SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4.7 – Transportation Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 4.7-11 Schulte Road, adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site, is an existing Class III Bike Route from Hansen Road to Lammers Road. Additionally, Hansen and Lammers Roads are identified as proposed Class III routes south of Schulte Road, and Schulte Road was proposed as a Class II Bike Lane from Hansen Road west to the old Mountain House Parkway, per the 2010 County Bicycle Master Plan (County of San Joaquin 2010). However, the Draft San Joaquin County Bicycle Master Plan Update, released in October 2020, does not identify this Class II facility along Schulte Road (County of San Joaquin 2020b). No bicycle facilities are proposed along Schulte Road per the Bicycle Master Plan Update, except for the existing Class III Bike Route noted above. There are few existing pedestrian facilities within the Project vicinity. The adjacent development at 14900 W. Schulte Road includes some sidewalk and pedestrian facilities; however, due to the lack of connectivity and significant development in the immediate Project vicinity, pedestrian activity is very light at present. The Cordes Ranch Specific Plan includes proposed pedestrian sidewalks along the north side of Schulte Road (City of Tracy 2018). Consistent with County General Plan Policy TM-3.2, the Project would be expected to construct roadways to County standards and complete streets principles, including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Additionally, sufficient right-of-way would be provided to accommodate the existing Class III Bike Route along Schulte Road. Pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, and accessible paths of travel would be provided within the Project site in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act per TM-4.12 of the County’s General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element – Transportation and Mobility Section (County of San Joaquin 2016). The Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, conflict with adopted pedestrian or bicycle system plans or policies, create a substantial demand for mass transit services above existing or planned capacity, or interfere with existing or planned transit facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Threshold B: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The OPR Technical Advisory states that agencies may screen out VMT impacts using a project’s size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing (OPR 2018). Additionally, the County’s Draft VMT Thresholds Study recommends adoption of all screening criteria recommended by OPR, with exception of the low-income-housing screening threshold (County of San Joaquin 2020a). • Screening Threshold for Small Projects (110 daily trips or less): The TIA included in Appendix F estimates that the Project would generate approximately 117 trips (170 passenger -car-equivalent trips) during the AM peak hour and 130 trips (174 passenger-car-equivalent trips) during the PM peak hour. Because the Project would generate 117 AM peak-hour and 130 PM peak-hour trips, daily trips would exceed 110 trips per day ; therefore, it cannot be assumed to cause a less -than-significant transportation impact under this criterion. • Map Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects: As previously discussed, the County has not adopted VMT screening thresholds; however, the County’s Draft VMT Thresholds Study provides preliminary screening maps based on data from the SJCOG RTDM. Figure 4.7-1 shows the Southwest County Work Screening Map by TAZ included in the County’s Draft VMT Thresholds Study. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.7.3, Thresholds of Significance, the CSTDM is also used in this analysis. Figure 4.7-2 shows the low VMT TAZs derived from CSTDM excel spreadsheets (Caltrans 2015).