My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014056
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
POCK
>
3009
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2100031
>
SU0014056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2022 9:36:37 AM
Creation date
4/7/2021 2:18:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014056
PE
2666
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2100031
STREET_NUMBER
3009
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
POCK
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205-
APN
17912011, -13, -14
ENTERED_DATE
4/7/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
3009 S POCK LN
RECEIVED_DATE
7/6/2022 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\lsauers
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1803
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Pock Lane Residential Traffic Impact Study <br /> 4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT • • <br /> This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed project at the study intersections and <br /> surrounding roadway system. This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of <br /> traffic from the proposed project.The proposed project would construct a total of 204 single family <br /> homes on two sites along Pock Lane. <br /> 4.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED <br /> As the project is not screened out under the San Joaquin County CEQA Transportation Analysis Manual, a <br /> full VMT analysis was conducted.The technical memorandum detailing this analysis and findings is <br /> included in Appendix B and summarized below. <br /> In evaluating the existing VMT in the project area, TJKM identified a technical coding error within the <br /> SJCOG travel demand model, related to home-based school trips. School trips were being treated as work <br /> trips, with trip lengths of up to 10 miles instead of the actual average length of 1-2 miles.Although the <br /> overall impact to the model results was minimal countywide,this error does affect all traffic analysis zones <br /> (TAZ) containing schools. For the purpose of this study only, TJKM fixed this coding error for school trips <br /> and re-ran the SJCOG model for both the base year and base year plus project.As specified in the <br /> County's VMT methodology, the significance thresholds applied to projects are derived from the model <br /> baseline, including updates and revisions to the model as appropriate.Table 4 summarizes the new <br /> baseline VMT per capita and resulting thresholds for residential developments. The new baseline is 20.1 <br /> daily VMT, vs. 22.6 as included in the County's VMT guidelines. It should be noted that SJCOG is in the <br /> process of updating the model. Once updated, the County will establish new thresholds for use in future <br /> studies. <br /> Table 4: New VMT Thresholds of Significance for San Joaquin County (Residential Projects) <br /> Baseline VMT per Capita Threshold Daily VMT Threshold <br /> 23.6 15% Below Baseline 20.1 <br /> Project-Related Residential VMT <br /> With the fixed SJCOG model, both baseline and baseline plus project model runs were conducted. The <br /> results for the TAZ where the project is located are summarized in Table 5.The base year average daily <br /> VMT per resident in this TAZ is 17.9. With the addition of 204 households the average daily VMT per <br /> resident would fall to 14.6, below the applicable threshold of 20.1. Based on thresholds established by San <br /> Joaquin County, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. <br /> 4J.KM Page 123 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.