Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rob Carnachan Page 10 March 6, 2025 <br />Table 10 – Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Levels of Service <br />Study Segment <br />Direction <br />Future Conditions Future plus Project <br />AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak <br />FD LOS FD LOS FD LOS FD LOS <br />1. E Harney Ln - SR-88 to SR-99 <br />Eastbound 1.0 A 1.6 A 1.1 A 1.6 A <br />Westbound 2.2 B 0.8 A 2.3 B 0.8 A <br />2. E Harney Ln - Jack Tone Rd to Site <br />Eastbound 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.3 A 0.1 A <br />Westbound 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.2 A <br />3. SR-88 - E Harney Ln to Eight Mile Rd <br />Northbound 5.2 C 3.9 B 5.4 C 3.9 B <br />Southbound 2.6 B 4.5 C 2.7 B 4.6 C <br />Note: FD = Follower Density, measured in followers per lane per mile; LOS = Level of Service <br />Finding – The study intersections and segments would operate acceptably at the same Levels of Service with the <br />addition of project traffic as without it, including under existing or future volumes during both peak hours. <br />Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities <br />The first transportation bullet point on the CEQA checklist relates to the potential for a project to conflict with a <br />program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and <br />pedestrian facilities. <br />There are no pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities within the study area, and no pedestrian or bicycle movements <br />were recorded during the peak period traffic volume collection. East Harney Lane in the vicinity of the project site <br />is not planned for future bicycle facilities per the San Joaquin County Bicycle Master Plan Update, 2010, or the <br />Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Master Plan, San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2012. The <br />nearest transit route is GrapeLine Route 5 in the City of Lodi, over nine miles away. Further, the project does not <br />include modifications to the site or frontage; rather it would simply increase the permitted traffic at the site. <br />Finding – The project would not conflict with adopted policies regarding pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. <br />Vehicle Miles Traveled <br />The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) was <br />evaluated based the project’s anticipated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). <br />The CEQA Transportation Analysis Manual, County of San Joaquin, 2020, prescribes thresholds for determining VMT <br />impacts under CEQA. Per Table 1 of the Manual, public services are to be considered using the “Retail and Other <br />Projects” threshold of significance, which states that the project would be within the threshold of significance <br />(result in a less-than-significant impact) if it would not increase VMT. Data provided by the County of San Joaquin <br />Department of Public Works indicates that the current split in operations between the Foothill Landfill and North <br />County Landfill results in an average VMT of 5,690 vehicle-miles per weekday for the haul trucks. As shown in Table <br />11, consolidation of haul routes to the more centrally located North County Landfill would result in a decrease in <br />VMT of 297 vehicle miles per day, to a daily average of 5,393 vehicle-miles.