SU0008578 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOUNTAIN HOUSE NEIGHBORHOODS K AND L INITIAL STUDY 5.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC i generation results are shown in Table 5.15-10. Compared to the previously approved project, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 91 and 111 more trips, respectively,during the AM and PM peak �{ hours. The result of the trip distribution is shown in Figure 5.15-4. The projected J 2035-plus-proposed-project peak-hour volumes are shown in Figure 5.15-5. Table 5.15.10 TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOODS K AND L PROJECT Inbound Outbound Total AM 881 1,216 2,097 Percent 42% 58% 100% ri PM 1,569 1,242 2,811 I Percent 56% 44% 100% Fi Source: TJ KM,2011. Level of Service Analysis. The level of service analysis was performed based on Fi the lane configurations previously adopted in the 2005 study and as shown in Figure 5.15-5. The results of the level of service analysis are shown in Table 5.15-11. Similar to the approved Neighborhoods K and L scenario,all inter- sections for gateway roadways would operate at LOS D or better and the F remaining study intersections would operate at LOS C or better. Table 5.15-12 shows the changes in intersection delays caused by the proposed project, Fill compared to the approved project. The traffic impacts of the currently proposed Neighborhoods K and L project r-- would not be significant. The previously adopted mitigation measures associated with the approved Neighborhoods K and L traffic and 2035 cumulative buildout traffic would be able to accommodate the projected traffic. Thus,the project would not conflict with an applicable ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The project would not significantly affect the 18 studied intersections. However, as identified in the 1994 MSIR,the level of service for regional roadways, including segments of 1- 205 and 1-580,would remain unacceptable with buildout of the entire Mountain House community. This impact was found significant and unavoidable in the 1994 MEIR and the required findings were made. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? I' With construction of all programmed transportation improvements and the I project's fair share contribution to the costs of off-site improvements,the Fi4 {etmi} 5-183 Fi