandated requirements.
2. Defer approval of the ordinance to a future council date and provide staff direction on council desired changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Ordinance 2025-04
• Public Hearing Notice
ORDINANCE 2025-04
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING WATERFORD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 15 ENTITLED “BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION,” CHAPTER
15.04 ENTITLED “CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES,” BY AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.010 AND 15.04.020
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford is amending Municipal Code Title 15 entitled “BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION,” Chapter 15.04 entitled “California Building Codes” by amending Sections
15.04.010 and 15.04.020; and
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Title 15 entitled “Building and Construction” is hereby amended as follows:
Stricken through text represents deletions to the Waterford Municipal Code, and underlined text represents additions to the Waterford Municipal Code.
TITLE 15
BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
15.04.010 Definitions.
Certain words and phrases are defined in this section to clarify their use in this chapter and in the California Building Codes. Where a definition is not given or where a question of interpretation arises, the definition that shall control is the normal meaning of the word within the context of its use.
A. “Building official” or “building inspector” means and includes the building official and building inspector of the city and authorized representatives.
B. “Building site” means and includes the land occupied or to be occupied by a structure or accessory structure, together with any minimum distance between buildings and property lines required by this chapter or this code.
C. “Chief” or “chief of the fire department” or “fire chief” means and includes the chief of the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District and authorized representatives.
D. “Chief of police” or “police department” means and includes the chief of police of the city and authorized representatives.
E. “City” or “jurisdiction” or “municipality” means the city of Waterford.
F. “Code” means and includes, depending upon the context of its use, the Waterford Municipal Code, or any statute, or any published compilation of rules, regulations, or standards adopted by the federal government or the state of California, or by any agency of either of them. Code shall include any nationally recognized or approved published compilations
ORDINANCE 2025-04
or proposed rules, regulations, or standards of any private organization or institution that has been in existence for a period of at least three years.
G. “Fire department” means the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District.
H. “Health officer” means and includes the county health officer for Stanislaus County and his or her authorized representatives.
I. “Primary code” means and includes any code that is directly adopted by reference, in whole or in part, by this chapter.
J. “Published” means issued in print, lithographed, multigraphed, mimeographed, or similar form.
K. “Secondary code” means and includes any code that is incorporated by reference, directly or indirectly, in any primary code or in any secondary code.
L. “California Administrative Code” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Administrative Code, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission.
M. “California Building Code” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Building Code, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Code” shall include all appendices thereof.
N. “California Building Code Standards” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Building Code Standards, 2013 Edition California Code of Regulations Title 24, 2022 2025 Edition of the California Buildings Standards Code, including all appendices thereof,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission.
O. “California Building Codes” means and includes all of the following primary codes:
1. 2022 2025 California Administrative Code, Part 1;
2. 2022 2025 California Building Code, Part 2;
3. 2022 2025 California Residential Code, Part 2.5;
4. 2022 2025 California Electrical Code, Part 3;
5. 2022 2025 California Mechanical Code, Part 4;
6. 2022 2025 California Plumbing Code, Part 5;
7. 2022 2025 California Energy Code, Part 6;
8. 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7;
ORDINANCE 2025-04
9. 2025 California Historical Building Code, Part 8;
10. 2022 2025 California Fire Code, Part 9;
11. 2022 2025 California Existing Building Code, Part 10;
12. 2022 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11.
P. “California Fire Code” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Fire Code, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission.
Q. “California Fire Code Standards” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Fire Code Standards, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission.
R. “California Mechanical Code” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Mechanical Code, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the International Code Council, copyright by California Building Standards Commission.
S. “California Plumbing Code” means that certain document in book form entitled “California Plumbing Code, 2022 2025 Edition,” published by the California Building Standards Commission.
15.04.020 California Building Codes adopted.
The 2022 2025 California Administrative Code, Part 1; 2022 2025 California Building Code, Part 2; 2022 2025 California Residential Code, Part 2.5; 2022 2025 California Electrical Code, Part 3; 2022 2025 California Mechanical Code, Part 4; 2022 2025 California Plumbing Code, Part 5; 2022 2025 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2022 California Historical Building Code, 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface, Part 7; 2022 2025 California Historical Building Code, Part 8; 2022 2025 California Fire Code, Part 9; 2022 2025 California Existing Building Code, Part 10; 2022 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11; and California Referenced Standards Code, part 12.
SECTION 2. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by the California Constitution and State law.
SECTION 3. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) which is the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. 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
ORDINANCE 2025-04
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 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Waterford this 6
th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD
CHARLIE GOEKEN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC, City Clerk CORBETT J. BROWNING, City Attorney
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Waterford in the Council Chambers at a regular meeting thereof on November 6, 2025 at or about 6:30pm.
The city council will consider and ordinance amending Waterford Municipal Code title 15 entitled “Building and Construction,” Chapter 15.04 entitled “California Building Codes,” by amending Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.020.
Copies and a complete text of the Ordinance are available at City Hall, 101 E Street, Waterford, CA for review.
The Waterford City Council Chambers are located inside the Waterford Community Center located at 101 E Street, Waterford, CA. For further information, please contact Patricia Krause, City Clerk, at (209) 874- 2328 ext. 101.
Published: October 14th, 2025
Public Hearing Item 5a
November 20, 2025
Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager
City Council Staff Report
City Council to Consider Adoption of the Following:
Resolution: Resolution 2025-61 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024090068) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
Ordinance: Ordinance 2025-05 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to introduce an Ordinance Approving the Prezoning of APN’s 080-003-012, 015, 034, and 040 to RS, Single Family Residential, and APN’s 080-003-049 and 080- 003-050 to PC, Planned Community 2022-0001.
Resolution: Resolution 2025-62 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Application to Initiate Proceedings for the Reorganization of the Project site.
Resolution: Resolution 2025-63 Approving Planning Commission Recommendation and Motion to Adopt a Resolution to approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-0001 to subdivide 19.21 acres into ninety-eight (98) single family residential lots.
SUMMARY:
Annexation, Prezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) No. 2022-0001, hereto referred to as “Proposed Project” consists of the annexation and prezoning of approximately 43.27-acres, of which 19.2-acres will be subdivided to create ninety-eight (98) new single-family residential lots. The remainder of the Project site will remain in existing condition. The Project site consists of multiple Assessor Parcel Numbers and is bounded by agricultural lands to the north, State Highway 132/Yosemite Boulevard to the south, N. Reinway Avenue to the east, and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west. The Project site currently consists primarily of agricultural lands; however, a portion of the Project site consists of the existing Space in the Shade Mobile Home Park, which currently provides forty-three (43) mobile home and RV spaces for rent, and is located at the southern portion of the Project site immediately adjacent to Yosemite Boulevard.
As noted above, the Project site consists of multiple Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) including the following: 080-003-050, 012, 015, 034, 040, and 049.
The Project site is located beyond the current city limits, but within the City’s Primary Sphere of Influence, approved by the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in 2007. At that time, the Project site was identified as an area potential for annexation into the City of Waterford.
A Location Map, which illustrates the proposed project’s location, is provided below:
Location Map
The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan designates the subject property for Low-Density Residential (LDR) land uses. The Project site is currently under the zoning jurisdiction of Stanislaus County and is zoned General Agriculture – 10 Acre (A-2-10). The table below depicts the subject property’s surrounding Vision 2025 General Plan land use designations and zoning:
Land Use Zoning Designation General Plan Designation
North Agricultural uses AG-2-10 (County) LD
South
Agricultural uses,
Mobile Home/RV
Park, Yosemite
Boulevard
A-2-10 (County) LD
East
Eucalyptus Avenue
and Agricultural
uses
A-2-10 (County) LD
West N. Reinway Avenue,
Residential use RS (City) LD
ANALYSIS:
General Plan
The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2007. As noted above, the Project site is designated for Low Density Residential (LD) land uses per the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan. The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan land use diagram is provided below:
The LD land use designation allows for a density range of four (4) to six (6) dwelling units per gross acre and “consists primarily of single-family detached housing, but a diversity of single-family housing types, such as condominium and zero-lot-line units can be developed.” Future development of the Project site will be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations.
A portion of the Project site is to be subdivided at a density of approximately five (5) dwelling units per acre, consistent with the density requirements of the Vision 2025 General Plan.
City staff agrees that the Proposed Project is consistent with the following Vision 2025 General Plan Policies:
Policy UE-1 The City shall promote annexation of developed areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Staff Response: The Project site is located within the City’s Primary Sphere of Influence, and therefore, shall be promoted for annexation into the City of Waterford.
Policy L-1.2 Encourage a diversity of building types, ownership, prices, designs, and site plans for residential areas throughout the City.
Staff Response: The Project site is designated for LD land uses per the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan. The LD land use designation allows for a density range of four (4) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, with allowances of up to nine (9) dwelling units per acre under special circumstances. Therefore, within the Project site, the parcel to be subdivided combined with the remaining parcels designated for LD land uses allow for a variety of housing densities that could be developed within the Project site.
Policy L-1.3 Encourage a diversity of lot sizes in residential subdivisions.
Staff Response: The Proposed Project allows for diversity in lot sizes. The prezoning designations of PC and RS allow for a variety of lot sizes to accommodate a density of up to 9 dwelling units per acre.
Policy L-1.6 Continue to pursue quality single-family and higher density residential development.
Staff Response: The Proposed Project allows for quality single-family residential development consistent with the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan.
Policy L-1.8 Create livable and identifiable residential neighborhoods.
Staff Response: The Proposed Project implements the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan by extending the City limits westerly and creating new residential neighborhoods that will ultimately extend to the north and south as future development occurs.
Staff’s review of the Proposed Project has determined that this Proposed Project is consistent with the stated Goals and Policies of the Vision 2025 General Plan.
Annexation and Prezone:
Annexation:
A component of the Proposed Project is the annexation of approximately 43.27-acres into the City of Waterford. Annexation is a process that is reviewed and considered by City decision makers (i.e.
Planning Commission and City Council) and ultimately considered by the Stanislaus LAFCo.
Generally, the annexation process is required to adhere to the following entitlement processing steps:
• Planning Commission review and consideration of Annexation Request, and provides a formal recommendation to the City Council;
• City Council review and consideration of the Annexation request and Planning Commission’s recommendation;
• Annexation Application submitted to LAFCo;
• LAFCo conducts a noticed Public Hearing to review and consider the annexation request; • LAFCo conducts a Protest Hearing; and,
• Annexation is filed and recorded with the State Board of Equalization.
Following adoption of the Vision 2025 General Plan, the City’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) was adopted the Stanislaus LAFCo on August 22, 2007. The MSR is prepared in accordance with Section 56430 of the California Government Code and defines how public services (i.e. water, sewer, storm drainage, streets and roads, police/fire, etc.) can accommodate the City’s future growth and development. The MSR, through adoption by LAFCo, also establishes the City’s Sphere of Influence, or where the City’s General Plan has identified where future growth and development will occur. The following illustration provides the City’s current Primary and Secondary Sphere of Influence. It is important to note that the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan land use diagram follows the boundary of the adopted Primary Sphere of Influence.
The proposed annexation boundary includes properties that are not proposed for development at this time. The only parcel proposed for development is the property proposed to be subdivided (see discussion on VTSM below). The boundary also includes the Space in the Shade Mobile Home and RV Park, which currently receives City of Waterford water service, and consists of forty-three (43) Mobile RV Spaces. Upon annexation, the owner of the Space in the Shade Mobile Home and RV Park would have the option of connecting to the City’s domestic wastewater system.
Annexation allows the Subject Properties within the Project site to ultimately connect to City services (i.e. water, sewer, etc.) as they are developed. Development of properties that are not proposed to be subdivided under this application will eventually be required to apply for, and obtain, approval from the City of Waterford to allow for development of the respective properties.
The Project site is located within the City’s Primary Sphere of Influence, and therefore, it has been planned for and intended to be annexed. Based on pre-consultation meetings with Stanislaus LAFCo staff, the Proposed Project appears to meet applicable LAFCo policies necessary to support the annexation. All Stanislaus LAFCo annexation application fees and processing costs will be paid for by the Applicant.
Prezone:
Combined with the proposed annexation application is a prezone application. The proposed prezoning designations are consistent with the City’s General Plan and correspond directly with the General Plan land use designations. The map below illustrates the proposed prezoning designations.
Prezoning Designations
As illustrated above, the prezoning designations consist of RS, Residential Single, and PC, Planned Community. Within the Project site, the City anticipates the following development assumptions based on General Plan land use designations and corresponding Prezoning designations.
Pre--Zone Designations and Development Assumptions
APN No. Acres 2025 General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Pre-Zone
Designation
Development Capacity*
(# of residential units)
080-003-012 4.93 Low Density
Residential (LD)
RS, Residential
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 PC 5
080-003-050 19.13 LD PC 98
N/A (right-ofway, MID
Canal)
5.01 - - -
Sub-Total 43.27 - - 207 (164 new units)
Notes:
*Development capacity is based upon average Density per 2025 General Plan LD land use designation:
5 dwelling units per gross acre.
**Represents existing residential units.
The PC zoning designation applies to the portion of the Project site that is being proposed to be subdivided and developed. The PC zoning designation allows the Applicant to propose deviations from the development standards typically required of the RS zone district. The proposed development standards for the portion prezoned as PC is depicted below and compared to the development standards required by the City’s RS zone district. The Proposed Project will comply with all other development standards required of the RS zone district.
Development Standard RS Zone District Proposed PC
(PC 2022-0001)
Lot Dimensions
Lot Size (Minimum) 6,000 square feet 5,500 square feet
Lot Width (Minimum) Interior - 55 feet
Corner – 65 feet
Interior – 55 feet
Corner – 65 feet
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 40% 60%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 10 feet 10 feet
Side Interior – 5 feet
Corner – 10 feet
Interior – 5 feet
Corner – 10 feet
As illustrated above, the Proposed Project includes variations of development standards from the RS zone district including lot size, coverage, width, and setbacks. The Applicant is requesting deviated standards for lot size and lot coverage, both of which staff is in support of.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM):
The Applicant is requesting a VTSM Map (Attachment 4) as part of the overall application, which would subdivide an existing 19.20± acre parcel into ninety-eight (98) single family residential lots. The purpose of the VTSM is to create new parcels for the development of single-family residential units.
The Proposed VTSM is illustrated below:
As shown above, access to the subdivided area is provided from N. Reinway Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue. The Vision 2025 General Plan designates both N. Reinway Avenue as a two (2) lane Collector Street and Eucalyptus Avenue as a four (4) lane Arterial. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant will be required to install frontage improvements, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to N. Reinway Avenue connecting to existing improvement located south of the MID canal. These improvements include APN No. 080-003-049. The Applicant will also be required to install roadway improvements to Eucalyptus Avenue from the Project site extending south to SR132/Yosemite Boulevard. The extent of these improvements are illustrated below:
Along Project Frontage:
From Southern Edge of Project to Yosemite Boulevard:
Roadway improvements to Eucalyptus Avenue will allow residents to access Yosemite Boulevard and relieve traffic volumes on N. Reinway Avenue.
The Proposed Project will also install utilities that will provide water, sewer, and stormwater service to the parcel being subdivided, but also allow stubbed lines to allow for connections as future development within the Project site occurs. These utilities include: water and stormwater lines installed in Eucalyptus Avenue, installation of a sewer lift station in Lot A, and connecting to existing sewer lines located in N.
Reinway Avenue. The City Engineer has reviewed the Proposed Project and has determined that with the installation of these improvements, there is sufficient water, sewer, and stormwater capacity to serve the parcel being subdivided and the remainder of the Project site.
Other improvements include masonry wall along the Proposed Project’s southern border (adjacent to MID canal) and along the Project’s frontage on Eucalyptus Avenue, and connection to existing underground utilities to provide domestic services including water, sewer, and storm drainage. In addition, any overhead utility lines will be relocated underground through coordination with MID.
Public Outreach:
The Applicant conducted community meetings on November 14, 2022, and again on April 30, 2025.
Minutes of the April 30, 2025 meeting are provided in Attachment 6. Prior to this meeting, notices were distributed to properties within a 300-radius of the Project site. City staff counted approximately twelve (12) residents in attendance. Generally, comments expressed by the attendees included the following:
• Increase in traffic and improvements to Eucalyptus Avenue; • Lack of parks in general vicinity;
• Impacts to schools;
• Perimeter wall treatment; and,
• Two-story homes located on the northern perimeter of the Project site, resulting in privacy concerns for the property owner to the north of the Project site.
In addition, upon the community meeting of April 30, 2025, the Applicant met with the property owners of APN No. 080-003-049 to discuss their concerns and determine if there were conditions that could be applied to address those concerns.
Based on the community meeting and follow-up meetings with interested residents, the following conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Proposed Project:
1. Installation of a six (6) foot tall masonry wall where the Proposed Project abuts APN No. 080- 003-049 and its western boundary line. Fencing on the north and south of the property will be a 6-foot wood fence;
2. Installation of sewer connection stubs to APN No. 080-003-049 to allow for future connection to the City of Waterford’s sewer system;
3. Cap and fill the existing irrigation line located on APN No. 080-003-049. The Applicant can also remove the line and replace the existing fencing at the request of the property owner;
4. Relocation of the proposed sewer lift station further from APN No. 080-003-049 and relocated on Lot A.
5. Relocate and replacement (where needed) of the existing wrought iron fencing located on your property fronting N. Reinway Avenue;
6. Survey of APN No. 080-003-049, at the expense of the Applicant, to ensure property pins are located in the correct location;
7. Commitment to adhere to the City’s Noise Ordinance and policies regarding noise and vibration during Project construction; and,
8. Commitment to dust control measures as required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
9. Permitting one-story homes only along the northern perimeter of the Project site. This Condition is applied to Lots 29 through 45, 90, and 93 as illustrated in Attachment 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing to consider the Proposed Project. In attendance were three (3) of the five (5) appointed commissioners. Others in attendance included City staff, the Applicant and their Representatives, and two (2) members of the public.
Upon conducting the public hearing, Condition of Approval No. 18, as stated within Attachment 4d, was revised to allow for the Applicant to remove the existing sewer septic system located on APN No. 080- 003-049, and fund and install domestic sewer connections to the Subject Parcel, and pay the applicable fees associated with this connection. This improvement will be 100% Applicant financed.
Upon closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-0, recommended approval of the Proposed Project to the City Council. For reference, the Planning Commission Resolutions are provided herein as Attachment 4h.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff time and resources have been utilized for the processing of this application. However, the applicant has paid the applicable application fees for the Proposed Project. In addition, as residential development occurs within the Project site, the Applicant and/or Project Proponent will be required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District No. 2019-01 to fund long term maintenance of public facilities. The Proposed Project will also pay the applicable Building Permit Fees at the time of Building Permit issuance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared and circulated an Initial Study to evaluate possible environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The Initial Study includes special studies prepared by the Applicant including a Biological Assessment and Traffic Study. The Biological Assessment concluded that the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on biological resources but did recommend Pre-Construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk and nesting birds prior to construction. Those recommendations have been incorporated as Mitigation Measures required of the Proposed Project.
The Traffic Study prepared for the Proposed Project evaluated the Proposed Project’s impact on adjacent roadways and intersections. Specifically, the Traffic Study evaluated the following: N. Reinway/School Ingress and Regress, N. Reinway Avenue/Pecan Avenue, N. Reinway Avenue/Yosemite Boulevard, and Eucalyptus Avenue/Yosemite Boulevard. The Traffic Study concluded that with the improvement to Eucalyptus Avenue as part of the Proposed Project, impacts to these intersections are determined to be less than significant and result in a Level of Service (LOS) that complies with the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan.
Proposed Project impacts to schools, fire, police, and other topics such as parks will be mitigated by the payment of impact fees that are required as building permits are issued. The Proposed Project will also be required to annex into the City’s existing Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2019-01 to allow for long-term maintenance of public facilities.
The Public Review Draft Initial Study was released for public review on September 3, 2024, which concluded on October 4, 2024. On September 3, 2024, City staff posted the Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and mailed copies of the Notice of Intent to properties within a 300-foot radius of the Project site. The City received a total of three (3) comment letters from the following:
• Mr. and Mrs. Dan and Liz Almeida;
• Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); and,
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
City staff has reviewed the letters received and determined there were no revisions necessary to the IS/MND. Letters from DTSC and CVWQB provided information related to Statewide rules and regulations related to toxic substances and water quality. The letter of comments provided by Mr. and Mrs. Almeida expressed their opposition to annexation as opposed to commenting specifically on the analysis contained in the IS/MND.
Therefore, based on the evaluation contained in the Public Review Draft Initial Study, City staff have determined that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, City staff have prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Article 6 of the CEQA Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
In accordance with Section 17.79.020(c) of the WMC, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Waterford News on November 9, 2025. In addition, Public Notices were distributed on November 9, 2025, via U.S. Mail to residents within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site. As of the writing of this Staff Report, the City has not received any comments.
ODINANCE REVISION PROCESS:
Ordinance 2025-XX is before the City Council for a public hearing to consider approving the Introduction and First Reading by title only. A summary of the Ordinance will be published in the Waterford News and will come back to the City Council as a public hearing item at the next council meeting to consider the Second Reading by title and Adoption. After adoption, an Ordinance Summary will be published in the Waterford News and will become effective and in full force on and after thirty (30) days of its passage and adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
4a: City Council Resolution No. 2025-61 (CEQA)
4b. City Council Ordinance No. 2025-05 (Rezone)
4c: City Council Resolution No. 2025-62 (Annexation)
4d. City Council Resolution No. 2025-63 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map) 4e: Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
4f. Meeting Notes of Community Meeting, dated April 30, 2025 4g. Public Review Draft IS/MND
4h. Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-06, 07, and 08 RESOLUTION 2025-61
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ANNEXATION, PREZONE, AND VESTING
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 2022-0001 (FAHMY
ANNEXATION) FOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 080-003,
050, 012, 015, 034, 040, AND 049
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. The Project also consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) to allow for the subdivision of
19.20-acres into ninety-eight (98) single family residential lots. 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, the Proposed Project Site is located in the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation of the City’s General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may involve potentially significant effects on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford, acting as Lead Agency, has prepared and circulated for public and agency review an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addressing the potential environmental effects of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency distributed the Public Review Draft IS/MND for public review on September 3, 2024, and the comment period concluded on October 4, 2024; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND also identifying the date of this meeting was published in the Waterford News on September 4, 2024, filed with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder Office, and mailed to properties within a 300-foot radius of the Project site; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and independently considered the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND during a noticed public hearing on October 21, 2025, and recommended certification to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, a copy of the IS/MND is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and, RESOLUTION 2025-61
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan reflecting the analysis and mitigation recommendations contained in the IS/MND, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the notice of the special public hearing on the proposed Annexation, Prezone, and VTSM was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on November 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, notices of the special public hearing on the proposed Annexation, Prezone, and VTSM were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on November 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Waterford makes the following findings and determinations:
1. The Proposed Project 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.
2. The site is physically suitable for the density and/or intensity of the Proposed Project.
3. The Proposed Project 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.
4. A Notice of Determination pertaining to this matter shall be filed with the County Clerk within five (5) business days of this resolution, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Documents and materials related to the IS/MND shall be maintained at Waterford City Hall.
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.
RESOLUTION 2025-61
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL that it approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Annexation, Prezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-0001.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting this 20th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC CORBETT J. BROWNING
City Clerk City Attorney
RESOLUTION 2025-61
EXHIBIT A – INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Refer to Attachment 4g of this Staff Report
RESOLUTION 2025-61
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 9536
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.
ORDINANCE 2025-05
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-05
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 October 21, 2025 to consider the proposed prezone.
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: 080-003-012, 015, 034, 040, 049, and 050; 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. The Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on October 21, 2025, and by a vote of 3-0, recommended to the City Council approval of the Prezone; and,
5. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed Prezone was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on November 4, 2025; and
6. Notices of the public hearing on the proposed Prezone were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on November 4, 2025; 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.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 20, 2025 and all comments were heard and considered by the City Council.
ORDINANCE 2025-05
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 October 21, 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. APN 080-003-049 and 050 are to be zoned PC, Planned Community (PC 2022-01).
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):
ORDINANCE 2025-05
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Waterford this 20th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
ORDINANCE 2025-05
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD
_______________________
CHARLIE GOEKIN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
PATRICIA KRAUSE CORBETT J. BROWNING
City Clerk City Attorney
ORDINANCE 2025-05
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE 2025-05
RESOLUTION 2025-62
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
REORGANIZATION OF 43.27 ACRES KNOWN AS THE FAHMY
ANNXATION
WHEREAS, the City has processed a request to annex 43.27 acres into the City of Waterford, known as the “Fahmy Annexation” (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, the City of Waterford (“City”) seeks to file an application with the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) to initiate proceedings for adjustment to the boundaries specified herein, pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with California Government Code § 56000; and
WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2024090068) (“MND”), evaluating and mitigating the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) encompasses the entire Proposed Project area; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to annex and reorganize the boundaries of the Project into City limits (“Reorganization Proposal”); and
WHEREAS, the Project area is contiguous to City limits, is within the City’s SOI, and implements the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will be able to provide the public facilities and services to support the buildout of the Project area; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to authorize City staff to file an application with Stanislaus LAFCO to annex the Project area into City limits and allow for future development of the area consistent with the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Waterford City Council as follows:
1. The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to file an application with Stanislaus LAFCO to annex the Project area into City limits, as described and depicted in Exhibit A attached and incorporated hereto, and to take all actions necessary and incidental to accomplish the reorganization of the Specific Plan area.
2. The City Council hereby requests that the Reorganization Proposal be subject to the following terms and conditions:
a. That the effective date of the Reorganization Proposal be the date on which Stanislaus LAFCO records the certificate of completion for the annexation of the Project area.
RESOLUTION 2025-62
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting this 20th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC CORBETT J. BROWNING
City Clerk City Attorney
RESOLUTION 2025-62
Exhibit A – Fahmy Annexation
RESOLUTION 2025-62
RESOLUTION 2025-62
RESOLUTION 2025-63
WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING 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 vesting 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, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on October 21, 2025, and by a vote of 3-0, recommended to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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).
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 City Council 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 CITY COUNCIL that it approves 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 City Council.
Conditions of Approval
Planning Department
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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.
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
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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:
Along Project Frontage:
From Southern Edge of Project to Yosemite Boulevard:
Corner – 65 feet
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 60%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 15 feet
Rear 10 feet
Side Interior – 5 feet
Corner – (Street Side) – 10 feet
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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).
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.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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.
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.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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.
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.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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 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. A Consent 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 rightof-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.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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.
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.
RESOLUTION 2025-63
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.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting this 20th day of November 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF WATERFORD
RESOLUTION 2025-63
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC CORBETT J. BROWNING
City Clerk City Attorney
RESOLUTION 2025-63
Exhibit A – VTSM
C1
B 1 46474849 52 51 50 53545556 57585960 63 62 61 646566 68 67 697071 74 73 72 757677 79 78 8081 85 84 83 86878889 9091 9293 94 95 96 97 98 82 21 2324252627 28 11 10 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2 22 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 C2 KADOTA AVENUE
N REINWAY AVENUE
MID LATERAL REID COURT STREET "A" STREET "B"
STREET "C"
STREET "D"
STREET "E"
STREET "F"
STREET "G"
N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE LOT A 50' TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET
A 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' SIDE- WALK 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' SIDE- WALK 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PARKING LANE 2' 40' 12' 12' 12' 6' FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 50' FUTURE DEDICATION F/L MASONRY SIDE- SOUND WALL WALK 5' LSING5' R/W N. EUCALYPUS AVENUE C1 40' EX. R/W 2' DEDICATION TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE R/W EX. ROAD TO BE REMOVED TEMP. 2' SHOULDER EX. R/W FUTURE MEDIAN N. REINWAY AVENUE B 50' 30' 30' R/W EX. R/W F/C C/L 5' SIDE- WALK 25' F/C 5' SIDE- WALK 12' TRAVEL LANE 8' PARKING LANE VERTICAL CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PER C.O.W. STANDARD DETAIL 311 PROPOSED PAVEMENT SAWCUT EX. PAVEMENT 10' DEDICATION EX. R/W EX. IMPROVEMENTS5' 12' 14' F/L N. EUCALYPUS AVENUE C2 40' EX. R/W 2' 5' 3' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE AC TRAIL (IF REQUIRED) EX. MID CANAL EX. ROAD TO BE REMOVED AC DIKE SHOULDER SURVEYED TOE OF SLOPE EX. R/W 40' 12' FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 50' FUTURE DEDICATION R/W FUTURE MEDIAN
APPROVED SHEET NUMBERDATE DESCRIPTIONS
REVISIONS
NO.
CALIFORNIA JOB #: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: DESIGN: CHK'D:
PLOTTED: 09/08/2025 16:45 PLOTTED BY: Phurban
DWGNAME: F:\21-2842 Waterford Development Project\Planning\TM\TM1.1.dwg TM1.1 COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842 TPD PMH/ NB PMH 09/08/25
WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WATERFORD,
PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COVER SHEET AND CROSS SECTIONS AS SHOWN
0 1" = 80 40 80 80' 1. ALLIMPROVEMENTSSHALLBECONSTRUCTEDASPERTHECITYOFWATERFORDSTANDARDPLANSANDSPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPTAS NOTED. 2. STORMDRAINAGERUNOFFTOBECONVEYEDVIAGRAVITYTOTHEFUTURESTORMDRAINAGETRUNKMAININN.EUCALYPTUSAVENUE. THEINTERIMSOLUTIONIS TO OVERSIZETHEIN-TRACTSTORMDRAINAGESYSTEMTO ATTENUATETHESTORMDRAINAGERUNOFF. STORMWATERWILLBEDISCHARGEDTHROUGHA METERINGSTRUCTUREANDOVERFLOWPIPETOTHEEXISTING12”STORMDRAINAGE LINE IN N. REINWAYAVENUE.THE PROPOSEDDISCHARGETO N. REINWAYAVENUEWILL BE METEREDTO DISCHARGEAT THE PRE-DEVELOPMENTFLOWCONDITIONSO AS NOTTO INUNDATEDOWNSTREAMSTORMWATERSYSTEMS.STAGNANTWATERIN THE PROPOSEDPIPENETWORKWILLEMPTYVIAUNDERGROUNDPERCOLATIONALONGN. EUCALYPTUSAVENUEIMPLEMENTINGEITHERA SERIES OF DRYWELLS OR FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM(S). 3. WATER: WATER MAINS AND STRUCTURES TO BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARDS. 4. SEWER:SANITARYSEWERTOBECONVEYEDVIAGRAVITYTOAPROPOSEDSANITARYSEWERPUMPSTATIONONLOTA.SANITARYSEWER DISCHARGEWILLFLOWVIA 6” SEWERFORCEMAINSOUTHALONGN. REINWAYAVENUEANDCONNECTTO THEEXISTINGSEWER MANHOLE AT WASHINGTON ROAD. THE DIMENSIONS OF LOT A ARE TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 5. EXISTINGIRRIGATION:ALLEXISTINGIRRIGATIONLINES,STRUCTURES, ANDAPPURTENANCESWITHINTHEPROJECTBOUNDARYSHALLBE REMOVEDOR ABANDONEDPERMODESTOIRRIGATIONDISTRICTSTANDARDSANDSPECIFICATIONS, ANDAT THEEXPENSEOF THE PROJECT PROPONENT. 6. STREET LIGHTING SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARDS. 7. PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE TO BE INSTALLED UNDER GROUND IN EASEMENTS. 8. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL INTERIOR STREET FRONTAGES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. THESUBDIVIDERHEREBYRESERVESTHERIGHTTOFILE"MULTIPLESUBDIVISIONMAPS"ASSETFORTHBYTHESUBDIVISIONMAPACT, ARTICLE4, SECTION66456.1,ANDFILEPARCELMAPSFORREASONOFSALE.ALLPARCELLINESSHALLCONFORMTOTHETENTATIVE MAP. 10. BUILDING SETBACKS WILL BE AS PER PLANNING COMMUNITY No. 2022-01. 11. ALLEXISTINGSTRUCTURESANDTREESARETOBEREMOVED.SEPTICTANKS,LEACHFIELDS,ANDWELLSONSITEWILLBEREMOVEDOR ABANDONED AS PER CITY OF WATERFORD REQUIREMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 12. SITEISCURRENTLYBEINGUSEDFORROWCROPS.ALLTREESARETOBEREMOVED.TREESHAVENOTBEENSHOWNONTHISPLANFOR CLARITY. 13. TWO-STORY HOMES SHALL BE PROHIBITED FOR LOTS 29 THROUGH 45, 90 THROUGH 94, AND LOT 98. 14. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL ADHERE TO CHAPTER 8.22 (NOISE CONTROL) OF THE WATERFORD MUNICIPAL CODE. A. REGULATORY AGENCY: CITY OF WATERFORD 101 E. STREET WATERFORD, CA. 95386 B. APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA LAND DEVELOPMENT 331 SANTA ROSA DRIVE LOS GATOS, CA. 95032 T: (408) 483-7777 CONTACT: STEWART FAHMY C. ENGINEER: NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 620 12th STREET MODESTO CA, 95354 T: (209) 524-3525 F: (209) 524-3526 CONTACT: PAMELA HURBAN D. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 080-003-050 E. EXISTING LAND USE: ROW CROPS F. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL G. EXISTING ZONING/ GP: AG10 (COUNTY)/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL H. PROPOSED ZONING/ GP: PLANNED COMMUNITY/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I. TOTAL PROJECT SIZE: ±19.2 ACREAGE J. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 98 K DENSITY: 5.1 UNITS PER NET ACRE L. TYPICAL LOT SIZE: 5,500 S.F.MINIMUM N. MAXIMUM COVERAGE: 60% P. UTILITIES: WATER SYSTEM - CITY OF WATERFORD SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM - CITY OF WATERFORD STORM DRAINAGE - CITY OF WATERFORD GAS - PG&E ELECTRIC - MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT TELEPHONE - AT&T SCHOOL DISTRICT - WATERFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECT INFORMATION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA GENERAL NOTES STAR AVE.
N EUCALYPTUS AVE.
YOSEMITE BLVD. (CA 132) WASHINTGON RD.
N REINWAY AVE. MID MAIN CANAL VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SHEET INDEX 1. TM1.1 COVER SHEET AND CROSS SECTIONS 2. TM1.2 DIMENSION, TOPOGRAPHIC, AND UTILITY PLAN 3. TM2.2 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE GEOMETRICS
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 Ex8"SS Ex6"SS
4"SSFM
4"SSFM ICV PP ICVICV ICVICV ICVICV ICVICV ICVICV ICVICV ICVICV ICV PP PP JP JPJP JP JP JP TP MAIL WV 10"TREE 10"TREE Ex12"SD Ex12"SD WV KADOTA AVENUE
N REINWAY AVENUE
55.0' 98.7' 100.0'
58.2' 58.0' 98.7'
61.4' 98.7' 100.0' 106.2'
40.6' 63.0' 70.0'
61.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0'
60.0' 100.0' 71.8'
60.0' 100.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0' 100.0'
63.5' 95.0' 97.6' 70.0' 70.0' 70.0' 70.0' 70.0' 70.0' 65.0' 65.0'
65.0'
70.3'
70.3' 65.0'
100.0'
75.0' 99.8' 100.0' 48.2'
82.3' 29.0'
25.3'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0' 58.0'
100.0'
100.0'
100.0' 56.8' 72.3'95.5'
63.0' 96.4'
62.0' 97.3'
62.0' 98.2' 99.1'
53.7'
103.5' 61.0'
99.5' 61.0'
100.0' 44.8'
82.0' 25.3' 82.0'
25.5'
52.3'
70.3' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
52.3' 82.0'
25.5'
82.0' 25.5' 52.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 52.0'
25.5'
82.0'
82.0' 25.5' 52.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 52.0'
25.5'
82.0' 60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 60.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0'
60.0' 52.3' 82.0' 82.0'
25.5'
25.5'
52.3'
82.0' 25.5' 38.8'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 52.0'
25.5'
82.0'
82.0' 25.5' 43.8'
100.0' 62.6'
100.0' 49.4'
25.6'
82.0' 63.5' 95.0' 97.6' 95.0' 96.8'
63.5'
63.5'
63.3'
63.3' 95.0' 95.8'
47.0' 77.0'
25.5'
47.3' 77.1'
25.3' 82.0'
25.5'
52.3' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
60.0' 100.0'
53.6' 81.1'
25.5'
75.1'
74.9' 100.0' 63.1'
25.6'
75.0'
95.6'
95.3'
62.1'
99.0'
100.6' 60.0'
100.9' 60.0'
101.0' 60.0'
101.1' 60.0'
101.2' 60.0'
101.3' 60.0'
101.5' 60.0'
101.6' 60.0'
101.8' 60.0'
101.9' 60.0'
101.4' 60.0'
117.8' 5976 SF 5506 SF 5741 SF 5883 SF 7406 SF 7493 SF
6"SS
6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 8"SS
6"SSFM 98.7' 12.7' BARRICADE REMOVE ALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AND INSTALL SOLID GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE STUB WATER CONNECT TO EX. WATER CONNECT TO EX. SEWER MANHOLE 6"SS 36"SD 36"SD 36"SD 36"SD
12"SD 30"SD 24"SD 24"SD
12"SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN METERING STRUCTURE CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" STORM DRAIN MAIN (INTERIM CONNECTION) 10' P.U.E. (4) PROPOSED DRY WELLS TO PERCOLATE STORM WATER RUNOFF (TYP.)
22.6' SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION CONNECT TO EX. WATER MID LATERAL 1 46474849 52 51 50 53545556 57585960 63 62 61 646566 68 67 697071 74 73 72 757677 79 78 8081 85 84 83 86878889 9091 9293 94 95 96 97 98 82 21 2324252627 28 8 7
6 5
4 3
2 14 13 12 11 10
9 20 19 18 17 16 15 58.0' 58.0' 58.0'
28.5' STUB FOR FUTURE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION IN EUCALYPTUS AVENUE STUB FOR FUTURE WATER CONNECTION IN EUCALYPTUS AVENUESTUB FOR FUTURE WATER CONNECTION IN EUCALYPTUS AVENUE 6"SS 2253.5'
79.7'
100.0' 6430 SF 6258 SF 6430 SF 6109 SF 6115 SF 6175 SF 6033 SF 6196 SF 6033 SF 6033 SF 6085 SF 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
95.1' 45 48.2' 50.6' 70.2'
102.4' 86.4' 46.3'
28.1'
25.5' 100.0' 6043 SF 6004 SF 6060 SF 6017 SF 6005 SF 6785 SF 11851 SF 7896 SF 6119 SF 6113 SF 6105 SF 6096 SF 6088 SF 6080 SF 6072 SF 6063 SF 6055 SF 6047 SF 6009 SF 6020 SF 6010 SF 6008 SF 6176 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6959 SF 7008 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6930 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6000 SF 6959 SF 6959 SF 6959 SF 6959 SF 8"SS
6"SS
6"SS
6"SS 6"SS 6"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
8"W 8"W
8"W 8"W
12"SD
12"SD
15"SD
12"SD
12"SD 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E. 10' P.U.E.
48.0' CONSTRUCT CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AND CONNECT TO EXISTING
81.7' STUB SEWER FOR FUTURE CONNECTION FOR APN 080-003-049 N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE STREET "A" STREET "B"
STREET "C"
STREET "D"
STREET "E"
STREET "F"
STREET "G" EXISTING IRRIGATION STRUCTURES AND PIPELINE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) 6733 SF 6375 SF 6756 SF 58.0' 100.0' LOT A 7096 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 5800 SF 6' DECORATIVE 4697 SF MASONRY WALL 6' DECORATIVE MASONRY WALL 6' DECORATIVE MASONRY WALL REMOVE IRRIGATION LINE TO APN 080-003-049
APPROVED SHEET NUMBERDATE DESCRIPTIONS
REVISIONS
NO.
CALIFORNIA JOB #: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: DESIGN: CHK'D:
PLOTTED: 09/08/2025 16:46 PLOTTED BY: Phurban
DWGNAME: F:\21-2842 Waterford Development Project\Planning\TM\TM2.1.dwg TM2.1 COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842 TPD PMH/ NB PMH 09/08/25
WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WATERFORD,
PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
DIMENSION, TOPOGRAPHIC,
AND UTILITY PLAN AS SHOWN
0 1" = 50 25 50 50'
0 1" = 50 25 50 50'
SEE ABOVE SEE BELOW EXISTING PROPOSED LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL LINE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT OVER HEAD ELECTRICAL MASONRY WALL FENCE (CHAINLINK OR VINYL) FENCE (WOOD OR WROUGHT IRON) SIGN SERVICE POLE STORM DRAIN (MAIN) STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE CURB INLET/ DRY WELL WATER (MAIN) WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE SEWER (MAIN) SEWER LIFT STATION SEWER FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION STRUCTURE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4"SSFM 6"SSFM ICV ICV N/A N/A /
/ N/A
EX. M.I.D. CANAL
JP
JP
PP
PP
PP
PP
B2FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY
40' 50'
40' 50'
B1
2' DEDICATION FUTURE DEDICATION
FUTURE DEDICATION EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING ACCESS FOR APN'S 080-003-034 AND 012 SHALL BE PRESERVED.
EX. M.I.D.
CANAL
N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
X. M.I.D. CANAL EX. M.I.D. CANAL
STOP
STOP
JP
TP
JP
SP
TP
JP
MAIL
JP
STOP
AHEAD
JP
JP
MAIL
SP
40'
STOP
50' FUTURE
B2RIGHT OF WAY
FUTURE DEDICATION EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY N EUCALYPTUS AVENUE YOSEMITE BLVD. 40' 12' 12' 12' 6' FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 50' FUTURE DEDICATION F/L MASONRY SIDE- SOUND WALL WALK 5' LSING5' R/W N. EUCALYPUS AVENUE B1 40' EX. R/W 2' DEDICATION TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE R/W EX. ROAD TO BE REMOVED TEMP. 2' SHOULDER EX. R/W FUTURE MEDIAN 12' 14' F/L N. EUCALYPUS AVENUE B2 40' EX. R/W 2' 5' 3' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE AC TRAIL (IF REQUIRED) EX. MID CANAL EX. ROAD TO BE REMOVED AC DIKE SHOULDER SURVEYED TOE OF SLOPE EX. R/W 40' 12' FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 50' FUTURE DEDICATION R/W FUTURE MEDIAN
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE GEOMETRICS AS SHOWN
0 1" = 50 25 50 50'
SEE ABOVE
SEE BELOW
APPROVED SHEET NUMBERDATE DESCRIPTIONS
REVISIONS
NO.
CALIFORNIA JOB #: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: DESIGN: CHK'D:
PLOTTED: 09/08/2025 16:47 PLOTTED BY: Phurban
DWGNAME: F:\21-2842 Waterford Development Project\Planning\TM\TM2.2.dwg TM2.2 COPYRIGHT © 2025 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842 TPD PMH/ NB PMH 09/08/25
WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WATERFORD,
PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fahmy Annexation, Prezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2022-0001
prepared by
City of Waterford
Planning Department
101 E Street
Waterford, California 95386
Prepared with the assistance of
J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, California 95366
September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1
INITIAL STUDY 6
1. Project Title 6
2. Lead Agency Name and Address 6
3. Contact Person and Phone Number 6
4. Project Location 6
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address 6
6. Existing Setting 7
7. Existing General Plan Designation 7
8. Existing Zoning 7
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 7
10. Description of the Project 8
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required 13
12. California Native American Tribes Consultation 13
13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 19
14. Lead Agency Determination 20
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 23
1. Aesthetics 23
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 25
3. Air Quality 29
4. Biological Resources 35
5. Cultural Resources 39
6. Energy 41
7. Geology and Soils 43
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 47
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 51
10. Hydrology and Water Quality 55
11. Land Use and Planning 59
12. Mineral Resources 60
13. Noise 61
14. Population and Housing 63
15. Public Services 65
16. Recreation 68
17. Transportation/Traffic 69
18. Tribal Cultural Resources 71
19. Utilities and Service Systems 74
20. Wildfire 77
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 79
REFERENCES 81
TABLES
1. Pre-Zone Designations and Development Assumptions 3
2. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings 8
FIGURES 11
1. Annexation Area Exhibit 12
2. Waterford Sphere of Influence 14
3. Existing General Plan Map 15
4. Existing Zoning Designation Map 16
5. Proposed Pre-Zoning Designation Map 17
6. Tentative Subdivision Map 18
APPENDICES
A. Air Quality Modeling Results 82
B. Waterford Development Project Biological 83
Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared
by Moore Biological Consultants
C. Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project 84
Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared
by Wood Rodgers
1 | P a g e
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency:
City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, California 95386
PROJECT NAME:
Fahmy Annexation, Prezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2022-0001 PROJECT PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY:
Project Proponent: California Land Development
331 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Lead Agency: City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
PROJECT LOCATION:
The Proposed Project is located outside the City of Waterford, California and within the County of Stanislaus. The Project site consists of approximately 43.27-acres within the City’s Sphere of Influence and is located within the northwestern area of Waterford.
The Project site is bounded by agricultural lands to the north, State Highway 132/Yosemite Boulevard to the south, Eucalyptus Avenue to the west, and N. Reinway Avenue to the east.
Figure 1, Annexation Area Exhibit, provides an illustration of the Proposed Project’s location.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Overview
The Proposed Project consists of the Pre-Zone 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 ninety-eight (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 Prezone followed by the actions of the Tentative Subdivision Map. 2 | P a g e
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):
• 080-003-050;
• 080-003-012;
• 080-003-015;
• 080-003-034;
• 080-003-040; and,
• 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.
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.
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. 3 | P a g e
Table 1 – Pre-Zone Designations and Development Assumptions APN No. Acres 2025 General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Pre-Zone
Designation
Development Capacity*
(# of residential units)
080-003-012 4.93 Low Density
Residential (LD)
RS, Residential
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.
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 4 | P a g e
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:
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:
5 | P a g e
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The Lead Agency has prepared an Initial Study, the following, which considers the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the Proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment, provided that the following mitigation measures are included in the Proposed Project.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation Measure 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.
Mitigation Measure Air-1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities for each phase of construction, the Project Proponent shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan that meets all of the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021, Section 6.3.
Mitigation Measure 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. ____________________________________________________ ____________________ Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager Date
6 | P a g e
INITIAL STUDY
1. PROJECT TITLE
Fahmy Annexation, Pre-zone, and Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) Application No. 2022-0001
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Mr. Mark Niskanen, Contract Planner
(209) 599-8377
4. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located outside the City of Waterford, California and within the County of Stanislaus. The site is located within the City of Waterford’s adopted Sphere of Influence.
The Project site to be subdivided and developed is located on one (1) parcel equaling approximately 19.2 acres and is located between North Reinway Avenue and North Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Richard M. Moon Primary School. The Project site, currently used for agriculture orchards, is located within the City of Waterford’s primary Sphere of Influence, with the existing city limit line located along the westerly right of way on N. Reinway Avenue, and northerly boundary of the W.I.D. lateral No. 11.
The Proposed Project consists of six (6) legal parcels into the City of Waterford, identified as the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN):
• 080-003-050;
• 080-003-012;
• 080-003-015;
• 080-003-034;
• 080-003-040; and,
• 080-003-049.
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
California Land Development
331 Santa Rosa Drive
7 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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):
• 080-003-050;
• 080-003-012;
• 080-003-015;
• 080-003-034;
• 080-003-040; and,
• 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 | P a g e
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
Designation
Pre-Zone
Designation
Development Capacity*
(# of residential units)
080-003-012 4.93 Low Density
Residential (LD)
RS, Residential
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
Figure 1 – Annexation Area Exhibit
13 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
Figure 2 – Waterford Sphere of Influence
15 | P a g e
Figure 3 – Existing General Plan
16 | P a g e
Figure 4 – Existing Zoning
17 | P a g e
Figure 5 – Proposed Pre-Zoning
18 | P a g e
Figure 6 – Tentative Subdivision Map
19 | P a g e
13. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Materials
Hazards and Hazardous
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
20 | P a g e
14. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the Project Proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 | P a g e
SECTION 2.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
22 | P a g e
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 23 | P a g e
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix "G" Environmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines.
1. AESTHETICS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 26 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
3. AIR QUALITY -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
REGULATORY SETTING
The Proposed Project 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 | P a g e
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 StandardsaState 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
aSee 40 CFR Part 81
bSee CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
cOn 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).
eThough 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). fEffective 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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
36 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to '15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
6. ENERGY -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
REGULATORY SETTING:
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the State’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below:
Assembly Bill 1943
Assembly Bill (AB) 1943 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emission Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions.
By 2025, when rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.
Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, the governor issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA]). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) (CalEPA 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty 48 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project induce substantial population 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 | P a g e
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
65 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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:
• North Reinway Avenue and Primary School Ingress Driveway; • North Reinway Avenue and Pecan Avenue;
• North Reinway Avenue and Primary School Egress Driveway; • North Reinway Avenue and Yosemite Boulevard; and,
• 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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand, in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
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 | P a g e
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
83 | P a g e
Appendix B
Waterford Development Project Biological Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants
MOORE BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
March 15, 2023
Mr. Stewart Fahmy
California Land Development
331 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
SUBJECT: “WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT”, WATERFORD,
CALIFORNIA: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Dear Stewart:
Thank you for asking Moore Biological Consultants to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) for this project in Waterford, in Stanislaus County, California (Figures 1 and 2 and Tentative Map in Attachment A). The purposes of the BA are to describe existing biological resources in the project site, identify potentially significant impacts to biological resources from the project, and provide recommendations for how to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. The work involved reviewing databases, aerial photographs, and documents, and conducting field surveys to document vegetation communities, potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and/or wetlands, and potentially suitable habitat for or presence of special-status species. This report details the methodology and results of our investigation.
Project Overview
The proposed project is a 96-lot residential subdivision (Attachment A). Access to the site will be from North Eucalyptus Avenue on the west edge of the site and North Reinway Avenue on the east edge of the site. Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Waterford. The project will also tie in to the City’s existing storm drain system.
10330 Twin Cities Road, Suite 30 • Galt, CA 95632
(209) 745–1159 • Fax (209) 745-7513
e-mail: [email protected]
FIGURE 1
PROJECT VICINITY
Source: California State
Automobile Association
Moore Biological
Consultants 0 9 18
Miles
Project
Vicinity
. 0 1,000 2,000
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
Waterford Development Project
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 Methods
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2023) was searched prior to the field survey. The CNDDB search included the USGS 7.5-minute Waterford, Paulsell, Denair, and Montpelier topographic quadrangles, which encompass approximately 240 square miles surrounding the site. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC Trust Report of Federally Threatened and Endangered species that may occur in or be affected by projects in the project’s geographical area was also reviewed (Attachment B). This information was used to identify wildlife and plant species that have been documented in the project vicinity or have the potential to occur based on suitable habitat and geographical distribution. We also reviewed USFWS on-line-maps of designated critical habitat.
A field survey was conducted on January 12, 2023. The survey consisted of walking throughout the site making observations of site conditions and noting surrounding land use, general habitat types, and plant and wildlife species. The survey included an assessment of the site for the presence or absence of potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (a term that includes wetlands) as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE, 1987; 2008), special-status species, and suitable habitat for special-status species (e.g., blue elderberry shrubs, vernal pools). Additionally, trees in and near the site were assessed for the potential use by nesting raptors, especially Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The site was also searched for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) or ground squirrel burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls.
Results
GENERAL SETTING: The project site is in Waterford, in Stanislaus County, California (Figure 1). The site is in Section 29, in Township 3 South, Range 11 East of the USGS 7.5-minute Waterford topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). The site is level and at an elevation of approximately 155 feet above mean sea level.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 5 March 15, 2023 The entire site is an almond orchard (Figure 3 and photographs in Attachment C). An underground irrigation line runs through the site from east to west, providing water to the orchard. There is a home site fronting North Reinway Avenue adjacent to the orchards in the site that is not within the site boundary and will be surrounded on three sides by the new subdivision.
Land uses in this portion of Stanislaus County are primarily residential and agricultural (Figure 3). North Reinway Avenue borders the east edge of the site and North Eucalyptus Avenue borders the west edge of the site. A Modesto Irrigation District (MID) irrigation lateral is situated just south of the site, separated from the site by a farm road. There a few homes and an almond orchard to the north of the site.
VEGETATION: There is ruderal grassland vegetation on the floor of the orchard and along road the edges of the site; the grasslands are highly disturbed from intensive farming for decades (see photographs in Attachment C). The California annual grassland series (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995) best describes the vegetation in the site. Ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) are the dominant grasses in the site. Other grassland species such as hairy fleabane (Erigeron bonariensis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and filaree (Erodium sp.) are intermixed with the grasses. Plant species observed in the site are listed in Table 1.
In addition to the planted almond trees, there are a few relatively small almond trees and a pecan tree straddling the north fence line that appear to be just offsite. There are several trees and shrubs in close proximity to the site, a majority of which are associated with residential subdivisions and larger home sites in the area. There are a few notable clusters of large trees in close proximity to the site.
Tree species near the site are primarily ornamental species used for landscaping such as blue gum (Eucalyptus sp.), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), ornamental pine (Pinus sp.), California pepper tree (Schinus molle), ornamental cedar (Cedrus sp.), various fruit trees, and other common landscape varieties.
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
Waterford Development Project
Moore Biological
Consultants
Project Site
Waterford Development Project: Biology 7 March 15, 2023 TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE SITE
Avena sp. oat
Brassica nigra black mustard
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus soft chess brome
Capsella bursa var. pastoris shepherd’s purse
Cerastium glomeratum mouse-eared chickweed
Cucurbita foetidissima Buffalo gourd
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Epilobium brachycarpum willowherb
Erigeron bonariensis hairy fleabane
Erodium botrys filaree
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass
Malva neglecta common mallow
Plantago lanceolata plantain
Raphanus sativus wild radish
Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle
Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass
Trifolium hirtum rose clover
Vicia sp. vetch
No blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) were observed in or adjacent to the site.
WILDLIFE: Several common bird species were observed during the field survey.
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock dove (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) are representative bird species observed in and near the site (Table 2). No special-status birds were observed during the survey.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 8 March 15, 2023 TABLE 2
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE SITE
Great egret Casmerodius albus
California gull Larus californicus
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Rock dove Columba livia
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
California scrub jay Aphelocoma californica
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
American robin Turdus migratorius
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
European starling Sturnus vulgaris
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
The largest trees and tree clusters in parcels adjacent to the site are highly suitable for nesting raptors (see photographs in Attachment C). No large raptor stick nests were observed in trees visible from the site. However, many of the large trees have extremely dense vegetation, making it difficult to locate nests.
As the survey was conducted outside of the nesting season, use of the trees near the site by nesting raptors is currently not known. The small orchard trees in the site and trees and shrubs in nearby parcels provide nesting opportunities for a variety of smaller bird species. Ground-nesting songbirds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) may nest on the ground in the site.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 9 March 15, 2023 A variety of mammals common to urban and agricultural areas may occur in the site. A few burrows from both Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were observed in the site, primarily located at the base of a few orchard trees; no California ground squirrels were seen during the survey. Common species such as coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) may occur in the site on occasion. A number of species of small rodents including mice (Mus musculus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, and Peromyscus maniculatus) and voles (Microtus californicus) also likely occur.
Due to lack of suitable habitat, only a few amphibians and reptiles are expected to occur in the site and none were seen during the survey. Common reptiles such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), and western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans) may occur on the site.
WATERS OF THE U.S. AND WETLANDS: Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are broadly defined under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328 to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. State and federal agencies regulate these habitats and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Some jurisdictional waters of the U.S. also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW and/or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
“Waters of the U.S.”, as defined in 33 CFR 328.4, encompasses Territorial Seas, Tidal Waters, and Non-Tidal Waters; Non-Tidal Waters includes interstate and intrastate rivers and streams, as well as their tributaries. The limit of federal jurisdiction of Non-Tidal Waters of the U.S. extends to the “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM). The OHWM is established by physical characteristics such as a Waterford Development Project: Biology 10 March 15, 2023 natural water line impressed on the bank, presence of shelves, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris.
Jurisdictional wetlands are vegetated areas that meet specific vegetation, soil, and hydrologic criteria defined by the ACOE Wetlands Delineation Manual and Regional Supplement (ACOE, 1987; 2008). Jurisdictional wetlands are usually adjacent to or hydrologically associated with Waters of the U.S. Isolated wetlands are outside federal jurisdiction, but may be regulated by RWQCB under the State Wetlands Program.
Jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. include, but are not limited to, perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. provide critical habitat components, such as nest sites and a reliable source of water, for a wide variety of wildlife species.
There are no potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. in the site. There are no areas in the 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 a potentially jurisdictional Water of the U.S. due to its hydrologic connectivity with the Tuolumne River. This lateral is outside the project boundary and will not be impacted by the proposed project.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES: Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Act or other regulations. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 parallels the policies of FESA and pertains to native California species.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 11 March 15, 2023 Special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitats. The presence of species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Act often represents a constraint to development, particularly when the species are wide-ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a take of these species.
Special-status plants are those which are designated rare, threatened, or endangered and candidate species for listing by the USFWS. Special-status plants also include species considered rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, such as those plant species identified on Lists 1A, 1B and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2023). Finally, special-status plants may include other species that are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on List 3 in the CNPS Inventory.
The likelihood of occurrence of listed, candidate, and other special-status species in the work areas is extremely low. Table 3 provides a summary of the listing status and habitat requirements of special-status species that have been documented in the greater project vicinity or for which there is potentially suitable habitat in the greater project vicinity. This table also includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each of these species in the site. The evaluation of the potential for occurrence of each species is based on the distribution of regional occurrences (if any), habitat suitability, and field observations.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS: Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis), Hoover’s calycadenia (Calycadenia hooveri), beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), Hoover’s spurge (Euphorbia hooveri), Colusa grass (Neostapfia TABLE 3
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER PROJECT VICINITY Common
Name Scientific Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status1
CNPS
List2 Habitat Likeliness of Occurrence in the Project Site Waterford Development Project: Biology 12 March 15, 2023 PLANTS
Heartscale Atriplex
cordulata
None None 1B Valley and foothill
grassland, chenopod
scrub; within areas with
alkaline or saline soils.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for heartscale; no areas of alkaline or saline soils were
observed. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 9 miles
southwest of the site.
Subtle orache Atriplex
subtilis
None None 1B Valley and foothill
grassland, in areas with
alkaline soils.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for subtle orache; no alkaline soils were observed. The
nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2023)
search area is approximately 9 miles southwest of the site.
Hoover’s
calycadenia
Calycadenia
hooveri
None None 1B Rocky areas within valley
and foothill grassland and
cismontane woodlands.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Hoover’s calycadenia. The nearest occurrence of this
species in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 6 miles southeast of the site.
Beaked clarkia Clarkia
rostrata
None None 1B Cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grassland.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for beaked clarkia. The nearest occurrence of beaked clarkia in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the site.
Hoover’s
spurge
Euphorbia
hooveri
None None 1B Vernal pools. Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Hoover’s spurge; there are no vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence Hoover’s
spurge in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately
6.5 miles southeast of the site.
TABLE 3
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER PROJECT VICINITY Common
Name Scientific Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status1
CNPS
List2 Habitat Likeliness of Occurrence in the Project Site Waterford Development Project: Biology 13 March 15, 2023 Colusa grass Neostapfia
colusana
T E 1B Large, deep vernal pools. Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Colusa grass; there are no vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence of Colusa
grass in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately
2.5 miles northwest of the site. The site is not in designated critical habitat for Colusa grass (USFWS 2005a).
San Joaquin
Valley Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
inaequalis
T E 1B Vernal pools. Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass; there are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the site.
Hairy Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia pilosa E E 1B Vernal pools. Endemic to
the Sacramento Valley.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Hairy Orcutt grass; there are no vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence of this
species recorded in the CNDDB (2023) search area is
approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the site. The site is not in designated critical habitat for hairy Orcutt grass or other vernal pool plant species (USFWS 2005a).
Greene’s
tuctoria
Tuctoria
greenei
E R 1B Vernal pools within the
Central Valley.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Greene’s tuctoria; there are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrences of this
species recorded in the CNDDB (2023) search area is
approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the site.
WILDLIFE
BIRDS
Tricolored
blackbird
Agelaius
tricolor
None T N/A Nests in dense brambles
and emergent wetland
vegetation associated with
open water habitat.
Unlikely: there is no open water or patches of willows, blackberries, and emergent wetland vegetation in the site.
The nearest occurrence of tricolored blackbird in the
CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 7.5 miles
southeast of the site.
TABLE 3
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER PROJECT VICINITY Common
Name Scientific Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status1
CNPS
List2 Habitat Likeliness of Occurrence in the Project Site Waterford Development Project: Biology 14 March 15, 2023 Swainson’s
hawk
Buteo
swainsoni
None T N/A Breeds in stands of tall
trees in open areas.
Requires adjacent suitable
foraging habitats such as
grasslands or alfalfa fields
supporting rodents.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. However, there are several large trees near the site suitable for nesting. The nearest occurrences of nesting Swainson’s hawks in the
CNDDB (2023) search area are approximately 7 miles north and south of the site.
Burrowing owl Athene
cunicularia
None SC N/A Open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands
characterized by lowgrowing vegetation.
Unlikely: only a few ground squirrel burrows were observed in the site, primarily located at the base of a few orchard trees. No burrowing owls were observed and none of the
burrows had evidence of past or present burrowing owl
activity. There are no occurrences of this species within the CNDDB (2023) search area.
MAMMALS
San Joaquin kit
fox
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
E T N/A Annual grasslands or
grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby
vegetation.
Unlikely: the project site does not provide suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit fox is not known from the area and there are no occurrences of this species in the CNDDB (2023) search area.
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
T T N/A Breeds in seasonal water
bodies such as deep vernal
pools or stock ponds.
Requires small mammal
burrows for summer
refugia.
Unlikely: there are no potential breeding ponds in or near the site for California tiger salamander; the site is also not suitable for aestivation. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 5 miles southeast of the site. The site is not in designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander (USFWS, 2005b).
Northern
California
legless lizard
Anniella
pulchra
None SC N/A Sandy or loose loamy soils
under sparse vegetation.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Northern California legless lizard. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2023) search area is
approximately 10 miles southwest of the site.
TABLE 3
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER PROJECT VICINITY Common
Name Scientific Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status1
CNPS
List2 Habitat Likeliness of Occurrence in the Project Site Waterford Development Project: Biology 15 March 15, 2023 Western
spadefoot
Spea
hammondii
None SC N/A Breeds and lays eggs in
seasonal water bodies such
as deep vernal pools or
stock ponds.
Unlikely: there is no suitable aquatic habitat for western spadefoot in or near the site. The nearest occurrence of western spadefoot in the CNDDB (2023) search area is
approximately 6.5 miles southeast of the site.
FISH
Delta smelt Hypomesus
transpacificus
T T N/A Shallow lower delta
waterways with submersed
aquatic plants and other
suitable refugia.
None: there is no aquatic habitat in the site. There are no occurrences of delta smelt recorded in the CNDDB (2023) within the search area. There is no designated critical habitat for delta smelt (USFWS, 1994) in or near the site.
Hardhead Mylopharodon
conocephalus
None SC N/A Clear, deep pools with sand
and gravel bottoms in
tributaries to the San
Joaquin and Sacramento
River.
None: there is no aquatic habitat in the site. The nearest occurrence of hardhead in the CNDDB (2023) search area
is 1 mile southeast of the site.
Central Valley
steelhead
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
T None N/A Riffle and pool complexes
with adequate spawning
substrates within Central
Valley drainages.
None: there is no aquatic habitat in the site. The nearest occurrence of Central Valley steelhead in the CNDDB
(2023) search is in the Tuolumne River, approximately 1 mile southeast of the site. The Tuolumne River is
designated critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead (NOAA, 2005).
INVERTEBRATES
Conservancy
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
E None N/A Vernal pools and seasonally
inundated depressions in
the Central Valley.
None: there are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site. There are no occurrences of Conservancy fairy shrimp recorded in the CNDDB (2023) search area. The site is not within designated critical habitat for any vernal pool shrimp species (USFWS, 2005a).
Vernal pool
tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus
packardi
E None N/A Vernal pools and
seasonally wet depressions
within the Central Valley.
None: there are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately
6.5 miles southeast of the site. The site is not within designated critical habitat for vernal pool tadpole shrimp (USFWS, 2005a).
TABLE 3
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE GREATER PROJECT VICINITY Common
Name Scientific Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status1
CNPS
List2 Habitat Likeliness of Occurrence in the Project Site Waterford Development Project: Biology 16 March 15, 2023 Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
T None N/A Vernal pools and seasonally
inundated depressions in
the Central Valley.
None: there are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site. The nearest occurrence of vernal pool fairy
shrimp in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately
8.5 miles southeast of the site. The site is not within designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (USFWS, 2005a).
Valley
elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
T None N/A Elderberry shrubs in the
Central Valley and
surrounding foothills
None: there are no blue elderberry shrubs in or adjacent to the site. The nearest occurrence of valley elderberry
longhorn beetle recorded in the CNDDB (2023) search area is approximately 2 miles southwest of the site.
Crotch bumble
bee
Bombus
crotchiii
None CE N/A Open grassland and scrub
habitats throughout
California; rarely found in
the Central Valley.
Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for Crotch bumble bee; this species may fly over the site on occasion.
The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB
(2023) search area is approximately 10 miles southwest of the site.
Monarch
butterfly
Danaus
plexippus
C None None Variety of habitats in
California, primarily
associated with coastal
environments; larvae
dependent on milkweed.
Unlikely: there is no suitable habitat in the site to support monarch butterfly and no extensive areas of milkweed, in which the larvae of this species depend on, was observed in the site during the field survey. Monarch butterfly may fly over the site during its migration. There are no occurrences of this species in the CNDDB (2023) search area.
Notes:
1 T= Threatened; E = Endangered; CE= Candidate for Endangered; SC = Species of Special Concern per California Department of Fish and Wildlife; C = Candidate for Listing.
2 CNPS List 1B includes species that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 17 March 15, 2023 colusana), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), and Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) are the only special-status plants identified in the CNDDB (2023) search. No additional special-status species are identified in the USFWS IPaC Trust Report (Attachment B).
Special-status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas in vegetation communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, and areas with unusual soils. All of the special-status plants identified in Table 3 occur in habitat types that are not present in the site. No special-status plants or potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants were observed in the site. Due to lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that specialstatus plants occur in the site.
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE: Special-status wildlife species recorded in project area in the CNDDB (2023) query include Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Central valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) are not recorded in the CNDDB (2023) within the search area, but are on the USFWS IPaC Trust Report (Attachment B). Although not identified in the CNDDB (2023) search area or within the IPaC Trust Report, burrowing owl was added to Table 3 as it is known to occur in agricultural areas in Stanislaus County.
While the project site may have provided habitat for several of the special-status wildlife species listed in Table 3 at some time in the past, intensive farming and Waterford Development Project: Biology 18 March 15, 2023 development have substantially modified natural habitats in the greater project vicinity, including those in the site. Due to a lack of habitat, none of the specialstatus species identified have potential to occur in the site on more than an occasional or transitory basis.
The site does not provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and the on-site trees are too small for nesting. Swainson’s hawk may nest in large trees near the project site. As described above, large trees visible from the site with binoculars were inspected for remnant raptor stick nests (i.e., used in previous seasons by raptors), but many of the tree canopies are dense and cannot be comprehensively inspected. A few red-shouldered hawks (a common raptor) were observed perching and flying from large trees near the site. As this survey was conducted outside of the avian nesting season, the use of trees near the site by nesting raptors is unknown. Small songbirds could potentially nest in trees in the site and trees and shrubs in close proximity to the site.
There is no suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird in or adjacent to the site. The intensity of agriculture and development in and surrounding the site reduces the likelihood of burrowing owls using the site for nesting. No burrowing owls were observed during the field survey. While there are a few ground squirrel burrows in the site, none of the burrows contained evidence of past or present burrowing owl occupancy.
The orchard does not provide suitable denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and this species is not known from the area. No San Joaquin kit fox dens were observed in the site during the field survey.
Northern California legless lizard is not expected to occur in the site due to the presence of compacted soils from decades of orchard farming; this species is known from more natural environments not subject to disturbance. The site does not provide aquatic habitat to support California tiger salamander and western spadefoot; there are also no seasonal water bodies in or near the site for Waterford Development Project: Biology 19 March 15, 2023 California tiger salamander and grassland areas in and near the site are highly disturbed and do not provide suitable aestivation habitat for this species.
The site does not contain aquatic habitat to support Central Valley steelhead, delta smelt, hardhead, or other special-status fish.
No blue elderberry shrubs were observed in or near the site, precluding the potential occurrence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle. There are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site for vernal pool branchiopods (i.e., fairy and tadpole shrimp). Monarch butterfly may fly over the site during its migration, but would not be expected to utilize the site in a meaningful capacity due to a lack of suitable habitat. Crotch bumble bee may also fly over the area on occasion, but the site does not contain suitable habitat to support this species.
CRITICAL HABITAT: The site is not in designated critical habitat for federally listed vernal pool shrimp or plants (USFWS, 2005a), California tiger salamander (USFWS, 2005b), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (USFWS, 1980), delta smelt (USFWS, 1994), Central Valley steelhead (NOAA, 2005), or other federally listed species (Attachment D).
Conclusions and Recommendations
• The site is an almond orchard; on-site habitats are biologically unremarkable. There are no riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, wildlife movement corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites in the site.
• There are no potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or wetlands were in the site. A potentially jurisdictional MID irrigation lateral just south of the site will not be disturbed by the project.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 21 March 15, 2023 References and Literature Consulted
ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Technical Report Y87-1. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
ACOE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. September.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November.
CDFG. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. March 7.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Heritage Program, Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.0). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule.
Federal Register 70 (170): 52488-52585. September 2, 2005.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. California.
SWHTAC (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee). 2000.
Determining a Project’s Potential for Impacting Swainson’s Hawks. Prepared by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, a non-profit organization.
Waterford Development Project: Biology 22 March 15, 2023 USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1980. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Listing the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat.
Federal Register 45 No. 155, pp. 52803-52807, August 8.
USFWS. 1994. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Final Critical Habitat for the Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus). Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 242, pp. 65256 – 65279. December 19.
USFWS. 2005a. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 162, pp. 49390 – 49458. August 23.
USFWS. 2005b. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Evaluation and Economic Exclusions from August 2003 Final Designation, Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 154. August 11.
USFWS. 2006. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated with Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities, Final Rule.
Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 71, April 13.
Attachment A
Tentative Map
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 21222324252627 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44454647 50 49 48 515253 55 54 565758 61 60 59 626364 66 65 676869 72 71 70 737475 77 76 7879 83 82 81 84858687 88* 89* 90* 91* 92 93 94 95 96 B
C MID CANAL
LOT A REID COURT 80 50' TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET
A 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' SIDE- WALK 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' SIDE- WALK 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PARKING LANE 2' N. EUCALYPUS AVENUE B 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 SIDE- WALK 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 N. REINWAY AVENUE C 40' 25' 25' R/W EX. R/W F/C C/L 5' SIDE- WALK 10' P.U.E. 17'± F/C 5' SIDE- WALK 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 NUMBERDATE DESCRIPTIONS
REVISIONS
NO.
CALIFORNIA 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 TM1.1 COPYRIGHT © 2022 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842 TPD PMH/ NB PMH 04/25/2022
WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WATERFORD,
PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN
0 1" = 80 40 80 80' 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPT AS NOTED. 2. STORM DRAINAGE: STORM DRAINAGE RUNOFF TO BE CONVEYED VIA GRAVITY TO THE FUTURE STORM DRAINAGE TRUNK MAIN IN N. EUCALYPTUS AVENUE. THE INTERIM SOLUTION IS TO OVERSIZE THE IN-TRACT STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO ATTENUATE THE STORM DRAINAGE RUNOFF. DISCHARGE WILL CONVEY VIA METERING STRUCTURE AND OVERFLOW PIPE TO THE EXISTING 12” 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 ALONG N. EUCALYPTUS AVENUE WITH EITHER A SERIES OF DRYWELLS OR FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM. 3. WATER: WATER MAINS AND STRUCTURES TO BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARDS. 4. SEWER: SANITARY SEWER TO BE CONVEYED VIA GRAVITY TO A PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION ON LOT A. SANITARY SEWER DISCHARGE WILL FLOW VIA 6” SEWER FORCE MAIN SOUTH ALONG N. REINWAY AVENUE AND CONNECT TO THE EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE AT WASHINGTON ROAD. 5. EXISTING IRRIGATION: ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES, STRUCTURES, AND APPURTENANCES WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY SHALL BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED PER MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. STREET LIGHTING SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CITY OF WATERFORD STANDARDS. 7. PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE TO BE INSTALLED UNDER GROUND IN EASEMENTS. 8. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL INTERIOR STREET FRONTAGES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. THE SUBDIVIDER HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE "MULTIPLE SUBDIVISION MAPS" AS SET FORTH BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66456.1, AND FILE PARCEL MAPS FOR REASON OF SALE. ALL PARCEL LINES SHALL CONFORM TO THE TENTATIVE MAP. 10. BUILDING SETBACKS WILL BE AS PER CITY OF WATERFORD MUNICIPAL CODE SCHEDULE 20-2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TABLE. 11. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. SEPTIC TANKS, LEACH FIELDS, AND WELLS ON SITE WILL BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED AS PER CITY OF WATERFORD REQUIREMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 12. SITE IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR ROW CROPS. ALL TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. TREES HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN ON THIS PLAN FOR CLARITY. 13. LOTS 88 THROUGH 91 (LOTS WITH *) ARE SUBSTANDARD IN AREA. PROJECT PROPOSES THAT THEY BE ALLOWED AS THEY CONFORM TO CITY OF WATERFORD MUNICIPAL CODE 17.40.090, DEVELOPMENT ON SUB-STANDARD LOTS. A. REGULATORY AGENCY: CITY OF WATERFORD 101 E. STREET WATERFORD, CA. 95386 B. APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA LAND DEVELOPMENT 331 SANTA ROSA DRIVE LOS GATOS, CA. 95032 T: (408) 483-7777 CONTACT: STEWART FAHMY C. ENGINEER: NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 620 12th STREET MODESTO CA, 95354 T: (209) 524-3525 F: (209) 524-3526 CONTACT: PAMELA HURBAN D. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 080-003-050 E. EXISTING LAND USE: ROW CROPS F. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL G. EXISTING ZONING/ GP: AG10 (COUNTY)/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL H. PROPOSED ZONING/ GP: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE/ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I. TOTAL PROJECT SIZE: ±19.2 ACREAGE J. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 96 K DENSITY: 5.1 UNITS PER NET ACRE L. TYPICAL LOT SIZE: 6,000 S.F.MINIMUM N. MAXIMUM COVERAGE: 40% P. UTILITIES: WATER SYSTEM - CITY OF WATERFORD SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM - CITY OF WATERFORD STORM DRAINAGE - CITY OF WATERFORD GAS - PG&E ELECTRIC - PG&E TELEPHONE - AT&T SCHOOL DISTRICT - WATERFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECT INFORMATION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA GENERAL NOTES STAR AVE.
N EUCALYPTUS AVE.
YOSEMITE BLVD. (CA 132) WASHINTGON RD.
N REINWAY AVE. MID MAIN CANAL VICINITY MAP N.T.S.
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 Ex8"SS Ex6"SS
4"SSFM
4"SSFM TP PP PP PP JP JP JP JP WV ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV ICV 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 21222324252627 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44454647 50 49 48 515253 55 54 565758 61 60 59 626364 66 65 676869 72 71 70 737475 77 76 7879 83 82 81 84858687 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' 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' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
100.0' 60.0'
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' 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'
64.0'
64.0'
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 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 6"SS 8"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 6"SS 6355 SF 5992 SF 6084 SF 7072 SF6743 SF 12"SD
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 NUMBERDATE DESCRIPTIONS
REVISIONS
NO.
CALIFORNIA 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 TM2.1 COPYRIGHT © 2022 NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 21-2842 TPD PMH/ NB PMH 04/25/2022
WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WATERFORD,
PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN
0 1" = 50 25 50 50'
0 1" = 50 25 50 50'
SEE ABOVE SEE BELOW EXISTING PROPOSED LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL LINE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT OVER HEAD ELECTRICAL MASONRY WALL FENCE (CHAINLINK OR VINYL) FENCE (WOOD OR WROUGHT IRON) SIGN SERVICE POLE STORM DRAIN (MAIN) STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE HOLE CURB INLET/ DRY WELL WATER (MAIN) WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT SEWER MAINTENANCE HOLE SEWER (MAIN) SEWER LIFT STATION SEWER FORCE MAIN IRRIGATION STRUCTURE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4"SSFM 6"SSFM ICV ICV N/A N/A /
/ N/A
Attachment B
CNDDB Summary Report
& USFWS IPaC Trust Resource Report
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<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Paulsell (3712066)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Waterford (3712067)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Montpelier (3712056)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>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
Waterford Development Project
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: CDFW
± 0 1 2
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
Waterford Development Project
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: CDFW
± 0 1 2
Miles
Project Site
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 1/15 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.
However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Stanislaus County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
(916) 414-6600
(916) 414-6713
Federal Building
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 2/15 Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 3/15 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 4/15
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
Amphibians
Fishes
Insects
NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 5/15 Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Colusa Grass Neostapfia colusana
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5690
Threatened
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 6/15 Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your San Joaquin Orcutt Grass Orcuttia inaequalis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5506
Threatened
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf 1 2
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 7/15 project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 8/15 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 9/15 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 10/15 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow
BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole
BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat
BCC - BCR
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker
BCC - BCR
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 11/15 Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. 1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 12/15 What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact 1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 13/15 Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.
On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 14/15 Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. 1/6/23, 12:36 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VSIVSPL2TJH6BJAWGJXAIV3CDM/resources 15/15 Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
Attachment C
Photographs
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Almond trees in the central part of the site, looking north from the approximate central part of the site; 01/12/23.
Almond trees in the south part of the site, looking north from the south edge of the site; 01/12/23.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Underground irrigation lateral spanning across the site, looking east from the west edge of the site; 01/12/23.
Almond trees in the north part of the site, looking southwest from the north edge of the site; 01/12/23.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
West edge of the site, looking south along North Eucalyptus Avenue from the northwest corner of the site; 01/12/23.
West edge of the site, looking north along North Eucalyptus Avenue from the southwest corner of the site; 01/12/23.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
North edge of the site, looking east from the northwest corner of the site; 01/12/23.
North edge of the site, looking west from the northeast corner of the site; 01/12/23.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
South edge of the site, looking west from the southeast corner of the site; 01/12/23.
East edge of the site, looking south along North Reinway Avenue from the northeast corner of the site; 01/12/23.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Modesto Irrigation District lateral situated just south and off-site, looking west; 01/12/23.
Ground squirrel burrows at the base of an orchard tree in the northeast part of the site, looking west; 01/12/23. There are a few ground squirrels burrows in the site, but none showed evidence of burowing owl.
MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Cluster of large trees just north of the northwest part of the site, looking northwest; 01/12/23. There are several trees suitable for nesting raptors in close proximity to the site.
Cluster of large trees near the southwest corner of the site, looking northwest from the southwest corner of the site; 01/12/23.
Attachment D
Designated Critical Habitat
DENAIR
WATERFORD PAULSELL
MONTPELIER
TURLOCK CRESSEY
OAKDALE KNIGHTS FERRY
CERES
HATCH WINTON
ESCALON
RIVERBANK
TURLOCK LAKE
COOPERSTOWN
KEYSTONE
CRITICAL HABITAT
Waterford Development Project
City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, CA
Map Date: 01/11/2023; Source: USFWS; NOAA
± 0 1 2
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 | P a g e
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:\ 4 00 0-s\4 74 3 00 1_ W a t e rf o rd _ S u b d i v i s i on \ T ra f f i c \R e p o rt s\W a t e rf o rd _ TI S _ 2 02 40 5 08. d o c x Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................3
1.2.1 Intersections.............................................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Analysis Scenarios....................................................................................................................................................................3
1.4 Analysis Methods......................................................................................................................................................................6
1.4.1 Intersections.............................................................................................................................................................6
1.4.2 Signal Warrants.......................................................................................................................................................6
1.5 Level of Service Standards....................................................................................................................................................6
1.6 Report Organization................................................................................................................................................................7 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Existing Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities......................................................................................................................7
2.3 Existing Intersection Operations........................................................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Existing Traffic Counts .........................................................................................................................................8
2.3.2 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service.....................................................................................8 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................12
3.1 Project Site................................................................................................................................................................................12
3.1.1 Project Site Description.....................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Project Generated Trips......................................................................................................................................................12
3.2.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment................................................................................................................12
3.2.3 Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service ........................................................14 4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS ANNEXATION CONDITIONS.........................................................................................16
4.1 Annexation Area.....................................................................................................................................................................16
4.1.1 Annexation Site Description............................................................................................................................16
4.2 Annexation Generated Trips.............................................................................................................................................16
4.2.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................................16
4.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions Intersection Level of Service......................17 5 QUEUEING ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................................................20 6 OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS......................................................................................................21 7 PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................................................21
7.1 Project Site Access and Internal Circulation ..............................................................................................................21
7.2 Eucalyptus Avenue Improvements ................................................................................................................................21
7.3 Potential Cut-Through Traffic To Eucalyptus Avenue ...........................................................................................22
7.4 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities...................................................................................................................22 8 VMT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................................................22
8.1 Project Area Residential VMT per Resident...............................................................................................................23
8.2 City Existing Baseline Residential VMT per Resident.............................................................................................23
8.3 VMT Screening Finding .......................................................................................................................................................24
8.4 Annexation Area VMT..........................................................................................................................................................24 Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Project Location and Study Vicinity...........................................................................................................................4 Figure 1.2: Project Site Plan.................................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2.1: Existing Conditions Lane Geometrics and Control...........................................................................................10 Figure 2.2: Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................11 Figure 3.1: Project-Only Trips and Distribution.......................................................................................................................13 Figure 3.2: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................15 Figure 4.1: Annexation-Only Trips and Distribution..............................................................................................................18 Figure 4.2: Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Traffic Volumes .................................................................................19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. HCM 6th Edition Based Intersection LOS Thresholds ...........................................................................................6 Table 2.1. Existing Intersection Operations ..................................................................................................................................9 Table 3.1. Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................12 Table 3.2. Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations......................................................................................................14 Table 4.1. Annexation Area Trip Generation..............................................................................................................................16 Table 4.2. Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Intersection Operations ...................................................................17 Table 5.1. Queueing Analysis Results............................................................................................................................................20 Table 8.1 Project Study Area VMT per Resident Data............................................................................................................23 Table 8.2 City of Waterford VMT per Resident Data ..............................................................................................................24
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
Appendix B – Synchro HCM 6th Edition LOS and Queueing Reports Appendix C – Signal Warrant Worksheets
Appendix D – Annexation Area Exhibit and Pre-Zone Designations and Development Assumptions Appendix E – Project Study Area for Project VMT per Resident Calculation Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located on an existing lot located between Eucalyptus Avenue and North Reinway Avenue, north of Richard M. Moon Primary School, totaling approximately 19.9 acres. The current Project proposes to develop 98 single-family residential unit lots. The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via a new roadway connection to Eucalyptus Avenue to the west and a new roadway connection to North Reinway Avenue to the east.
The Project is estimated to generate a total of 990 daily trips with 73 AM peak-hour trips and 98 PM peakhour trips.
ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION
The Project site is part of a larger Fahmy Annexation area consisting of a total of six parcels. One parcel (APN 080-003-040) is the site of the existing Mobile Home and RV Park at 11819 Yosemite Boulevard, which consists of 43 spaces which are mostly currently occupied. The other four parcels (APN 080-003-012, APN 080-003-015, APN 080-003-034, and APN 080-003-049) adjacent to the Project site are largely undeveloped and have a combined development capacity of 66 single-family dwelling units. There are no current plans to develop the other four parcels, but they may be developed at some point in the future. Analysis of future traffic generated by the Annexation area when fully developed has been incorporated into this TIS under a separate analysis scenario.
The four largely undeveloped parcels in the Annexation area are estimated to generate a total of 704 daily trips with 53 AM peak-hour trips and 68 PM peak-hour trips, when developed.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
All study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under all study scenarios. CA MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 is not projected to be met under any study scenarios.
The 95th percentile queue for the southbound left at the intersection of North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard surpasses the available storage under Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation conditions. With the addition of Project trips, the 95th percentile queue would increase by approximately one additional car length during the PM peak hour and less than one vehicle during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the proposed Annexation area trips, the 95th percentile queue would increase by two additional feet during the AM and PM peak hours compared to Existing Plus Project conditions. All other intersections are anticipated to be accommodated by the existing available storage for all study scenarios.
The southbound left-turn pocket length at North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard would need to be lengthened to at least 214 feet to accommodate maximum projected queues under Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation AM peak hour conditions. The turn pocket could be lengthened to approximately 215 feet if onstreet parking was restricted along the west side of North Reinway Avenue between Yosemite Boulevard and the southern Lucille Whitehead Intermediate School driveway. The North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection likely experiences high southbound queueing during the AM peak hour due to school drop-off traffic.
PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Due to low projected volumes within the Project site, intersection controls for the internal residential intersections may not be necessary. Emergency vehicle access would utilize either of the two planned access points, and internal Project residential streets are projected to accommodate emergency vehicles. Project access is projected to be adequate.
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 2
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
The Project would improve Eucalyptus Avenue between Yosemite Boulevard and the northern Project limits by constructing new 12-to-14-foot travel lanes (one lane each direction) with a 2-foot shoulder on the west side. The east side of Eucalyptus Avenue will have a 6-foot bike lane and 5-foot sidewalk along Project frontage, and a potential 5-foot paved concrete trail (if required) between the southern Project limits and Yosemite Boulevard.
The proposed improvements to Eucalyptus Avenue would accommodate the projected cumulative design volume of 5,700 ADT with acceptable LOS D operations.
The existing turning radii for the north leg of the Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection appear to be approximately 40 feet at the northeast quadrant and 35 feet at the northwest quadrant. It is recommended that the northwest quadrant of the Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection be modified to have a turn radius of at least 40 feet when the proposed improvements are implemented in order to accommodate delivery trucks.
POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
The potential for traffic on North Reinway Avenue to cut-through the proposed Project local residential street to access Eucalyptus Road and avoid school-related congestion on North Reinway Avenue was analyzed. Based on a review of the proposed circulation network, it is considered unlikely that a significant amount of school trips would cut-through the Project local residential street due to the associated out-ofdirection travel time. There would be at most approximately 70 vehicles (currently through trips on North Reinway Avenue) that would consider cutting through the Project local residential street to Eucalyptus Avenue during the AM peak hour school drop-off period. Even less vehicles would be projected during the school pick-up period in the afternoon. This is a relatively low amount of traffic, and so no improvements are currently recommended. However, traffic on the Project local residential road could be monitored for cutthrough traffic, and if additional cut-through is observed in the future, traffic calming features such as curb bulb outs and speed humps could be considered for the Project local residential street.
PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
The Project is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in pedestrian, bicycle, or transit demand in the study area that would put existing facilities over capacity. The Project would not adversely affect existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in a way that would discourage their use.
VMT ANALYSIS
The estimated Project Study Area VMT of 47.7 VMT per resident is approximately 0.15% 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. Due to the relatively rural nature of the area, small geographical footprint of the City, and lack of transit and multimodal facilities, it is likely infeasible for new development within the City of Waterford to meet a 15% below average threshold. As such, a reasonable expectation for new development within the City would be to not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. As documented above, the Project does not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. In addition, the Project is proposing multimodal improvements, including bike lanes and sidewalks on Eucalyptus Avenue and sidewalks on North Reinway Avenue, that would help further reduce the Project’s VMT below the City average.
The four largely undeveloped parcels in the Annexation area would consist of the same land uses as the Project (single family dwelling units) and are located directly adjacent to the Project. Therefore, the Annexation area can be projected to have the same VMT per resident as the Project, 47.7 VMT per resident, which is 0.15% lower than the baseline City VMT of 47.8 VMT per resident. It is recommended that the Annexation area consider constructing multimodal improvements such as bike lanes and sidewalk, where feasible, when developed.
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 3
1 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared to present the results of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) performed by Wood Rodgers, Inc. for the proposed Waterford Subdivision Project (Project) and Waterford Annexation located in Stanislaus County, adjacent to the City of Waterford (City). The Project location is shown in Figure
1.1. The purpose of this TIS is to address the Project’s impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and evaluate the Project’s potential off-site and on-site traffic operations. The CEQA analysis considered the Project’s effects on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a local traffic operations analysis was conducted to evaluate the Project’s potential traffic operational deficiencies and identify improvements as needed.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located between Eucalyptus Avenue and North Reinway Avenue, north of Richard M. Moon Primary School. The Project site consists of one existing parcel (APN 080-003-050) that is currently used for agriculture/orchards totaling approximately 19.9 acres. The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via a new roadway connection to Eucalyptus Avenue to the west and a new roadway connection to North Reinway Avenue to the east. The Project proposes to develop 98 single-family residential unit lots. The current Project site plan is illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The Project site is part of a larger Fahmy Annexation area consisting of a total of six parcels. One parcel (APN 080-003-040) is the site of the existing Mobile Home and RV Park at 11819 Yosemite Boulevard, which consists of 43 spaces which are mostly currently occupied. The other four parcels (APN 080-003-012, APN 080-003-015, APN 080-003-034, and APN 080-003-049) adjacent to the Project site are largely undeveloped and have a combined development capacity of 66 single-family dwelling units. There are no current plans to develop the other four parcels, but they may be developed at some point in the future. Analysis of future traffic generated by the Annexation area when fully developed has been incorporated into this TIS under a separate analysis scenario.
1.2 STUDY AREA
Study facilities include the intersections described below.
1.2.1 Intersections
Study intersections were selected based on the Project trip generation and distribution, as well as direction from City staff. The following five (5) existing study intersections were analyzed in this TIS:
1. North Reinway Avenue & Primary School Dropoff Ingress Driveway
2. North Reinway Avenue & Pecan Avenue
3. North Reinway Avenue & Primary School Dropoff Egress Driveway
4. North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard (State Route (SR) 132)
5. Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132)
The locations of the above study intersections are shown in Figure 1.1.
1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The study facilities were evaluated under weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes from collected traffic counts. • Existing Plus Project Conditions: Existing traffic volumes plus traffic projected to be generated by the proposed Project.
• Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions: Existing traffic volumes plus traffic projected to be generated by the proposed Project and the Annexation area. !(
!(
!(
!(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
0 250 500
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
Traffic operations in this TIS have been quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS).
Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic operations. LOS “A” represents free-flow conditions with little to no delays, while LOS “F” represents jammed or grid-lock conditions.
1.4.1 Intersections
Intersection LOS has been calculated for all intersection control types using methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6) (Transportation Research Board, 2016). The calculated intersection delays correspond to the LOS designations shown in Table 1.1, which were derived from Exhibits 19-8 and 20-2 of Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6th Edition).
Table 1.1. HCM 6th Edition Based Intersection LOS Thresholds Level of
Service Description
Intersection Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Signalized
A Free-flow conditions with negligible to minimal delays. delay ≤ 10.0 delay ≤ 10.0 B Good progression with slight delays. 10.0 < delay ≤ 15.0 10.0 < delay ≤ 20.0 C Relatively higher delays. 15.0 < delay ≤ 25.0 20.0 < delay ≤ 35.0 D Somewhat congested conditions with longer but tolerable delays. 25.0 < delay ≤ 35.0 35.0 < delay ≤ 55.0 E Congested conditions with significant delays. 35.0 < delay ≤ 50.0 55.0 < delay ≤ 80.0 F Jammed or grid-lock type operating conditions. delay > 50.0 delay > 80.0 Source: HCM 6th Edition Exhibit 19-8 and 20-2.
HCM 6th Edition reports were generated to determine the delay and LOS at the study intersections in Synchro 11 software.
1.4.2 Signal Warrants
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 was used to evaluate the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at unsignalized study intersections. Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 (70% Factor) was used for the unsignalized intersections, due to the City of Waterford currently having a population of less than 10,000.
1.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
The City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025 (June 2007) Transportation and Circulation Chapter
5.4.1 Level of Service states that all major intersections should maintain LOS D or better for two-hour peak periods (AM and PM).
The study intersections along SR 132 (Yosemite Boulevard) are Caltrans facilities. Caltrans published the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) which states the following:
“Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS” Based on the above, the minimum LOS standard for all Caltrans facilities was assumed to be LOS “D”.
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 7
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this report is divided into the following chapters:
• Chapter 2: Existing Conditions – Describes existing conditions and operations of the study area intersections, transit system, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. • Chapter 3: Existing Plus Project Conditions – Describes the methods used to estimate and distribute Project generated traffic and the resulting study area operations under Existing Plus Project conditions.
• Chapter 4: Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions – Describes the methods used to estimate and distribute traffic generated due to the proposed Annexation and the resulting study area operations under Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation conditions. • Chapter 5: Queueing Analysis – Describes the study intersection queueing operations under all study analysis scenarios.
• Chapter 6: Project-Related Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements – Describes the projected operational deficiencies at study area facilities and presents potential improvements. • Chapter 7: Project Site Access and Internal Circulation – Describes site access and on-site circulation for the Project site for all modes of travel. • Chapter 8: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – Describes the Project’s impact on VMT. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter describes the Existing roadway network, transit services, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities within the study area. It also presents Existing traffic volumes at study intersections and traffic operations under Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions.
2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
This section provides descriptions of the study area roadways.
Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132) is an east-west state highway that provides connectivity between Waterford and the City of Modesto. Within the Project area, Yosemite Boulevard is classified as a 2-lane Collector by the City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025. The posted speed limit on SR 132 is 45 mph west of Eucalyptus Avenue, 25 mph between Eucalyptus Avenue and Pasadena Avenue, and 35 mph east of Pasadena Avenue.
Reinway Avenue is a two-lane roadway classified as a 2-Lane Collector by the City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025, with the northern limit at El Pomar Avenue and the southern limit at the South Reinway Avenue Trailhead, north of Tuolumne River. Reinway Avenue has an existing intersection with Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132) 1,350 feet south of the proposed Project. The posted speed limit on Reinway Avenue is 25 mph.
Pecan Avenue is a two-lane local roadway. The speed limit on Pecan Avenue is assumed to be 25 mph.
Eucalyptus Avenue is a two-lane roadway classified as a 2-Lane Collector by the City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025 with the northern limit at the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Main Canal and the southern limit 600 feet south of Canal Drive. Eucalyptus Avenue has an existing intersection with Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132) 1,350 feet south of the proposed Project. The speed limit on Eucalyptus is assumed to be 40 mph.
2.2 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
There are currently pedestrian sidewalks on the south side of Yosemite Boulevard for approximately 650 feet west of North Reinway Avenue. Pedestrian sidewalks continue on both sides of Yosemite Boulevard to Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 8
the east of North Reinway Avenue for approximately 200 to 400 feet. North Reinway Avenue has paved sidewalks on the west side of the roadway from Richard M. Moon Primary School to the southern driveway of Waterford High School, and on the east side of the roadway from the MID Main Canal to the northern driveway of Waterford High School. Pecan Avenue has paved sidewalks for most of its length, with some gaps. Eucalyptus Avenue currently does not have pedestrian sidewalks present.
The intersection of Yosemite Boulevard & North Reinway Avenue has pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalks, and push buttons on all four legs. The intersection of Pecan Avenue & North Reinway Avenue has pedestrian crosswalks on all three legs, with ramps only on three of the four quadrants (the southwest ramp is missing).
The other study intersections do not contain existing crosswalk facilities.
Existing Class 3 Bike Routes are present on North Reinway Avenue and Pecan Avenue. The study area roadways do not contain existing Class 1 or 2 bike facilities.
The City is served by the Route 50 bus route, which runs along SR 132 (Yosemite Boulevard) with stops at North Reinway Avenue and Western Avenue. Route 50 is operated by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (STANRTA) and has one-hour headways from approximately 6 AM to 7 PM on weekdays and approximately 8 AM to 6 PM on weekends.
2.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
2.3.1 Existing Traffic Counts
Intersection traffic operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The AM peak hour is defined as the highest one hour of traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM on a typical weekday.
The PM peak hour is defined as the highest one hour of traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a typical weekday. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for the five (5) existing study intersections were collected on Tuesday, May 23, 2023. Traffic count data is provided in Appendix A. Note that Existing traffic counts were unable to be collected at the Primary School Dropoff Ingress Driveway (Intersection #1) during the PM peak hour due to equipment malfunction. PM volumes at this intersection were estimated based on volume balancing with adjacent intersections and the number of egress driveway movements during the same peak hour. The AM peak hour traffic counts (i.e., the school drop-off period) at the Primary School Dropoff Ingress Driveway were not affected by the equipment malfunction.
Figure 2.1 illustrates Existing intersection lane geometrics and control for the study area intersections.
Figure 2.2 depicts Existing conditions turning movements volumes for AM and PM weekday peak hours.
2.3.2 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Table 2.1 presents Existing study intersection traffic operations under Existing intersection lane geometrics and control (illustrated in Figure 2.1) and Existing traffic volumes (illustrated in Figure 2.2). All study intersection traffic operations were calculated using Synchro 11 software.
As shown in Table 2.1, all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS conditions. HCM 6th Edition Synchro intersection LOS output reports are included in Appendix B. CA MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 is currently unmet at all unsignalized study intersections. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
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
1 North Reinway Avenue & Primary
School Ingress Driveway OWSC1 D
AM 8.1 A No
PM 7.6 A No
2 North Reinway Avenue & Pecan
Avenue AWSC2 D
AM 8.8 A No
PM 8.3 A No
3 North Reinway Avenue & Primary
School Egress Driveway OWSC1 D
AM 11.4 B No
PM 11.1 B No
4 North Reinway Avenue &
Yosemite Boulevard Signal D
AM 27.4 C --
PM 13.8 B --
5 Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite
Boulevard OWSC1 D
AM 18.6 C No
PM 17.6 C No
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
0 350 700
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
0 350 700
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
This chapter provides a description of the proposed Project, a discussion of the trip generation and distribution/assignment methods used to assign Project trips to study intersections, and an analysis of projected traffic operations and deficiencies under Existing Plus Project conditions.
3.1 PROJECT SITE
3.1.1 Project Site Description
The Project is located between Eucalyptus Avenue and North Reinway Avenue, north of Richard M. Moon Primary School. The Project site consists of one existing parcel (APN 080-003-050) that is currently used for agriculture/orchards totaling approximately 19.9 acres. The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via a new roadway connection to Eucalyptus Avenue to the west and a new roadway connection to North Reinway Avenue to the east. The Project proposes to develop 98 single-family residential unit lots. The current Project site plan is illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The Project site is currently located in Stanislaus County and would be annexed into the City of Waterford.
Current County zoning for the Project site is Agriculture.
3.2 PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS
3.2.1 Trip Generation
The trip generation data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to approximate the number of trips generated by the Project. The ITE land use category of Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) was used to represent the Project. Table 3.1 shows the Project trip generation estimate.
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
210 Single-Family Detached
Housing 98 DU2 990 18 55 73 62 36 98
Notes:
1Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2DU = Dwelling Units
As shown in Table 3.1, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a total of 990 daily trips with 73 AM peak-hour trips and 98 PM peak-hour trips.
3.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
The Project trip distribution was determined based on existing traffic counts and travel patterns, knowledge of the area, and engineering judgement. Project trips were projected to prefer using Eucalyptus Avenue more heavily than North Reinway Avenue during the AM peak hour in order to avoid congestion around Richard M. Moon Primary School, Lucille Whitehead Intermediate School, and Waterford High School during dropoff hours. Project trip distribution and assignment is shown in Figure 3.1. !(
!(
!(
!(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 Project trips were added to Existing conditions traffic volumes to obtain Existing Plus Project conditions traffic volumes, shown in Figure 3.2. Table 3.2 presents Existing Plus Project study intersection traffic operations under Existing intersection lane geometrics and control (illustrated in Figure 2.1) and Existing Plus Project traffic volumes. Table 3.2 also shows operations under Existing conditions for comparison purposes. All study intersection traffic operations were calculated using Synchro 11 software.
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
1 North Reinway Avenue &
Primary School Ingress
Driveway
OWSC1 D
AM 8.1 A No 8.2 A No
PM 7.6 A No 7.8 A No
2 North Reinway Avenue &
Pecan Avenue AWSC2 D
AM 8.8 A No 8.9 A No
PM 8.3 A No 8.7 A No
3 North Reinway Avenue &
Primary School Egress
Driveway
OWSC1 D
AM 11.4 B No 11.7 B No
PM 11.1 B No 11.8 B No
4 North Reinway Avenue &
Yosemite Boulevard Signal D
AM 27.4 C -- 28.4 C --
PM 13.8 B -- 14.9 B --
5 Eucalyptus Avenue &
Yosemite Boulevard OWSC1 D
AM 18.6 C No 20.6 C No
PM 17.6 C No 17.8 C No
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%)
As shown in Table 3.2, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS conditions. HCM 6th Edition Synchro intersection LOS output reports are included in Appendix B. CA MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 is projected to be unmet at all unsignalized study intersections. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
!(
!(
!(
!(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
0 350 700
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
This chapter provides a description of the Annexation area, a discussion of the trip generation and distribution/assignment methods used to assign Annexation trips to study intersections, and an analysis of projected traffic operations and deficiencies under Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation conditions.
4.1 ANNEXATION AREA
4.1.1 Annexation Site Description
The Fahmy Annexation area totals six parcels (approximately 43 acres) that would be annexed into the City of Waterford. The Project will be located on one parcel (APN 080-003-050). One parcel (APN 080-003-040) is the site of the existing Mobile Home and RV Park at 11819 Yosemite Boulevard, which consists of 43 spaces which are mostly currently occupied. The remaining four parcels (APN 080-003-012, APN 080-003-015, APN 080-003-034, and APN 080-003-049) are largely undeveloped and currently used for agriculture/orchards and single-family dwellings, totaling approximately 12.98 acres.
Of the four largely undeveloped parcels, three parcels (APN 080-003-012, APN 080-003-015, and APN 080- 003-034) are located east of Eucalyptus Avenue and have a combined development capacity of 61 singlefamily dwelling units with access via Eucalyptus Avenue. One parcel (APN 080-003-049) is located west of Reinway Avenue and has a development capacity of five single-family dwelling units with access via Reinway Avenue. There are no current plans to develop the four largely undeveloped parcels, but they may be developed at some point in the future. This section analyzes the future traffic generated by the four largely undeveloped parcels (Annexation area) when fully developed.
The Annexation area parcels are illustrated in Appendix D. In addition, the pre-zoning designation and development assumptions of each of the Annexation area parcels are included in Appendix D.
4.2 ANNEXATION GENERATED TRIPS
4.2.1 Trip Generation
The trip generation data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to approximate the number of trips that will be generated by the four undeveloped, non-Project parcels in the Annexation area when they are fully developed. The ITE land use category of Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) was used to represent the Annexation area. Table 4.1 shows the Annexation area trip generation estimate.
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
210
APN 080-003-012, APN 080-003-015,
and APN 080-003-034: Single-Family
Detached Housing
61 DU2 640 12 36 48 39 23 62
210 APN 080-003-049: Single-Family
Detached Housing 5 DU2 64 1 4 5 4 2 6
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
As shown in Table 4.1, the Annexation area is estimated to generate a total of 704 daily trips with 53 AM peak-hour trips and 68 PM peak-hour trips.
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 17
4.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
The Annexation area trip distribution was assumed to be the same as the Project distribution. The 61 homes in the three western parcels were assumed to access the local network via Eucalyptus Avenue and the five homes in the eastern parcel were assumed to access the local network via Reinway Avenue. It was conservatively assumed that the proposed Project local roadway connection between Eucalyptus Avenue and Reinway Avenue did not exist when assigning Annexation area trips in order to assign the maximum number of Annexation area trips to study area intersections. Annexation area trip distribution and assignment is shown in Figure 4.1.
4.2.3 Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation Conditions Intersection Level of Service The Annexation area trips were added to Existing Plus Project conditions traffic volumes to obtain Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation conditions traffic volumes, shown in Figure 4.2. Table 4.2 presents Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation study intersection traffic operations under Existing intersection lane geometrics and control (illustrated in Figure 2.1) and Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation traffic volumes.
Table 4.2 also shows operations under Existing conditions for comparison purposes. All study intersection traffic operations were calculated using Synchro 11 software.
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
1 North Reinway Avenue
& Primary School
Ingress Driveway
OWSC1 D
AM 8.1 A No 8.2 A No
PM 7.6 A No 7.9 A No
2 North Reinway Avenue
& Pecan Avenue AWSC2 D
AM 8.8 A No 9.0 A No
PM 8.3 A No 8.9 A No
3 North Reinway Avenue
& Primary School
Egress Driveway
OWSC1 D
AM 11.4 B No 11.8 B No
PM 11.1 B No 12.0 B No
4 North Reinway Avenue
& Yosemite Boulevard Signal D
AM 27.4 C -- 29.2 C --
PM 13.8 B -- 15.1 B --
5 Eucalyptus Avenue &
Yosemite Boulevard OWSC1 D
AM 18.6 C No 24.8 C No
PM 17.6 C No 20.9 C No
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%)
As shown in Table 4.2, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS conditions. HCM 6th Edition Synchro intersection LOS output reports are included in Appendix B. CA MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 is projected to be unmet at all unsignalized study intersections. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
!(
!(
!(
!(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
Vehicle queuing was analyzed at the study intersections for all stop-controlled movements and movements with turn pockets that the Project and Annexation area would add trips to. Table 5.1 shows the available storage lengths and 95th percentile queues under all analysis scenarios. As shown in Table 5.1, the southbound left-turn movement queue at North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard was shown to exceed storage in Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation conditions during AM and PM peak hours. All other 95th percentile queues are anticipated to be accommodated by the existing available storage for all study scenarios. Synchro software intersection queueing output reports are included in Appendix B.
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
#1 North Reinway Avenue
& Primary School Ingress
Driveway
NBL --
AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
#2 North Reinway Avenue
& Pecan Avenue
WB --
AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
NB --
AM <20 20 22
PM <20 26 26
SB --
AM <20 <20 20
PM <20 <20 20
#3 North Reinway Avenue
& Primary School Egress
Driveway
EBL --
AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
EBR --
AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
#4 North Reinway Avenue
& Yosemite Boulevard
NBL 110 AM 105 107 110
PM 39 46 51
NBR 140 AM <20 23 23
PM <20 <20 <20
SBL 60
AM 200 212 214
PM 86 112 114
EBL 470 AM 101 105 110
PM 84 114 120
EBR 450 AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
WBL 205 AM 141 141 141
PM 31 42 42
WBR 200 AM <20 34 35
PM <20 48 51
#5 Eucalyptus Avenue &
Yosemite Boulevard
NB --
AM <20 <20 <20
PM <20 <20 <20
SBL --
AM <20 <20 24
PM <20 <20 <20
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
All study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS. CA MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant #3 is not projected to be met under any study scenarios.
Based on the queueing evaluation, the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left at the intersection of North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard surpasses the available storage under Existing conditions.
With the addition of Project trips, the 95th percentile queue would increase by approximately one additional car length during the PM peak hour and less than one vehicle during the AM peak hour. With the addition of the proposed Annexation area trips, the 95th percentile queue would increase by two additional feet during the AM and PM peak hours compared to Existing Plus Project conditions. All other intersections are anticipated to be accommodated by the existing available storage for all study scenarios.
The southbound left-turn pocket length at North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard would need to be lengthened to at least 214 feet to accommodate maximum projected queues under Existing Plus Project Plus Annexation AM peak hour conditions. The turn pocket could be lengthened to approximately 215 feet if onstreet parking was restricted along the west side of North Reinway Avenue between Yosemite Boulevard and the southern Lucille Whitehead Intermediate School driveway. The North Reinway Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection likely experiences high southbound queueing during the AM peak hour due to school drop-off traffic.
7 PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS
7.1 PROJECT SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via a new roadway connection to Eucalyptus Avenue to the west and a new roadway connection to North Reinway Avenue to the east. Local residential streets would serve the homes in the Project site. Due to low projected volumes within the Project site, intersection controls for the internal residential intersections may not be necessary. Emergency vehicle access would utilize either of the two planned access points, and internal Project residential streets are projected to accommodate emergency vehicles. Project access is projected to be adequate.
Based on the City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025, Yosemite Boulevard is designated as a truck route within the City. Truck traffic to the Project site would likely utilize North Reinway Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue to access the site from Yosemite Boulevard. The existing turning radii for the north leg of the Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection appear to be approximately 40 feet at the northeast quadrant and 35 feet at the northwest quadrant. A 30-foot-long single unit delivery truck needs a turning radius of at least 29 feet, and a 40-foot-long single unit delivery truck needs a turning radius of at least 37 feet per Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) truck templates. Therefore, it is recommended that the northwest quadrant of the Eucalyptus Avenue & Yosemite Boulevard intersection be modified to have a turn radius of at least 40 feet when the proposed improvements are made to Eucalyptus Avenue as outlined in the following section.
7.2 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
The Project would improve Eucalyptus Avenue between Yosemite Boulevard and the northern Project limits by constructing new 12-to-14-foot travel lanes (one lane each direction) with a 2-foot shoulder on the west side. The east side of Eucalyptus Avenue will have a 6-foot bike lane and 5-foot sidewalk along Project frontage, and a potential 5-foot paved concrete trail (if required) between the southern Project limits and Yosemite Boulevard. These improvements would be in anticipation of the future ultimate widening of Eucalyptus Avenue to 4 lanes.
Table 5.2 of the City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025 projects a cumulative year 2030 design average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 5,700 on Eucalyptus Avenue between Yosemite Boulevard and Star Avenue. The proposed 2-lane Eucalyptus Avenue with 12-to-14-foot travel lanes would function as a Minor Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 22
Collector. According to the Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (ICF International, April 2016), a Minor Collector can accommodate up to 5,900 ADT while maintaining the City’s LOS target of LOS D. Therefore, the proposed improvements to Eucalyptus Avenue would accommodate the projected cumulative design volume with acceptable LOS D operations.
7.3 POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
This section analyzes the potential for traffic on North Reinway Avenue to cut-through the proposed Project local residential street to access Eucalyptus Road and avoid school-related congestion on North Reinway Avenue.
Based on a review of the proposed circulation network, school traffic originating west of Eucalyptus Avenue and cutting through the Project local residential street would have to travel an average of approximately 3,200 feet out-of-direction. Assuming an average travel speed of 30 miles per hour, this would equate to approximately 1.2 minutes of out-of-direction travel time. Additionally, school traffic originating east of Eucalyptus Avenue and cutting through the Project local residential street would have to travel an average of approximately 4,600 feet out-of-direction. Assuming an average travel speed of 30 miles per hour, this would equate to approximately 1.75 minutes of out-of-direction travel time. Based upon the amount of additional out-of-direction travel time necessary for school traffic to use the proposed Project local residential street to access Eucalyptus Avenue, it is considered unlikely that a significant amount of school trips would cut-through the Project local residential street.
Based on existing traffic counts, there are up to approximately 200 non-school-related vehicles using North Reinway Avenue during the peak hours. Additionally, of those 200 vehicles, 35 percent travel to/from the west, and 65 percent travel to/from the east via Yosemite Boulevard. Vehicles traveling to/from the east via Yosemite Boulevard are unlikely to cut-through the Project local residential street to Eucalyptus Avenue due to the associated out-of-direction travel time. Therefore, there would be at most approximately 70 vehicles that would consider cutting through the Project local residential street to Eucalyptus Avenue during the AM peak hour school drop-off period. Even less vehicles would be projected during the school pick-up period in the afternoon. This is a relatively low amount of traffic, and so no improvements are currently recommended.
However, traffic on the Project local residential road could be monitored for cut-through traffic, and if additional cut-through is observed in the future, traffic calming features such as curb bulb outs and speed humps could be considered for the Project local residential street.
7.4 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
Internal Project roadways and Project frontage on North Reinway Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue would include sidewalks, providing connectivity to Richard M. Moon Primary School and Waterford High School.
The Project is located directly to the north of Richard M. Moon Primary School and is within a 300-foot walk to the school entrance. The Project is within a 0.35 mile walk to Waterford High School. The Project is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in pedestrian, bicycle, or transit demand in the study area that would put existing facilities over capacity. The Project would not adversely affect existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in a way that would discourage their use. 8 VMT ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed in 2013, required changes to CEQA guidelines on the measurement and identification of transportation impacts due to new projects in California. Revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted in 2018 which identified Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts. Statewide implementation of assessment of VMT as a metric of transportation impact occurred for all jurisdictions on July 1, 2020. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) (December 2018), contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024 Page 23
mitigation measures.
The City has not currently adopted VMT guidelines or thresholds. Therefore, this TIS evaluates Project VMT using recommendations and methodologies consistent with OPR Guidance.
This TIS utilizes trip generation and trip length information from the location-based services data vendor Replica. Additional information on Replica can be found here: https://replicahq.com/about/. The latest available Replica data for average Thursday daily conditions in Fall of 2022 was utilized for this analysis. All data used in this analysis was from the California-Nevada region, which means it will capture all trips that start or end within the states of California or Nevada. Replica has nation-wide data, which means all trip lengths reported from Replica are full trip lengths and are not truncated due to jurisdictional boundaries. All Replica data used in this study can be provided upon request.
8.1 PROJECT AREA RESIDENTIAL VMT PER RESIDENT
In order to determine Project-area residential VMT per resident, a “Project Study Area” was created in Replica directly adjacent to the Project site that contained a large number of similar residential land uses, i.e. single-family residential housing with density similar to the Project. The Project Study Area utilized in this Replica analysis is shown in Appendix E at the end of this report.
Replica was used to extract all existing trips and corresponding trip lengths for residents of the Project Study Area under average Thursday daily conditions. Replica was also used to extract total existing residents of the Project Study Area. The trip and resident data from Replica were used to calculate VMT per resident for the Project Study Area and is summarized in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Project Study Area VMT per Resident Data
Project Study Area Metrics Value
Existing Residents 1,270
Average Daily Trips by Residents 5,369
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Residents1 60,574 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.
As shown in Table 8.1, it can be generally assumed that the Project Study Area would generate a VMT of approximately 47.7 VMT per resident based on existing travel characteristics of land uses in the Project Study Area and Replica data.
8.2 CITY EXISTING BASELINE RESIDENTIAL VMT PER RESIDENT Existing average baseline City VMT per resident was calculated using Replica data to maintain consistency between the methods used to calculate Project Study Area VMT and City VMT.
Replica was used to extract all existing trips and corresponding trip lengths for residents of the City under average Thursday daily year 2022 conditions. Replica was also used to extract total existing residents of the City. The trip and resident data from Replica were used to calculate VMT per resident for the City of Waterford and is summarized in 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
Existing Residents 9,150
Average Daily Trips by Residents 34,327
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Residents1 437,063 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.
As shown in Table 8.2, the existing average baseline City VMT is approximately 47.8 VMT per resident based on the average year 2022 Fall Thursday Replica data.
8.3 VMT SCREENING FINDING
The estimated Project Study Area VMT of 47.7 VMT per resident is approximately 0.15% 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.
OPR guidance state 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 VMT per Resident. 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 compared to isolated rural development.
Due to the relatively rural nature of the area, small geographical footprint of the City, and lack of transit and multimodal facilities, it is likely infeasible for new development within the City of Waterford to meet the 15% below average threshold. As such, a reasonable expectation for new development within the City would be to not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. As documented above, the Project does not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. In addition, the Project is proposing multimodal improvements, including bike lanes and sidewalks on Eucalyptus Avenue and sidewalks on North Reinway Avenue, that would help further reduce the Project’s VMT below the City average.
8.4 ANNEXATION AREA VMT
The four largely undeveloped parcels in the Annexation area would consist of the same land uses as the Project (single family dwelling units) and are located directly adjacent to the Project. Therefore, the Annexation area can be projected to have the same VMT per resident as the Project, 47.7 VMT per resident, which is 0.15% lower than the baseline City VMT of 47.8 VMT per resident.
Due to the relatively rural nature of the area, small geographical footprint of the City, and lack of transit and multimodal facilities, it is likely infeasible for new development within the City of Waterford to meet the 15% below average threshold. As such, a reasonable expectation for new development within the City would be to not exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. As documented above, the Annexation area is not projected to exceed the City’s average VMT per Resident. It is recommended that the Annexation area consider constructing multimodal improvements such as bike lanes and sidewalk, where feasible, when developed.
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Reinway Ave & Richard M Moon Primary School Dropoff Dwy Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 23-090061-001
Reinway Ave
Day: Tuesday
City: Waterford SOUTHBOUND Date: 5/23/2023 PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 87 131 0 1 75 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM PM 0 0 0 0 0 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Richard M Moon Primary School Dropoff Dwy
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
WESTBOUND
Richard M Moon Primary School Dropoff Dwy
175 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTROL 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 No Control 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 TEV 383 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.80
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 0 0 0 0 0 PM Total Bikes (AM)
NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 133 2 88 73 0 AM
NORTHBOUND
Reinway Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
87 131
0 88
73 0
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Reinway Ave & Pecan Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 23-090061-002
Reinway Ave
Day: Tuesday
City: Waterford SOUTHBOUND Date: 5/23/2023 PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 0 101 25 1 167 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 0 104 6 0 113 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM Pecan Ave
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
WESTBOUND
Pecan Ave
0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 11 0 55
CONTROL 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3-Way Stop (NB/SB/WB) 0 20 0 68
0 0 0 0 TEV 408 0 284 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.78 0.65
47 0 72
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 124 0 0 102 41 PM Total Bikes (AM)
NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 169 0 0 111 47 AM
NORTHBOUND
Reinway Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
11 0
0 20
0 0
0 104
6 0
102
41 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
55 0
0 68
0 0
0 101
25 0
111
47 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Reinway Ave & Richard M Moon Primary School Drop off Exit Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 23-090061-003
Reinway Ave
Day: Tuesday
City: Waterford SOUTHBOUND Date: 5/23/2023 PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 0 167 0 0 158 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 1 125 1 0 143 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM Richard M Moon Primary School Drop off Exit
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
WESTBOUND
Richard M Moon Primary School Drop off Exit
0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTROL 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1-Way Stop (EB) 0 0 0 0
29 0 23 0 TEV 423 0 316 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 PHF 0.76 0.66
1 0 0
98 0 46 0
0 0 1 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 171 0 0 120 0 PM Total Bikes (AM)
NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 265 0 0 129 0 AM
NORTHBOUND
Reinway Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
46 0
0 23
1 125
1 0
120
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
98 0
0 29
0 167
0 0
129
0 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Reinway Ave & SR 132
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 23-090061-004
Reinway Ave
Day: Tuesday
City: Waterford SOUTHBOUND Date: 5/23/2023 PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 55 63 159 0 248 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 46 38 69 0 138 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM SR 132
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
WESTBOUND
SR 132
555 0 309
0.5 0.5 1 0 1 54 0 108
CONTROL 1 241 0 429
0 0 0 0 Signalized 1 19 0 102
68 0 66 1 TEV 1537 0 1033 0 0 0 0
253 0 413 1 PHF 0.77 0.84
497 0 515
54 0 32 1
0 1 1 1
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 89 0 22 18 15 PM Total Bikes (AM)
NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 219 0 71 72 103 AM
NORTHBOUND
Reinway Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
54 241
32 19
413
66 46
38 69
22 18
15 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
108
429
54 102
253
68 55
63 159
71 72
103
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Eucalyptus Ave & SR 132
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 23-090061-005
Eucalyptus Ave
Day: Tuesday
City: Waterford SOUTHBOUND Date: 5/23/2023 PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 2 0 4 0 6 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM PM 1 1 2 0 5 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
SR 132
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
WESTBOUND
SR 132
548 0 331
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4
CONTROL 1 327 0 545
0 0 0 0 2-Way Stop (NB/SB) 0 5 0 4
2 0 2 0 TEV 919 0 868 0 0 0 0
349 0 514 1 PHF 0.92 0.91
522 0 359
2 0 4 0
0 0 1 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
Totals (AM) PM 10 0 3 1 6 PM Total Bikes (AM)
NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 6 0 1 0 6 AM
NORTHBOUND
Eucalyptus Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 327
4 5
514
2 1
1 2
3 1
6 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 545
2 4
349
2 2
0 4
1 0
6 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 10 8 0 0 8
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 10 8 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 10 8 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 66 66 66 66 66 66
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 4 5 6 7 8
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
*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
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
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
*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% INT2
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
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
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
*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% INT3
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
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
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
*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% INT5
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix D
Annexation Area Exhibit and Development Assumptions
Fahmy Annexation, Prezone, and TSM Application
Application File No. 2022-0001
City of Waterford
Draft Project Description
Overview
The Proposed Project consists of the Pre-Zone 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 Prezone 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):
• 080-003-050;
• 080-003-012;
• 080-003-015;
• 080-003-034;
• 080-003-040; and,
• 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.
The proposed annexation area is contiguous with the existing City limits along the eastern and southern boundary. It is bounded by Reinway Avenue the east, SR 132 to the south, WID Main Canal and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west, and the northern property line of the property to be subdivided, APN 080-003-049 to the North, and is approximately 43.27-acres. Figure 1, Annexation Area Exhibit, illustrates the Proposed Project’s total annexation boundary.
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
Designation
Pre-Zone
Designation
Development Capacity*
(# of residential units)
080-003-012 4.93 Low Density
Residential (LD)
RS, Residential
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 RS 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.
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:
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:
Figure 1 – Annexation Area Exhibit
Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project TIS
Waterford, CA
WR #4743001 May 2024
Appendix E
Project Study Area for Project VMT per Resident Calculation
WATERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ANNEXATION,
PREZONE, AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP NO. 2022-0001 (FAHMY ANNEXATION), ASSESSOR
PARCEL NUMBERS 080-003, 050, 012, 015, 034, 040, AND
049
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. The Project also consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) to allow for the subdivision of 19.20-acres into ninety-eight (98) single family residential lots. 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, the Proposed Project Site is located in the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation of the City’s General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may involve potentially significant effects on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford, acting as Lead Agency, has prepared and circulated for public and agency review an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addressing the potential environmental effects of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency distributed the Public Review Draft IS/MND for public review on September 3, 2024, and the comment period concluded on October 4, 2024; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND also identifying the date of this meeting was published in the Waterford News on September 4, 2024, filed with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder Office, and mailed to properties within a 300-foot radius of the Project site; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and independently considered the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the IS/MND is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan reflecting the analysis and mitigation recommendations contained in the IS/MND, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the notice of the special public hearing on the proposed Annexation, Prezone, and VTSM was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on September 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, notices of the special public hearing on the proposed Annexation, Prezone, and TSM 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, 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 Project 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.
2. The site is physically suitable for the density and/or intensity of the Proposed Project.
3. The Proposed Project 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.
4. A Notice of Determination pertaining to this matter shall be filed with the County Clerk within five (5) business days of this resolution, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Documents and materials related to the IS/MND shall be maintained at Waterford City Hall.
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 to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Annexation, Prezone, and VTSM 2022-0001.
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 Rivers Marissa Martinez, Secretary
Gray Vera
Rivers, Gray, Vera
Barnes, Esther
None
None
EXHIBIT A – INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fahmy Annexation, Prezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2022-0001
prepared by
City of Waterford
Planning Department
101 E Street
Waterford, California 95386
Prepared with the assistance of
J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, California 95366
September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1
INITIAL STUDY 6
1. Project Title 6
2. Lead Agency Name and Address 6
3. Contact Person and Phone Number 6
4. Project Location 6
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address 6
6. Existing Setting 7
7. Existing General Plan Designation 7
8. Existing Zoning 7
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 7
10. Description of the Project 8
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required 13
12. California Native American Tribes Consultation 13
13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 19
14. Lead Agency Determination 20
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 23
1. Aesthetics 23
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 25
3. Air Quality 29
4. Biological Resources 35
5. Cultural Resources 39
6. Energy 41
7. Geology and Soils 43
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 47
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 51
10. Hydrology and Water Quality 55
11. Land Use and Planning 59
12. Mineral Resources 60
13. Noise 61
14. Population and Housing 63
15. Public Services 65
16. Recreation 68
17. Transportation/Traffic 69
18. Tribal Cultural Resources 71
19. Utilities and Service Systems 74
20. Wildfire 77
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 79
REFERENCES 81
TABLES
1. Pre-Zone Designations and Development Assumptions 3
2. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings 8
FIGURES 11
1. Annexation Area Exhibit 12
2. Waterford Sphere of Influence 14
3. Existing General Plan Map 15
4. Existing Zoning Designation Map 16
5. Proposed Pre-Zoning Designation Map 17
6. Tentative Subdivision Map 18
APPENDICES
A. Air Quality Modeling Results 82
B. Waterford Development Project Biological 83
Assessment, dated March 15, 2023, prepared
by Moore Biological Consultants
C. Waterford Annexation and Subdivision Project 84
Transportation Impact Study, dated May 2024, prepared
by Wood Rodgers
1 | Page
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency:
City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, California 95386
PROJECT NAME:
Fahmy Annexation, Prezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2022-0001 PROJECT PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY:
Project Proponent: California Land Development
331 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Lead Agency: City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
PROJECT LOCATION:
The Proposed Project is located outside the City of Waterford, California and within the County of Stanislaus. The Project site consists of approximately 43.27-acres within the City’s Sphere of Influence and is located within the northwestern area of Waterford.
The Project site is bounded by agricultural lands to the north, State Highway 132/Yosemite Boulevard to the south, Eucalyptus Avenue to the west, and N. Reinway Avenue to the east.
Figure 1, Annexation Area Exhibit, provides an illustration of the Proposed Project’s location.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Overview
The Proposed Project consists of the Pre-Zone 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 ninety-eight (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 Prezone followed by the actions of the Tentative Subdivision Map.
2 | Page
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.
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.
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.
3 | Page
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.
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
4 | Page
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:
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:
5 | Page
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The Lead Agency has prepared an Initial Study, the following, which considers the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the Proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment, provided that the following mitigation measures are included in the Proposed Project.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation Measure 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.
Mitigation Measure Air-1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities for each phase of construction, the Project Proponent shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan that meets all of the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021, Section 6.3.
Mitigation Measure 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. ____________________________________________________ ____________________ Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager Date
6 | Page
INITIAL STUDY
1. PROJECT TITLE
Fahmy Annexation, Pre-zone, and Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) Application No. 2022-0001
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Mr. Mark Niskanen, Contract Planner
(209) 599-8377
4. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located outside the City of Waterford, California and within the County of Stanislaus. The site is located within the City of Waterford’s adopted Sphere of Influence.
The Project site to be subdivided and developed is located on one (1) parcel equaling approximately 19.2 acres and is located between North Reinway Avenue and North Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Richard M. Moon Primary School. The Project site, currently used for agriculture orchards, is located within the City of Waterford’s primary Sphere of Influence, with the existing city limit line located along the westerly right of way on N. Reinway Avenue, and northerly boundary of the W.I.D. lateral No. 11.
The Proposed Project consists 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.