HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 5, 1984 PHHAM LANE Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law
IAIYHOV>:IV1E qr and affidavit of pub I i ca t i on being on file In the office of
PRDJBCr, LCDI the City Clerk, Mayor Snider called for the Public Hearing
AVENIM 1b EIAI to consider the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
STRE'E'T Ham Lane Inprovemen t Project, Lodi Avenue to Elm Street.
A verbatim transcript of these proceedings was made by a
certified Court Reporter. A copy of the subject transcript,
identified as Exhibit "A" is attached to the Official copy of
these minutes filed in the City Clerk's office, and thereby
made a part hereof.
The Lodi City Council took the following actions pertaining
to the matter:
1. On motion of Mayor Pro Tenpore Hinchman, Olson second,
Council certified the subject Final Environmental Impact
Report as adequate environmental doom en t a t i on ,
I1, Qi met ion of Council Nimber Reid, Pinkerton second,
Cotme i I con t i nued t o t he Regu 1 ar ltlee t i ng o f Decenibe r 19,
1984, a decision on the Project Alternate, requesting
that Staff bring back to the Council at that meeting
information on the possible extension of Pacific Avenue,
the possibility of providing additional parking under
Project Alternate B-1; and the possibility of
des i Etna t i ng Ila I nu t acid Oak S t ree t s a s one-way s t ree t s i n
the subject area. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Council Alembers - Olson, Pinkerton and Reid
Nue s : Counc i 1 Nlembe r s - I l i nchman and Snider (Mayor)
Absent: Council Nembers - None
3y j
44N
ON%
NOTICE IS HEt>:BY GIVEN that on Wednesday, December 5, 1984
at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, the Lod! City Council will conduct a public hearing in the
Council (han>bers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California,
to consider the Final Envirormental Impact Report for the Ham Lane
project. A copy of the EIR will be provided if you call the City of
Lodi Public Works Department at 333-6706.
Information regarding this EIR or the project in general may
be obtained by calling Richard Prima, Chi•f Civil Engineer, City of
Lodi, Public Works Department at 333-6706.
Written conments may be filed with the City Clerk at any
time prior to hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made
at said hearing.
Dated: Novel►ber 7, 1984
By Order of the Lodi City Council
1�
txaL
Alice M. Re eche
City Clerk
4-7
A � 7H `RE
November19, 19
, v c
Dear City Council Members:
I am writing regarding the widening of Ham Lane
between Elm Street and Lodi Avenue.
Please consider the needs of the other 36,000
residents of Lodi rather than just the vocal 200 or
so residents of those four blocks, and widen Ham Lane.
I am sympathetic to the residents' concern
about lowered property value and lost trees, but I
feel they should have considered that possibility
when they purchased their properties.
Lodi must progress, and in tiday's busy world,
'bottlenecks' such as the ones on Ham Lane, Hutchins
Street and Stockton Avenue cause much frustration,
wasted time and energy to the thousands of people
of Lodi who must travel through them daily.
Please consider the wishes of the silent majority
and widen these inefficient, disrepaired streets.
Sincerely,
Laurie Urias
1112 Junewood Drive
Lodi, California
0-k
v, . .. .....
7y�
kR
Q�
J1 ' Z C CC C� f..•�t- L
$ p;"4y;� � ��,, r�#x �..yai.t ,,,..h..
3
�
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Council
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: December 3, 1984
SUBJECT: Ham Lane Public Meeting
Attached for your information are three items:
1. Recommended Agenda to follow on Ham Lane EIR and Project
Determination.
2. Council Communication recommending Ham Lane Project.
( 3)
3. T►d additional letters addressed to City Council.
Please contac me if you have any questions or desire additional in -
forma on.
rm.'k
Ja L. Ronsko
Pub 'c Works Director
cc: City Manager
City Clerk
Attachments
JLR/eeh
•',F s�'`atxi �� yt S } .� ����� 4. S_ ., ', k }..4 , '� > ,��`.�Fkk'a,y
� r
AGENDA
r
t
HAM LANE PUBLIC MEETING
EIR CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT DETERMINATION
--s
''In order to'1conduct the meeting in a timely fashion and minimize confusion,
the following.presentatIon outline will be followed:
r
EIR Certification
I.- Outline of presentation and introduction of personnel
(Public Works Director - Jack Ronsko)
2. Final Environmental Impact Report presentation
(Consultant - Kate Burdick)
3. Questions by Council of Consultants and Staff
4. Open Public Hearing for comments on Final ElR
5. Close Public Hearing
6. Council Discussion
). Council Certify EIR as adequate
(Actual Mitigation Measures to be determined at time
Project Alternate is determined)
Project Determination
1. Preliminary Introduction (Public Works Director.- Jack Ronsko)
2. Review of Traffic 6 Project Alternates
(Consultant - Jeff Clark,and Chief Civil Engineer - Richard Prima)
3. Recommendation (Public Works Director - Jack Ronsko)
4. Questions by Council
5. Publ i c Conrn--nts
6. Council Decision on Project Alternate with mitigation
measures and fundings
QCITY Of LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: December 3, 1984
SUBJECT: Ham Lane - Lodi to Elm
Project Determination
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council direct the staff to proceed with the
Ram Lane Improvemnt Project using Alternate B-1 (widening to ultimate on west
side only) and restriction of parking on the west side from Lodi to Oak.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1958, the City Council established by ordinance a
r t -o -way set ac of 40' each side of centerline on Ham Lane from Loii to
S.P.R.R. Ham Lane was shown as an arterial on the General Plan at that Liras and
it was to be constructed to 64' curb -to -curb width providing for four travel lanes
and two parking lanes. This section has essentially been constructed from Harney
Lane to Turner ibad. The only area not presently widened to four lanes is the
subject project from L -di Avenue to Elm Street. In 1968 the City Council ac-
cepted the Street Master Plan prepared by D. Jackson Faustman which also showed
Ham Lane as a major arterial with a 64' curb -to -curb dimension.
In the early 1950's when the residential lots fronting Ham Lane between Oak and
Elm were developed, the ultimate street right-of-way of 80' was dedicated to
the City. Therefore, the City of Lodi presently owns the ultimate street right-
of-way on Ham Lane from Oak to Elan Street, except for the Veterinary Clinic.
The homes constructed on these lots were built with a 15' setback from the ul-
timate right-of-way (40' from centerline).
In 1978-79, the City's Capital Improvement Program provided for right-of-way
acquisition, preliminary engineering, and construction. An E I R was prepared
in 1978 and was certified adequate by the City Council, however, due to public
concern, the project was not constructed at that time, nor was it rebudgeted.
The Public Works field forces can no longer maintain Ham Lane in its present
condition. Some type of street improvement must be considered noxi. Funds for
right-of-way acquisition and street improvements were budgeted in the 1984
Capital improvement Program. Once the City Council makes the final project
determination, the appropriate funds will be rebudgeted in the City's 1985
Capital Improvement Project and Ham Lane improvements will be constructed during
the summer of 1985.
.-1 APPROVED:
HENRYA. GLAVE9. City !'tanager
F I LE N0.
Council Communication
December 3e 1984
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The attached Exhibit No. l shows the existing right-of-way. The right-of-way
to be acquired for the Proposed Project (80' R/W and 64' curb -to -curb) has been
shown crosshatched. Exhibit No. 2 shows the existing street widths, striping,
trees and residential structures. Lefthand turn pockets are now provided at
Lodi Avenue and at Elm Street. There is a need for lefthand turn movement onto
Pine Street and Walnut Street leading to the Lodi H'Igh Campus. One half the
accidents at the Walnut Street intersection are rear -end type accidents wifich
could be reduced with a left turn pocket.
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Traffic projections indicate that the existing street will be congested to an
unacceptable level as early as the mid 1990's or as late as 2005. (See E I R
Figures 9-1 and 9-2). Providing a two-way left turn lane on the entire street
should delay the need for four lanes until approximately 2005. Four lanes with
turn lanes at Lodi and Elm would handle future traffic for the foreseeable future.
►I rreuaTre
Shown below is a table describing the alternates and showing the construction,
right-of-way, engineering and contingency costs of these alternates. These
alternates are essentially the same as described in the EIR with thot exception
of the addition of Alternate 8-1, which is widening on the west side only.
This alternate would be Alternate B without the 7' of widening on the east side,
south of Oak Street.
MAN LAME IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
L001 TO ELM
Cost
in S1,000's
Alternate
Construction
K/11
Eng. t Cont.
Total
Proposed Project
413
98
103
616
64' c -c
Alta•note A
323
68
8o
471
56' c -c
i5' wide'+ on east sioc
Alternate 3
360
73
90
523
56' c -c
I
15' widen on wast side
7' east side 1/Oak
Alternate s -I
23;
30
73
397
50' to 56' c -c
15' widen On west side
Alternate C
211
-0-
53
264
Rebuild existing except
15'widening S/Walnut or
west side
• AA, to 56' c -c
I
Council Connunication
December 3, 1984
Page 3
The construction cost information has also been shown on Exhibit No. 3 as a
bar chart.
Exhibit No. 4, attached, shows proposed widening, curb -to -curb street widths
and R/W to be acquired for each alternate. Exhibit No. S shows the proposed
striping for each alternate.
Shown below for each alternate is the effect that the street widening would
have on the distance between the back of sidewalk and the residential structure.
What is shown is the number of residences and their front yard dimensions
after the widening has taken place.
Iffect of Widened Street on Distance Between Back of
Side -alk and Buildings
Alternate
Pr000sed
Project A B 9-1 C
'.lo. of residences -+here 9 5 4 0
space between back of
Sidewalk and garage is
less than 20'
Remaining frontyards 16 F 11'-14' 12 Q 11'-12' 4 G 13'-14' 4 f 13'-14' 3 i 13'-14'
37 P 17 . 12 p 17' a 25 a 17' . 12 p 17' •
RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS
The Environmental ir"pact Report outlines all possible environmental impacts and
possible mitigating measures based on the proposed project. Some of the
Impacts are very minor and some of the mitigating measures provide little
benefit based on the cost of providing the mitigation and they are not included
in the recommendation.
Exhibit No. 6 covers each of the major impacts and shows the recommended mitigation.
The mitigations are worded such that they are applicable to whatever project the
City Council determines should be constructed.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
In making an engineering recommendation, there are some major factors which
must be considered. They are listed below in general order of priority:
Project conforms to City and State recommended standards for vehicular
and bicycle safety;
° Project provides for existing and future traffic needs;
° Project has a reasonable cost benefit ratio;
Project, if less than ultimate, has flexibility with the least cost to City;
° Environmental impacts.
Cuwic i 1 Consun i cation
Dscomber 3, 1984
Page 5
Under our striping proposal for ALTERNATE C, we are also recommend-
ing no parking on both sides between Lodi and Walnut. Therefore,
there are really only three additional residential parcels affected
by the recommended parking restriction.
The recommended project is therefore ALTERNATE B-1 with restricted parking
between Lodi Avenue and Oak Street. The recommended striping would be two
travel lanes and a continuous left turn ;ane with parking on the east side be-
tweenWal nut d Elm, and parking on the west side between Oak and Elm.
ack . Ronsko
ubli Works Director
is
JLR/eeh
1
e
A'
8
z
D
uj-8
3
•a ;'
e
1,el
1
8'
8'
„
S
T. s
Exhibit 1
_
3 low
8 "I�
.g
'
PINE
gi� �•�I •
�a OAK"
i
p
?"_, ^ �h,•' oma- wo ..�
44,
WALNUT
WALNUT ST. WALNUT
' I � i ��—�� �""- i I �f Y P�,r III �� • ' 8 I
lit
if
f
..
1. 11
" t1
APARTMENTS /
<u
Ly NO PARRING
n
PJGMT-OF-WAY LINE
1 611 H;,., 7"--
22.51
20.5'
RIGHT -0i -WAY LINE
Exh i iii t 2
3
`, RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
� °
CNVRCN I _ l
— U
I 22.5' F.
20.51 W
1.6
RIGMT-OF-WAY LINE
f' -
�� W RIGMTQi•WAY LINE
uj
Lj
22.5' I I 2LSI
W 26.51 k, 51 W
2
zl
\ RIGMT-0F-WAY LINE
Z�
i1PPRox. SCALE
I" s 4�1 RIGHT-00.wAY LINE
/Q��I COMMERCIAL
yj
f..
W 24.51 '91
UJI
RIG04T-0i-WAY LINE
Existing Roadway
Figure 3
HAM LANE IMPRQVEMENT PROJECT
Lodi Avenue to Elm Street
___
Cost (in $ 1.000's)
700
650
f
600
Construction
550
COs t
S00
450
Right -of -Way
COs t
400
350
Engineering/
300
Conting's
®
250
Total
200
Cost
150
®
100
50
f
PROPOSED ALTERNATES
HAM LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT—LODI TO ELM
64 t 64'
56'
F�
6 4
K 56'
OAK
M.
f
r 64' S6'
T
56'
64' t
64'
PROPOSED
PROJECT ✓�
64' c -c \' n
ALT. A ,���+�
56 c -c Yl� y,
® Propaea Widening
® R/W Aquisition Required
56' Curb to Curb Street
64'
56'
56'
PINE
5G' 56'
Y
OAK
56' 50'
t
WALNUT
56'
4 �
50 �
}
644, 4Liw e 'XAj�a
50'
50'
44
50'
ve,p k,0 1�w ,
ALT. B '�,y� ALT. B-1�� ALT. C Q;
�►� 1r ti� c�-
56' c -c + +� 50'-56' c-c,i �� 44'-5d c -c
PROPOSED STRIPING
HAM LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-LODI TO ELM
AK
20' 20-
13
v v
►o re w
P P
T
.w•
t
NP I NP
i 10
N.
PROPOSED ALT. A ALT. B ALT. B -I ALT. C
c-�
PROJECT
64` c -c 5S� c -c 56' c -c 5d 5e c -c 4'4�-3d' c -c
Exhibit 6
MITIGATIONS
Impact - Loss of street trees and landscaping.
Mitigation - In Existing K/W - Furnish property owner with tree of their
choice from qty's tree list. Property owner responsible
for planting.
In IVW Acquired - Compensation will be made for loss of trees and
landscaping as part of R/W acquisition. Property owner to pro-
vide for replacement.
Impact - Decrease in pedestrian safety.
Mitigation - Provide additional pedestrian safety devices as warranted.
Impact - Potential delays to c•oss traffic.
Mitigation - Install traffic signal when warranted.
Impact - Potential for increased vehicle speeds.
Mitigation - None recommended other than normal enforcement.
Impact - Decreased on -street parking.
Mitigation - Provide that all future development% and land use up-
grading have adequate off-streti paring.
Impact - Increase in vehicular noise.
Mitigation - Provide double paned windows when back of sideway to window
Is less than 11 feet.
Impact - Short-term increase in construction related vehicle noise.
Mitigation - Restrict equipment usage to 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
Impact - Temporary construction -related increase in dust.
Mitigation - Require Contractor to water down dusty working areas.
I.npact - Change in the perceived neighborhood character.
Mitigation - Follow landscaping mitigation recommendations.
Insure that proper visibility from resident driveways
Is maintained when street trees are replanted.
Provide for installation of automatic garage door openers
where distance from back of sidewalk to garage is less
than 20 feet.
Provide for zoning variance request to Planning Commission
at no cost to property owner.
Impact - Local traffic disruption and loss of parking during construction.
Mitigation - None recommended.
Impact - Temporary disruption of local businesses at or near Elm Street.
Mitigation - Require Contractor to provide continual access when possible.
47
:r`j�''{+ Lq t
November 19, 198d1:�-
Dear City Council Members:
I am writing regarding the widening of Ham Lane
between Elm Street and Lodi Avenue.
Please consider the needs of the other 36,000
residents of Lodi rather than just the vocal 200 or
so residents of those four blocks, and widen Ham Lane.
I am sympathetic to the residents' concern
about lowered propert, value and lost trees, but I
feel they should have considered that possibility
when they purchased their properties.
Lodi must progress, and in today's busy world,
'bottlenecks' such as the ones on Ham Lane, Hutchins
Street and Stockton Avenue cause much frustration,
wasted time and energy to the thousands of people
of Lodi who must travel through them daily.
Please consider the wishes of the silent majority
and widen these inefficient, disrepaired streets.
Sincerely,
4" MA am
Laurie Urias
1112 Junewood Drive
Lodi, California
4��- �-- ozfl�
ce�. %ErEIVED
`y DEC -; Ft; 2•
I
' Cit•,; �
�vst
000!,����
�! r/7letouEe� ax qi �x¢cr✓/
.
I
D
G
-0-e- )(,
17 .
R E Q 'vF-D t
t J q
A
i Y CLERK
cl.C" On,;
c'�� -Z �i�:tG� � 1. ��, t -�,. - � _ c�c ( � G � ..t t w��✓'
eel,- .e
e
i
• GZ- r leu �9a[�� e!Ze
-�� { �'-,r� elf GL+�s�" G"'�� �,��c.� •�v-�-_
/
f
w
Y
1-37 .
/tiI Is
/y "?
cJ. Loch'
l'i (t,/4 4
15
So #.gt r,, 4 .4, e
i
0-
ow
_ c
1w
(9 5?4*,V,4) z ��� 141x�
13 fi. I-�,
c�
�T�� yo
jd� 31 -11.4tfruafu
*11de A -7w 144 -11x -
'A - wd,4,�, oe,,,�
°F DEC -; Fri 2 to
ALIC?
Ail
G"all
de 4
4_e GC
,�� �/� ' Al—
,�
'2 ,
eY, "tee
..,lam /.
1p
Z
0
r
ll t\
i
�v
1
1p
Z
0
Final
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for City of Lodi
November 1984
Kate Burdick Land Use & Planning Consultant
FILIAL
FOCUM INVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HAM LANE WROVEMENT PROJECT
Prepared for
CITY OF LODI
November 1984
Prepared b;
KATE BURDICK
1545 5hirlrnd Trac[, Auburn, CA 95603
ii
Table of Contents
PREFACE................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONKENTAL IMPACTS ........................................ 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................... 9
Project Location ................................................... 9
Project Characteristics ............................................ 9
Permit Requirements ................................................ 13
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS .......................... 21
NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................. 21
Plants and Wildlife ............................................. 21
COWUNITY RESOURCES ................................................ 24
Traffic......................................................... 24
Noise ............................... 31
AirQuality ..................................................... 37
LandUse ........................................................ 42
Construction -Related Impacts .................................... 45
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ................................................ 47
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................ 47
Growth Inducement .................................... 48
Alternatives to the Project ........................................ 49
REPORT AUTHORS, PERSONS CONTACTED REFERENCES ............................ 65
APPENDICES
A. Plants Inventory --Suzanne Olive
B. Traffic --Jeff Clark
C. Noise --Scan Shelly
D. Air Quality --Stan Shelly
E. Public Comments and Responses --Including P-ablic Hearing
Transcript and Letters
LIST OF FIGURES
1
Area Map
...........................................................
10
2
Vicinity
Hap .......................................................
11
3
Existing
Roadway ...................................................
14
3-1
Ham Lane
Improvement
Project,
Lodi Avenue ..........................
15
3-2
Has Lane
Improvement
Project,
Walnut Street ........................
16
3-3
Ham Lane
Improvement
Project,
Oak Street ...........................
17
3-4
Ham Lane
Improvement
Project,
Pine Street ..........................
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
3-5
Ham Lane
Improvement Project,
Elm Street ...........................
19
4
Typical
Cross-3ection..............................................
20
5
Tree Removal Area ................................................
22
6
Average
Daily Traffic Volumes
......................................
25
7
Boise Levels
.......................................................
32
8
Land Use
..........................
........ ......................
43
9-1
Traffic
Projections and Street
Capacities, Lodi to Pine ............
52
9-2
Traffic
Projections and Street
Capacities, Pine to Oak .............
53
10-1
Ham Lane
Project Alternative A
.....................................
54
10-2
Ham Lane
Project Alternative A
.....................................
55
10-3
Ham Lane
Project Alternative A
.....................................
56
10-4
Ham Lane
Project Alternative A
.....................................
57
10-5
Ham Lane
Project Alternative A
................ ....................
58
11-1
Ham Lane
Project Alternative B
.....................................
59
11-2
Ham Lane
Project Alternative B
.....................................
60
11-3
Ham Lane
Project Alternative B
.....................................
61
11-4
Ham Lane
Project Alternative B
.....................................
62
11-5
Ham Lane
Project Alternative B
.....................................
63
12
Alternative
Street Cross Sections
..................................
64
LIST OF TABLES
1 Level of Service Definitions ....................................... 26
2 Summary of Existing Street Conditions .............................. 27
3 Future Traffic Projections ......................................... 28
4 Present Ham Lane Noise Levels .................................. 33
S Recommended Noise Levels for Residential Use• ...................... 33
6 Projected Noise Lever tdBA)....................................... 34
7 Ambient Air Quality ................................................ 38
8 Him Lane Project CO Concentrations ................................. 40
9. Projected Year 2005 Roadway Levels of Service ...................... 50
iv
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the
proposed Ham Lane Improvement Project. The Draft EIR was completed in October
1984, and was made available for public and agency review. A public hearing
was held by the Lodi City Council on November 7, 1984 to receive additional
comments. Written and oral comments were received from several citizens. All
comments, and responses to comments, are contained in Appendix E.
Please note that the Comments and Responses are printed at the back of this
doc ament as Appendix E. This section is printed on blue paper.
I
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental
effects of the City of Lodi's proposed street widening Improvement Project on
Hass Lane. The project calls for widening four blocks of Ham Lane between Lodi
Avenue and Mai Street from an existing two-lane road to a four -lane road.
Other improvements such as replacement of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and
drainage improvements also are planned as a part of this project. A full
description of the project is presented in the Project Description section of
this report.
The project was initially proposed in 1978 and an Environmental Impact Report
was completed in May 1978. While that EIR contains useful information,
conditions have changed enough to warrant revision of the previously prepared
EIR. Therefore, this document is a Focused EIR which addresses only those
issues determined by the City of Lodi to require revision since the time the
last EIR was prepared. The issues evaluated in this report include loss of
street trees, traffic, noise, air quality, land use and neighborhood character
and construction related impacts. In addition, a range of project alterna-
tives are fully discussed. A summary of the identified project impacts is
presented in the following section, Summary of Environmental Impacts.
Because the proposed project is considered controversial by affected citizens,
several attempts have been made to solicit citizen input earl} in the review
process to that all concerns could be incorporated into this report. A letter
was sent by the City o`_ Lodi to all owners and residents within the Ham Lane
Improvement Project area informing them of the EIR process and of an informal
meeting held for citizens to express their concerns. Those unable to attend
the meeting were encouraged to write or call the City or this consultant with
any concerns. About 32 people attended the informational meeting held August
23 and some calls and a letter have been recei,red to date. Public comment
also can be made during the review period for this Draft EIR, and at a public
hearing before the City Council.
This EIR has been prepared for the City of Lodi in accordance with City
requirements and the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
Guidelines. As stated in these guidelines, an EIR is an "infomationsl
document" with the intended purpose to: "inform public agency decision -makers
and the public generally )f the significant environmental effects of a
project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects and
describe reasonable alternatives to the project." Althouugh the EIR does not
control the City's ultimate decision on the project, the City must consider
the information in the EIR and respond to each significant effect identified
in the EIR. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, "significant =Ffect on the
environment means:
. . . a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of
the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including
land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna; ambienr noise and
INTRODUCTION 2
objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social
change by :ttelf shall not be considered in determining whether the
physical caange is significant.
AOM TO USE THIS REPORT
This report is divided into six sections: Summary of Environmental Effects,
Project Description, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigations, Environ-
mental Evaluation, Persons Contvcted and the Appendices. Each of these
sections has its own purpose and serves to aid the reader in fully under-
standing the project and its implications. A brief description of e.'ch
section follows:
Summary of Environmental Effects
This section serves to list all of the potential impacts of the project. Any
mitigations which will reduce or eliminate project impacts are also presented.
The level of significance with and without mitigation is identified. This
section is an overview for use during discussion of the project and does not
include any discussion. Use of the summary only, without reading the
supporting text, could lead to an incomplete understanding of the project.
Project Description
This section presents a full description of the proposed project.
Eavironmental Settings. Imvacts and Mitigations
This section is based on studies prepared by expert subcontractors or members
of the staff. This section serves to describe existing conditions, _dentify
potential impacts of the project and present mitigations to minimize identi-
f<•d impacts. The text is based on technical reports which are contained at
the back of the r,2port in the Appendices. Anyone interested in the actual
methods of evaluation should refer to the Appendices while people interested
in the results of the evaluation will find the information in this part of the
report.
Environmental Evaluation
This portion of the report is required by state law (CEQA). These sections
are used to identify,for decision makers and the general public, the unavoid-
able effects of the project, the potential for growth inducement and any
alternative design options which will achieve the s.gmme general goals.
INTRODUCTION 3
Persons Contacted
This is a list of all the people who were contacted, either in person or by
telephone, in the course of the report preparation. The subcontractors who
prepared technical reports are also listed.
Appendices
Technical reports prepared by specialists ar.: included in their entirety and
address traffic, air quality, noise and biologic issues.
Summary of Environmental Effects
a
4
Summary of Environmental Impacts
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project under consideration is widening of Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue
and Elm Street within the City of Lodi. The project would expand this street
iron two lanes to four lanes with associated road improvements. A full
description of the proposed improvements is presented in the Project Descrip-
tion section of this report.
The following list itemizes all impacts, both significant and insignificant.
that were identified during the course of this environmental analysis. The
level of significance of each impact is presented, both with and without
suggested mitigation measures. The mitigated impact implies that all
mitigations should be followed, unless otherwise indicated in this Summary.
Adverse impacts that are unavoidable and which cannot be mitigated to a level
of insignificance are noted. Because no Initial Study was prepared on the
project due to the fact that a previous EIR had been prepared, the City
prepared a Scope of Work which detailed areas of investigation. All effects
that were deemed potentially significant have been evaluated in this report.
This Summary should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the
report. The Summary is intended as an overview; the report serves as the
basis for this Summary.
Project Mitigated
Impact Impact
S M -- Loss of street trees and landscaping.
Mitigation
1) Retain existing trees Within the undeveloped right-
of-way.
2) Replace removed trees and shrubs with species of
similar type and nuumber. Prepare landscaping plan
to identify the type, number, location, spacing and
maintenance of trees to be replanted.
S -Significant. M -Moderate. I -Insignificant. B -Beneficial.
Project Mitigated
Impact I"spac t
SIMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS S
OR
3) Redesign project according to proposed Alternative
B.
Slight potential for root disturbance of existing trees
due to project construction.
Mitigation
4) Exercise caution during sidewalk construction to
minimize potential root disturbance whenever
possible.
TRAFFIC
B B -- Decrease in existing and long-range traffic congestion.
Mitigation
S) None required.
Decrease in pedestrian safety.
Mitigation
6) Provide additional pedestrian safety devices
(crosswalks, roadway warning signs, traffic guards,
traffic or pedestrian signals).
M I -- Potential delays to cross traffic.
Mitigation
7) Install traffic lights as signal warrants are met.
M M-1 -- Potential for increased vehicle speeds.
Mitigation
8) Install speed limit signs, increase enforcement,
lower speed limits.
M M-1 -- Decreased on -street parking.
SUMMARY Of ENVIROW19NTAL D4PACTS 6
Mitigation
9) Provide that all future develop" nts have adequate
oif-street parking.
NOISE
S S -- Increase in vehicular noise.
Mitigation
10) Install sealed windows across house frontages
wherever feasible.
11) Reduce vehicle speed.
12) Encourage carpools, bicyel,� use and mass transit to
reduce vehicle volumes.
13) Enforce vehicle codes concerning faulty or mod-*.fied
exhaust systems.
14) Implement an alternative which r4duces the distance
between affected properties and Gravel lanes.
S M -- Short-term increase in construction related vehicle
noise.
Mitigation
15) Require the contractor to utilise construction
equipment of quier design that is well-maintained
wherever feasible.
16) Require the instal cion of superior mufflers and
engine enclosure pat,als on construct.on equipment
wnere feasible.
17) Restrict equipment usage to 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
AIR QUALITY
B B -- Incremental decrease in local emission concentrations.
Mitigation
18) None required.
M I -- Temporary construction -related increase in dust.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7
Mitigation
19) Use water sprinkling applications daily on dusty
working areas.
LAND USE
S M -- Change in the perceived neighborhood character.
Mitigation
20) Follow landscaping Mitigation #1-3.
21) Provide crosswalks and traffic signals to minimize
traffic safety hazards.
22) Insure that proper visibility from resident
driveways is maintained when street trees are
replanted.
23) Consider installation of automatic garage door
openers where necessary to provide safe resident
access.
24) Follow noise mitigation #10-14.
25) Where appropriate, consider provision of fencing or
lattice to provide a sense of resident privacy (may
require zoning variances).
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
M M -- Local traffic disruption and loss of parking during
construction.
Mitigation
26) Plan detour routes for minimal neighborhood
disruption.
27) Notify emergency services of street closures.
28) Plan construction around peak traffic times.
S M -- Temporary increase in noise.
Mitigation
29) Follow mitigation *15-17.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8
Temporary decrease in air quality.
Mitigation
30) Follow mitigation #19.
Temporary disruption of local businesses.
Miti action
31) Schedule construction to be completed as soon as
possible in front of area businesses.
Potential disruption of subsurface urilities.
Mitigation
32) Plan construction to avoid underground utilities.
Project Description
Z
Project Description
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the western side of the City of Lodi, in San
Joaquin County, approximately 7 miles east of Highway 5 and 1 mile north of
Highway 12. Ham Lane is a major north -south arterial in the City and
intersects Highway 12 at the first signalized intersection at the City's
western entrance on Highway 12.
Hass Lane extends from above Turner RoAd on the north approximately three miles
to Harney Lane on the south. Except for the area of the project site, Ham
Lane is a four -lane, two -directional street, with stop signs and signals at
key intersections.
The project site comprises a four -block segment of Ham Lane between Lodi
Avenue on the south and Elm Street on the north (see Figure 2). This section
of Ham Lane consist of two lanes, the only existing two-lane section of Ham
Lane except for the extreme north end within Lakewood Subdivision. This
portion of the street has 50-, 65- to 80 -foot wide right -of --way (R/W) with a
section of 80 -foot R/W at Lodi Avenue. The current developed roadway ranges
in width from 44 to 50 feet. The narrowest portion of the project area is
between Lodi Avenue and Walnut Street. (See Project Characteristics below for
further details on existing and proposed improvements.)
The project site is located within an urbanized section of the City.
Residential use is predominant along the project segment of Ham Lane,
doaeinxted by single-family houses. Office and public uses are predominant
among the residential uses along Ham Lane south of the project section.
Commercial uses are found on Ham Lana between Elm Street and Lockeford Street.
(See land use section of this report for further details regarding surrounding
land uses.) The project segment of Ham Lane also is characterized by large,
tall treat which line the street and are described in the Plants section of
this report.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project Objectives
The purpose of the project is to alleviate existing and projected traffic
congestion and improve traffic flow along the four -block project section of
Ham Lane. Ham Lane is an arterial road which facilitates major north -south
traffic flow through the City, for residents, visitors and business use. Ham
Lane is considered a major arterial and vital link in the City's
transportation/circulAtion system (CH2M Hill, 1978). The proposed improvement
plans are consistent with the City's current Five -Year Capital Improvement
Program. The project will meet projected traffic demands to the yecr 2005 and
beyond at a Level of Service A. Existing traffic volumes along tF: roject
"r.
Los Angclt•
Area map
I®
Figure 1
i i _ '� _r � rdi•
it � _ ��""�-;� ' R-• • �- R•Mo .
I_.� ,T �• 2R�•
1 .-,Lj
`.�1
It R_GA1 2 .*Ltd' EG/' ~4 Y!. j..rYC.2+�
�r•rrl _-�i-a-s •A..2 1 C-2 _ _ .1+•=:•
I i
arpb } } C 1 C-2
r
IV.:
I" slew
'" 40
AK
4-100
bill
v �� R� y
- Ham lane, _
improvemen -�
J Area
tib'
k_CP SL
_ _ 1 _.�{_� _�� ��-�,� :. -- - _..�.-.�... �1�---�.1.-• '• _ _) -_ice'; _
I i �d + � —��_2 _.�.._----1 M r►_�'�• T^.���----.=-r----_ Sof.. _7—.�._.b_�,:
of
lam_., �-..; :. ----=��"' - - -'`'►_- =..r. .� ....... ,• .- ` � q :i :� �- '.
-1111112- 11ir-_
.r
J a.t r
Vicinity map
Figure 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 12
segment of Ham Lane range from 12,400 to 14,100 vehicles per day. (See
traffic section of this report for further details of existing and future
traffic projections.)
Project History
Ham Lane originally existed as a 50 foot county road from Lodi Avenue (Sargent
Ro&J) to Turner Road (county road). The first major residential subdivision
irk the project area was the Hutchins Homestead Addition #3 in 1938. Prior to
':he next major subdivision in 1950 (Fairmont Park, east side of Ham Lane,
south of Elan), the City determined that the R/W width of Ilam Lane should be 80
feet. Thus Fairmont Park and subsequent developments have dedicated an
additional 15 feet on each side of Ham Lane. However, developers were not
required to physically widen the existing street. This explains vh y the
street is not centered in the right-of-way and why widening could occur cver
most of the project without the acquisition of additional right-of-way. rhe
proposed project was presented before the City in 1978 but was rejected at
that time due to public opposition.
Proiect Imorovements
The proposed .eject will result in an 80 -foot wide right-of-way along the
project section of Ham Lane, with a developed 64 -foot wide roadway. Th e
existing curb -to -curb street width in this section of Ham Lane ranges between
44 and 50 feet. This portion of Ham Lane is currently striped for two traffic
lanes and has crosswalks that are marked at the intersections. Figure 3
illustrates the existing Ham Lane roadway. An eight -phase traffic signal
controls the Lodi Avenue and Ham Lane intersection and a four-phase traffic
signal controls the Elm Street and Ham Lane inteLsection. Curbside parallel
parking is allowed along both sides of Ham Lane between Lodi and Elm. The
current on -street parking capacity is approximately 135 spaces (Clark, 1984).
Ham Lane, north and south of the project segment, has a curb -to -curb street
width of 61.5 and 64 feet, respectively, and is striped for four traffic lanes
and on -street parking, with left turn lanes and no parking at intersections.
The proposed project i+ill re!:ult in four 12 -foot wide traffic lanes and a
combination of left -turn pocket lanes and on -street parking. Right-of-way
easements -ill be acquired by the City as necessary. As part of the project,
curbs and a 5 -foot sidewalk on each side of the street will be constructed.
Storm drains will be upgraded, fire hydrants and utility lines relocated,
driveways reconstructed and pavements restriped. Project improvements are
illustrated on Figures 3-1 through 3-5. A typical street cross-section is
presented in Figure 4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 13
MINIT MWIMMM
As the lead: agency, the City of Lodi is responsible for approving or
disapproving the proposed project. The project is a City street and will not
require permit approval from agencies other than the standard City department
review. Relocation of utility lines will require approval by the pertinent
utility companies (i.e., P.G. 5 E., Pacific Bell Telephone) according to their
requirements.
MIGHT -0f -WAY LINE
APAIITMENTS
NO PAM11N0 ��
u 22.31
x,31
Ir
AIONT{1f-WAY LINE
U MONT-0i-WAY LINE f
O O CNUmcm
-- --�--- ® IA
vi
AIONT.Of-WAY LME ,
N/ONT-00-WAY LINE
I W
IL
22.5'
W 26.5• I 24.5' W
W
' �'L T W
2
o
AIONT.ps-WAY LME
Z
AMROX. SCALE
I • to,
i L^r--j I
U 'L—,j
AIONT-00-WAY LINE
COMMEACIAL
WxI
W;
24.°'
191
�I
All
Wi
IT77
AIONT-Of.WAY LINE
Existing Roadway
Figure 3
L
Ham Lane Improvement Pian
Figure 3-1
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACQUIRED (110W)
C -G
CURB TO CURB
Figure 3-1
ttow
WALNUT STREET
Ham Lane Improvement Plan
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
~�
EXISTING RIG►: OF WAIT
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIRED
C -C
CURB TO CURB
�i
ttow
WALNUT STREET
Ham Lane Improvement Plan
Figure 3-2
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
~�
EXISTING RIG►: OF WAIT
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIRED
C -C
CURB TO CURB
Figure 3-2
44'c. -c
6o.A/
is,
(A I
OAK STREET
.S
•
I S' •
Ham Lane Improvement Plan
Q
x
�EGENO
r
ISTING SIDEWALK
OPOSED SIDEWALK
ISTING RIGHT OF WAY
GHT OF WAY TO 8E
OUIREO (ROW)
R8 TO CURB
Figure 3-3
1
1
1
1
Flow
S
^,c�
L
i
L.
•
PINE STREET
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIREO (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Ham Lane Improvement Pian -7j
Figure 3-4
'
Gy'G-G
am Street
Mare Lane improvement Plan
Figure 3-5
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGMT OF WAY
RIGMT OF WAV TO BE
ACQUIRED (ROW)
C -C
CURB TO CURB
Figure 3-5
WEST OW -OF -WAY C' la �a.� �.O' EAST R*W-OF-WAY
I s
0
`yapo - ` M S,
�K L 'R4:il� 1 h 6t wJNv+a 1 0s"
y►yrw1C
(L
4o��bb'
1411 1o'
r ,C L Of"V*^v Cvwe a GUMP
v./e►b-�� V T
80.
ao' 4 0'
1
I of �� a• Id
/11.1 W.. • ��Y►M1•
NOTE. rt IS A SECTION LINE AND NOT NECESSARILY THE CENTER LINE OF EXIST ING ROADWAY.
Section
Hari Lane Section FAOPOSED a EXISTING
Typ;cal Mid Black
Figure 4
Environmental Setting,, Impacts
and Mitigations
0
PAI
Plants and Wildlife
RXISTING CONDITIONS
The project segment of Hass Lane is primarily in single-family residential ase.
An apartment building, nursery, church and veterinary hospital are also found
in the project area. Landscaping typically found in developed residential
areas is found along this portion of Ham Lane. There are no threatened or
endangered plant or animal species found in this area.
The project section of Ham Lane is one of the older residential areas of the
City. As would be expected. there are numerous large, mature trees, as well
as emaller trees, shrubs, lawns and typical residential landscaping planted in
the front yards of the existing homes. It is estimated that there are nearly
100 mature evergreen and deciduous trees found in this area. There is no
single dominant species, but a combination of ash, maple, birch, cedar,
spruce, juniper and pine are found. Location of existing trees if shown in
Figure S. Project plans call for the removal of all trees and landscaping
within the proposed 80 -foot wide right-of-way.
The issue of concern in this section is the loss of street trees .iue to the
widening of Ham Lane. The presence of these mature, large trees serve several
functions. They establish a residential character of the neighborhood and a
pleasant visual quality to the street. They also provide shade and enhance a
sense of privacy to existing residences. Wildlife is not an issue in this EIR
because the project is located within an urbanized area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact: Loss of street trees and landscaping.
Approximately 30 mature trees, 20 immature trees and various shrubs and
landscaping would be lost due to project implementation. This would result in
a change in visual and neighborhood quality of the project area, as well as a
loss of shade, with potential increases in summer temperatures to area
residences.
A field survey was conducted as part of this report to determine the number
and type of trees that will be removed. This report is contained in Appendix
A. and identifies the species that will be removed on tach side of Ham Lane
for each block. More major trees will be removed on the east side of Ham Lane
than on the west. Approximately 20 mature trees will be removed on the east
side of Ham Lane compared to about 10 mature trees that will be lost on the
west side. About 20 younger, smaller trees will be removed on the east side
and 32 on the west side. The majority of immature trees and shrubs to be
removed on the west side are those adjacent to the existing nursery. In
addition, approximately 10 feet of lawn and landscaping will be lost as a
result of the roadway widening.
L L
i L
k ,
J,
SUM
i r
r
Z � i
1
t, t, 00 N"W
i
ua "L
1 —
1 3 �
Tree Removal Area
Proposed Project
J
h■ It
z
x t�
a
NOTE: ALL INDICATED
TREES TO BE REMOVED
Figure 5
Mitigations
1. Where feasible, retain existing tree
outside the 75 -foot developed area.
within the developed right-of-way,
accommodate saving the tree. It is
could save approximately 15 treer.
acquisition.
PLANTS AND WILDLIFE 23
s within the 80 -foot right-of-way, but
Where mature trees stand on or just
adjust the sidewalk alignment to
estimated that sidewalk readjustment
This could also entail additional. R/W
2. Replant Ham Lane with the same or similar number and type of species as
those ressoved. In order to maintain the character of the neighborhood as
provided by the existing landscaping, it is suggested that a landscaping
plan be prepared to insure that the number, type, location and spacing of
trees is consistent with current plantings wherever possible.
Appendix A presents a list of recommended tree and shrub species that
could be used for planting. This list will affect the ultimate land-
scaping plan. It is suggested the Raywood or Moraine Ash be substituted
for Modesto Ash, as they are more disease -resistant (Olive, 1984).
ha planting could occur in box planters, but space considerations may limit
the size of trees that can be replanted due to the limited space available
for root growth. It is suggested that large trees (50 to 70 feet tall) be
planted 15 to 20 feet away from a dwelling, and that medium trees (35 to
50 feet tall) be planted 10 to 15 feet away from a dwelling. medium size
trees planted close to the sidewalk could be planted in deep—well
containers to force the roots down. Immature trees and shrubs within the
developed right-of-way should be transplanted within the undeveloped
right-of-way whenever possible.
OR
3. Redesign project according to Alternative B as discussed in the Alterna-
tives section of this report. This would serve to retain most trees on
the east side of the street because the developed roadway would be 56 feet
wide, with a 72 -foot right-of-way.
Innparct- Slight potential for root disturbance of existing trees due to
project construction.
As a result of sidewalk construction, there is a slight potential for root
disturbance to trees th.t are not removed. However, while there may be some
root damage, it does not appear that this will be significant due to the
location and type of trees involved. Typically, 4.5 feet from the sidewalk to
the tree trunk is a safe distance to prevent root damage (Olive, Personal
Communication, 1984). It is estimated that sidewalk construction will cause
excavation to about 12 inches, depending on existing ground elevation.
Mitigation
4. Exercise caution during sidewalk construction to minimize potential root
disturbance whenever possible.
24
Traffic
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ham Lane is one of the major north -south streets serving the City of Lodi.
Has Lane terminates at Turner Road at its north end and at Harney Lane at its
south end. The proposed improvement project would affect a four -block segment
of Ham Lane in the Lodi to Oak block.
This segment is characterized by right-of-ways (R/W) varying from 50 to 65 and
from 65 to 80 f:2et and by developed street widths of 44 to 50 feet. The
street is not entered within the R/W. The narrowest developed width occurs
in the _o walnut block.
Han Lane between Lodi Avenue and Elm Street is currently striped with two
travel lanes. Intersections are marked with crosswalks and are controlled by
stop lights at the Lodi Avenue and Elm Street intersections. The Walnut and
Oak and Pine Street intersections are not signalized. Curbside parking is
allowed on -street along both sides of Ham Lane from Lodi Avenue to Elm Street.
The current on -street parking capacity is approximately 135 spaces.
The current traffic volumes along the project segment range between 12,400 to
14,100 ADT. Peak hour (1:00-9:00 A.M. ; 4:00-6:00 P.M.) volumes are 660-940
and 1,050-1,120. Critical intersection approach movements at Hats/Lodi are 515
vehicles, while peak ho►r movements at Ham/Elm are 650 vehicles. The capacity
of Ham Lane at the critical Ham/Lodi intersection is A. (See Figure 6.)
Based on this data, the levels of service (LOS) at both the Lodi and Elm
Street intersections is LOS A (see Table I for a definition of the various
le -els of service). However, it must be noted that during certain periods of
the day, specificeily when high school gets out at Lodi High, the southbound
approach to the Ran and Lodi intersection experiences periods of congestion.
Cycle failures and blockage of various intersection approach lanes are cotmaon
occurrences. Southbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto Lodi Avenue queue
up and block access to the southbound Ham Lane throughlanes. These occurrences
are short in duration and are difficult to quantify. For this reason, and
because of limitations of analysis methodologies, the calculation of the level
of service for these occurrences was not attempted. Current analysis
methodologies are limited to calculating the LOS for an intersection using
intersectiin approach volumes Summed over a one-hour period. Thus, the peaks
are averaged out during the analysis hour.
Land uses along the Ham Lane corridor consist primarily of residential
development varying from single family to multiple family. There is some
commercial development near Elm Street. Lodi High School, with access to Ham
Lane on the west side of the study section, has a distinct influence on Ham
Lane traffic flows. During the 11:00-3:00 P.M. hours, traffic volumes are
very high in the southbound direction (570 VPH).
Table 2 presents a summary of existing conditions along Ham Lane from Lodi
Avenue to Elm Street.
00
TURNER RD
10,500 9500 0
0
a
N
7000
0
0
LOCKEFORO
ST•
O
�1
O
o.
O
h
TURNER RD
10,500 9500 0
0
a
N
7000
2500
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(1980.1981)
Figure 6
1!
LOCKEFORO
ST•
o.
ELM 000
6500 $
0 0 c 8000 0
6500
�+ VICTOR RD.
•
o
gT,
O "'
"'
O
o 9000
O
0
o
O 2^
No
2500
W,.
h
_
^
M
�O
40
�..
o
�'
=
o
W
J
LOOT
AYE.
^p
`"
J
vol
<
0
5500
10,000
11,500
0 0
0
10,000
o
0
�•
IC
o
40
OKAY
0
o
w
0
�
M
O
w
3
ac
_
<
a5
W
<
o
N
b
2500
VINE
8T.
IL
a
V
3
O
_
Z
0
J
W
W
a
W
m
00
W 0
=
0
0
KETTLEMAN
LANE =
10.000 10.500
0
15,500
15.000
0
0 8500
0
0
O
N
p
O
b
IV
CENTURV
9 D.
0
0
0
0
C1
N
O
O
HARNEY
LANE
O
2500
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(1980.1981)
Figure 6
1!
TRAFFIC 26
Table 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Traffic Flow Characteristics
A Average overall travel speed of 30 mph or more. Free flow ing
with no congestion. No signal cycle failures.
B Average overall travel speed of 25-30 mph. Very few signal
cycle failures and little or no congestion.
C Average overall travel speed of 20-25 mph. Occasional signal
cycle failures and moderate amount of congestion.
D Average overall travel speed of 15-20 mph. Frequent signal
cycle failures and associated congestion.
E Average overall travel speed of about 15 mph. Unstable flow
which includes almost continuous signal cycle failures and
backups on approaches to the intersections. This represents the
theoretical capacity of the facility.
F Forced flow, with average overall travel speed of below 15 mph.
Continuous signal cycle failure with backup on approaches going
through upstream intersections in some cases.
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to properly evaluate the proposed project (and other suggested design
options) future traffic volumes were calculated. The volumes were calculated
in five-year increments (1990-2005) based on minimum and maximum values.
The minimum values are based on historic population and traffic volume growth
for the City of Lodi (1965-1984). The maximum range was calculated using the
historic growth rate in traffic volumes on Nam Lane itself (1965-1984).
Table 3, Future Traffic Projections, presents the results of these
calculations.
Table 2
Summary of Existing Street Conditions
Ham Lane: Lodi to Elm
Physical Conditions
Land Uses
West Side East Side
Single Single
Family Family
Older Homes
Apts. Near
Lodi Avenue
Commercial
(Animal
Hospital and
Nursery)
Near Elm
R.O.W.
(feet) Striping
50 Two Lanes
to
65
to
85
Control Devices
Eight -Phase
Traffic Signal
at Lodi
Four -Phase
Traffic Signal
at Elm
Traffic Conditions
Two -Way
Level
On -Street
Volume
of
Parking
(ADT +
Service
Spaces
Parking
VPN) Capacities
(LOS)
(Approx.)
On -Street
12,400
Lodi at
62 West
Parking
AH 660
Ram
73 East
Permitted
PM 1,050
LOS A
(Parallel
Near Elm
Elm at
Curbside)
Ham
14,100
LOS A
AM 940
PM 1,120
Near Lodi
TRAFFIC
Table 3
Future Traffic Projections Has Lane
1
I
--I
1990 ____"I
__`-1995
2000
'
2005
'1984
One
One
__`_')
One
One
`__)
One
PM
Way
PM
Way
PM
Way
PM
Way
PH
Way
Segment
ADT Peak
Peak
ADT Peak
Peak
ADT Peak
Peak
ADT Peak
Peak
ADT Peak
Peak
M i n i Baum
Alternative
Lodi to Pine
14,100 1,120
580
15,200 1,220
620
16,500 1,320
670
17,900 1,430
730
19,400 1,550
790
Pine to Elm
12,400 1,050
570
13,500 1,150
610
14,600 1,240
660
15,900 1,350
720
18,400 1,560
830
Maximum
Alternative
Lodi to Pine 14,100 1,120 580 17,100 1,360 710 19,100 1,520 790 21,100 1,760 910 23,100 1,920 990
Pine to Elm 12,400 1,050 570 14,100 1,200 650 15,700 1,330 720 17,400 1,480 800 19,100 1,620 870
Note: Medium Alternative: City Wide Growth Rate 1.7% per Year
High Alternative: Lodi to Pine Growth Rate (Historic)
Pine to Elm Growth Rate (Historic)
TRAFFIC 29
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Impect: Decrease in existing and long-range traffic congestion.
Construction of the project as proposed would result in a decrease in existing
traffic congestion. In addition, future traffic volumes into the foreseeable
future (2005+) would be accommodated by the project. The current irregular-
ities in street width would be eliminated, unsafe intersections would be
improved and levels of service would remain high throughout the project life.
Mitigation
5. None required.
Impact: Decrease in pedestrian safety.
Due to an estimated increase in traffic speeds, higher volumes and greater
distances to cross, pedestrians will have to wait longer for adequate gaps in
traffic to make a safe crossing. School children and senior citizens are the
most affected pedestrians. Area residents have indicated that simple
crosswalk controls do not appear to facilitate street crossings.
Mitigation
6. Additional pedestrian safety devices may be needed which would include
additional crosswalks, roadway warning signs, traffic guards and if
necessary, traffic or pedestrian signals.
Impact: Potential delays to cross traffic.
Because of higher traffic volumes and more lanes to negotiate, cars on the
side streets may have to wait longer to find a safe gap in traffic, thus
causing more delay on these intersecting streets.
Mitigation
7. Traffic signals will be installed as traffic signal warrants are met.
This would give the right-of-way to the vehicles on the side streets so
they could make the desired traffic movements.
Impact: Potential for increased vehicle speeds.
Because drivers may perceive the road to be safer to drive at higher speeds,
overall vehicle speeds may increase.
TRAFFIC 30
Mitigation
8. Speed limit signs, with strict enforzement by the local police, can help
to reduce speeds. However, even these measures may not be entirely
successful.
Impact: Decreased on -street parking.
The improvement of the intersections will result in the loss of some on -street
parking. Thi+ will inconvenience residents living adjacent to the restricted
area and create increased demand for adjacent spaces.
Mitigation
9. Provide all future developments have adequate off-street parking.
31
Noise
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Tha_ primary source of noise in the project area is traffic noise, both on Ham
Lane and on major cross streets such as Lodi Avenue and Elm Street. Traffic
noise along this stretch of roadway is of several types: noise levels
resulting from passenger vehicles traveling at -moderate speeds during peak
hours; noise levels resulting from passenger vehicles traveling at reduced
speeds during peak hours; passenger vehicles traveling at excessive speeds
during any hour; and heavy trucks, motorcycles, buses and/or vehicles with
faulty muffler systems traveling at moderate speeds during any hour. Otb er
sources of noise in the area (overflying aircraft, barking dogs and similar
urban disturbances) are present but do not contribute significantly to overall
noise levels.
Background noise levels (i.e., noise levels generated by all the City
activities throughout the area) are not high in this area. In other words,
without the vehicular traffic along Ham Lane there are no adjacent noise
sources of a constant level such as factories, industrial activities, pro-
cessing, etc. The Southern Pacific railroad tracks and Route 99 traffic do
contribute to background noise levels and are noticeable in the absence of
noise from nearby sources (see Appendix C).
Ambient Noise Levels
The traffic noise level at a given location is a combination of many factors,
including the traffic volume, the noise level of each vehicle, vehicle speed,
and the distance to the road. As most urban dwellers are aware, the traffic
noise level near a busy street varies over a wide range. To indicate easily
the overall noise level, single number descriptors are usually used. The most
common descriptor for a short period is the hourly L , which indicates the
energy average of the varying noise level, and has been shown to be a good
indicator of people's perceptions of noise level. Over a longer period, the
Ldd descriptor is used, which is the long-term average of Leq, with 10 dB
Aged to the noise 11.vel for the nighttime period.
With basic information about local traffic, the roadside noise level can be
modeled (computed) fairly accurately using equations that have been developed
from field tests. The standard Highway Research Board traffic noise model,
revised after extensive field measurements, has been used for this study.
Roadside noise levels are estimated in Table 4 for existing traffic on Ham
Lane, at 40 feet from the center of the street (approximately the middle of
the average yard).
Peak passby noise levels on Ham Lane for passenger vehicles traveling at
moderate speeds are approximately 60 to 70 dBA at a distance of 25 feet.
Heavy trucks, motorcycles, buses and vehicles with faulty mufflers prod -ace
peak passby noise levels of 70 to 90 dBA at twenty-five feet. (See Figure 7.)
Noise Levels
Off i
4w"Oi
o /0 ad I
I
Figure 7
I
SAM
�MOOK
c
�
TYPICAL SECTION 1
FUTURE NODE LEVELS
WITHOUT THE PROJECT
s5 GIv
%!7C/v
7C�[ii
t
f
istl�,7
Jo?'
{ ,tt'
Jew
a!'
riKA
~�'K
sw�.M taut
1 /M/fKM�
*v"..qpt_
�.►�
t.u�.i
1�M1[ c.M�
swlw'►.ai
!bOsf
�tX w'p
TYPICAL SECTION 2
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
WITH THE PROJECT
� taN
490
I
.�rit.x
A6'
"'rw�1C t.4.I
�sAw�t
n�.11L c��e
aiO1
>r�v
TYPICAL SECTION 3
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
YWTH THE PROJECT
AT UAJOR INTERSECTIONS
Noise Levels
Off i
4w"Oi
o /0 ad I
I
Figure 7
NOISE 33
Table 4
Present Ham Lane Noise Levels (dBA)
L
eq
Location Peak Hour Noon 1:00 A.M. Ldn
Front Yards 71 70 58 72
These noise levels are based upon an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of
12,500 and a peak hour volume of 1,050 trips. The noise levels during periods
other than the peak hour, and the L , are based upon typical hourly varia-
tions of urban traffic throughout a cRormal day. Because of the relatively
small front yards and the reflection of noise from the houses, the noise
levels are not substantially different at the houses than at the sidewalk (1-2
dBA less).
The City of Lodi has adopted the San :oaquin County Noise Element (Reference
5), which recommends compatible uses for various noise levels. The suggested
Ldn noise levels for residential land uses are outlined in Table 5.
Table 5
Recommended Noise Levels for Residential Use
Land Use Category
Normally Acceptable
Conditionally Acceptable
Normally Unacceptable
Clearly Unacceptable
Ldn Range
Less than 60 dBA
55 to 70
70 to 75
Above 75
The guidelines are intended to assist in decisions about new residential con-
struction, but they are useful in evaluating existing uses also. In teras of
Noise Element guidelines, present noise levels adjacent to Ham Lane already
exceed recommendations (see Appendix C).
Sensitive Receptors
The majority of properties adjacent to Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue and Elm
Street are residential. Most of the residences are single family but there
are also several duplexes and apartments. Commercial uses are located at Ham
Lane and Elm Street and the Zion Reformed Church is located between Oak and
Walnut Streets.
NOISE 34
At a meeting on August 23, 1984, residents in the area indicated that
vehicular noise levels along the street are already causing disturbances and
irritation. Vibration, peak hour volumes and high school traffic were all
cited as irritants. M indicated above, suggested standards for resid4antial
uses are already being exceeded.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Impact: Increase in vehicular noise.
In order to quantify future noise levels resulting from the proposed project,
the projected maximum traffic generation figures for four future dates and
three possible options were used. The future vehicle speeds were projected t•a
further refine the future noise potentials. Then the information was fed into
a computer model which projected future noise levels 40 feet froln the
centerline (approximately the middle of the current average yard) for the
alternatives. The results of this modeling are shown below:
Table 6
Projected Noise Levels W BA)
Standard* Reason
Vehicle Speed Acceptable Unacceptable for
Case Peak Other Le 4 Ldn Range Range Increase
1995--4 lane
Increased
2 parking
30
35
73
74
60-70
70+
Volumes
2005--4 lane
Increased
2 parking
30
35
74
76
60-70
10+
Volumes
2005--4 lane
Increased
1 turn
30
35
76
77
60-70
70+
Volumes
2005--2 lane
20
25
69
71
60-70
70+
Increased
(existing)
Congestion
*for residential
uses,
using Ldn
measurement.
NOISE 35
Table 6 demonstrates the relative effects of traffic volume, average vehicle
speed and distance from the source on the noise level, when compared to
present noise levels. The cases modeled do not include all possible combina-
tions of volumes and lane configurations. However, the cases which have the
highest noise potential are included. If the high-growth traffic projections
do not occur, lower noise levels would be generated. (See Appendix C.)
It should also be noted that receptors not on Ham Lane, behind those directly
facing the project, are exposed to 14-18 dBA less noise because of the com-
bination of greater distance and the partial shielding provided by the
buildings. The changes in project traffic noise for other receptor locations
would be approximately the same as for those lc•cated on Ham Lane. However,
Ham Lane traffic is not a dominant source of noise for receptors on other
streets.
Two aspects are important when considering potential noise impacts of a
project: the increase in noise level due to the project, and the proJe�'.
noise level itself.
From Table 6, traffic noise along Ham Lane could increase 3 to 5 dBA in the
next 20 years with project implementation. In general, noise increases of 2
dBA or less usuually are not noticeable, unless the character of the noise is
also changed significantly. Noise increases of 3 to 5 dBA ae definits-ly
noticeable, and are potentially disturbing. The character of the noise is
again important in the amount of disturbance caused. In the Ham Lane case, a
5 dBA increase in steady traffic noise over 20 years might not cause problems
(it is typical in many urban locations). However, an increase in individual
loud vehicles could cause considerable disturbance.
To evaluate the potential impact because of the overall noise level, land use
planning guidelines for noise are used. As previously indicatd, the City -
adopted noise standards are currently exceeded. Implementation of the project
would increase those levels 2 to 5 dBA. In addition, acceptable interior
noise levels should be less than 45 dBA L due to exterior sources. This
requirement is contained in State Title All -Section 1092, Noise Insulation
Standards, which apply to any new multi -family residential construction.
Standard residential building design and construction methods generally reduce
outdoor noise by 20 to 25 dBA, with windows closed and no significant cracks
or openings around windows or doors. With the best residential construction
methods, and traffic noise levels of 70 dBA, Ham Lane interior noise levels
would meet 45 dBA (L ) indoor standards. However, if windows are opened,
interior noise levelsdwill be only 10 to 15 dBA less than outdoors.
Mitigations
10. Construction of a low masonry barrier (2 to 2.5 feet high) along the front
of residential properties was evaluated. However, the resulting 1-2 dBA
reduction in noise levels would not be perceived as noticeable reduction.
NOISE 36
To achieve a 45 dBA interior noise environment, windows should be sealed,
and forced ventilation provided. To deal with noise levels higher than
70 dBA, other improvements to the structures could be needed.
11. Although often undesirable for traffic engineering reasons, reducing
average speeds on Ham Lane would reduce noise levels effectively.
12. Reduce local traffic volumes by improving desirability of alternatives to
the automobile, such as car pools, bicycles and public transit.
13. Enforce California Vehicle Code prohibitions against faulty or modified
loud exhaust systems --Sections 27150 and 27151. This can be implemented
by local law officers without noise monitoring equipment to eliminate the
worst offenders.
14. Implement an alternative which reduces the distance between affected
properties and the travel lanes.
Impact: Temporary increase in construction noise.
The residential properties along Ham Lane would be the primary receptors for
the temporary construction noise. For a period of four to eight weeks,
sporadic noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA would be experienced. Although
construction equipment would be idling part of the time, and would be
producing maximum noise levels infrequently, intermittent construction noise
disturbance is likely on all adjacent properties.
The initial site preparation phases would bring various types of demolition
and excavation machines to the site, such as bulldozers, backhoes and large
dump trucks. These generally have diesel engines and produce 80 to 90 dBA at
a distance of 50 feet under full load. Jackhammers would be utilized for
concrete and backtop removal which generate 85 to 90 dBA noise levels at 50
feet.
Second phase activities require similar equipment and produce similar noise
levels. After removal of the existing road surface, curbs and sidewalks, the
suface would be graded. Trucks would bring in the base materials to graded
and rolled. Blacktop trucks and concrete mixing trucks bring the top surface
materials. Final surface preparation by large rollers produces noise levels
of 85 to 95 dBA at 50 feet.
Mitigations
15. Choose construction equipment which is of quiet design, has a high
quality muffler system and is well maintained.
16. Install superior mufflers and engine enclosure panels when required on
gas, diesel or pneumatic impact machines.
17. Restrict hours of use for motorized equipment --for example, 7:30 A.M. to
5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
UISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Climate
37
Air Qualify
The Mediterranean type climate of the San Joaquin Valley is characterized by
mild and rainy winters and hot and nearly dry summers. There is a high
percentage of sunshine. Appendix D presents details on local climate.
Ambient Air Ouslit
The air quality of a given area is not only dependent upon the amount of air
pollutants emitted locally or within the air basin, but also is directly
related to the weather patterns of the region. The wind speed and direction,
the temperature profile of the atmosphere and the amount of humidity and
sunlight determine the fate of the emitted pollutants each day, and determine
the resulting concentrations of air pollutants defining the "air quality."
Air quality in Lodi and the San Joaquin Valley is subject to the problems
experienced by many areas of California. Emissions from millions of vehicle -
miles of travel each day often are not mixed and diluuted but are trapped near
ground level by a temperature inversion. Pollutant concentrations are a
result of local emissions in Lodi and also the transport of pollutants from
other areas such as Stockton, Sacramento and even the Bay Area (with westerly
winds). These sources produce concentrations which sometimes exceed ambient
air quality limits established by the state Air Resources Board. Recent air
quality data from the nearest ARB monitoring stations, Ham Lane in Lodi and
Hazelton Street in Stockton, are tabulated in Table 7.
Ozone, the primary oxidant "smog" component, is produced by complex reactions
of hydrocarbons and NO in the atmosphere. Both vehicles and the use of
organic chemicals produce emissions which drive the chemcial reaction. Daily
ozone concentrations are heavily dependent upon the weather and atmospheric
stability, and thus vary substantially from year to year. Adverse atmospheric
conditions in 1980 produced 78 exceedances of the 10 ppm hourly standard in
Lodi, and over two dozen ozone exceedances were still recorded in 1981 and
1982.
Carbon monoxide, like oxidant, is also heavily dependent upon both vehicle
emissions and weather. However, no exceedances of either the 9 ppm 8 -hour
ambient standard or the 20 ppm 1 -hour standard have been recorded recently in
Lodi. Both oxidant and CG have been reducea significantly by improved
emission controls on new automobiles in the past decade.
AIR QUALITY 38
Nitrogen Dioxide (2)
M ax imam
13
Table
7
25
p phm , 1 -hr ave
Exceedances
0
Ambient Air
Quality
1
days per year
Sulfur Dioxide (2)
San Joaquin
County
Pollutant
1980
1981
1982
Standard
Measured Units
Ozone (1)
0
0
2
% of days per
Maximum
14
13
13
10
pphm, 1 -hr ave
Exceedances
78
26
28
1
days per year
Carbon Monoxide (1)
Maximum hour
10
9
12
20
ppm, 1 -hr ave
Maximum 8 -hour
5
4
7
9
ppm, 8 -hr ave
Exceedances 8 -hour
0
0
0
1
days per year
above 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (2)
M ax imam
13
14
19
25
p phm , 1 -hr ave
Exceedances
0
0
0
1
days per year
Sulfur Dioxide (2)
Maximum
4
3
3
5
pphm, 24 -hr ave
Exceedances
0
0
2
% of days per
year
Total Suspended
Particulates (2)
Annual Geom. Mean
85
79
66
60
ug/m3 ave
Daily Exceedances
34
22
20
2
% of day,l above
100 ug/o
Source: California Air Resources Board monitoring data for:
(1) Ham lane station in Lodi
(2) Hazelton Street station in Stockton
Total suspended particulates are produced by vehicles, heavy industry and
soil -moving activities such as construction and farming. In Stockton, ten
miles south of the project area, the annual average (annIal geometric mean)
TSP concentration has been consistently above the 60 ug/m ambient standard.
The daily average standard of 100 ug/m was also exceeded on over 34% of the
days tested din 1980 and over 20% of the days in both 1981 and 1982.
Sulfur dioxide is primarily associated with chemical and refining industries
and is not a problem in San Joaquin County. The superior controls required on
chemical process plants are largely responsible for this achievement. Nitro-
gen oxides are heavily produced by vehicles and high-temperature industrial
operations, but as yet have not produced serious concentrations in the region
(Shelley, 1984).
AIR QUALITY 39
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Inpact: Incremental decrease in local emission concentrations as a result of
project implementation.
Because the intent of the project is to improve the flow of traffic on Ham
Lane by providing more lane capacity, air quality emissions and impacts would
be lower on Ham Lane and on neighboring streets as higher average speeds are
achieved through less congested traffic flow. However, lower emissions per
vehicle would be offset somewhat by anticipated increases in vehicle volumes
in future years. The project will not generate additional new trips system-
wide, but only will accommodate future projected traffic volumes.
Vehicles are responsible for the emission of a number of pollutants --
hydrocarbons, particulates, NO and others. The most widely -used indication
of vehicular emissions impact xis to model concentrations of carbon monoxide
(CO) at nearby sensitive receptor locations. Roadside CO concentrations are
directly related to the number of vehicle trips on nearby streets and to the
average vehicle emission rate. However, average emissions decrease as average
speed increases. The actual concentrations at the receptors are determined by
the speed and direction of the wind and the temperature layers in the lower
atmosphere. Atmospheric conditions control the mixing, diffusion and trans-
port of the pollutants after they are emitted.
Roadside CO concentrations were modeled for two no project and two project
case studies, based upon different lane configurations and traffic volumes.
(See Appendix D for model details.) Table 8 presents the various traffic
volumes and resulting changes in roadside CO concentrations. Average Ham Lane
speeds are estimated to be 30 mph during peak hour and 35 mph at other time
for the various project years. The "no project" option would be seriously
congested and speeds are estimated to be 20 mph at peak hour and 25 mph at
other times.
The concentrations listed in Table 8 are based only upon vehicles on Ham Lane.
The total CO concentration would include a variable background concentration
of from 1 to 5 ppm from other vehicular emissions and sources in the area_
The modeled concentrations show the effects of the gradual increase of traffic
volumes assuming no project (1985), and the proposed project (1995, 2005)_ No
project (2005) concentrations are caused by congestion and low speeds with
only two traffic lanes. Neither the state 20 ppm peak -hour standard not, the 9
ppm 8 -hour standard are threatened by the Ham Lane traffic in any case. The
project would be expected to reduce slightly local CO concentrations relative
to a two-lane road.
Another way to evaluate the potential
estimate the overall change in vehicu
The total emissions produced by a group
trips, the trip length and the average
and trip length are not changed by the
impact of the proposed project is to
lar emissions produced by the project.
of vehicles depends upon the number of
speed. Since the total number of trips
Ham Len project, the average speed is
AIR QUALITY 40
Table 8
Ham Lane Project
CO Concentrations
Case Year Traffic Volumes Peak Hour CO High 8 -Hour CO
1. No Project
Two Lanes 1985 12,500 ADT 1.1 0.3
2. Project
Four Lanes 1995 20,300 ADT 1.3 0.4
3. Project
Four Lanes 2005 25,300 ADT* 1.6 0.5
4. No Project
Two Lanes 2005 25,300 ADT* 2.0 1.0
Source: Stan Shelley, 1984
the only variable which affects total emissions. Based upon an estimated
higher average speed (35 mph vs. 25 mph) with project implementation, total
estimated emissions on Ham Lane would change as follows:
co 28%
NMHC 19%
NO +7Z
Part No Change
Particulate emissions are not related to speed and that as speed increases,
oxides of nitrogen are slightly increased, which is opposite to CO and
non -methane hydrocarbons. The CO pollutant is the most sensitive to speed and
therefore would benefit the most from the reduced congestion offered by the
four lanes.
Mitigation
18. None required as the project appears to have a net benefit to local air
quality. Increasing average vehicle speed by increasing the number of
traffic lanes on congested routes is itself an sir quality mitigation
measure recommended on some types of projects to offset increasing trip
volumes.
* These figures were calculated from a preliminary "worst case" analysis which
was later modified downwards to 23,100.
AIR QUALITY 41
Impact: Temporary decrease in local air quality due to generation of dyst
during project construction.
During the grading and construction phase, dust may be produced, particularly
during the dry months of the year. However, this impact is temporary and will
be limited to the time of construction.
Mitigation
19. Minimise generation of dust and particulates through standard sprinkling/
watering applications on dusty working areas at least once a day.
42
Land Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land uses within the project area consist of a mix of predominantly residen-
tial and some commercial. Forty-eight single family homes, a 26 -unit apart-
ment building and two duplexes front Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue and Elm
Street. A church, nursery and veterinary hospital are the only non-
residential uses abutting the street within this area. The applicable zoning
establishes a 20 -foot setback for all uses in the project area. The project
area is characterized by older, well maintained homes and landscaping. The
larger, older trees provide shade and create a pleasant visual quality
associated with tree -lined streets.
Land uses along Ham Lane north and south of the project area are also a
combination of residential and commercial uses. The area along Ham Lane north
of Elm Street is primarily low density residential, except for a commercial
section at Ham Lane and Lockeford Street, where stores, restaurants and gas
stations are located. South of Lodi Avenue there is a mix of residential and
office uses. A medical complex is currently under construction on the
southwest corner of Ham Lane and Lodi Avenue. Lodi Avenue High School
is located west of Ham Lane between Lodi Avenue and Elm Street.
The City's General Plan guides' future land uses in the project area and
vicinity. The area basically has developed according to the General Plan
designations for the area which are shown on Figure 8. The surrounding area
is predominantly developed and the last major vacant parcel is currently being
developed along Ham Lane south of Lodi Avenue (Morimoto, Personal Communica-
tion, 1984). There is also room for Lakewood Shopping Center to expand
westward on Elm Street. The proposed Ham Lane Improvement Project is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
WACTS AND MITIGATIONS
fact: Change in the perceived neighborhood character.
Because the proposed project is consis .t with the City's General Plan, and
the project area and immediate vicin.ty are basically developed, no new
development or population shifts will be generated as a result of this
project. Development patterns to the north and south of the project area are
well established, also in accordance with City plans. Therefore, the issue of
concern is how the 4 -block neighborhood character will be changed as a result
of the project.
Street widening -dill result in the loss of trees and lanscaping which would
serve to reduce shade and alter the visual character of the project neighbor-
hood. Front yards would be reduced to an average depth of about 14 feet (CHZM
Hill, 1978). The average distance from homes to the parking lane would be
reduced by one to ten feet. As a result, project area residents probably
would be more aware of street traffic and feel a loss of privacy, as their
LOOI UNION
NEON SCHOOL
EDE
• • • • • pw
�• SSSS• "', •�• l(--'-
PUBLIC
COMMERCIAL
11 I i i 11
LOW RESIDENTIAL
• .. • ..
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
W.
.•. :
HIGH RESIDENTIAL
EDE
• • • • • pw
�• SSSS• "', •�• l(--'-
LAND USE 44
homes would be closer to the street. In addition, there may be future
difficulties with resident access to their homes as traffic increases, and
other potential traffic hazard concerns.
Mitigation
20. Replant street trees and shrubs compatible and/or identical with those
removed, as outlined in Mitigation Measures ail through #3.
21. Provide crosswalks and traffic signals or stop signs to minimize
potential traffic safety hazards.
22. Insure that proper visibility from resident driveways is maintained when
street trees are replanted.
23. Consider installation of automatic garage door openers where necessary to
provide safe access.
24. The reduction of speeds along Ham Lane, coupled with the installation of
double pane nonopening windows and other structural modifications as out-
lined in Mitigations #10 through #14, will serve to partially reduce noise
impacts to residents.
25. Consider provision of four -feet high fence or lattice to provide a sense
of resident privacy. This could require variances for both height and set-
back depending on the location.
45
Construction Related Impacts
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed road construction will occur in two phases. First, the existing
curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be removed from each side of the street and
the new facilities will be installed. It is estimated that it will take two
to four weeks per block for this removal and ceplacement, during which time
the street will remain open. The second phase consists of repaving and
restriping the entire four -block section of Ham Lane. This will take approxi-
mately three to four weeks to complete, during which time the street will be
closed to through traffic, but homeowners will be granted access. Typical
equipment to be used include backhoes, scrapers, graders, compacters, pavers,
miscellaneous trucks (gravel, concrete, asphalt), and jackhammers. Water
trucks will water unpaved sections as the work progresses. Hours of construc-
tion will be scheduled generally between 7:00 A.M. and 4 P.M. weekdays.
Construction -related impacts resulting from the proposed project will he of
five general categories: traffic disruption and congestion and parking loss,
noise generation, degradation of local air quality, disruption of area
businesses, and potential disruption of subsurface utilities. The Traffic,
Noise and Air Quality sections of this report describe existing conditions
related to these concerns. There are three non-residential uses in the
project subject to potential business disruption: a nursery, a veterinary
hospital, and a church. Subsurface utilities include water and sewer lines
and are located within the street.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Impact: Local traffic disruption and loss of parking.
Although the project section of Ham Lane will be closed for 3 to 4 weeks
during construction, detouring can alleviate traffic congestion along Ham
Lane. However, minor inconveniences will be be experienced by local residents
during this period. The street will be open to residents, even when closed to
through traffic. However, there will be a temporary loss of driveway access
for 1 to 3 days during reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. During
construction, a temporary loss of street parking will also result.
Detouring local traffic during con. truction will create minor inconveniences
for neighboring streets, which -ill experience a temporary increase in
traffic. Emergency access for fire, police and ambulance services also will
be disrupted during the construction period.
CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS 46
Mitigation
26. Plan detour routes for minimal disruption surrounding neighborhoods.
27. Notify emergency services (fire, police, ambulance) of street closure and
detour routes in advance of construction.
28. Plan construction around peak traffic times if possible, and complete
construction in as timely a manner as possible.
Impact: Temporary i -crease in vicinity noise levels due to construction.
See discussion in Noise section of this report.
Mitigation
29. Follow Mitigation Measures #15 through #17.
Impact: Temporary localized degradation of air quality due to increased
generation of dust.
See discussion in Air Quality section of this report.
30. Follow Mitigation Measure #19.
Impact: Temporary disruptior. of area businesses..
There are three non-residential uses in the project area: a nursery, a
veterinary hospital, and a church. The church shouldn't be impacted as much
as the other two uses because construction activities will not be occurring
during times of typical church activities. However, temporary disruption to
the other two businesses will occur as a result of loss of parking and
restricted access. The approximate length of time during which the businesses
may be affected will be t to 3 days during sidewalk reconstruction and 3 to 4
weeks during street reconstruction.
Mitigation
31. Schedule construction to be completed as soon as possible in front of
area businesses.
Impact: Potential disruption of subsurface utilities.
Mitigation
32. Contact appropriate utilities to determine location and depth of under-
ground lines, and plan construction so as to avoid these utilities.
Environmental Evaluations
47
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
For the purposes of this section, unavoidable adverse impacts are those
effects of the project which would affect either natural systems or other
community resources. The degree of significance was determined by this
conaultant following completion of project evaluation. The following list
includes only the identified significant, adverse impacts of the project.
Significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance
include:
-- Increase in vehicular noise.
Significant impacts of the project which cannot be alleviated or reduced in
significance without a substantial change in project design include:
Increaue in %ehicular noise.
Potentially significant impacts which can be minimized or eliminated if
mitigations outlined in this report are followed include:
-- Loss of street trees and landscaping.
-- Change in neighborhood character.
-- Temporary increase in"construction-related noise.
It should be noted that the loss of street trees and change in neighborhood
character will be an unavoidable aspect of the project. The implementation of
recommended revegetation plans will result in a long-term mitigation (10 to 30
years) but will not provide any short-term mitigation.
48
Growth inducement
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CEQA requires that any growth -inducing aspect of a project be discussed in. an
EIR. This discussion shoul3 include consideration of ways in which the
project couuld direcly or indirectly foster economic or popu'ation growth in a
Surrounding area. Projects which could remove obstacles to population growth
(such as a major public service expansion) must also be considered in this
discussion. According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area
is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the
environment.
Because the project does not provide any new access routes or opportunities is
is not directly growth inducing. No new areas will be served by the improved
section and no areas would be allowed to develop which are not already
developed. The project is consistent with area plans and po'.icies and will
serve to enhance access patterns rather than create new ones. Although trips
may be attracted to this route which do not currently occv.r, this is not
growth inducing for a larger area.
49
Project Alternatives
This section evaluates alternatives to the proposed Ham Lane Improvement
Project as required by CEQA. The discussion describes a number of alterna-
tives (including the required "no project" alternative) which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project, as well as eliminate or reduce: in
significance those impacts identified in this report. Any additional impacts
arising from the alternatives themselves are generally outlined and discussed.
The City of Lodi has identified several alternatives to the proposed project.
These alternatives, identified below, represent the primary design options
open to the City for alleviating congestion on Ham Lane. The consultant has
not identified any options beyond those presented by the City, as our
evaluation indicated that these options did, in fact, constitute the most
feasible and realistic alternatives to the proposed project. Figures 9-1 and
9-2 show traffic projections and Figgures 10-12 illustrate alternative
configurations. All figures are at the end of this section.
Alternative A: 72' right-of-way (R/W) with 56' developed width (primary
construction and R/W acquisition on east side).
This alternative would result in the construction of a 56' street within a 70'
R/W. The street would begin from the existing sidewalk on the west side of
the street and extend +56' toward the east. Thus, the bulk of R/W acquisition
and construction would occur on the east side of Ham 'ane. This option also
has two possible stripings or lane configurations: 1) four travel lanes with
no on -street parking, or 2) two travel lanes, center turn lane and on -street
parking.
Alternative B: 72' right-of-way (R/W) with 56' developed width (primary
construction and R/W acquisition on west side).
This alternative and its .-toe options are exactly as those discussed above,
except that the developed width would be measured from the existing sidewalk
on the .past side of the street and extend +56' toward the west. Except in the
two blocks south of Oak on the east side where approximately seven feet: of
widening would be required. Thus the bulk of R/W acquisition and construction
would occur on the west side of the street.
Alternative C: Improve roadway within existing curb and R/W (except between
Lodi and Walnut).
This is essentially a "No Project" alternative. This alternative would result
in widening of the west side between Lodi and Walnut only with reconstructio-
of the rest of the street within the existing curbs.
ALTERNATIVES 50
DISCUSSION
Table 9 presents the various LOS for the three traffic ranges for the year
2005.
Table 9
Projected Year 2005 Roadway Levels of Service
Year 2005 Traffic Projections
Roadway Cross- Minimum Range Maximum Range
Section Alternative Roadway LOS Roadway LOS
LODI TO PINE
Alternative A b B
A C
56' 3 -Lane Section
Alternative A 6 B
A A
56' 4 -Lane Section*
Alternative C
A D
Existing Section
Proposed Project
A A
64' 4 -Lane Section
P I NE TO E LM
Alternative A 6 B
A B
56' 3 -Lane Section
Alternative A b B
A A
56' 4 -Lane Section*
Alternative C
B C
Existing Section
Proposed Project
A A
64' 4 -Lane Section
All four cross section/lane configurations options zan accommodate the
projected traffic volumes at a LOS B through the year 2005. However, if
maximum traffic growth occurs the Alternative C and Alternatives A and B (with
the two travel lanes, one center lane and parking lane configuration) will
experience reduced LOS by the year 2005.
* No parking.
ALTERNATIVES 51
Implementation of Alternative B, with primary R/W acquisition and street
development on the west side would result in the retention of a significant
number of street trees when compared to the proposed project and Alternative
A.
Thus, the following statements can be made about the implementation of the
various alternatives:
implementation of Alternative A would:
-- Primarily impact the residents along the east side of Ham Lane.
Result in the loss of +20 mature street trees:
-- Provide LOS B to the year 2005 if striped for four lanes/no parking and
LOS C to B if striped for two travel lanes, one center turn lane and on -
street parking.
-- Minimize disruption of the entire 4 -block long cor:idor.
Implementation of Alternative B would:
-- Primarily impact the residents along the west side of Ham Lane.
-- Result in the loss of +8 mature street trees.
-- Provide LOS A to the year 2005 if striped for four lanes/no parking and
year 2005 LOS C to B if striped for two travel lanes, one center turn lane
and on -street parking.
-- Minimize disruption of the entire 4 -block long corridor.
Implementation of Alternative C would:
Provide low LOS (D) by the year 2005.
Primarily impact the residents between Lodi and Pine.
-- Result in the loss of 6 mature street trees.
-- Result in the improvement of the Lodi/Ham Lane intersection.
-- Minimize disruption of the entire 4 -block long corridor.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR PROJECT
The environmentally superior project for the Ham Lane Improvement Project
appears to be Alternative B with the two travel lanes, one center turn lane
and on -street parking stiping option. However, this statement is made with
the knowledge that selection of this project would result in the potential for
the city to have to accept a lower LOS on the street by the year 2005,
restripe the street to preclude on -street parking near that year, or rebuild a
larger project at that time. So, although Alternative B is clearly environ-
mentally superior in that fewer trees are affected, fewer residents are
directly impacted and the character of the street is retained, this option
could raise potential conflicts with adopted City policy concerning levels of
service and expense of reconstruction again at some future date. Therefore,
the environmental facts will need to be weighed against the practical and
policy issues.
1500
1250
••e,
W
� Z
Q_j 0 750
S ~
V
W
= W
Y = Soo
a �
w
a
250
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
TIME (YEARS)
Traffic Projections and Street Capacities
Lodi to Pine
#rA
143E
Figure 9-1
o�
1500
PROPOSED PROJECT
_ ALT. A S 8 4 LANES NO PARK)NQ _
1250
•0s
250 i-
1
ALT. AAS 3 LANES
MIQ:'1 RANGE
_ NO PROJECT LOW RANt3E
C� RANGE OF PROJECTIONS
TRAFFIC PROJECTION
------ STREET CAPACITY(LOS 8)
1975 1980 1983 1990 1995 2000 2005
TIME (YEARS)
Traffic Projects and Street Capacities
Pine to Sm
Figure 9-Q
Hari lane Project Alternative A
Primary Impact 'East Side
LEGEND
EX.STING SiOEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
lags EXISTING RIGHT GF WAY
RiGMT OF WAY TO BE
IL ACQUIRED (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Figure 10.1
Z
.I,�'•
c '' I
Q
I
i
mow
,•
j
SG'G —G
.;
Hari lane Project Alternative A
Primary Impact 'East Side
LEGEND
EX.STING SiOEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
lags EXISTING RIGHT GF WAY
RiGMT OF WAY TO BE
IL ACQUIRED (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Figure 10.1
I
min
WALNUT STREET
Haan Lane Project Alternative A
Figure 10-2
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
'-.•••.••
.. �...
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIREO (ROW)
G -C
CURB TO CURB
Figure 10-2
O
5we-L
OAK STREET
Ham Lane Project Alternative A
Figure 10-3
LEGEND
ExiSTItiG SIOEVV
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACQUIRED (ROW)
C -C
CURB TO CURB
Figure 10-3
i
i
i
i
PINE STREET
/—Oww._
pomp
LA09MD
EXISTING SIOEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
�~ EXISTING RIGHT Of WAY
RIGHT OE WAY TO Of
ACOUIREO (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CUF113
Ham Lane Project Alternative A
figure 10-4
G'4 'G -r—
r-41
G
5G' C -G —
ELM STREET
Ham Lane Project Alternative A
r --
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
s� EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACQUIRED (ROW)
GC CURB TO CURB
Figure 14-5
Ham Lane Project Alternative B
Primary Impact West Sloe
1091 AVE11UE
IAMM
f.Xl3Tlt4G SIOEWAIK
PROPOSED SIOEWAIK
r EXISTING RIGHT Of WAY
�•� RIGHT Of WAY TO BE
ACOUIREO (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Figure 11-1
L_
L
ROw
'•
ROW
r� •
Ham Lane Project Alternative B
Primary Impact West Sloe
1091 AVE11UE
IAMM
f.Xl3Tlt4G SIOEWAIK
PROPOSED SIOEWAIK
r EXISTING RIGHT Of WAY
�•� RIGHT Of WAY TO BE
ACOUIREO (ROW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Figure 11-1
WALNUT STREET
Ham Lane Project Alternative B
LEGEND
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSEO SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIREO (NOW)
C -C CUAS TO CURB
_cJ-
. r
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
.j
OAK STREET
•
•
r �
KP
r
� f•
•
•
•
•• Yr
• LIGINO
EXISTING SIDEWALK
.Ir PROPOSED SIDEWALK
.j • EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
•
•� '' RfG JT OF WAY TO BE
• �• �'�.' ACOUIREO (ROW)
•1 J
•
C -C CURB TO CURS
Ham Lane Project Alternative B
Figure 11-3
6G •c
pi
PINE STREET
Ham Lane P, oject Alternative B
lE4EN0
EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOUIRED (PLOW)
C -C CURB TO CURB
Figure 11-4
.4
G
ELM STREET
Ham Lane Project Alternative B
Figure 11-5
LEGENO
ExiS'wG SIDEWALK
:���: _
PROPOSED SIOEWALK
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
~�
RIGHT OF WAY TO BE
ACOU►RED (POW)
C -C
CURB TO CURB
Figure 11-5
A/7 RIM
I11�� TAtvtL lVK rttv(; TAtvt� ittvtL LAtii
t ►tARUw I LuK I LACK ( Aho NAKIMO (• 1
309W" ARCA SiOgWA4.9 ANA
PROPOSED PROJECT — 64' STREET, 80' RIGHT-OF-WAY
9, (TAAV(; Ati(AvtL { TAAv CL I TAA.CL LA11(' •
04 aAAMMQ ;AM( LAh( OA AAAra 04 �.
S�oC•+LA AA(A ` SIotWALR AAIA
ALTERNATIVE A b 8 - 56' STREET, 70' RIGHT-OF-WAY
A/1 . W
O
--� O
• I TAA+tL Jftt i TAAvtL rAAVCL _Aw( 1 • I
1 LAME
S�O('rAL■ tA(tCQ .`O PAW -Mr S,6trALR AAfA --
ALTERNATIVES A 8 8- 4 TRAVEL LANES, NO PARKING H
W
Air V r
y
72 Q
i W
►ati0! 'Aavb_ i 'UM. LAN! •AavCL PwWjftG •
I LAM( ;Ant i
Sj0CWAL+ A•(A AR"
ALTERNATIVES A & B — 2 TRAVEL LANES, CENTER TURN LANE, PARKING OPTION
Alternative Street Cross Sections
Figure 12
Report Authors, Persons Contacted, and References
UPOKT PREPAUTION
Kate Burdick, Principal and Project Manager
Stephanie Strelov, Environmental Planner
Kathleen Mrcheck, Graphics
Judy Cornell, A Way With Words, Word Processing
Subcontractors
Jeff Clark, Traffic
Susanne Olive, Plants
Stan Shelley, Noise and Air Quality
PERSONS CONTACTED
David Morimoto, City of Lodi Planning Department
Richard Prima, City of Lodi Public Works Department
Jack Ronsko, City of Lodi Public Works Director
Area Residents:
Pat Williams
Oliver Nola
Harold Hoover
June K. Hoover
Theophil Mehlhoff
Elisabeth Mehlhoff
Lorine L. Baker
Frederick D. Schmidt
Ruth K. Schmidt
Marin A. Schmidt
Raynette Ferguson
Larry Fergason
Bill Eutsler
Roada Kempf
Pattie Cox
Jim Cox
Geme Boscacci
Lois Borchaudt
Andy Anderson
Nancy Ander—
Willard Takahashi
Huriel Hoggatt
Evelyn Comartir.
W. J. Comartin, Jr.
Arglrlos Adam
Lenora Eutsler
Gertrude A. Duff
Cindy Gentne
A
65
REPORT AUTHORS, PERSONS CONTACTED, REFERENCES 66
Elsie Sokol
Twai Sokol
T. Sweat
Marvis Sweat
REFERENCES
California Resources Agency. St:.te CERA Guidelines.
CH2M Hill, Ham Lane Improvement Project, Lodi Avenue to Elm Street: Final
Enviromental Impact Report, City of Lodi, May 1978.
CH2M Hill, Hutchins Street Improvement Project, Draft Environmental Impact
Report, City of Lodi, October 1981.
CH2M Hill, Hutchins Street Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report,
City of Lodi, February 1982.
Shelley, H. Stanton, "Air Quality Impact and Mitigation Study, Ham Lane
Improvement Project." Environmental Consulting Services. August 1984.
Shelley, H. Stanton, "Noise Ipmact and Mitigaticn Study, Ham Lane Improvement
Project." Environmental Consulting Services. Auguust 1984.
Appendices
:��
Appendix A
Plants Inventory
by
Suzanne Olive
LIST Is
The following Vl+nt spoelee will be resoved should Has Line be widened to
utilize the elgnty foot rltrbt-of-wart
On the east side between Lis Street and Pine Stroett
5 mature Proxinue volutins 'Modesto', Modesto Ash
o few Roca sp.,�oass
between fine Street and Oak Streets
I mature AtM axocharinum, Silver Maple
1 Citrus op.
tatween Oak Street and Walstut Street$
mature Silver Maples
1 Immature 1 uldambsr st ragin uuaa. American Sweet Ous
4 tmmaturs Betula vorruoosa, White Birch
1 mature Cw arA, odor Cedar
2 maturea ooedrus d•ourr ns, Incense Cedar
,h rub Jun •rum ep., un per
2 mature 7 cos pungens, Colorado Blue bpruco
1 mature %ei op., Spruce
I Fruit Tree
5 }'od*ato Ash • Refer$
between Walnut Street and Loll Avenues
I Immature koru* •Iba, ?rultiess Mulberry
I !+mature Co orate Blue Spruce
1 mature Colorado Rlue Spruce
l •rrtro•rIr Ind oa, Crape Myrtle
s ew s ru s, eluding Roses, Junipers, and lbonysws
1 mature AAoo* n•&ndoo, hoz Elder
deo
4 mature Nos f -Ash
2 Immature White Birch
2 Fruit Trees
pn the est side between Cls Street and Oak Streett
numerous shrubstJuntpers; flax op.. Holly; Crape
Myrtles; and Orsvll:,w op. (landscaping border-
ing nursar0 slso Junlpirs. Cotonesrtor *p., C_ro'— op,
1 mature Pinus op., Pin*
1 $amours Yne
2 mature Mudesto Ash
1 CuLressu s_emporvlrens, Italian Cypress
1 wature olor-ado--A�-Apruce
between Oak Street and 4a►nut Streets
291on awe op.
1 asture olorsdo glue Spruce
I mature Modesto Ash
between !shut Street and Lodi Avenues
2 mature Yodesto Ash
a Yaw shrubs
August }O. 1984
Kate Burdick
?tanning and Land -use Consultant
1545 Shirland Trac!
Auburn. California 95603
Dear Me. Burdick$
Presented below are the probable Imposts on the vsgetation sbould
Ha■ Lane be widened to utilise the eighty foot right-of-way.
Approximately twenty-two mature trees will be removed on the asst
side of Has Lane. On the root side approximately ten mature trees
will be removed. (boo attached List 1.) Romoval of said trees will
result In a loss of shade and an Increase in temperature. PLrther.
the local* will be more exposed and drier.
Approximately twenty immature treas and various shrubs will be re-
moved on the east side of Ham Lano. On the wast side approximately
thirty-two iswturo trees and shrubs will be removed. The majority
of those oceprlse the landeospiag adjacent to the nursery. Removal
of those young troea and shrubs will have s visual impact. especially
where Has Lane borders the nuttsry.
In addltlon, the widening of Has Lane will claim approximately ten
feet of lawn and landscaping from the dwellings along the roadway.
Besides obvious visual Impacts, lost lawn area will result in less
privacy and increased traffic notes and dust.
Possible mitigation of the impacts discussed above would require re-
planting Has Lane with boxed tress of the same or stellar species.
The Raywood Ash or the Moraine Aah should be substituted for the
Modesto Ash. Thess opscles are more dleseae resistant. (Sae at-
tached List 2.) However, only partial mitigation could be expect-
ed because the apace available for root growth Is suitable In most
arms* for only small trees. Large tress should be planted a win -
taus of fifteen to twenty foot away from a dwelling. Yedlus tress
should be planted a minimus of tan to fifteen feet away from a
dwelling. Where mature tress stand on or )uat within the limit of
the right-of-way. the width of the sidewalk should be adjusted to
acoommodats the boas of the tree. Approximately fifteen trees
would be saved. Trees should be trlmmed to allow for a vertical
helght clearance of tan foot over the sidewalk and curb.
Immature trees and shrubs within the right-of-way could be dug out
end replanted on tho impacted site If space allows. Additional
shrubs could be planted as a hedge or screen to ■!Ligate Ispacta
on appearance, privacy, and notes. (bee attached List 3.) Yrivary
could be further enhanced through the use of tour foot fencing or
lattice.
Given the ago and canopy of the trees to be removed and considering -
the size of the remalnlns lawn areas. the full impacts of widening
Hu (Jane to utllitS the •lyity foot rleht-of-war can not be mitigated.
Lane P. Olive
ilotani st
_..�� wore rosea sole mww . •.o.. ,. "W .:Ft "aOVi ' ++%Hv W.."
LIOT is
August }G, 1484
The following 1•Innt apecles will be romoved should Has Lane be widened to
utilise the eight- foot ritrht-or-ways Kate Burdick
Planning end L nd-use Consultant
On the east aide between Cis 5treet arid Pine Streets 1545 bhlrland Tract
i mature rraxlnue volutin. 'Modesto', Modesto Ash Auburn, Calirurnis 95603
a few Rosa op.,-Aoees
between Pine Street end Oak Streets Uear Ms. Burdick$
I mature Aoer sacnharinum, Silver Maple
1 Citrus ep. Presented below are the probable Impacts on the vegetation should
Has Lane be widened to utilise the eighty foot right-of-way.
between Oak Street and iralnut Streets
3 mature Silver Maples
1 Immature Liquidamber styrao_ifl�ua, Amertoan Sweet Ouse
4 immature • u a verrv4oea, Whit• Birch
1 mature C rue d90 ara, 6eodar Cedar
2 mature d• ocedruidecurrens, Incense Cedar
shrub Jun_Ueru! sp., Juniper
2 mature Picea Lun ens, Colorado Hlue Bpruce
i mature FTcea op., Spruce
I Fruit Tres
S 5'odesto Ash • na/rrp
between 4alnut 5treet and Lodi Avenuet
1 imaaturs worus albs, Fruitless Mulberry
1 tvrsature Co or•do liue Spruce
1 mature Colorado 91ue Spruce
lfo retroosis Indies, Crape Myrtle
• few iFirubs, Incoming Ross,, Junipers, and Dionysus
1 mature Acern!14ndo, box Cider
4 mature Wan, sUo Ao __
2 Immature ^I to Birch
2 Fruit Trees
On the West side between Itis Street *rid Oak Streets
numerous shrubs$Junlpers; IIx op., Holly; Crepe
Myrtles; and Crovillea op. (londsoaping border -
trite. nursery)aleo Junipers, Cotoneastsr sp., Cercle op.
1 mature Pinue sp.. Pine
I Immature no
2 mature Modesto Ash
2 CuLf:nsul sem «rvlrons, Italian Cypress
1 artura�Colors�o �us Sprues
becwsen Oak Street ark! ealnut Strests
mus sp.
1 mLttte N olorado 9lus Spruce
1 matters !<odestc Asti
between ,rslnut Street and 1Wdi Avenuel
anture Modesto Ash
a few ehr'ubs
Approximately twen'.y-two mature trees will be remuve:d on tt.• east
aide or H&z Jxne. '.in the vest side approxlsately ten mature trees
will be remo,ed. t5se attached List 1.) Removal of *aid trees will
result In a ,ors of shade and an Increase In to-speraturs. Further,
the locale will be more exposed and drier.
Approximately '.wonty lssatur•. trees and various shrubs will be re-
suvwd on its one: aide of Ham Lane. on the west side approximately
thirty-twu Immature 'roma and shrubs will to removed. The majority
of these ousprlee the landscaping adjacent to the nursery. Removal
of these young trees ar,d shrubs will have a visual Impact, especially
where Has Lane borders %he nurtory.
In addition, the wldenine. of ties Lane will claim approximately ten
foot of lawn and landscaping from the dwellings along tate roadway.
Besides obvious visual impacts, lost lawn area will result In lose
privacy ark! increased traffic notes and dust.
Possible •!Ligation of the Impacts discussed above would require re-
planting Has Lane with boxed tress or the same or similar species.
The Haywood Ash rr the Moraine Ash should be substituted for the
Modesto Asti. e a species are more disease resistant. (See at-
tached List 2.) However, only partial altlgation could be expect-
ed because the space avalisble for root grotith is suitable In most
sreas for only snail trans. Large trees should be vlonted a min-
imum of fifteen to twenty fest away from a dwelling. b'sdtum treae
shuuld be planlod a minimus of ton to fifteen root away ftwm a
dwelling. Where mature trees stand on or just within the limit of
tt,s right -or -way, the width of the eldewalk should be adjusted to
accommodate the base of the tree. Approximately flrteen trees
would be seved. Trees should be trimmed to allow for a vertical
hele;ht clearance of ten rest over the sidewalk and curb.
Imnrturn trees end shrubs wlthln the right -or -wry could be dug out
rnd repisoted on the IMps.:ted site If space a!lowa. Additional
shrubs could be planted se a hedge or screen to mitigate impacts
U11 appearance, privacy, arid noise. (See attached List 3.) Privacy
could be further enhanced through the use or four fnut fencing or
lattice.
r,lven the stns and canopy of the trees to be, removed .na considering
the site of tt,s remainino lawn areas, the full latracts of widening
Has I.ttw to utilise the sl✓.hty foot right -or -way can not be mitigated,
lncarely
pMic,
:anne P. olive
riot«nlat
LID? 2 (cont.)
LIST 21 1•roposed Residential
Street Tree
Planting List
ant f c name
Tvorgreen/ Height tot
Comments
f
SS-o}ent fa name
ltrergroen/
Height toe
Comments
0 nam
----••--••-------�»--------
otduous 014th tot
-`
—
ommon name
Deciduous
Width tot _
Holum TR.1S (cont.)
YyALL TtjM (to 35 foot in h•tght)
• ti• • nenets
Nac berry
U 40 fest
Rork often covered with
deep
Acer beer erfanw
-ridsnt
D
20-25 feet
Chin!,.
projecting Krowth,
it
Map •
O�itt•tandlQlntalglr000lor
n6
rooted, vonheave
sideral.• good In windy
1 ars arviflora
C
25-30 foot
Y•oderst• growth rate.
places, plint from con-
Augtra Ian 11 ow
20 feet
small. graceful. deep
tethers
rooted, needs rater.
full sun
!a • .us
t 30-40 foot
Large shrub or tree,
ro Tree
U
30-40 feet
moderate growth rate,
•1t altaalar •is 'Yllsonli'
t[
15-20 feat
Tolerates sun.vind.
Hoed• sore than normal
1 son o y
shade and any soil,
soars, roots will break
bright red berries
adwalk, give lnfrequor;,
deep watering
Roelrw torte niouleta
D
20-)5 feet
Slow to moderato growth.
mrr n roe
10-40 foot
valuable In difficult
as nu ho of ha 'Morotno'
D 40 feet
ralrly feat Pruwing,
loll, tolerates heat.
ora n• •
,row! lawn tree, costs
rind and drought
light, filtered gbrdo.
dtsosse restatant
LAAV• • Indio•
D
6-30 foot
Wwwy flowers In summer.
raainu• oa ca 'Raywood'
D 55 feet
rut growing, dl•oas•
repo yr le
slow growing. N11 som
y Ash
and pest resistant
Laurus nobil s
Y
12-4o feet
Tree or shrub. slow
b. In cook-
)�l nal.p.nl�
'---j
[ 50-60 foot
Moderate to rapid growt ih
vee y
growing.
good nage,
Ing. need• good dralnag•1
A eppo Fine
thrive* In hest and wl n-r
light shad•
open Irregular crown at
maturity
1 a sou an lana
D
25 feet
Blooms In spring before
[Jmac • ohlnehs •
D 35-60 foot
Iwaros brilliant red in
5auc•r gno •
25 foot
loacos expand. white
to red. doss
c: h1.1aa c ac s
fall, moderate growth.
rlynurIn
tooly n hot, Andy
not particular about
ars••
sotl or refer, spread-
Ing rounded crown
Maytenus boarla
C
30-40 foot
4raceful. pendulous
Tills Cordele
D 50-50 feet
Excellent lawn or atreeF
wytenree
branches, slow growing.roots
t e- wf Linden
15-30 feet
treohardlost linden
.,
not lnvaelve,
form to densely pyram-
idal
rums bllrelana
D
25 feet
t.oares reddish purple,
rpfifei Thu■
20 feet
flowers semidouble, pink,
W-09TRCCII S from 5D to 70 feet in height)
fragrant, rob.-April. no
fruit
rre
g M
a oc u ddou
Cedar
Y 75-90 foot
Symetrlcal, slow grow-
rring- kawakamti
t
small tree
Fast froring, white
ncense
Ing Initially, deep,
-r
avorgreeen P o r
flowers in epring,
Infrequent watering
partially deciduous
C1mOm caora
C 5o feet or
!Slow growing, beautiful
omp r roe
more
In any geuon
Ma)1UM ":.' ifrom 35 to 50
foot In height)
'�SaretgKa'
Q1 kb Maidenhair
den Tros &more
D 50 feet or
Slow growing, plant only
&Imus curdsta
D
40 foot
Moisture loving. rapid
r
mal• trees, disease and
Ita Munilder
25 foot
growth. roots are In-
pest free, yellow fall
veslve. Intoreating
color, attractive any
Dobkin display before
season
leaves
LIST 51 Proposed Shrubs to Serve as a Hedge or as Screening
name
tvorgreen/
Height tot
CoMean ta
910 n me ,__
Deciduous
Width tot
be pruned
Acaaila decor&
C
6-8 feet
Can be trimmed to 5
"-bnoe u wattle
6-8 feet
feet, drought resist-
ant
a"is J*22nlca
[
6-12 feet
Many named varieties.
6-12 feet
requires good drainage
Na&nolla gnndiflors
960-80
feet
and moist soil, slow
O-80
growing
ChangD
6-10 feet
rlowera appear 1n .Ian.
over ng :wince
6
6-10 feet
before the leaves,
o y
40-70 feet
easy to grow
tto sternate
t
6-8 feet
6-8 feet
Rapid growth, fragrant
white flowers 1n early
*tt Orange
[
70-100 feet
Moderate growth rate.
OorK QTc
70-100 feet
♦pring, Inform+l hedge,
needs fast drainage and
light shade
Cqgq4jus laurlrollug
C
25 feet
Multiatemmed shrub or
scall tree, slow grow-
ing, can be kept low
by pruning, sun or ahade
o rosmarapena
S
10 feet
Rapid growth, prune to
rrorrMOn1!
6 feet
achieve desired height
and density, needs par-
tlai shade and able
water
G,otongastar app.
[ or D
varlet w/
Informal hedge, prune
species
to enhance arching
habit, don't plant
near sidewalk
221gea�me app. or loses [
5-10 feet
Fragrant when brushed
—llr*stA of Heaven
5-10 feet
or bruited, flowers
pink or white, light
soil, wispy, shear light•
ly, full sun
pn app,
t or D
verles w/
Valued for foliage,
&neck&
for*, and texture
a�nu� app.
[ or D
varies w/
Large shrubs or trees.
species
foot growing. dense,
full, tolerates heat
and wind
mar spp.
t
4-8 feet
Full sun, Interesting
Mittabsel
4-8 fret
flower tsorels Dec. -
Feb., t.olerstes heat
and drought
LIST 2 (cont.)
9cientiflo name W ergreen/ Height tot Cou"Mte
ottaon name Deciduous Yidtb tot
W-09 ?R! (oont.)
Liguldomba st rad flua D 60 feet Moderate growth rate.
Ver can weo 0um good all -year tree,
good fall color. can
be pruned
iriodendron tullplfera
D
60-80 feet
Test growth, leaves
fuTl Ir:a
40 feet
turn yellow 1n fall.
needs plenty of skimmer
water and room, hand -
801"
Na&nolla gnndiflors
960-80
feet
rkglossy leaves.
O-80
white, grant blossoms
In sumer and fall
uerou Ilex
6
40-70 feet
Moderate growth rate.
o y
40-70 feet
relatively pest and
disease free
Q_•r_cus suber
—
[
70-100 feet
Moderate growth rate.
OorK QTc
70-100 feet
trunk and principal
Bebe covered with
thick. corky bark which
oarves easily
LILT : (cont. )
Vlentlflc name
sr argruart/
Height Lot
Comments
-- Common namo --- ---_-----
Der.lduous _
?kith tot
Ilex cornuta
S
10 feet
Shrub. Tooll Lree.large
n ne�ie-Rol Iy
10 feet
long-lasting red
berries
Ilex crenata
9
5-4 feet
Shrib. sun or shade.
rpansse Holly
)-+ feet
black berries, danse.
erect
Juni erns app-
T
0-20 feet
Shrubs. foliage needle -
un I perm
111re or snaleilke or
bo -h, many uses
u•truaa onloum
a
10-12 feet
shrubs or ea-ott trues.
•panes• er ve
excellent hedges or
screens
llue
Wihun s • uulro-
t
6 feet
Tall, erect habit. any
Oregon Orap.
exposure, blue -black
(me aclentific nameberries
1n March -May,
has "on canged tc
h
edible. control helght
8erberl• •u fo lur
by pruning, spiny -
and the p
sec es say
toothed leaves
be sold under either
name)
erlaw- s
L
9-10 feet
Upright, dense. Herd
y -o e-Valloy Shrub
frowth. partial shade.
needs generous watering,
flcrers to drooping
clurtere, pink or white
ri tto•porus •PP•
9
6-25 fest
Good form and College.
varies r/
gone species have fro -
species
grant flowers, sun or
shade
eldlue cattlelrrous
[
8-10 feet
rrodarets growth. besuti-
8 r•r erry ave
Cul bark, dark red molly
Rood Informal hedge
Viburnum app.
D or C
4-20 feet
Sun or shade, often
varies r/
fragrant flowers.
species
prune to prevent leg-
glness, plant [ in
partial shed•
2
�Ri�ht-of•Way
The current right-of-way (R/M) for Ham Lane between Ela
Street and Lodi Avenue is mostly 60 feet wide with r sect tun
�of 110•fou l ROW at LodI Ave rim. The existing street is mostly
1441 to 401,wide and is not centered in the right-of-way.
5triping
This section of [law lane is currently striped with two travel
lanes. Crosswalks are marked at intersections.
(Control Devices
!An eight phase traffic signal controls the Lodt Avenue and lima
�Lane intersection and a four phase traffic signal controls the
Elst Street and Has Lane intersection.
(Parking
Curbside parallel parking is allowed on street along both sides
lof Ilan Lane from, Lodi to Elm. The current unstreet parking
lcapscity is approximately 135 spaces.
Traffic Volumes
The current traffic volume for this segment of flam Lane
ranges from, 12,400 to 14,100 vehicles per day. Average daily
traffic (APT) volumes were calculated from counts taken by
the City of Lodi on May 15th, loth, and 17th which err r
Tuesday. Wednesday and Thursday. rhesc days were .hosen
because they represent the most "normal" tiaffik bthaviur and
will present the best traffic volumes for in averate JA to
Lodi. The peak hourtrrlfic voltst•s were also calculated in
the sale manner. Existing peak hour traffic counts/traffic
flows occur during the normal peak hours of (7:00 to 9:00 as
and 4:00 to b:00 Its), however, there t> a setondaty peak flout
in the afternoon at the times that Ludt 1111911 School gets out
IIAM LANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
by Jeff Clark
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes present conditions and future traffic
impacts to Ilam lane between Elm Street and Ludi Avenue in
the City of Lodi. Three altern-tive improvement plans were
evaluated. The analysis included the evaluation of existing
and future land uses, traffic volumes, street cross sections,
channeitzatiun, and traffic control devices. Alternative
improvement plans for Ilam Lane were developed and analyzed
using future peak hour traffic projections, street capacities,
physical constraints and parking demands.
EXISTING, CONDITIONS
Ham, Lane is one of the mayor north -south streets In Ludt.
It terminates at Turner Road on its north end and it Itarney
Lane on the south end. The segment of Ilam Lane analyzed
in this study is from film Street to Lodi Avenue. It is four
blocks lung, and its location in Lodl is shown on Exhibit I.
Land lists
Current land uses along Ilia Lane between lila Street and Lodi
Aventle vary from low to high density residential with some
commeretal near film Street.
o<
Lr
w
b
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Traffic Pro)ections
Traffic volumes were projected to the year 2005 for minimum,
maximum and midrange values. The values were calculated
using City of Lodi population growth rates. City of Ludt
traffic counts, and City of Lodi General plan.
The minimum range values from the San .lu.ayuin C.U.G. Traffic
Study for Lodi were not used in this study because they were
found to project future volumes lower than the existing 1984
traffic volumes.
The midrange traffic growth values were calculated using the
historic population and traffic volume growth fur the City
of Lodi (1965-1961). An average rate of 1.7 percent was used
to project traffic growth.
The maximum range was calculated using the historic growth
rate in traffic volumes on 11am Lane (1965.1984). An average
rate of 2./ percent was used to project traffic for the section
near Ela Street and 3.3 percent for the sect tun near Ludt
Avenue. The resulting traffic forecasts are based on the
assumption that radical changes to the land uses in the area
around Nat, Lane would not occur and traffic volumes would
increase at the same rate as they have in the past.
Exhibits b and 7 (presented later) show a comparison of the
projected traffic volume, for the two ranges of 1)roject►uns
to the three alternative roadway sections uvei time.
S
of session. This secondary peak occurs during tht 1:00 p.m. to
3:00 p.m. hour and is espectally heavy in the southbound Ha■ Lane
dlreltlOn. The traffic volume for tt.s move is 570 vehicles per
hour. The a.m. peak hours vary depending on the time of year.
During the school months there is a 7:U0-9:00 a.m. peak but
during the summer months the peak occurs from 11:00-1:00 in
the midday.
1979.1980 average daily traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 2
for general comparison of traffic flow on streets throughout
the City of Lodi.
Tu!niii Movements
Turning movements for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for
Ilan lane intersec-ions at Elm Street and Lodi Avenue were
calculated from field observations.
Ca tacit ics
lite capacities of Ham Lane in this stutly of existing conditions
is the capscity of the critical intersection of Ham Lane and
Lodi Avenue.
Current City of Lodi traffic counts, peak hour turning percen-
tages calculated fres field observations, and the updated
Highway Cavacity Manual signalized intersection capacity calcu-
latiun methodology were used to determine operating conditions.
The level of service for five intersection of Ham Fane and
Lodi Avenue was calculated to be L.O.S.A and for Ilam Lane
and Ela Street L.U.S. of A. Ilowever, it must be noted that
duriaig certain parts of the day the southbound approach to
the 11am Lane/Lodt Avenue intersection appears, from field
observations, to operate at LOS C or worse.
e
Ira �roremcnt s
Three alternatives for Improvements to Has Lane were evaluated.
The three include:
1. Rebuild existing street (Alternative t:), within the
existing curb lines. Improvements, such as restr►pins
to add left -turn pockets, and limiting on street parking
would be done. Physical improvements would be limited
to Accessary curb repairs and pavement overlays. (See
Exhibit 4)
11. Minor. improvements (kltcrnetives A 6 01. Some physical
taproyement to widen the existing roadway to accumWJate
a bask four -lane street. Channelizatton and limiting
of on street parking would also be needed. (See Exhibit
1)
111. Major improvements (Proposed Pru)ect). Mayor physical
and channelitation improvements, to accumodate a four
lane street with on -street parking. (See Exhibit S)
7
These scenarios were then evaluated and alternative crosss
L[Q[MO
sections were developed and analyzed.
1aS• U0091L PIROJ[CTIONS
logo YOORL PdOJOICTIONG
11Hi 3/0091 PROJECTIONS
2000 AI00[L PROJECTIONS
2006 NOO[L 10010JECTIO14
EXHIf31T 3
San Joaquin Council of Governrywrits
Projected Traffic Volumes
8gS88
88�$$
���g8
♦�rwr
w..�!
[LM
PW
-
:rao
3306
fail! 3860$1
q
88
w 3x06
m
LM
83.x06
11.a"
36.0x6
I 33a. .066 aN
r
It.st,o
w 86,6SIM 86.6x6
x6
^ ► •
. w w w 36.161
AT
8�88�
Im
.606
x666
«•rw�
^ Vul
>�
6366
88888 x060
VMIt
— -
0a0gjj��
Mig
i
:0xw:° Glee
«+awS
t
^_•..61x1
���•
^ � ^ ^
KETTLtMAN
u,►oa
86.6x6
33.000
88'$'88 36.300
85888 to 2"
�w � �
•w rw• ,
•r w w w 33.6
,ate.. wr 36.600
!1.109
33.600
/ 36.000
These scenarios were then evaluated and alternative crosss
L[Q[MO
sections were developed and analyzed.
1aS• U0091L PIROJ[CTIONS
logo YOORL PdOJOICTIONG
11Hi 3/0091 PROJECTIONS
2000 AI00[L PROJECTIONS
2006 NOO[L 10010JECTIO14
EXHIf31T 3
San Joaquin Council of Governrywrits
Projected Traffic Volumes
C
-ti
C
■
R
- -
�
^
<
-
n
►
s
t
nn
L-
L
i
•v
<
n
w
-_
c --
a.'C
-
7
L
G
•-
a t
..
w
�
L
V
•
n
w
r
C
L
\
n
=
•�
a
•
-
t
r
-
a
C ♦
■
Cc -
Iw
R •<
C a
It
t C
v
C
■
O
•
R
n
d
In
L
•v
C
^
t
^-
Y
•
O
i
t •
L
-
<
<
>
•- v
-� n
It
Iq-
•
C L
•
R
O
•
C
O
\
V
1
rl
<
4
r•
^ Z'i
4
^
Z
a
K
n
L
r R
�• L
i I
C
v
r
•
[
C
R
L
S
`
L
•<
R
V
�
r.
1
V
L
R
L C
V
1500
1250
1000
2 "
pJ �
750
y U
W
= W
Y
500
W V
a
250
1500
1250
1000
4 750
0 ►-
> v
m Ix
go
0
z
x 500
t 0
W
a
250
PROPOSED PROJECT
ALT. A d 8 4 LANES NO PARKING
ALT. AS 8 3 LANES_ HIGH RANGE
NO PROJECT
- — LOW RAtitiE
RANGE Of PROJECTIONS
TRAFFIC PROJECTION
-- — STREET CAPACITYU-O$ 8)
---'x-
1975 19x0 1965 1990 1993 2000 2005
TIME (YEARS)
E;
Traffic Projections and Strut Capacities
Lodi to Pine
1975 1980 1965 1990 1995 2000 2005
TIME (YEARS)
EXHIBIT
Traffic Projections and Street Capacities
Pine to Elin
L
� r
'�
A
r
•+ Z
A �
L
S-
C
^•
C
A
C
t
�T
���•••«aaaa
-
C
C
7
S
T
3
v
■ 3
C
R
�
- a
=
�@
R
G
•+
^
d�
L
C
�
r.
Z
G
Z
C
Y
C
r
■
-
^
^
^
T
R
V
7
L
L
•-
L •-
Z
C
C
C
R
n
A
O
L
R
Z
C
^
a V
=
■ Z
=
■
C
Z
�'
Z
S
V
v
�
71
7
L
f'
?
3
O
t
•-
S
C
C
7
^
7 Q16
1
A
C
L
A
A
i
C'
^
..
^•
..
.r.
4
4 t V
A
R
r
R
w
c
c
w
C
A
7
R
A
V
C
t
C
R
C
C
O
j
L
Z
-
R
7
^
L
R
••-
L
-
.-
O
K
? S
R
Q
-
v
Z
C
C
K
A
A
4
r
■
n
�
O
<
J V
-
_
-
Z �
C
a
-
t
..
►
✓
L
L
<
Z
O
tt
C
C
n
L
v
A
t
•+
C
•-
�
-
-
7
C
Z
C
C
v
L
.
e
-
►
_
-
Z.
__
_ -
L
L
Y
R
C
C
c G
i
-
C
♦
^
p
-.
•.
Vrt
7
A
G
•i
R
r.
r
■
R
'-
R
A
C
•
►
R
-
Y
..
A
.
c
'
R
C
F
L
L
7
L
^
•�
^
-
V
-
L v
y
-
n
i
C
♦
7
u•
-
Z
V
-
C
V
L
O
=
O
V
L
C
A R
K
R
R
-
C
C
t
r
R
Y
7
Y
L
n
Z
•-
< _
r
<
V
-
7 V
K �
Z
r
L
C
u
-
-
-
rf
■ i
n
o
-
S
-'
•.
C
n
•-
�
S
►
r
C
•
Z
R
v
L
r
�
C
•a
�
a
•.
-
-
-
V•
L
r.
re'
L
n
L
A
N
•a
v
G A
t -
v
;/
v
C
-
C
L
L
a
R
z
^
C
n
A
L
-
D
S
C
•
R
C
T.
R
-
i^
p
Y
C
r
■
-
^
^
^
T
R
V
7
L
L
•-
L •-
Z
C
C
C
R
n
A
O
L
V
Z
C C
■ Z
C
■
C
Z
�'
Z
S
V
v
�
7
L
?
3
t
•-
S
7
^
.r.
A
R
r
R
w
c
c
w
C
A
7
R
A
V
C
t
C
R
C
C
O
j
L
Z
-
R
7
^
L
R
••-
L
-
.-
O
K
? S
R
Q
-
v
Z
C
C
K
A
A
4
r
■
n
�
O
<
J V
_
Z.
L
Y
R
C
C
c G
r.
p
-.
•.
7
A
•i
R
r.
r
■
R
'-
R
A
C
•
►
R
-
Y
..
A
.
c
'
R
C
V
L
O
=
O
L
C
A R
K
R
R
-
C
C
t
r
R
Y
7
Y
L
n
V
-
,
..
-
C
C
rf
•-
n
o
-
S
-'
•.
C
n
r
C
V•
L
r.
re'
L
L
A
N
•a
G A
a
R
z
^
C
n
A
-
�
L
R
R
G
C
c
IL
O
&
"
n ,
-t
-1
-C
C
T
A
C
O
L r
O
!?
r[
r.
♦
C
[
?
^
W
�.
•
C 7=
Z
t
ffi
`t
A
ffi
.. 7
ht
C
..
I�
?c
C
C.
L O
Z
i-
6
-
L c
••
�
[
n
c
-�
- R
L
••
Z
�C
,
r
••
R
!r
•-
v
r a
Ir
r
n
�
C
-
n
C
..
••
C
e
r
r
C
G
C
L
•• ••
O
-
. S
R
S
w
Iri
T
C
4
R ..
V.
r
►
7
A
?
Z
_
R�
r
R
T
r
7
I
v
n
^. c
R
n
•
n
7
��
♦
..
• Y
O
n
V
V
n
r
7
G
r.
r
V
A
•[
•%
R
s
n
•>
�
s
c
R
R
C
•+ n
T G
..
r
^
♦
R
�
R
C
-
•
C
L
R
►
A
- S
S
■
r
A
-i
r
C
c C
w
C
1 D
V
C
r
L
-
O
`�
� C
R
♦
�A.
�
T
—
n
—
—
■
v
«
•
CC
c c
^
w
C
C
—
C
r
_
V
Z
Y
R
♦
4
-
w. R
!
♦
R
A
►
►
►
R
/
c
n
R
..
c
s
/
=
n
v
w
L
Z
< M
C
O
► ■
C
-1
-C
C
T
C
C
.r >
r.
♦
C
[
s
^
W
�.
C
L
/
.. 7
..
-
..
C
C
••
V
C
-
L c
••
�
[
n
c
-�
- R
L
••
Z
�C
,
r
••
R
!r
•-
v
r a
Ir
r
n
�
C
-
n
C
..
••
C
e
r
r
C
G
C
L
•• ••
O
-
. S
R
.-.
w
Iri
T
C
4
R ..
V.
r
►
7
A
?
Z
_
R�
r
T
7
�
.•
n
^. c
R
n
•
n
7
��
♦
..
• Y
O
n
V
V
n
r
7
G
r.
r
V
A
•[
r
^
R
C
-
�i.-C.
R
►
A
- S
S
■
r
A
-i
r
r.
w
C
1 D
D
[
r
L
�
T
—
n
—
—
■
v
«
•
CC
c c
^
w
C
C
—
_
v
w
L
Z
< M
C
C
A
A
r
r.
O Y
■
!
_"0
-
-
♦
C
p
r
y
7
R
R
L
V
3
-
n
C
L
r
•
R
/
C
L
•
C
«
•
R
C
L
< �
7
•'
C
A
7
7
�
T
<
G
0
A
A
>
w �
A
w
•
Q.
-
v
•-•
n
A
Y
N
�
r
r
<
Q
A
1
-
O
-y ■
A r
A
7
C
G<
S s
C
C
L
r
-
C
n
n
►
A
R z
i
t•
c
02
-
R
0
G •-
�
�
C
�
[ r
[
Z
C
-
■
C
c
n
V
r
r
G
v
T C
T
V
.
■
^
�
r
T
_■
_�
w
v
•
f ffi
r
G
C
C
Z
C
r
Z
r
Y
C
c
7
•�
A
L
w
?
w «
••
w
w
O
C
s
w
A
C
Y L
•+
L
v
R
R
C
C
f
V
16
61
.
-
C
V
..
.-
b"
C
7
n
1
V
J r
R
v
- R
•-.
V
r
..
C
Iw
_
r
'
-_
C
A
i-
Q 7
n
••+
w
V
iL'
M V
V
^
rl
R
A
/
■ C
IL
/�•.
a
!C.
._
w
i
r
V
L �C
jr
�
•
R
3
M
r ..
T
^ S
-
4
L
7
R
L i
^
{ V•
S
C
L
C
L
C 'L 2
p
R
C
V
R
�
S
C_
a
A
•-
3 t
v-
/
IR
C
R
r
v
A
r
^
►
c
v
c
e
A
�c
-
r
T
a �- -
_
it
�
w
L
^
r
y
v
r n
�
-
- ✓
C
^
._-
:L
Q
O
• R
r
r
C
L
!
A
v
R
R
R V
c
A
R
r
-
C
V
'
c
C
7
- rt
r
L rt
Y
L
w
y
M1
Ir
^
r
v
r
_
•
C
�-
--
✓
ft
v
R
r
L
L
Y
A
7
R
L
-
7 L
V
-
_
.t
✓
✓
n
-
R
-`
Y
�
A
^
O
7
[
C
O
im
`<
R
M1
C
L
•-
n
C
7 C
r
n
r
M1
-�
ft
R
R -
/
i
•-
r
L
D
C L
k
-
x
-
L
<
r
r
� _
_
_
�
�
$ n
v
n
►
L
-
R
-
R R
•
i
-
�
R
n
.t
-
R R.
✓
n
-
ft L
(
L
O
•
O
D
�
C
•
D
V
C
.-
L
f
• r.
C
^
-�
L
R
c-
c
L
n
✓_
r
-4
>>
V
M1
-
r
y
~
r r
<
7
S
✓
o
4
- 7
L
z
R
rt
7
R
R
- -t
✓
C
✓ L
r
✓
-1
C
••�
-
3
V
C
'�
<
R
R
r
< L
>
L
V
Y
^
L
R
n
M
C
<
^
R
<
L
t•
-
r•
�
R
a
7
r
v
>
R
4
L
C
16
61
.
-
C
V
..
.-
R
►
7
L
r --
R
n
R
�
R
►
r
--
[
74,
L
C
L
C 'L 2
r
v
A
r
^
►
c
v
c
e
A
�c
-
r
T
a �- -
_
it
._-
:L
Q
O
• R
r
r
C
L
!
A
v
R
R
R V
c
A
R
r
-
C
V
►
7
- rt
r
L rt
Y
L
w
y
M1
Ir
^
r
p
_
•
--
•+
v
L�
n
A
7
C
-
-`
Y
�
A
^
O
7
[
C
O
im
`<
R
M1
C
L
•-
n
C
7 C
r
n
r
M1
-�
ft
O
•
O
D
�
C
•
D
V
C
.-
L
f
• r.
C
-�
�
-4
>>
V
M1
S
S
n
o
v L
r
7
R
R
••�
A
3
V
C
'�
<
R
R
r
< L
>
L
V
Y
^
L
R
<
L
t•
-
r•
�
R
a
7
r
v
>
4
L
A
-
V
►
T
L-
V
rt
-
r
1
<
<
._
V.
_
C
Y
c
L
R
o
m
n
m
/
n
-,
n c
c✓`.
6
A
�
c
s
R
n
o
.-
c
�
..
C
�
r•
n
i
.+
_
_
Y
L
••
�
7
R
V
C
C
C
�000aoo
--
-
_
z J,a
fw •
O
�.lEl
i[
r
�•ti ff
� j
j c
I I
�
L
R
n
h
h
h
Y R
h
1 4
�
L
•'1 V
1 70
h�■■•
y
•<
y
�
_
I
n
�3
♦
.fit
c
•s
I
i
t
!it
S -•
III
�
. R
•
<
+Y
d
n
L
R
R
Y R
1 4
i C
L
•'1 V
I —
R
•<
�
_
I
n
�3
♦
c
•s
L
S -•
Q
L
. R
•
<
+Y
w
n
C
S
7
t• T
♦
�
V
L
R
<
7
n
C
n
L
•
T
•
n
M �
=
n
n
n
c n
<
C
•• LY
L
q
r
C
w
!
R Y
t
R
> <
C
q
7
•<
n
_
nj
a
^
C
Y
Y
v
<
T
w
' T
R
C
♦
.�
v
T
3
R
v
v
L
Q
V
R
n
n
n
L
Y
V
�c
a
e
`�
rj 3 �D lot 1
Ji
iijL
{
.
y
1'
,
a
j
i j� r
r' Mary
......a, ��
r
_
a
i sib girp4
!i
I � i�J v Q •
y � �
'�'�� I I it
_ •
� � x
�tx ,
lin
y 1 !l
N
`�
4Y
I•
►I
y.�i.ew tt
�w..M3
I I
(
,
rj 3 �D lot 1
Ji
iijL
{
.
y
a
e
i -
a
j
i j� r
r' Mary
......a, ��
r
_
a
i sib girp4
!i
it
pi
At
� � x
�tx ,
lin
y 1 !l
N
`�
4Y
I•
►I
y.�i.ew tt
�w..M3
I I
(
,
�
14
1
J
s'^
j
Z
,z
-
•
Appendix C
Noise Analysis
1-
p7 � � r„F �s � �s -j. ,. A� � � {•� };fey � x�`-.' !,k� "M�.. .`.' -� .S• ..:� L' t%. 'rr � 'ws �" '�+` �-� : w '`t -i-
,d
cj� 15
1. r: � �- A �w ? R ' ` � m :�' � ~"� S-,'�'�' � „'• � "" <.. �. pr 4 � � h �. : r r � _
t '`i�` ��'� 4 �` :�z # .G-• I!r .� a.. a y � V -:-z' r �� < ` _ :.•. s tr , aS�':. �•
' .�. ,i -� t - '�. ?R. • �, a ,� + c '- O , ` PI .` ry � . v `�
w ,
r • O « • O • w • • t • ! ■
• •� - `r • • V i r s `e w t Y nIN IW
to n
ok
r • • .n •. N .r v ,e N T ■t .1 ••• r r «««iii
p y I w 7 .1 .« i Y •+ ✓ h r f •, w w r Dt w O V Y p _ o
Po
30 0 90
- t O .r t N 'r• '• •' V
w •- O - • " O e s r ,. r .- IM7 --
it
w r `! «• w FYI i r. • r w ';O s .• .it =!i- • 1
• :♦'t a' • # rw e w sf'v �=, f ,c r • w w ., ic,
• 0 '' p s w �N w •w r � w • ♦ : �
w.
. r s - 'w E. 1 '• w v W , ..
O 40
•'!i'. w t M f• +•w w '.A,. • ''Fl -'#: '"� �j t.' M R i1' M ..-
r • #' `�"ice ,.• :J` 71 .• Q' i1 Z O • M ! J. Y
«++ • a sir • w m r . ` • r s b •• 4uis
< • w •
p r w I `+1 xw` ri 7 w.W``.• it O :O -w 5�
f • rte' �,,- ji:• O •<A il►� • tea, }
- � w A- t i �" M ° •1 •. A r i +• ^'# �- .-i ' : � w �s ^:# ai +'y: ,, t+
has Lane Improvement Project - Noise Page 2
t#jh yffhjS141 vehicle speed, and the distance to the road. As
most wtban duellers are aware, the traffic noise level nesr a
busy street varies over a wide range. To indicate easily the
overall notes level. single number descriptors are usually used.
The most commas descriptor for a short period is the hourly Leq,
which indicates the energy average of the varying notes level,
and has been shown to be a good indicator o! people's perceptions
of note* level. Over a longer period, the Ldn descriptor is
used, which is the long-term average of Leq, with 10 dB added to
the noise level for the night$&* period.
With basic information about local traffic, the roadside
molse level can be modeled (computed) fairly accurately, wsrng
equations that have been developed from field tests. The
standard Highway Research Board traffic noise model (Reference
f:), reviled after extensive field mea►urements, has been used for
this study. Roadside noise levels ate estimated below for
existing traffic on Nam Lane, at 40 feat from the center of the
street (approximately the middle of the a.eraye yard).
Present Has Lane Noi►e Levels (dhAl
LOCATION Ltq Lan
Pk Hr. Noon I so
Front yards 71 70 519 72
These sots* levels are based upon an Average Da:1y Traffic
(ADT) volume of 12,500, and a peak hour volume of 1050 trips.
The sots* levels during periods other than the peak hour, and the
Lda, are based upon typical hourly variations of urban traffic
throughout a normal day. Bec.use of the relatively small front
yards, sad the reflection of noise from the houses, the noise
levels are not substantially different at the houses than at the
sidewalk (1-2 dBA less).
Han Lane laprovement Project - Noise Page 3
11. POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
A. Sensitive Receptors.
The majority of prcpert►e■ adjacent to Ham Lane In the
project area are residential, with a few commercial uses and a
church making up the remainder. Most of the residences are
single- family, but a few ate apartments and duplexes. There is
only 100- 120 feet separating the homes on the Vest side of Has
Lane from those on the East side, so the distance to traffic is
relatively small.
8. Project Traffic Noise Impact&
The project would construct foot traffic lanes, plus either
two parking lanes or a center turn lane, depending on the
location. Traffic volumes have been projected in three growth
sceharlos between 1955- 2005, from ■taimum increases to high
growth. Five basic project cases are evaluated for potential
noise impacts, as shown below:
1. Four traffic lanes, two parking lanes
Volume: 15300 ADT (1985 Higf. growth)
2. Fuur traffic lanes, two parking !ants
Volume: 20300 ADT (1995 High growth)
3. Four traffic lanes, two parking lanes
Volume: 15300 ADT (2005 High growth)
4. Four traffic tones, center turn lane
Volume: 25300 ADT (2005 High growth)
5. No Project - Two traffic lanes
Volume: 25300 Alf (2005 High growth)
a r
a
w
oo
x
r
a
o
a
a•
t
A
O <
o
O
O
'�
O
•�
o
•
a
•
7
>•
•
•
•
•f
r
•
O O
•
T
• •
o
.�
•
<
w
u
r
u
N
r
w
•
s
•
r
•_
O
•
a •
•
•
•
•
O
O
• •
7
�
w
N
V
•
O
^
•
Y
w
r•
O
O
a•
•
1
i
w
.
•
n r
^
n•
r
n
..
o
n
•
R
w
•
w
•.
O
T
•.
• r
• ••
..
w
a
.-
T
0
0
0
•o
•o
• .}
a
a
c T
e•
^
n
R
o
• <
•
F
^
.-
v
O.
^
• Y
a
•
•
7
a
n
r
•
•
u
v
vt
u.
ar
A
•
•
•
c
A
••
•�
• • �
_
•
w
n
•
O
•
n
r
•
a w
a
••�
+
s
•.
s
w
O
•
-
O T
a
•
a
•
•
t
I
t
t
t
N
•
w
.•� •
•
•
a
M•
•
r
q
w
r
tw
v
O
D r
•
•
n
•
• M •
e
e
y n
•
•
`<
•
N
a
r
r
R'
G
• [
M
w
[
u
•
1
N e
r •�
•
-
S
•
•
c
w
•-
•.
-.
w
s
•-
s
r
v
...
.-
•
o.
C
•. • w
O
�
w w
w
r
o•
�
a
.-
.-
.-
.-
r
.•
o
.-
a
..
w
s
w
.. a •.
<
•
r
a
o
o
c
o
e.
•
r
•
•
•
•
r
T
r
r
o
r
N
o s•
•
• w
o
c
m+�
n
<
o
7
s
a
7
w
r
e
c•
n•
v•
•
a o
a
w
n
a
•
o
a,
.,
.�
•
•
w
s
•
a o
•
1
w
a
•
•
� `
O
v
e
7
r
w
a
•
O
w-
o
0
7
w
•
c
6
•�
w
•
.�
.�
T
w
R
2
O
t
>
•
n
e
•< n
a
�
a O
p
•�
•
a
O
O
+
n
a
•
•
o
+
r
r
N
N
N
: a
>
Z
•
D
r
♦
•<
•
1
-
n
r
N
•
�
n r
�
�
w
r
o
•+
O
e
e
<
•+ •
O
•
•+
^
O ^ e
w
I _
M •
+
M
n
•
^
^
1
O
^
r
A
^
^
• •
O
♦ a
r
•f>
n
a
a
n
n
T
w T•
..
"
CL
�
0
0
O
+
w 1
O
O
•
C
w 7
7
•
•�
^
•
O
7
•
a
•
7
•
rR
t)
•
o
C
•
•
•+
r •
n
s
R
•<
^
v
•
r
v
R
G
tr
6 C
7
M
7
G
•'
M
•
�'
a
7
C
R
O
•+.
v
•
O
7
•
+ •
•
+
w
r
n
w
o
w
^
7
v
C
w
a
^
e
P
+
�
s .
•
•
•
7
n
c
06
• •
v
■
w
•
C
^
o
P
o
P
r
p
n
O O
v
^
o
>
•
Z
t
v
T
e
•
a
w
-�
w
7
a
•
v
►
n
•
c
7
•
^
^
a
_ •
w
R
7
"
•
e • •
.i
R
o
>
n
v
-
-�
o
• -
w
s -
G O
O
N
R
+
t
b
7
O
�
<
T
>
>
c
•
•
e
+
O
•' O
�
�
w
w
o. •
• o
+
o
�
a
•
o.
z
w
w w
r
O
o
n
•
• •
•
-
O
w
-.
•
O
•
p
•
w
O
•
•
n •
t}
O
•�
w
a
v
w
as
>
•
P
�.
�.
•
r
cn
•
o
>
Y
.-
c
•
e
n o.
>
a
R
w
(
•
O
v
e
D
a
M
n D
�•
w
•
N • •
T
o
w
o
o
w
e
w
■
o
i.+
•
�
w
a
T
•
II
a
v
c
n
r
r••
r
r w
T
•-�
O
a
•
•
R
•�
•
•
C
7
•
<
w
w r
•
•�
••
• •+
•
T
a
•
r
7
i
•
•
•
a
P
-1
n
O
O
+
•
r
a
a �- O
•
•
> c
o
•
T^
w
r
•
•
O
r
^
►
w
n
�
O
•
'•
n
w
•
• y
O
n
•^
O
•
O
O
7
O
a
r
R
•'
R
O.
•.
N
C
Q
-
w
^
•-•
G
a
w
w
n
•
•
•+
^ 1 e
T
w
yx�:
q.-�
v
o
>
v
•
•
•
•
7
M
a
-
> w
•
r
-..
O
M
•.
w
n
n
r
•
�
•
y o.
•
r
a
a
w
e
T
•
o
<
w
...
a
O
r w
w
v
• T[
n
t
n
n
O
1
O
•
< •
•
•
•
o.
•t
• 7
w >
•
6
•
r '�
M
�
O
O
r
•
T
v
a
7
r
O
•
n
•
• r
• .
.-
^
•
v
R
w
•
v
n
a
M
f
e
<
•
�
O
•
M
o
•-
v
P
�
v
a
•
• •
•
�
•
n
•<
w
O
a
R
�
• .-1
r
►
•
■
r
•
c
w
O
•
•
•
^
•<
w
^
T
•
^ w•
C
r
7
•
G
w
R
l
r
a
^
•.
r
w
L
•• R •
w
n<
^ •
4
•
II
•
•
7
s
o�
o
a
O
•v..
^
n
O
'
•1
o
a •
•
^ 7
•
o_
•
R
.O.
•
r
.<
c
_
•
w
a
•
i
•
w N R
a
f _
a r
a
w
oo
x
r
a
o
a
a•
t
A
o
n a:
0
0
•
o
•
a
•
Q
•
o
T
r
a
^
w
T
•
o
c
• •
w
a
C
b
•
v
O
^
•-
O
r
•
•
•
O
O
• •
7
�
w
N
V
•
O
^
•
Y
w
P
O
n
•
O
w
.
•
n r
^
r
o
n
R
w
•
w
•.
O
T
•.
• r
• .}
p
•-
O
^
r
R
R
a
^
.-
v
O.
^
• Y
a
•
•
7
•
R
•
v
•
^
r
•
a w
r
•
�
w 7
•
O
r
••
r
•
w
7
^
•
a
•
<
7
e
O
•
6
r
•
•-
•
r
G
e.
w
u
N e
r •�
a
-
v
o
c
w
•-
•.
-.
w
•
•-
v
• v
r
a
-
�
•
a
r
�
r
w
w
w
-
o.
a ..
w
•
•
o
o
R
w
•
�
�
v
o.
o
o.
n
•
T
n
<
R
O
r
n
�
n
..,
c
w
•
n
a
o
... •
• i
r
a
.-
s
c
1
a
•
v
O
v
e
7
r
w
a
•
O
w-
o
0
7
w
w
c
• r
w
T
w
R
a
•
r
r
a
�
n
o
o
•
: a
Y
O
'�
"
••
�
R
C
O
+
w 1
O
O
•
C
w 7
7
•
•�
^
•
O
•
•
7
•
t)
•
a
C
•
•/•
C O
7
•
R
•<
^
v
•
r
v
R
G
tr
6 C
7
M
7
G
•'
M
•
�'
a
7
C
R
O
•+.
v
•
O
7
•
O
•
w
•
•
O
w
^
7
v
O
w
7
o
P
<
•
•
•
7
n
c
06
•
o
P
o
P
r
•
^
^
o
>
n
o
v
T
e
•
a
w
-�
w
7
a
•
v
►
w
a
n
•
w
_ •
G O
O
N
R
+
t
b
7
O
�
Y N
•
•
e
+
O
•' O
r
o
7
•
•
•
O
w
-.
•
O
•
p
•
w
O
•
•
n •
t}
O
•�
w
a
.�
•
w
•
O �
Y
•
•�
Y
•
•
c •..
>
a
w
.
v
e
a
a
�•
o
T
o
w
o
o
w
e
w
■
o
i.+
•
v
w
p
a
O
c
n
r
w
O
T
•-�
O
a
•
•
�
•�
O
S
M
7
•
♦
w
•
r 7
••
T
•
T
T
•
r
7
•
•
a
P
-1
n
O
O
+
r
a
7 •
•
•
r
.
w
a
•
•
O
•
w
•
o
O
•
'•
n
w
•
• y
O
n
•^
O
•
O
O
7
O
a
O
7
w
^
t'
•
w
o
•+
w
w
r
O
o
v
0
•
•
•
7
M
•
Y
•
-..
O
M
•.
w
n
n
r
•
�
•
y o.
•
r
a
a
a
O
<
w
a
T Of
w
7
n
7
O
O
< •
•
•
•
o.
•t
w >
•
M
O
S
n
O.
a
7
•
O
n
n
P
M
^
•
O
O
M
•
H
•
S
•
• •
•
n
O
■
r
•
c
w
O
•
•
•
•
•<
w
a
•
^ w•
•
w
R
l
r
a
a
r
N
•
o•
n<
•
•
a
s
o�
o
a
r
n
r
o
r
•
•,
•
o_
•
n
+
.<
c
_
•+
s
n
•
•
O
w
t
•
..
T
o
O
•
•
•
T
w
a
V
• 7
N
n
L
•
• •
n
•
�
t
•
w
w
L
•
•� •�
■
n
•-
Y
R
S
O
7
•
O
■.
n
•
•
••-
n
•�
O
n
n
O
C
7
P
O•
M
P
v
s
T
C
7
p a
S
•
�
•
O
w
(
•
O
>
v
•�
O •
>
O
•
•
'O
•�
•
•
a
M
b
•
d
Y
•
O
• •
•
�
t
• •
a
r
o
<
T
w •
•
w
T
• w
s
w
o
w
w•
+
o.
a•
• w
�••
w
O
�
r
v
T
•
a
n
r •
T
w
e
a
w •.
o.
^
a
u
w
w
r
w
a
•
•
o.
w•
•�
o
w v
a •
at
•-1
r
♦
•
•
w
•
e
a
v�
c
o w
o
v A
•
c
c
y s
w
n
r N w
•
V r•
w
a
?
D M
O
D
O
M
♦
w A
!
A
M
•�
•
!
>•
O
o
O
O
0
7
0
S a
w
O
r
!♦
c
t
C
r•
■ C
^
w
1
► e
•- A
r
♦
a••+
O O.
7 .-
a
t
o
^
•
r
O
r 7
�• .-
a
a
■ o.
O w
•
a.
w
•
a «
C
T
A
a
o •
O 'n
[
o.
•-
n
0
n
„w
o »
O O
O
w
a`
w t-
w
w
•
w
♦
w
•
e
t
w
q
O
a
•
O
e
o r•
♦
w
♦
i
•
w
t
•
o.
w
•
o ^
a
4
-
•
w
v
w
^
o
•
�•
7
r
O A
■
•
7
w
w M
•
w
•
w•
Oa
•
w
D
• a'
w O
•
t
•
e
w
.
q
w
r
p
n
O
••
/
r
o
•
+•
• 4
4
a
n
w
w•
A
M
C
a
C
r
10
a
a
v
•
o
r
a•
.O
•
n
a
w
O
n
•
C •
w
�
o
_
•� r
o
w
w
[
o
to
n
o
0
r
a
a
w
o a
O n
•
s
-i
y 6
r
'�
O
•
• w
M
O
0
0
>
•
a
y•
•
o
•
•
•
v
•J
•
t
e
o
n a
V
w
i
a
•.
i
w
w
a
w
c
^
0•
T
c
•
a
O
v
wO
a
w
r
o
•
•.
w
w
n
.�
i
•
O
•
t
v
•
o
O
s
•
,r
•O
S
•_
w
o
w
•
•
r
�
O.
w
w
n
•
•
•
O.
•�
r
r
•
a
•
v
a
�.
v x
n
a
�
•
T
w• •
•
O
• O
•
�+
•
n •
es
w
C
•.
M
T
O
<
C
O
w
n
a
O O
•
•
a
e
"'
O
•a
o
_
N
N
a
C
w
O
•
•
D
i
•
O
•
N r
•
7
•
♦
•
O a
•a
O
•f
PI
w
<
r
a
w
r
O
•
M
•<
•�
a
v M
•
<
<
r
a a
C
•
•
a
v
�
y
M
T
O.
•
o•
<
O
•
•
a.
a
•
to
o
n r
n
n
.<
w
to
n
•
•
•
T
•
�
r
»
o
w
•
a
o
v
n•
:
•
r
n
o
v
•
•
s
w
_
c
•+
i
_
a
•
n
4
•<
•
s
o
v
r
o
•
s
7
O
•
O O
n
n
7
-
v
•
•
a
s
•
a
•
a
e
•
c
—
a c
w
v
e
w
C6
•
w
a
•
•+
a
n
o
w
a
•
i
w
a
q
v
a
•
o
a
w'
v
i
•.
•
»
s a
w
•
o
c
a
�
»
a
a
n
n
a
o
o
w
•
w
e 6
0
o,
w
e
n
s
7
Go
e
p r
a
•
» •
•
r
•
cr
•
•
0
q
•.
•-
•
.o
c
o
•
o.
•
c
c
•
•
0
w
r•
v0
•
•
•
•
•
r
•
r•
•
•
O
O
A
•
•
D
•
n
q
O
w a
7
7
7
C
c
•
O
4
•
<
e
a
•
e
•
c
w
n
w
c w
w
w
n
•
<
•
r r
<
•
O
a
»
■
4
4
Y
•
a
i
A
p
•
•
•
O
w
M
q
O
r
A
^
O
C
v
w
v
•
O
q
c
a
0.
•
M !
a
C
A
Y
O
•
7
'•
n
0.
O
M
N
is
r
A
0
G
•
r
G
7
or.
s
n
s
+
•
w o
r
o
r
n
w
>
»
e•
A»
r
o
a »
•-
c •
c
a
O
•
c
n
c
0
o
a
n
• 7
0.
••.
•
—
a
w
o
a
a
•-
•-
v
• O
o.
o
•
u
w
o
o
O
•
•^ v
a
v
A
a
r
P
a
+
v
»•
a
a
a
c
o
a 0
w
<
z
a
o
v
•
n
n
Y
•
7
O.
7
•
r
O
c
o a
o
c
•
•
w
r
v.
—
T
o
a
n
7 w
0.
7
n
y
r
N•
w
G
•
>
•
•
•
•
O
•
■ Y
O
r
•
7
•
•
O
•
•
c
•
O
7 7
D
►
w
O
a
M
rl
O
•
•<
A
A
C •
C
7
O
7
>
^
G C
C
0.
<
T
6
n
n
p •
•
• ^
a
7
A
C
•
C
^_ o�-�
o
a
•-
w
c
o
••�
n
e
o
c
.•
o a
7
•
- a
Y
Y
w
•
r
r
v
<
a G
T
a
�
.n
7
w t
a
w
»
•
•
7
�
a
a •
at
•-1
r
e
v w
w
w
•
e
a
v�
c
o w
o
v A
a
c
c
r
w
C
!
•
c
w
a
C
M
•< 7
•
O
w
a
w A
!
A
M
< •
••
O
r
R
o
e
v
■
7
a A
Y
A
O
w R
O
c
a
C
e Y
■ C
^
w
1
► e
•- A
r
■
r
O O.
7 .-
a
O
■
^
•�
A
O
r 7
�• .-
a
a
■ o.
O w
•
a.
w
•
a «
C
T
A
a
o •
O 'n
[
o.
•-
n
0
n
„w
o »
r
»
w
»
^
V
a
w
T v
w
•
e
t
w
q
A
a
A
O
e
o r•
T
w
o
> v
w
w
t
•
o.
w
•
o ^
a
4
-
•
w
v
w
^
o
•
w
7
r
O A
■
•
7
w
O
^
t
e
v
w
w
0
w
O
w O
•
t
•
e
• O
o
b
r
a
o
w
a
o
■
o
n a
• 4
4
a
n
o w
•f
A
M
C
a
C
r
10
a
M
n
+
o
O
x
.O
c
n
a
w
O
n
•
C •
w
�
o
_
•� r
o
w
w
[
o
to
n
o
0
r
a
a
w
o a
o
a
•
-i
7 w
r
M
A
•
e
M
4
0
A
[
A
•
c
•
7 O
■
r
a
w
c c
v
■
e
o
n a
V
w
i
a
•.
i
w
w
a
w
c
^
0•
T
c
•
a
O
v
wO
a
w
r
a
n
•
w
♦
O •
•
o
O
O
o
Y
q
w
O
n
•
N
•O
S
w
w
o
O•
w
a •
at
•-1
r
e
o •
^
f
c
e
a
v�
c
o w
o
v A
_
O
w
C
!
•
c
•
a
r
M
N
•
O
w
a
w A
!
A
M
< •
••
O
r
Y C
w
c
■
7
T
^
w
w
• 0.
r
c
a
c
O
!
a
p
► e
•+
r
v
r
•- T
7 .-
a
O
■
z •
•
a
!
a •
�• .-
a
a
■ o.
O w
•
a.
w
•
a «
r
2
e
a
r
O 'n
[
o.
• ^
o
0
s
q
o »
n
o
7
�. •
V
w
w
w
•
e
•
w e
w
n
a
�
M
Ot
o r•
T
w
<
> v
w
w
t
•
o.
w
•
• R
•
4
•
r
a
•
w
^
•
•
w
r
r
>
■
•
7
w
O
O •
a
Oe
y
^ •
»
w
p
v
w O
•
t
•
e
w o
o
�
r
w a
c
w
w
A
V
w
• 4
n
.O
•
•
•f
!
•
C
O
c
r
10
•�
< r
w
o
n
w w
.O
P
n
w
C
o
w
o
w
�
o
_
•� r
o
w
w
[
o
to
»
0
c_
>
O A
7
T
w
•
-i
A s
a
w
w
o
e
�
4
o.
A
• e
r
•
o
•
v
e
■
o
a
w
M •
q
o
0
n a
V
w
i
a
•.
w
»
w
a
w
■
n
w
T
.-
O v
a
a
Y <
wO
a
w
r
c •
n
•
w
♦
O •
w
n
a
o
r a
Y
q
w
O
.r •
O a
•
7
•
v
e
-<
D
^
f
.•-
e
a
v�
w
o w
w
A •••
C
O
0•-1
A
•
a
• T
M
O 7
0.
w
R
.•. A
!
A
M
••
w
r
O
C
0.
■
w a
T
^
w
w
O
A
n
w
t
a
v
»
O
a
r
r
w •
7 .-
a
O
■
O
a
a
!
O
A
■ o.
O
•
•
M
0 O
a «
2
e
A
T
[
e
o
s
q
o »
n
o
7
7
V
f
w
•
e
•
w e
w
n
a
�
M
o r•
w
<
c
T
o.
a ^
• e
o.
w
•
w
•
n
•
•
a
•
w
^
•
w
w
w
w
O 7
■
•
7
w
O
•
r
Oe
y
a O
.
-
O
v
7
•
t
•
•
o
•c
r
C,
V
T 7
o
.O
»
•
C
Q
■
7 M
c
v
10
c
• w
w
o
n
w w
.O
P
!
O
C
>
r
^
a■
o
_
o t
o
r
o
to
»
c_
>
O A
7
T
w
•
-i
A s
a
w
T
•
O
4
6
A
a
a
w
r v
■
o
•
M
r
q
o
n a
w
i
A
■
O
»
P
w
■
n
w
T
.-
O v
a
a
Y <
wO
a
w
r
c •
r
n
O
»
n 1
w
•+
•
T
q
w
O
•
v
N
• c
n
q
o
N
0.
<
7 •
w
a
w
a
v�
•+
o w
A
0.
[
• T
O/
r
• O
• a
■
O
0.
■
T
^
w
w
O
A
n
w
t
<
O •-
»
O
a
r
r
w •
7 .-
a
O
■
a
Y
■ o.
•
e
M
•
2
e
A
T
[
e
o
s
q
o »
n
o
7
c •�
f
w
•
0
w
w
o
a
o
0
o r•
w
<
c
e
a ^
w
o.
w
•
D
a
q A
A o
^
D
o
w
O 7
■
7
O
6
y
•
.
-
a
r 2
^
O
w
•
r O
C
T
■
y
w
10
w
w
a•
t
a■
o
_
•+
O
•
O A
C
T
(
q
7
a
n
r
•
O
� ■
»
a
a
C
o
■
■
r
o
�
T
w
•.
A
■
O
»
P
■
R
C
T
.-
O v
.-
•
w
o 0
n
•••
0.
»
f
1
O
a
q
w
c
<
v
»
w a
n
q
o
w
» >
•
r
r
t
a
v
a
n
v x
a
T
•
T
• r
a
es
w
•.
7
T
0.
<
O
• r
w
w
q
•
•
a
�
a
o
•
r
o
w
w
a
a
•
7
♦
•<
O a
a
O
q q
�
O
a •+
N
n
0.
•
a
v
w
oe
»
o
a
o
o•
>
o
-
e
w
P
9
Supplement to Ham Lans Noise Impact and Mitigation Study
Discussion of Low Barrier for Traffic Noise Mitigation
In most roadside receptor situations, with a setback of at
least 35 feet from the roadway, a 2 1/2 foot barrier at the
sidewalk would provide 3-4 dBA noise reduction on the first floor
of the residences and in the part of the front yard near the
house.
On Ham Lane, with setbacks from the curb of only 10- 20
feet, the view of the road surface (where much of the noise is
generated) would not be significantly blocked by the barrier, and
a reduction in noise level of 1-2 dBA would not be perceived as a
noticeable noise reduction.
i
H. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
9/12/84
"
•
•
If
~
N
r
h
u
N
•
s o
• •�
.
•
•
w
,
r
•
n
o
o
t
N
o
ew
o•
n
•
• w
,
w
w r
i
r•
•0
a
>
a
v^
a
s
a
o
s
•
•-
••
a.
•
w
e•
or
s
•
A6
AL
•
n
c
n
r
e
n
w>
�.
o
c
•
♦ s
• s
7
-
w
r
7•
c
►
c
o
n
e
�
-.
c
a•
• r
t
n
•
r w
�•
s
v
•
e
o
•
.c
•.
n►
7
•
O
•w
a
o
•
a
s
^
•
• n
0
9L
as
°
:
•
•
to
a
r
..
.<
c
•
«.
•
»
«.
a
n
a
9r
n
�•
M
•
'�
•
•
•
O
A
a
•
t
r
�
A M
t
-
7
C
1
r
^
O
•
'
•-
e
A
o
a
a
L
P
.a.
•
a
O
w
n w
... w
a
r
w
-
r
►
•
• ..
w
n
• •
to
j
+
r
^
a
w
c
�
w
e
•
•-
•
r
7•
o
r
i
N
Y
�
w
w
o
A
s
w
[
s
r
• n
a
w
e •.
..
n
..
s
w
o
7
o
•
-.
o•
o
0
_
c
p
A
•
r
a
.•
c
n
P
•
O O
o
D
A
�
V
+
w
O C
+
M
A
A
Z
S
a
a►
i�
w•
n
•'
v
v
•
a
..
r
i
•<
o
o
�
'
•- •
•
o
c
•
i
w
e
A•
o
a
o
w
z
1
a
w
o
e
[
a
»
w
v
- s
•
o
s
a
•
0
0
^
a
a
w
•�
�
•
�
n
o
•
»
w
o
n
•f
�
-
-
�
0
7
.-
n i
•
v +
^
�
7
0
•
^
7 o
a
-f
n
e
��
•
Y
^
O'
�
C
r
N
A
O »
»
•.
Y
o
•.
v
-•
e
n
e
o
• a
c
•
o
0
o
e
s
+
o
q
N
w
t
•
a
t
^
r
•'
^'
�
^
�
7
n a
O
7
•`
O
Y
n
D
n
�
7
•
»
o
�
Y
•
7
•
O•
O
r
i
c
•
w
C
O
►
a
A
o A
+f
c
•
c
•
-
a
.-
o
r
r
•
v •
q
r
v
w
.
p
n
•
w
a
t
O r
•�
q
►•
7
.a.Y
w
•
a
w
o
•.
w
n v
•
-
•
•
'-
V
•
P
t
C
7
r •
►
a
•
•
•
a
a
r
7
v
r
o
w
n
a
•
Y•
•
�
•
o—»
7
7
v
w,
w•
�
r
9
.�
p
n
r
•
-
,e
t
O
n
c
f
O
O
• 1�
w
7
7
••
A
•
•-
•
C
a
L •
f
•
o
s
•
•,
a
••
•.
o
a
• c
•
r
n n
•
9
•
r
P
V
O
♦
w
•
7 7
r
OZ
S
r
N
r
N
r
i
r
O
O
t
• C •
C
a
•+
O
G
1+
-
r
a
o
•
r r +
n
v
r
w
w
o
a
v
••
a
7
••
0
7
0
�
o
•
»
r
00
A w
O
•
•
7
<
<
• 6
t
w
w
a
O
w
•�
•
w
p
w
n
O
•
r
•� •
a
O
O
^
t
t
a
C
w
a
A
<
Q
�
a o ►
i
•,
•
e
i
o �
•
a
•
s
•
•
c
w
7►
n
n
o•
a
w
a
7
o
i 7 •
a
a
+
a
►
t
w • Y
a
r
o
•
»
a
a
o
o
a
w'a
Ar
n
n
w
e
a
+ a•
O
•
•
�
r
n
r
s
o
•
a
•
•.
O
•
•
•
•
a
•
46
-
wO
O
t
O
t
A
V
n
O
L
•
w r
•+
n
w
n
a
w
n
•
•
w
n 7
c
o
o
�
A
M
L
n
n
•
i
•
O
n
>
•�
a
O
Y
'�
•
•
L
w
7
�
r
^•
A
S
O
•
A
O
2
0
n
O
•�
O
•
e
•
a
n•
•
O
r
..
•
•
n
P
�
p
•
r
•
v
c n
?
•
_
a
O
n
O
O
V
• •
C
a •
Q
7
•
�
•
O
a
O
c
►
o
v
•
r
i
o s
n
s
r
a
n
• n
•
o
a
P
•
A •
S
►
n
O.
•
w
r
r
a
n
O
O
•
s
•
w
n
o •
•
»
r
7
w
• i
n
�
r •
w
•
r
S1
g
.r•.
7
v
n
7
►
w
na
c o
n
•
Y
s
•
n 5
••
0
.p
NOISE REFERENCES
1. • m I U. S. tavlroamtntal Protection Agtacy,
1te o Molae A►ateoent and Costrol. Washington, D.C.,
December 1971.
2. /tocsed/ssa, Cmaleroace on lots# 4* a Public Neaitb Masora.
Aserlcas Spatch sad Neartag Association. Washington.
Jose 1960.
Inforo4tioR• t of Ln+ ono nisi Nota, Rt uisite to
Protyll EvOlc to an Ve art with an Ade ua[e Mar in
U.S.nvlroseeatal Protection Agency, lice o!
else A steoost and Control, Washington, D.C., March 1974.
4. MI Av N - A Oe 1 n Guide for Mi hwa En inerts,
6tiosa uoparatl•e f{hveyResearch tetras sport 117.
Nighvsy Research (bard. National Acadtay of Sciences,
Washingtum, D.C., 1971. Model revised by S. Shelly for
improved accuracy.
S. 0 i i19•eet gf the San Joa utn Count General Plan, San
eo0via ova- aty Planning Dapnrtnent, [ocktjn. CA. November
1978,
N. Stances Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
APPc71D11
Environmental Noise Measurement and Analysis procedure
1. Select monitoring 8190 IN Lacus of astatine sots* sources. receptor areas.
topography, and soles transmission characteristics.
2. Mate field eats* measurements of Individual sources and loot -tarts statis-
tical variation on the project site (15-30 sioutes at a time in each
location). E4wlp40at used:
Metrososles Model 601 dR Maio* Distribution Analyser
gruel and Rjaer Model 22% Proclaims sound Level Motor
gruel sed ejaer Model 4230 Gllbratec
4. Record peak sofas, levels for idlvidual sources ad Incidents. and the
statistical descriptors of Interest computed by the Noise Distribution
Analyser, such as L50. L10 and L"-
5. Based upon field mosoutem*ata and tramaporstlos sola modeling data
(for traffic, modified Highway Research Board import 117)o determine
source/distance relationships en the Rita.
6. Compute La values from measured statistical descriptors ed typical
variation gf traffic volumes throughout the day:
To coepute Lan, where Lr is L* i for period R:
Lan - 10 LOG 24 1 2(10 10 ) • 1(10 10 ) + 2(10 10 ) ♦ 3(10 10 )
• 2910 L1*10 ) ♦7(10 LF+10 16 )
10 10) • (10 10) )
A-1
Hrly. Vol
Mrly. Vol
Period
Mrs.
it APT)_
Period
Mrs.
(2 ADT)
A. 7 as - 9 as
2
7.5
D.
7 pm - 10 pe
3
4.0
1. 9 an - 4 pe
7
3.6
E.
10 pe - 12 Mid.
2
2.5
C. 4 pe - 7 pe
2
7.0
F.
12 Kid- 7 as
7
0.7
(No Peai,)
G.
Peak Hour
1
10
To coepute Lan, where Lr is L* i for period R:
Lan - 10 LOG 24 1 2(10 10 ) • 1(10 10 ) + 2(10 10 ) ♦ 3(10 10 )
• 2910 L1*10 ) ♦7(10 LF+10 16 )
10 10) • (10 10) )
A-1
h. Siesta" Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
L" to da owru agrivalont "oil! lovol, otherwise doflnod as the
•(Ogle steady wise level which has the NM **wad onorty ss the Actual
widely -varying wise level being doscrlbod. Lda 10 essentially the Nae as
LM accept that darts$ the eight tis* potlod tram Iotoo p.m. to ):oo s.e.
a 10 do epewltye to addd to account for the enpoctation of a more gwtat
emvirortmeet at might. to other words, s tocs[tom with s IS d4! daytime
L« would only have an Ldo of )) If the noise level 4vilms the sight
dropped At last 10 46A.
Me sableat Sole* level rotors to the coobinat tun of all sources of
w/N which sato up the no/ot eopertencod at a $Ivan location. the Oeres-
ground mote* refers to the combinatlom of distant sources which d*termine
the mlalosom sound levels to say locatton. In statistical doscripto"s the
Lto of L„ level 1A often wood as a measure of the b*clslound ealse level.
To mote readily be able to understand and compere the differences in
notes levels from ono location to another, equal null• contovts are often
developed for a ghee site. Coatours can he constructed lot Ito, Lda, LI
or any other appropriate descriptor, depending upon their Intended pure bo.
Yost often. L10 or L's contouts .re used. joining locations en a site
which have the seer L10 of Lda 001e* levels to S dS tacrosonts, stellar
to jotatng places of equal elevation on a topographic contour map. e..is*
tontoure are helpful and effective In lean use plannleg and to d*voloping
noise mltlgatted moasutea.
two t0ncapts ata particularly Important In doeling with not** ellgt-
tion, wt&* reduction, of noise attenuation, three teres havl".e the Nee
wnint to general uaa$*. Each tars means to lower not &* levels in the area
Of cancers through sae or note technique*. Reflection is one common noise
ieductl*n method, which div*tts sound energy from a location of high eeeact
A-1
■. Staetoe Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
to as area of loss impact. arch so with a mise baffler- Noise s►eorpttoa
la s mechanism by which solo ort" We. such as thick sanse outdoors. or
opus ftberglao batt• (base I"AslAtloa), comv*rt lsci4*at mound *eetgy into
but rsthot thea reflecting It.
)Lathesatical no1N p4elA are oftom sod is w►lmg anolyses of mise
*mvlroamonto as s sup►lA'aont to "amen" field wise wwreaaeta, et for
pr O1Kt1Ag future noise coeditlew which cannot be weard. Noted sodeliag
tefars to using prevtowly masurd and aselyed relettesmhi►s Mtreom Miss
souteo characteristics and physical And goometrteal codltlow to est"a"te
mise levels, A "Welber of *04010 for projwctleg aircraft "also. highway
Iwhit"• noise std railroad Sale* have Non dev*lopd by or wed*r contract to several 30w*rnmentAl agencies, ad ars presently In vtdsspra4 as* and
acceptance.
I
A-5
r.
n " Po
:MDL
••�°•°i!w
•
��
•
, i E •
Do b
P C o•: •
..
.•. w:o
g
r
e p
♦ . p D n •`,� �, r w 0
r
P n �j ► w+• r C
(a
so
�
'
•• i
• i Y
A
O
a• • . a •
46H r
.p w
F .�
w •... `fie,
�
G
•
^ .w
A
r
t �
w
§o
• awes•
e� 0? 6• w i 0 "
10
• �
A e Ir
o
02
,••
r a ^• �
. o►
61
w. .
O
n•
O n
•+
T v Y ' 7
n .•i • a
w 1•• A
Q
• �^ 7.
i n ... n O
. .
ot 12,
�
8-0 02;
P
,
M
.<
,
R
w a V Sir..
• � � �'+ ,
O
► '
C
•
►
}:
p•
w
p
• • 0
F ^
C
^
•�
n
C
•
$
L
s
•
. • 7 w
O.
. � • O •
a n s
�i
.0. w
►
a
w • n
r
O � w •
• p C r •
y w n n� p
w• • O w
c0
O a M ? .•
i
•
•
P i
D• D O^ w•
• •
o
•
•
P a
• rp
OZ. • r
P•
a •
n
.O.
6
•
`
�
♦ O y ••
• `
n rj n w
n w s n•
G r r
sG
c
".� s�:
�
�
w n r o• v.
n a ^
n• �w a• 4
7 0• M
P 1
.• y• V
P• P O
`.
1
o
C
o n
g
O p
a n
?
�� <S
P
a
n P ` �
a
• 1 O
7 ^1 . S o .ci
`, i w
A.
6
IL S
•••
0
7
^ A d•
V•
r`
i
O w e
y w y E w
v
i i• 7 w
• n e
C
^
n n �. •
MMM w
61
?
. C
•
w 7 7
►• i .� w
d
° ~
�`
J
n v r
n
•
CD' r
�
n
a•
•
< A
o^,
7 7
o O
d
;"
S<
w 0
w n
•
gi p
A
s w•
• e -
•?
. 7 Y
. r
o
too—go
n
? w
•
•
n
� p
w w 7•
P
'
s
r.
F
• S
n " Po
e ^ < • i
Do b
P C o•: •
..
.•. w:o
g
r
e p
♦ . p D n •`,� �, r w 0
r
P n �j ► w+• r C
(a
w • . ,
6 • a Y
: N w V ;• n
'
•• i
• i Y
r w n^ n w i•
6 7 p. nO
•
a• • . a •
46H r
F .�
w •... `fie,
r r
nw•O••p7
+
P
wnt
.=
n
p
§o
• awes•
e� 0? 6• w i 0 "
• �
A e Ir
o
02
,••
r a ^• �
. o►
61
w. .
O
n•
O n
•+
T v Y ' 7
n .•i • a
w 1•• A
Q
• �^ 7.
i n ... n O
. .
ot 12,
N p • n .•
O• i? V •
o f r O ►
11 w
v
p
a
O � w •
• p C r •
y w n n� p
w• • O w
c0
O a M ? .•
•^ VV1�
D• D O^ w•
• •
• P w
s
•• 4 p^, v
« O w
n n
• C rP. w
• • i
♦ O y ••
i a o� Y.• O
n w s n•
C
w w S w
".� s�:
►. • a ►.•
• w n :. G a
w n r o• v.
n a ^
n• �w a• 4
o
• Y n O 1 w
�� <S
a
c o O^ r
7 ^1 . S o .ci
`, i w
A.
c r w` e ,
tons-
.. v ncL w w. no
0.
"7 0 Y
O w •< r c. M .
y w y E w
v
i i• 7 w
• n e
^
61
••
w 7 7
►• i .� w
a O. •
F
• S
TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES
Jet aircreft toka off (501)
Auto born (i')
Back waste to a eight club
Motorcycle accelerating.
0. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
11018E LEVEL TYPICAL NUKAN RESPt1MSt:
(dSA)
130
120 Pain & Rearing Deuage
110
105 Possible Peruememt Rearing
damage
so muffler (25')
100
95
Tesgorary Nearing Loss
Motorcycle accelerating.
stock Muffler (25')
90
Uncomfortable
rood blender (I')
00
very Disturbing
Powr lawn ower (20')
Steady urban traffic (25')
70
Coemmunications Difficult
Nor,mal conversation (7')
t0
Daytime street. so nearby traffic
50
45
Sleep Disturbance
Quiet office
40
Inside quiet boas. Soft vklsper (10')
10
very quiet
Movie or recording studio
20
Seldom-ozpa rlence.l ambient
10
tartly audible
Threshold of hearing
0
A decibel "A-wlgbted" (d SA) is a unit of measurement Indicating the relative
intensity of a sound as it is board by the buswm ear. An increase of 10 d%A
indicates a solos level increase of about three times. but only a doubling in
Perceived loudness.
A -g
Appendix D
Air Quality Analysis
i
rMmm~ I', now Tawt c rder Lary
rc` . Air oaewy C40WI ta. CA 950M
Erargy 14001 1s7• 1046
All QUALITY IMPACT AND MITIGATION STUDY
NAM LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City of Lodi. CA
August ll , 1984
Submitted to
KATE bURDIC.t LAND USE PLAhNINL
Auburn, CA
Prepared by
M. STANTON SHELLY
Principal C.rnsultant
NAM LANE WlDf IMG PRWECT
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I NTVOUIK.Ti ON
The air quality of a green area is not only dependent upos tits aaoent
of air pollutants witted locally or within the air basis. bet also ca
directly related to the weather potterms of the region. The vied speed and
direction. the temperature profile of the atmosphere. a4d the amount of
humidity and sunlight determine the fate of the emitted pollutants each
day, end determine the resulting conceetrations of sir pollutants defining
the "air quality."
1. EXISTING SETTING
A. Regional Climate.
The San Joaquin Vallev climate is a %editetranean type. characterized
by mild and total winters. and hot and pearlt, dry summers. There is a high
percentage of sunshine, over WX of the daylight hours from April to
(k toter .
Dur tag the summer the Par if it high pressure system typically sits near
the CA11forni• cost, pushing oncoming ocean -formed storm aystemr north
through t ht northwest states and Canada. Subsidence of warm air •loft
as%ociated with this system creates the frequent surer atmospheric
temperature inversion and stagnated tondittoss. (See the Appendix for
definition" of commonly -used aeteorologicel and air guaittt terms.)
Average matimum temperatures during the surer to the Stockton - Lodi
tenor. are near W, F., and average evening minimums are near SS" F.
During the winter the Pacific high pressure system moves southward.
allowing scores to move through Central California. As they approach. winds
are typically from the southeast. and as the storm passes they turn
northeast. Gusting winds of ZO to 40 mph are common during stores. With
•
u
I
iA
a
rt p
s
n
.-
R
p
n a
C
►� o
-1
�
�
Y
rC�
N
v
N t
O ..+
G
r
G r
.O
O u
�
L
P
-1 ►moi
—
a
c
=
>
0 u
0
N
^
>
f
O
p u
L.
o
f
.
O
v01,
—1
rr
,
•
u
I
iA
O
ti •
M
•
•
w
7 O
N •�
�
7
H
O
+
8f
♦
�
Qn
T Y
°^
G
•
•
i
/1
7 Y
M p
T
r
p
w
7
� O
r r
..
. c
� t
w �
v
.•. ~
�T
r
o
�J
^
C •
r > >C
y
_
r
t
.
of
-
C1
Y
•
�
�
^
�
R
�.
1
J
•
G
.n..
O
w
•
?
�
< y
+ w
• r
p
•O
•
+
r
�
`Y 1�
w
P
O
ii
�
�
M
w
G
<
+
�
7
�
•".
r
+
�
P
Y
►
rZ
w �
• M
R
�
�
^
�
a
C
G
r
�
•
[
p
A
r
C
7
w
O ^ �
O
� p
•
w r
•O •
"JJ
w 7
_
• �' O
O
^
>
�1 �[
r
w
c
•
a
F
v +
•
.
—
� r
N -
g
�
S
r
w
•
� � •
R
•y "+
C D
p
O
n
p
n
w
w
7r
_
�
"
• o`
"
.•. -C.
•
4
p
9
p,
O
,
�
0
�
q
'•
w
T
r
p
w
7
� O
r r
..
. c
� t
w �
v
.•. ~
�T
r
o
�J
^
C •
r > >C
y
_
r
t
.
of
-
C1
Y
•
�
�
O
^
v
7
^
q
..
R
�1
_•
•
1
s
r
O
9
^
O
J
r
R
�.
1
J
•
G
.n..
O
w
•
?
�
r
w
r
^
h
O
• 9
r
•
n
•
O
�
w
.•.
•
w
w
^
►
V
C
"
—
-�
v
C?
J
�
O
♦
b
n
A
M
C1O
^
O
a
^
n
•.
r
O
P
O
ii
�
�
M
w
G
<
+
�
7
�
•".
r
+
�
P
Y
►
O
t
MM
R
�
�
^
�
a
C
G
r
�
•
[
p
A
r
C
7
w
O ^ �
O
� p
•
w r
•O •
"JJ
w 7
_
• �' O
O
^
>
�1 �[
r
w
I
Ilam Lane Improvement Project Air Quality Pare b
lest from the middle of the road (about the middle of the average yard).
Distance is not a significant air quality factor, however, air.r.
cooceatrstior.s decrease vrrr 610.11 as distance increases. Composite
rehicls emiastom factors are true the Air Rrsowces &,did VWPA: program
(Ref. b),
C. Project Traffic Impacts
The intent of the project is to improve the flow of traffic on Ham
lasne by providing four traffic lanes and therefore sure capacity. As
higher average speeds are achieved through less- congested traffic flow.
air quality emissions and impacts would be lower on Has Lane and on
neighboring streets. However, lower emissions per vehicle would be offset
somewhat by anticipated increases in vehicle volumes in (wture tears.
Stace no new trips are being generated by the project, the total nwt.er
to the Oros will stay the Saw.
Roadside CO concentrations were modeled for two No -Project tises And
two project 'aces for (omparthon, based upon dtftetent lane cunfisurati.m +
and traffic volumes:
Case 1 No -Project, two lanes, 19015, AD1 of I1,5t A).
Case 2 Project, four lanes, IT)',. ADT of 20,3W.
Cy se 3 : Project, four lanes, 200. AM of 25, 3W.
Case 4 %o -Project, two lanes. 2lX 5, ADT of 25.X)O.
Average Has Lsne speeds ate estimated to br f0 mph during peak hour
and 35 spit at other limes for Cases 1, ., and J. Case 46 would be cariuuslt
congested, and speeds are estimated to be 1n sph at prof, tour and 15 apt, at
other times. Traffic projections are from the project trtlflc stud) b)
TJ[M Transportation Consultants. Sacramento. Exhibit 2 compares the
roadside cuncentrattons for the post significant cases. Other cases nut
evaluated would produce smaller changes in roadside Cl) concentratiuns.
Han lenr improvement Project All Quality Page 2
Exhibit 2 - Has laser Project W Concentrations (ppm)
GSE PEA[ MR NICK I ISL
1 No -Project, 1905 1.1 0.3
2. Project. 1995 1.3 0.4
3. Project. 1005 1.0 0.5
4. No -Project. 2005 1.0 1.0
It should be noted that the Exhibit 2 concent rat ions are based only
upon vehicles on Nae Lane. The total CO concentration would include a
variable background concentration of from 1 to 5 ppm from other vehicular
emissions and sources to the area.
The modeled concentrations Show the effects of the gradual wirivame of
traffic volumes in Cowes 1. 1 and 3. Case 4 concentrations are caused by
congestion and low speeds .sit. only two traffic lanes. Neither the state
10 ppm peak hour standard nor the 9 ppm eight tour standard are threatened
bi the Hae lane traffic in any case. The project would be expected to
reduce slightlt local CO concentrations relative lu a two-lane road.
D. Overall Project Impacts
Another sus to rsaluate the potential impact of the Kea lane
lmproerxxnt Project is to estimate the overall change in vehlcular
rmissiuns prud w ed b+ the project. The total emissions produce: by a group
ut .riot trs depends upon the number of trips. the trip length, and the
a.elagr +perd. Since the total number of trips and trip length are not
thangrd bs thr prujett, the average speed is lhr only variable whith
atletts total retssw.ts. Haid upWk an estimated higher average sprt-i (:S
mph es. 15 mph) with project isplesentation, total esrasions on clam IAne
-,old br a♦ shown in Exhibit 3.
�
• •
•
y
O
C
•
•
^
Sa
�
1
M
r
r
�
X
'
o r
w
•
_
�y
A
• v
a
�
w
D w
' A
•
M
u
'-
_
O
�
•
7
0
c
••
•
^
D
-• '•
v
D
• �
•
^
•O+ .
^
A
O.
�
�
� A
rY•
: •
nom.
r
O
"
v
C
�
^
Y
n
�
•
^
�
O
A
--
�
•
.0. Y
S
w
r
7
V
F
•C
V
^
N
f
Ln
n
v
n
Y•
� p
v
w
^
r
7
R
�
Vf
n
>
>
O
s
p
els
Q
p
Y
vlot
O
y
Z
^ Y
7
r
r
.
�
r (,•
R'
M
"
.
7 C
M
<
•
^
6
•
Y
n ^
..
"
^
p•
q
y
R
a
s
n
sc
M1
-
►
. 0
7
0
J0
O
A
6
M
4'
v C
O A
D
C r
01
C
R
� O
r"
r n-•
P1
�
V1 .
M
^ r
O •'•
�•
- 6 ^
O
� �
S
• to
.,
n C
� r
r
° v�
Y p
r
- r
D
i
.O•
•
> 7
T
-
2
w r-
JpQ
Y
Y
i- i'•
4
cf
Rf
�
•
A 7
M •
.' r
M
1 M
^ n •'
n
a
w
;"
` 0
•
r
M =
a
yy^
C •-
� A
Y
C
. .. ...-. ... .. ....... .-..-. .. .. .... ..-•... .... .. �. ,r.. r�...�.. .-�.�... ....-�.. _..4 ..w .... .-.. ...... .°ar-....-�.. rti ..rte--'- �........�-..+�+r�_�....r��-_.. ....w .-�.�...---_.. ..�. -.
APPE.NDI%
COM", All QUALITY TERNS AKD DEFINITIONS
Alf b#sln of •ltfbr,d - a region which, due to its geography and topography, tends to
contain air pollutants emitted within It.
Air pollutant - a substance in the atmosphere which L harmful or undesirable.
Alf wa)itr - the amount of pollutants in the air relative to ,listing ambient air
quality stnndardse.
Air RPf@tscgt board (AAR) - Calllprnl• agency frspa.osible foe stet• air qua:ft, plinnint
and coattal program.
#&Meat Ain 4vsllty Standards - exposure limits established for various airpollutants
by scat* sad fedaral sgesclss.
toy Area Air Quality Ksnatesrnt District (RAA(v_'O) - nine -count y agency respoosible
for sit quality plaaaing and control In the San Francloco flay area.
4orbat 25etoxi4# (CO) - an odorless attd invisible gas pollutant produced primaril, by
vehicle operation. Radiates oxygen -carrying capacity of rhe blood, cawing headache,
fatigue, eoordlaotion dlafunctlon, asd cardio -respiratory •tress.
Concent ration - the amount of a pollutant In a given volume or sample of air.
Qoportn*at of Envltoneental Protection (NDEP) - Nevada agency responsible for state
air quality planning and control programs.
Dispfrsion - the process of sizing, dilution, and tr-ansport of alt pollutants.
W esjoa - discharge of s substance Into the air.
fitv_itjMxfntol Protection Asenc• (CPA) - federal agency with overall respanslbllltr tot
national and state sir quality planning and control programs.
My4rntafbona (NC) - a large group of compounds containing hydrogen, carbon and various
other elementst sed found in fossil fuels, paints and solvents. They cause plant
4ama6e, odors and contribute to smog• formation.
inversion - a reversal of the nornal tempetature lapse rat** in the atsx,sphote, produ.•
Ing a stable high-tenpetatur* layer above a lwet-tenpetat,.re layer.
Lige spurt• • d lineaf group of pollutant •&liters, such as vrhltles on a foad..c
Microtragi per tabic tarter (fR/s)) - a cosascyn unit of rasvtement of particulate con-
centtationa in weight per unit voltam•.
Klxlnt layer - when on atmospheric temperature Inversions exists, the laver of air
below the lsvetsion altitude In which alt pollutants are confined.
FbAfllhe - a technique of using estimated source emissions and rc.orologl(al nntotrr-
tion to comput* expected air pollutant conconttations.
IbultOtint - regular smasurroent of air pollutant concentrations.
"otos"Oxidfe (NO-)- torsed during high-temperature combustion prcx asset, sevr r-jI
gaseous pollutants cause plant damage, eye and lung irritation, and dtscolotatfon of
matfrials. Nitrogen dioxide causes the typical brown color of smog..
Odor - tae be aesthetically unpleasant, and cause illness in some uses. Common problrn
gases Include bydrogen sulfide, ammonla, and some organic vapors.
441lned elsewhere
Organic cospound► - a very large group of substances containing earbossfOund In all
living matter, and also fossil material such as coal and petroleum. They are often
released when extracted, processed, and/or burned.
Oxt nt - s highly -active group of chemicals (tmoatly exon• in air) termed 10 the
atmosphere by the photochemical reaction' of hydrocarbons•. Nitrogen os►dese, and
sunlight. Causes extensive vegetation damages eye irritation. headache, and impaired
breathing.
Orono (O )) - see Oxidants above.
Particulat#%, total suspended (TSP) - Include solid particles, dust. And am*@. and
are produced by ladustrlal Processes, combustion, and vehicles. They daarge plants
ana materials, (educe ••.alight and visibility, awl carry irritating chemicals late the
respiratory ayst.s.
!act* p2l fillip& (ppm - • common .reit of smawrement of gaseows pollutant conceatts-
tlon to relative volume of pollwtswt pet mullion volumes of alt.
rhotoche'sicei reaction - the atmospheric combination of hydrocarbons• and Gala*$ of
altroten to form osidantse and smog•, driven by the energy from Intense sunlight.
Point "vice - a single stationary souse of alt pollution.
Primark air tuslily standards - recom Oded Initis to air pollutant concentrations
based upon criteria for protection of human health.
Secondary air quality standards - tecosmesd*d limits to air pollutant coacentratlons
based upon criteria for protection of property ead aesthetics.
Se°,f. - the cosbtnatton of alt pollutants found during intense photochemical reaction.•
Source - a process, sctiv►tt, or machine which exits air pollution.
Itatn•tlow, - an exttese1v stable atmospheric condition in which little vettica) ver
horlcontal dispersion* of emitted pollutants occurs.
Sulfur oxides - ate produced by processing acrd combustion of fossil fuels which haw:
sal'ur content. The** gaseous pollutants are tosrc to plants, deterlorate materials,
and in combination with particulate&, contribute to serious respiratory illness.
Terperatvre lapsr rate - the normal atmospheric tempelature profile which decreases a$
altitude increases. See Inversions.
Transport - the movement of emitted pollie; ails 'oy wind of thermal action.
Vibibil tt reduction - I* caused by suspended dery small particles, water vapor, smoke.
and Asses watt, color.
°d.tlnrd ♦lsewhrrr
�ENvfAQWAffNTAI C0mSvtTING SERVICES CUPER7uv0 to 95014 � ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TING SERvfCES a CvoERTHwO. CA y50td
ll��i A-1 A-
Appendix E
Public Comments and Responses
E-1.
Comments and responses
During the public review period for the Ham Lane Improvement Project EIR,
written comments were received from Mr. Eugene Boscacci and the State Office
of Planni •, and Research. In addition, several comments were made at the
public hearing of 11/7/84 before the City Council, by Mr. Dorance Ochs, Mr.
Dennis Kempf and Mr. Oliver Lee.
After a thorough review of all the comments, both written and oral, it is
clear that the majority of the comments serve to represent either the opinion
of the person commenting or a concurrence with data presented, and do not re-
quire additional analysis or data collection. For this reason the comments
will not be responded to "line -by-line" but, rather, issue by issue. There-
fore, the Comments and Responses section will be organized in the following
manner:
— Responses by this consultant to topical areas of concern raised
during the public review will be presented under the appropriate
title (i.e., noise, neighborhood character, etc.). These responses
are referenced by listing the title and page number of the letter or
Public Hearing Transcript (PHT) comment.
— The actual comments, in the form of letters or transcript of hearing
proceedings, will be attached at the end of this section. A list of
all topics of oral comment is included as a Table of Contents to the
Public Hearing Transcript (PHT).
— A O indicates that the comment was either the opinion of the responder
or served to verify or corroborate data in the text, and does not re-
quire a response from the consultant. Nonetheless, the City Council
should take thrse opinions into account during their review considera-
tion of the project as they represent important community input to the
review process.
— A 0 with a topical leading (i.e., noise, neighborhood characteristics,
etc.) indicates that the comment required response by the consultant
and is addressed in the following pages.
-- Those paragraphs which are unmarked consist primarily of procedural
discussions or items of conversation unrelated to the adequacy of the'
document.
Financial Considerations
Comments from: Mr. D. Kempf (PHT; page 11, lines 2-1.6; page 14, lines 11-22;
page 19, lines 18-28; etc.), Mr. E. Boscacci (entire letter).
Response: The effects of the project on individual property evaluations and
the potential fiscal costs and benefits to the City and individual property
owners were not part of the Scope of Work for this EIR. City staff intend to
..6
E-2
present relevant fiscal/cost data to the City Council at the hearing on the
project itself and have indicated that they feel this information will be
sufficient for determining the potential fiscal costs and effects of the.
project.
Air Quality
Comments from: Mr. D. Kempf (PHT, page 12, lines 12-21).
Response: The air quality analysis took into account both speed and vehicle
volumes. This analysis indicated that air quality would not violate standards
even in the worst case (slow speeds, high volumes) scenario. Although the
point is logically presented the actual pollution volumes resulting from the
project (or from lack of the project) will stay well within standards.
Traffic Counts
Comments from: Mr. D. Kempf (PHT, page 13, lines 3-21).
Response: School traffic is the typical situation (9 months of the year) on Ham Lane.
Traf f ic counts taken during the late summer indicate approx. 10% decrease in traf f ic volumes.
Increased Vehicle Speeds/Enforcing Vehicle Codes
Comments from: Mr. Dorance Ochs (PHT, page 21, lines 16-24; page 22, lines -
22-28).
Response: The proposed mitigation of increased enforcement would require
significant effort to be successful. The consultant meant to imply that
though these avenues of mitigation exist the likelihood of their being of
significant relief are not high.
Implementation of Recommended Mitigations
Comments from: Mr. Dorance Ochs (PHT, 6,roughout).
Response: The responsibility for selecting appropriate mitigations rests
with the Citv Council. They may either: (1) determine that an impact cannot
be mitigated but overriding social benefits or considerations justify the
project's implementation; (2) determine that suggested mitigations will serve
to mitigate project impacts and are the responsibility of the City; or (3)
determine that suggested mitigations will serve to mitigate project impacts
and are the responsibility of the property owner. If a project is approved
the apportionment of mitigation costs will be the decision of the City Coun-
cil. It should be noted here that in several cases (i.e., increased vehicle
speeds, decreased pedestrian safety, increased ncise levels, change in neigh-
borhood character, etc.) the recommended measures will only serve to incre-
mentally reduce impacts and will not serve to substantially reduce impacts.
The Council should take this into account during their review process (see
PHT, pages 33 and 34, lines 14-9).
a
E-3
Decreased Constestion vs Increased Volumes
Comments fro®: Mr. Dorance Ochs (PHT, page 26, lines 1-8; page 32, lines
2-13).
Response: Traffic along Ham Lane will increase over time regardless of project
implementation. Further, traffic volumes would increase slightly more with the
project if vehicles which currently use other routes were drawn to the improved
street. Implementation of the priposed project would result in decreased
vehicle congestion even with the attracted trips due to its design character-
istics. Traffic flow would improve, signal delays would be reduced and long
term congestion would be eliminated. I: the project is implemented the
incremental traffic growth can be accommodated without congestion.
Noise Increases
Comments from: Mr. Dcrance Ochs (PHT, page 29, lines 11-18), Mr. Reid (PHT,
page 3, lines 8-26).
Response: Noise levels will not increase 5 dBA each year but, rather, 5 dBA
over the next 20 years. Also see PHT, page 36, lines 8-26.
E-4
COMMENT TOPICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT (PHT)
Comment Topic (Commentor)
Page
Line s)
Construction duration (Snider)
9
21
Neighborhood appearance (Kempf)
10
28
Right-of-way costs (Kempf)
11
2- 9
Assessed evaluation (Kempf)
11
10-16
Safety hazard (Kempf)
11
17-23
Project benefit (Kempf)
11
24-27
Safety hazard (Kempf)
12
1- 6
Traffic controls causing congestion (Kempf)
12
6-11
Traffic controls causing air pollution (Kempf)
12
12-21
Speed limit (Kempf)
12
22-28
Timing of traffic counts (Kempf)
13
3-13
Effects of buses on volumes (Kempf)
13
14-21
Attracted trips (Kempf)
13-14
22-10
Costs of sealed windows (Kempf)
14
11-22
Need for project (Kempf)
14-15
23- 9
Evaluation of costs in EIR (Reid, Pinkerton)
16-19
16-17
Cost of mitigation (Kempf)
19-20
18- 3
Psychological effects of project (Ochs)
21
1-10
Increased speed (Ochs)
21'
16-24
Future offstreet parking (Ochs)
21-22
25- 2
Logistical and cost of installing sealed windows (Ochs)
22
3- 6
Reduced vehicle speed (Ochs)
22
7- 8
Encourage carpools/bicycle plan (Ochs)
22
9-21
Faulty exhaust system enforcement. (Ochs)
22-23
22- 3
Decreased air quality (Ochs)
23
4- 8
Logistics and cost of automatic garage doors (Ochs)
23
9-11
Logistics and cost of lattice fencing (Ochs)
23
14-21
Construction times (Ochs)
23
22-28
Business areas affected (Ochs)
24
2- 5
Project description error (Ochs)
24
6-11
Neighborhood aesthetic section (Ochs)
24
15-22
Agrees with aesthetic section (Ochs)
24
23-27
Effect of trees on air quality (Ochs)
25
1- 6
Need for project (Ochs)
25
11-27
Decreased congestion vs increased volumes (Ochs)
26
1- 8
Increased speed vs decreased pedestrian safety (Ochs)
26
9-19
Questions value of safety mitigations (Ochs)
26
20-28
Cross traffic delay (Ochs)
27
4-10
Speed limit (Ochs)
27
11-23
Loss of parking (Ochs)
27
24-26
Source of local noise (Ochs)
28
2-11
Impacts of noise (Ochs)
28
12-24
Existing noise (Ochs)
28-2?
25- 6
5 dBA per year rise in noise levels (Ochs)
29
11-22
Costs and effectiveness of noise mitigation
29-30
23-10
TABLE OF CONTx--S, FOR PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT (PHT)
(continued)
Comment Topic (Commentor)
Reducing vehicle speeds (Ochs)
Carpools, bicycles, buses (Ochs)
Enforcement of vehicle codes (Ochs)
Decreased .,ongestion vs increased volumes (Ochs)
Existing speed limit (Ochs)
Reduced speeds as mitigation (Ochs)
Attracted trips (Ochs)
Importance of mitigated vs unmitigated impacts in terms
of level of significance (Burdick, Ronsco)
Alternative C as best Alternative (Lee)
Wording of mitigation to reduce noise (Reid)
Page
30
30
30
31-32
32
32
33
33-34
35
36
E-5
Line s)
11-15
16-20
21-26
23-13
14-19
20-27
1— 6
14-20
1— 6
8-19
REPORE THE LODI CITY COIIIICIL
SAH JOAgUIII COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
--000--
In The Matter of a Public Hearing )
To Considers )
The Draft Envitonmental Impact )
Report for the Nam Lane Improvement )
pro act, Lodi Avenue to Elm Street,Lod� ORIGINAL
PUBLIC NEARItIr.
DATE November 7, 1981 at 7110 p.m.
At City Council Chambers
221 Hest Pine Street
City Hall
Lodi, California
HILL A" ttrP"FASON
. t.....0 .. u.
//Kt' M.C. wp�y.,•
1
2
l
1
S
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
1)
11
1S
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
21
2♦
25
26
27
28
tt CUUNCIL 11EIMERS PRESCIIT ••
Mayor Jahn R. 'Randy' Snider
Mayor Pro Teopoce David It. Hinchman
Councilpecson James W. Pinkerton
Councllperson Evelyn M. Olson
Councilperson Pced M. Reid
t t STAFF nerenS PRESENT • •
City Manager Henry A. Glaves
Assistant City Itanager Jeccy L. Glenn
Public Works Director Jack L. Ronsko
Director-Secretaty James Schroeder
City Attorney Ronald M. Stein
City Clerk Alice H. Reische
" ALSO PRtSrMT tt
tlevspaper reporter
Cable Iuupl e
Helen R. ncPherson, CSR 2070
Members of the public
2
itA.NK� M.4Ot...y MMM/tM I
trKtre04 ! KMOne1a
•tM tN -IM. �h
6
1
2
1
4
S
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
26
MYOR SH1f1ERr The first publir hearing le to consider the
draft environmental impact report for the Ilan Lane improvement
project, Lodi Avenue to Elm Street and Lodi.
I'd like to perhaps preface this public hearing by
explaining exactly what we'll be doing this evening, and what
we will be doing at a meeting, I believe, that will --
somewhere down here is scheduled for, what, December --
NRS. REIMCIIEr December Sth.
MAYOR Sw nm fifth. The purpose of this evening's
meeting is to allow public input with regard to the
environmental impact report, or I should say the draft
environmental Impact report that has been prepared by city
stat(. And I'd like to ask that the audience addrecs their
concerns with regard to the environmental Impact report this
evening.
tie will have an opportunity Le go into the other
aspects of the project at a later time. it's a tittle bit
unusual, and lust to give people a little bit mote background
on how this whole Item transpired, it was a recommendation of
the staff with regard to the widening of Ilam Lane, It was
Introduced to the city ouncil. &fill It's a capital improvement
program introduced earlier in the year.
Aryl It was at that time that the city council
tecognixed the fact that the Has Lan#. widening in the past has
always been a controversial Issue. It's something that we
exly cted would probably come up again, and rather Than
following the normal routine on a capital improvement project,
Hitt &M WPHERSCIN J H.tf. AM MCPNERSON I
.. 1. OG�µp.N.{.♦NO.w. • 1'.<OG1/0.. G.1N 011.1.
.. . i �.. ...t �. •1 t•-.•-.�: � .a � i ..... � r-- '.,;,F.-..#�em�..t .�•�� 1 ...,..,.... ,......,., .�,..,.....,.. n..,�.ma:r
I
S
we asked that when staff was ready to do this, that it be
brought back to the city council, that people in the
neighborhoods were informed, and you people would have an
opportunity to respond.
And as 1 mentioned earlier, the purpose of this
particular meeting is for you people to respond to the
envLtonmental impact report that the public workr director will
be presenting to us this evening.
So everybody relax, don't get nervous, please teal
free, once the staff sakes its presentation, to come forward,
and address yourself to, for example, if they left a tree off
on the environmental impact report or something of that nature.
So we'll walk through this thing. Did i leave anything out?
Okay, Mt. Ronsko.
W. ROMSKOt Rich Prise is in the audience, and we do have
some additional draft RIR's, so It there's anybody In no
audience that would like a:c ::.o has not picked one up already,
"Id be happy to pass those out. They are at the podium, so,
Rich, if theta Is anybody, maybe you could pass those out to
the audience.
MAYOR SMtDERs Stand up, Richard, so they can see who you
at e.
MR. ROMSKOs Anybody want one?
MAYOR sminEas Anybody need an extra EIR?
MR. MISROt Mr. Mayot, members of the council, I think
it's important that I give a little bit of past history of the
project, a little more than you've just given.
Back in 1978, we ha.) the pro)ect in the capital
HILL a" MCPHERSOH
•vx., «.. c•an ow.«
1
2
1
S
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
11
14
1S
16
17
Is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
improvement program, and at that time we prepared an KIR on the
project, and the EIP came before the city council, and It was
determined adequate, that it covered everything that an EIR was
supposed to cover as far as envlranmental effects on the
project, and that was the a►ternatt which gave the most
widenit.y to the street.
However, because of the controversy, the following
year that improvement was not put back Into the capital
improvement program, •,.d thee• was ./o decision on which
alternate we were going to go with, what type of widening of
Ham Lane we were going to do.
As we've found over the last couple of years, the
street is now tailing apatt, and we're holding it together with
whatever we can hold it together with. He have to do some type
of improvement to the street, and that's the reason that it was
again put into the 1984 capital improvement program.
And because a number of years have gone by and
'because of the eonttovecsy, we felt that It was important that
we do enothet EIR because there were a couple of othte
alternates that we thought we might want to look at, so we
retained Kate nurdick. Kate is a planner who prepared the EIR
on Hutchins Street. ue liked the lmpsrtial way that she
approar.hed that problem, and we tetalned her to prepare the tip
Ion Ham Lane.
Neve had one informative. meeting aL the library in
August. There was 10 -plus people there, and this was a meeting
just to qct additional information for the preparation of the
draft. And tonight -- the purpose of the aeet►/iq tonight is t4
MILL and MCPHERsON
t/eC•/OY, C.i.N OI.M•
(,1
7
wake easy access for the people to coae and verbally indicate
to you, the city council, and to Kate Burdick, those areas that
they are concerned about or have some question about in the
GI R.
Ne will still take written testimony up until the
21st of this month, but tonight's meeti:(g is mainly to get
additional input for the final draft, and, as you indicated,
that final draft will be coming back to the council on a -- at
a public hearing which we hope will be set on December Sth.
At that same meeting, it is our intent to talk about
the alternates, and hopefully get a proposed project from the
council, so we can begin some type of construction on Ham Lane
in the spring of I905.
So at this time, what I'd like to do is to inL.uduCe
to you and the audience Kate Burdick. Katee why don't you
stand up? Kate will go over briefly the environmental effects
'of the project and what she's done to bring it to this point.
MS. SURDICK: Good evening, my name is Kate Burdick, I
prepared the environmental impact report. I'm glad to see so
many people back here tonight. I recognize a lot of faces from
out previous meeting.
I guess what I'll do is just briefly go through the
summary of environmental imps cta in the front of the document
beginning on page four to give an overview of the imia cts --
the potential Impacts of the project.
As a result of our evaluation, it was determined that
the primaty significant impacts that the project could generate
were loss of strep:t treesi increase in vehicle noise;
.HILL ace YCPHERSON•-'
e
1 construction related impactsl and a change in neighborhood
2 character. And I don't think that comes as a big surprise to
1 anyone, it's the most obvious implication o! a project of this
1 type.
S To quantify the loss of street trees, we had a
6 tree -by -tree inventory performed by a biologist, and that map
7 shove up in the report and also is available in a much larger
s format for anyone who has questions.
9 After reviewing the information that she gathered, It
10 was clear that the protect as proposed would result in a loss
11 of a significant Lumber of street trees. I think that that
12 relate■ pretty directly to the change in neighborhood
Il character. Loss of street trees on s street of this type in a
11 neighborhood of this type clearly will be a significant impact
15 for the people that live there.
16 The increase in vehicle noise once again is an
17 obvious impact of widening the street, bringing the traffic
is closer to the homes. Taking out some of the vegetation will
19 also increase that effect.
!0 Construction related noise, again, I think is an
21 obvious Imla ct of the project. That's something that's
22 temloracy In nature and .,nce the project is comp' -ted will go
23 away, nut the increase in noise that.'s generated by the
24 increase in traffic will continue for the duration of the
25 street'R life.
26 Unless there's any significant questions about the
27 other imla cts, my feeling would be to just leave it open for
28 (location, because I'm sure that there are people who feel that
HILL ass YCPHERWH
ilk
9
wa either underestimated or overestimated or underquantitled or
overquantifled something, so rather than indulge in a long
winded explanation of the document, I'd be more interested at
this point in finding out the problems that people have with
It.
So I would remind the people in the audience tonigiot
is not the night to argue the pro)ect, tonight to the night to
make sure that all of the Information that you feel is relevant
to evaluating the project Is actually present in the document.
So it you dislike the pto)ect, it might be more
appropriate to save that tot later, and 1t you could get Into
the probl me that you have with the document Itself, that would
help me the most and I think the council at this point, so if
there's any questions that the council has outright, I could
field those now, and then we could open it up for the general
public.
MAYOR SIJIDER1 Are there any questions of staff with
regard to the envlco:raental impact report as presented in this
80 -page document.
HS. BURDICKI It's small, believe me.
MAYOR IWIDERt I have a question with regard to the
project itself. If the -- you were talking about the temporary
situation of construction. What would you estimate the -- that
time period to bel
MISS. MURDICKI The construction duration, probably from
beg/nninq to and a couple of months.
MR. ROMSKOi Two to three months.
"S. SURDICKs Two to three months, Perfoct document, no
Hill and irtPHERSOH
1
2
1
4
S
6
7
e
9
10
ll
12
Il
11
OIS
16
17
1s
19
20
21
022
21
24
25
26
027
24
to
questions.
MAYOR SHIDERI We're just getting started.
M.S. PURDICK: Uacming up.
MAYOR SMI7ERt Okay. If there are no q-.eations from the
no questions at this time from council members, rid like to
open up this hearing to the public, and ask those people in the
audience to please come forward. state your nose and address
for the record, and express your concerns or pcobtme that you
might have with the environmental impact report as presented.
Everyone in the neighborhood received a copy of this, if I'■
not mistaken.
MR. ROMSKOI They all received a letter and indicated that
copse- were available at city hall, and there were also copies
at the library.
HR. xEHpfl Good evening, Randy. I'■ Mc. Kempf. I live at
110 South %am Lane. I've lived there since approximately 1976.
In 1976 when this project was first proposed, many of
the residents In the area came down to the council and voiced
their concerns about the project In general than. and it was
turned down because of the environmental Impact study than and
the determination of the council.
I've spent many lours and I hope you've speAt just as
many touts tearinq &pert the envirolwsental impact study and
reading the inl.n oration and decipherinq the information,
hopefully from the viewpoints of the citi -ens of Lodi, and I've
made about four pages here which I'd like to address.
Otx of the first areas la the appearance of the
neighborhood. Tne project impact says that it has a
HILL sM LUP"ERSON
1e'eft ., N
5100510C.90".1.. C&CW
.NN .1. •.N,
� lI
(significant impact on the neighborhood.
I think, beings we reside in one of the blocks where
the right-of-way is not acquired at this point, t would like
the city council hopefully to consider the cost that ht's going
to take to acquire those right-of-ways, and the Impact it's
going to take of the people that live in those areas, the
destruction of their yards, the elimination of a lot of the
yards, and the Impact of the property value on those
properties.
I have contaced legal counsel, and 1 have contaced
county assessors that are willing to supply me documents that
will indicate that our property value could go down as mucL as
30 percent because of a widening -Lf this nature, so I think
it's going to have a definite aff,;ct on the neighborhood, not
only from a -- an appearance standpoint but a financial
standpoint for the people that live along there.
It's going to move the traffic closer to the
residences, which I feel Is going to create more danger to the
people that live along there, particularly people with
children. Right now, there are a lot of elderly people that
live on that street, and as properties turn over, we're seeing
younger people moving into the area with children, and I think
that's a concern for them.
As far as traffic goes, they said that there's
definitely goinq to be a benefit from the traffic by the
widening of Har [.ane to all [out lanes, it that's what the
council decides to do.
Some of my questions, were, they said that there would
Hill arW NtpHERSON
.0 •uoc.ro« c wo.... '..•
1
2
1
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
t*A • 12
ll
11
15
16
17
Is
19
20
21
022
21
24
25
26
27
28
12
he a definite impact on the safety of pedestrians using that
street crosslnul Ilam Lane, which there ate a lot of school
children that cross that street that have to go to Lodi High.
pecause of the increased amount of potential danger, because of
the width of the street In the environmental impact study,
they're saying that possibly more traffic controls, more
pedestrian controls are going to be needed. I teal that this
i
to going to have an impact on the congestion of the traffic,
even though it's at four lanes. The more controls you put on
that street In that tout -Ian* block, the mote Impact ht's going
to have on the congestion.
one of the areas, the air quality control, the only
reason the air quality control ca a out as well as it did is
because they said with a faster vciume of traffic, your traffic
is going to be moving through that area faster, therefore,
you're not going to be subject to as much emission. And I find
that in direct controversy if they need to put controls for
proper safety for pedestrians and cross -traffic. Te me, that's
going to slow the traffic down, and it's going to cause more
air pollutant going into the alt, because those cars will be
Idle their.
I drive that street probably [our to six times a day,
and I've never seen a time that I could not drive [tom No
Street to Lodi Avenue in less than one minute, and that's
driving the speed limit. Today, there are many cars that do
not drive that street at the speed limit. And it says in the
environmental impact report that it would be questionable
whether or not city enforcement could control the speed on that
Hill s,W WPttERSON
tt ec•. ow, c•a .,a«•
i
SSI iii i 6W iii itw
HILI sial WPHERSOff
It
11
to Ilan Lane and drive .sown a street that has anywhere from five
1
street It 1t was widened to four lanes, and I think that's
1
2
another concern.
rettleman or Harney Lane, they're going to have to go back over
0 3
1 disagree with the timing in which they did the
j O 6
4
volume study on Nam Lane. They did it on May ISO, 16th and
stay or to go out to Lower Sacramento Road it they're traveling
S
17th, which was the beginning before school let out, the
9
6
weather was nice. and we all know who live in that area. The
with the repeated stoplights In this area.
7
cruising of students froom the high school have a big impact on
0
the volume of that traffic coming oft of walnut and heading
environmental impact study put Into it was that they would have
9
south on Nam out to the Tokay Nigh School, and invariably they
11
10
will put the counters between Walnut and Lodi Avenue, where the
street. I think it it's going to take sealed windows to the
11
traffic 1a the heaviest because of the school students coming
17
12
down Has, going around the high school, and then heading back
a tremendous financial Irma et on the residents to have to run
li
Douth towards Tokay.
1016
They also did the count when the school busses still
rIS
going to have a tremendous financial impact again on the
had the barn at what used to be the west campus or Lodi Nigh.
residents in the area.
16
flow that the school busses, the barn, the maintenance barn has
24
17
been moved out to the eaat side of town, that has cut a big
original environmental impact study, and I think it points out
11
pnrewntage of the congestion because you don't have those large
27
19.,
busses trying to turn against traffic to go into Lodi Nigh.
environmental impact st&Oy, until we get to the year 2005,
20
the far from eliminated. But it's had a definite impact on
21
the congestion.
O 22
They're talking about the -- in the environmental
21
Impact study, they're talking about the through trips. By
24
widening of Ham Lane, it will draw traffic from Hutchins Street
2S
and from Lower Sacramento Road over to Ilam Lane. 1'■ in
26
disagreement with this.
0 27
1 think It anything people that live in North Lodi
29
who travel to Stockton are not going to be willing to come over
_—
Nell. and McPHERSON
.,w..,.,a w.. .........
HILI sial WPHERSOff
It
1
to Ilan Lane and drive .sown a street that has anywhere from five
2
to seven control lights in a tour -lane block if they're
1
traveling to Stockton. For one thing, they get out to
4
rettleman or Harney Lane, they're going to have to go back over
5
to Lower Sac or west Lane to proceed south to Stockton.
j O 6
So I think people are going to have a tendency to
I
7
stay or to go out to Lower Sacramento Road it they're traveling
s
to Stockton or to the Immediate south and of town. I don't
9
believe they're going to want to put up with this congestion
i
10
with the repeated stoplights In this area.
�liheMCA*/* 11
In regards to noise, one of the solutions that the
12
environmental impact study put Into it was that they would have
11
to -- or tnat they felt one of the solutions was to have sealed
11
windowa, basically on any structure that faced the front of the
IS
street. I think it it's going to take sealed windows to the
16
point that the residents can not open their windows to receive
17
that cool westerly breeze in the summertime, it's going to have
is
a tremendous financial Irma et on the residents to have to run
19
their alt conditioning repeatedly during the summertime to
20
eliminate the noise coming In these windows, i think that's
21
going to have a tremendous financial impact again on the
22
residents in the area.
O 21
1 think in general a lot of what appeared in the
24
environmental Impact study this time around appeared in the
25
original environmental impact study, and I think it points out
26
one thing, I think it points out that we could probable improve,
27
that street at the existing width, and as proven in the
28
environmental impact st&Oy, until we get to the year 2005,
HILI sial WPHERSOff
is
theca's really not going to be any significant impact on the
level of service on that a►reet, anti only at Lodi Avenue and
Ilam and Elm and tial is there going to be a decrease in the
level of service even at the year 2005.
They're saying keeping the street at the existing
width It is now that they can maintain at least a B or C level
of service keeping the street at the width it is, and I would
like the city council to keep that in mind when they make their
decision on the widening of this project.
I'd like to thank the people in the audience. I saw
a lo: of neighbors come in tonight. Their support -- I've been
out talking to neighbors up and down Has Lane, i vas probably
one of the key people that helped keep the project tot of the
works six years ago, and I hope i can have your sul"tt this
time around to -- ;to' from a city council person, but possibly
from a resident or a citizen in the community to know what kind
of impact this would create on Has Lane for the residents.
Thank you. Any questions from the council people?
MAYOR SNttlERr lir. Stein, correct me it t'■ wrong, but did
you tell an before the meeting that when these concerns were
expressed that we have a responsibility to respond?
NR. RTElllt Yes.
nAYOR St1IDCRt tits. Burdick, did you understand -- do you
need -- need any clarification from him as far as what his
concerns are?
IIS. PURDICirs No, t think he articulated them quite
clearly, and I have been taking notes as he goes along, and
we're going to have a transcript when this is all done.
HILL mW rt PHEASON
........... .. .. ....
10
it
12
11
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
21
21
25
26
27
20
16
I'!!, r.I./.Virs This is not a final. Pon.
im. r(wornlita It'd'. .. draft.
.'IP, d;I.AVII!t '!e're still gatherin-1 information.
I.P. �TC[Nt right, that's correct, but we Rtill have to
teelontl to them, that's what they're here for. You have to
respond to thele concerns, that's why we're taking a
transcritA.
t1R. CLAVISI That will be in here, won't It?
Its, DNRDICst It will be in the final that you get.
IIR. STEIM I'm saying we don't have to respond tonight.
I'm saying we just have to respond in the final. If that's what
you're asking?
IIAYOI! sNInERt yes.
tin. !ZTElnd Yes.
IIAYOR Sttlnett Ilr. Reid?
rift. REIDt I'd like to ask a question of lir. Stein. does
the environmental imp%ct rcport have to consider changes in
ptoperty value beca•tse of the project?
IIR.-TCIIIt That's not an environmental Impact.
fill. REID: So it does not have to be -- that question I1r.
Rcrapt brought up would not be brought up?
fill. ftTt:tlis Not really, becaune the response may be it --
you know. It it's a situation where the city has to take same
property, and, you know -- 'tall be lust compensation, anti
there'll Ire severance damage. Severance damage is the, you
know, that which -- that damage to that which is left after
we've taken what we wanted to, so we have eminent domain power.
That's not an environmental impact issue.
Holt. sae McPHERSON
t......,t .«..w«....f« : I
of aewtan.ru MawMa I ;•1I
17
The question of noise Is, air pollution, at cetera,
but the question of the practical value of the property Is not
an anvirorlmental Impact.
MAYOR 51`121).Rt lit. Pinkerton?
M. PIUitex, I Mt. Mayor, I think 1 would take exception
to that, because it you destroy people's property, you've
destroyed their environment. And when yru hit someone in the
pocketbook, than you really have destroyed an environment.
M. CLAVZSt Mall, Mt. Pinkerton, before we ever had an
environmental Impact report, we always had to take that lnca
consideration. That's what you call a severance, that's the
part of your appraisal.
MR. PINKSRTOMI I did not bear severance mentioned.
W. BIKINI Mr. Pinkerton, maybe it's a semantic problem,
okay. The Issue tonight Is to take Into account all of the
Mvlrorwntal effects, okay, and to respond to those, because
what wt have to have Is an adequate document. The document has
to be -- Is orae that this board can look at, this council can
nook at and tool that they have enough infoemation to make a
4kcialon whicit takes into account all of the Information, all
of, the environmental effects, and can look at the alternatives
and &owe up with a project or maybe deny the project because of
the environmental effects, okay. But the issue of the taking
of property itself Is really not an environmental effect.
NR. 'IMKtRTOtlt Mr. Mayor, I think that basically the
I*" connotation -- and sometimes I question the legalese and
the legal Intelligence of understanding what some things
evaluate, but any time you destroy a petson's property, you've
lull sola MCPHERSOM
tee..•�w. eNNON-.
7
R
9
10
11
12
it
14
15
It
11
is
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
2s
1R
dcr.troyed that larcon's onvilonssent, and it you duvalue that
envlroncent, you've devalues: what it's worth, and that's the
env IConoent.
MP. .TE11'I Assuring that you look at that issue. that. ray
response would be you h.tve a mitigation measure and t".
nitigation weasure is you're going to and up paying, the city
is going to coal up paying tut the decreased value, so any
envirororental effect, you either do one of two things, Mr.
Pinkerton, either you mitigate through some mitigation measure.
or you have what is calmed overriding considerations that say
even thouoh there's this envirorwwntal e[fect, and even though
we can not mitigate it. because of other overriding social and
econoaic considerations, we can still go through with the
project, okay. If .e could not come up with those, then we
ca.uld not go through with the project.
ilk. PIMKEI'TO(I: IiIIl thowt costs be put in the cost of the
p r o) ect ?
lilt, MtSKO: Ite' ll be bringing those to you at the tial&
that we actually discuss the alternates. Ile will have the cost
of the alternates. Including the cost of the right-of-way
aalulsttion for the different alternates.
Ix'. PlltIEWMI: There's also a law someplace along the
line. It I remeaher rloltt, that we ran Into on Stockton Street,
it you destroy :: 1-etcent of a piece of propnety, then the vhole
piece of p,upotty is --
11A. FTEII't Tbat's correct.
lift. r"ISro: Asst chose will be included when we bring the
(right-of-way costs to you.
Mill asa I tPHERS01
t/.,N Ne.10..0-040.M {..
ST 0C.
1t
Mt. MINI That will all be brought up, Itr. Pinkerton.
ttR. R011590t for clarification, what we really asked nts.
Iltrdick to do was to put together bn EIR that conformed to all
the roquitements of CMA, and that's what we have to be
concetned about, and the definitions of environment as it
relates to CEOA, and I was not aware that we wanted anything
other than that, or I would have given specific directions.
frit. PINKERTONt CeO)A I'■ not that happy with, either.
ttlt. WISKOt Well, neither are we, Nr. Pinkerton.
NR. PiNKERTOtit I'm concerned with the citizens of Lodi
who are going to have their property destroyed. CEOA is a
Wrich of Idiots in Sacramento who have never done anything and
have not had their property destroyed.
I'm concerned with the people on Ham Lane who are
going to have their property destroyed. Cr.OA can go wherever.
HRtve got the people in that four -block area that I'm concerned
with.
ow. renpri Thank you. I think, Randy, it 1 could just
elaborate, I think what Nt. Pinkerton may be saying is there's
a lot of solutions to some of the problems in the environmental
impact studyt but it raises the blq question of who is
financially responilble for possibly the masonry barb era, the
wood trellises to provide privacy to these people, the loss of
property value because naturally you're losing property If they
come in and take or7whete up to 16 feet out of your front yard.
And 1 just as feeling very uncomfortable as to Who is
going to pick up the burden of this financial loss.
Even though a financial issue really isn't brought up
Mill AM NCPHERSON -- — HILL a w %ftPHERSON
+*at t un' P ?$ S I SI l f ,..azo (I % :resrti6! AlllltlM WAWA &fflil)J
3
20
1
in the environmental Impact study, the environmental impact
2
study and the outcoue of this project could have a teal
financial effect on the lcople that live along there.
4
VAYOP SN1nrRt IL,tudy is questioning that. Dennis. 1
S
think that what we're -- we've got to take this one step at a
6
time. Tl:e envicorrmental impact report has to -- and evetythlng
7
that you brought up, and everything hr. Pinkerton has brought
a
up, is certainly going to be considered and should be
9
considered, and nobody is trying to put that to the side right
10
now.
11
Put what we've got to concern ourself with
12.
Immediately before we can even start d!scus3inq those things is
1)
we've got to take care of the environmental concerns before
14
figures anJ all these numbers can be put together.
15
I4R• KIMPrt Sure.
16
IIAYOR 51111)CRt Su It's )out pact of the process. Thanks,
17
Dennis.
Is
MR. KC11PPt Thank you very much.
19
MR. CLAVPSt ler. Payor, we should understand that we ace
20
tolluviny CVOt1A tonight, anti the other concerns they have have
21
to do uith another section called the eminent tbmaln powers of
22
the city, and those have always hetn addressed anti --
21
RAYON SHIDEP: Will continue to be addresued.
24
nR. I:I,AVt t They will continue to ix audeesned, right.
25
RAYOR S141DERr Tnank you. Is there anybody else in the
26
audience that 00uld like to come up and address the CiR7
27
MR. OCIIS: Ill. ttayuc, councilpersons, my name is Dorance
28
Ochs, 2 South Ilam. I thoroughly Enjoyed the most recent
Mill AM NCPHERSON -- — HILL a w %ftPHERSON
+*at t un' P ?$ S I SI l f ,..azo (I % :resrti6! AlllltlM WAWA &fflil)J
3
&';1 R
.Iq.
20
21-
22
22 .
J1.0211
26.
27
21
tnmments list@ this eveninq. I'd like to inject anothar littio
factor upon that that 1 think sulercodes and toreuees the
aesthetic values, the monetary values, and the property values
and everything else, and that's the moral values Involved here.
I don't think you're going to find any money that's going to be
able to pay (or the discomfort, the disillusionment, the
displacement, the unhappiness that's going to he created by
doing this, But as stated by fit. Stein, thlr in a little above
and beyond the periphery of the discuusion here this eveadnq,
but I had to put that one In.
I've employed a red pencil quite liberally on the
tsport, and with your Indulgence I'd kirKI of like to go through
ry. rod marks ono by each and comment on or ask questions as it
gee@.
IIAYOR 81IIDERr Please do.
lift. OCII8r fly first red mark Is on page five. Down at the
bottom, second line from the bottom, 'Ditigetlon for potential
Df Increased traffic speeds,' and they're going to mitigate for
that by installing speed limit signs, increased enforcement;
and lower speed limits. Rather idealistic, I would say. Ill.dt
happens to the BS percentile that our police department grief.
by? Is the police department going to get a big -- have a flap
Lane patrol that's goinq to provide all this enforcement that
could be tllete to give us -- a.ki liaits? 1 wontlet.
ruether, on Ivigo six. the toll of the page,
Instigation, provide all future develol,rw.nte have ask-quate
off-street parking,' Ilcy, what's that going to do to .^south Ilan
Lade, there's not going to be any developx.ent there, now Is
HILL aaa MCPHERSON. �<
«- • nowayµ 04. C...r am. %
1
2
lf►Iplc- � �
.ttlernml d-
S
6
7
a
O 9
10
11
12
Il
11
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
AktCai Q i /O'14
JJ :4
25
26
27
2s
23
that going to laltigate the problems on Ilam Lane? Huh - huh.
(no).
The next item down under 'lloise, mitigation, inatall
sealeds windows .serous house frontage wherever feasible.' Again
the :puestiun there is who is going to do this, who is going to
pay for this?
Again, the next item, *Reduced ve'niele speed," i
don't believe it will happen. Contrary, t• .% matter of fact.
Its& 12, 'Encourage carpools.' Peanuts. 'Dicycle,'
is there a bicycle plan in the city that's going to -- don't
think Lodi tins a bicycle plan, do we?
MR. POfISKO1 we do.
NR. OCIISt Reg your pardon?
tlR. "ISKOt We do.
HR. OCIISt We do have, I'd like to see it snwetime.
IIR. MISKOt It's on the front counter, I'll give you a
copy.
tlR. OCIISt Arxd mass transll, what plans have we for mass
transit that's going to help mitigate some of the situation on
Ifam Lane? Do ve have a "so transit plan for Lodi?
IIR. 91:11Prt Call Dial-A-RdJe.
FOR. OC115t 'Lnf Otce vehicle codes concenrinq faulty Or
modil ted exl.oust dystems.' Ti,ere aqa/n, we're putting an awful
load on a police force that's already overivaded, and I don't
think it's going to happen in this case. Ife're going to have e
traffic stop sign on Lodi Avenue to ;heck their catalytic
convettets, their mufflers, their tailpipes, their tires, their
witxdshild wi;xrs and stuff? Can't believe it. And item id,
HlIL ane MCPHERSON
t.•l."Go V.aere/mexx.MrUr I
►. nc•. e.., C •w=
w•w .••.,••.
M,
1.
i'
I
1
3
0 ei
S
6
7
n
O 9
10
11
012
13
014
1S
16
17
10
19
20
21
022
23
24
25
26
27
28
2)
•Ioplrwent An alternative which taducra distance between
affected properties and travel lanes.' I wotuler how we're going
to do that. I wondet.
And down near the bottom of page six, 'All quality,
inerewovntal decrease in local emission concentrations,' they're
not going to -- no mitigation for that, they're lust going to
lot it grow, 1 guess. lIo controls, truthfully, no. there
wouldn't be.
On page seven, under 'Land use,' Item 23, again, who
in going to do it, 'installation of autoailtic garage door
openers where necessary to provide uefe resident access.'
And for land use, mitigation of noise, again the
Items on the previous page that we questioned.
And Item 25, 'Where approptiate, consider provisions
of fencing or lattice to provide a sense of privacy.' And
again who's going to do it, and where are they going to put
chew in? Several of these cases, the sidewalk Is going to tsi
so clow to the few trees that are going to be left, there
wouldn't be room 'or it, and/or the distance to the domicile
would he of such close proximity as to preclude any such thing
as this. I don't believe it is an adequate mitigation.
And under construction imlocts neat the Ixsttum of the
page. item 28, 'Plan construction around peak traffic times.'
Elsewhere on the report it says we're going to work only during
the -- let's see, 7:10 to 5:10, 1 think. If we're goinq to
plan that 700 to 5%10 around peak traffic hours, this is going
Lo be a mighty long project because you'll work about 15
minutes In the morning and 15 minutes in the afternoon. I
HILL and MCPlrEaSON
5
O 6
2
C
41
la
1!
12
11
lA
015
16
17
Ix
15
20
21
22
021
24
2 )
76
27
29
24
don't thiel 102 a guod curwent.
P.see elsht, third iters down there, 'llitigatinn,
scheduled construction to IW completod as soon as possible in
front of 1,unlnesa .rrraa..' 11011, there aren't -- only one
busi:sess area within the Imo ct area that we're discussing.
Page nine, -Projects description, ptoject location,'
I think there's an error thert in the last sentence of the
first paragraph, when it says, that last sentence, "Cam Lane is
a major north -Louth arterial in the city and Intersects Highway
12 at' -- anti liege is the questions -- 'first signalised
intetcect.ion...' Is that not on Lower Sacrament- Road?
1111. SCi1ROE01:11s ?hat's not In the city.
r111. OCl1S: It's not in the city, -,kay, so much for
that comment.
And apo over to [age 21. I underlined quite heavily
the first Iine of the atacond patagtaph on page 21, and as
indicated a little dlacusslon here earlier the aesthetics of
the arca, the olaicg residential agea of the city, and, of
cour::e, for the oloet Icsidentiai areas, you also have nose of
your more senior citlrens to whura iiisplacement and/or oovment
ob their prupetty lines would be disillusioning to say the
leant.
Alonaside the last l:aragraph of that first major
heading, the thud 1.lraggaph on tits! Im.le there, I have good
dlongside that, anal 1 agree with those rn-aments wholeheartedly,
the loss of the blq trees anti the shade and the comfort and
the aei;thvtic values.
And to get ahead of the protect a little bit, if I
MILL a" MCPMERSOM
a1wa.,H41 MMtwAw41 N.H,.a.,411
11000µ41,. C Ak N MMA
«. —1 0% 1
a iarli a,,.:, -1
ownMRM a' R�iC �; owl On" &MM, oNmw; sw, w, aumm &mow ftmsw: *watt# NOW, 10010111 WAI maim
O 1
2
1
1
S
6
0 ?
A
10
Oil
12
1]
11
is
16
17
IN
01!
20
21
22
21
024
2s
26
27
028
2%
remember my biology tight, trees have a pretty good impact on
the alt quality. too, do they not, and help absurb some of the
emissions (row the automobiles and the people and give us some
good old orrgen back, In additton to which the shade that they
give us and protection and the aesthetic values, which we also
don't mention here In the environmental Impact study.
Page 21, middle of the page, item 'Or,' and than item
three, well, that would be taking sides, and that's not the
time to do this. But one project or another, let's don't get
ditty yet.
On page 24, yeah, here is a goodie, here is a goodie.
Down one, two, three, (our, five, six, seven lines of the --
seventh line of the third paragraph, third paragraph, seventh
line, talking about the level of service, 'IAS is at level -A'
In this little project, so we turn over to page 26, and guess
what I. says on that, 'Level of service A Is that area where,
quote, average overall travel of 10 miles per hour or wore,
tree flowing with no congestion.'
Mall, It that's the condition, why are we going to
overhaul the whole thing? tie don't have a problem. Ne got
level of service A, traffic is (lowing 30 miles per hour or
better, and we have no congestion. Hell, hallelu)ah, shall we
all go home?
And on -- well, table two of this same section, again
It repeats that the level of service at Lodi and Ilam is level
of service A, no problems, rim and Ilam level of service A, no
problems.
Page 29, impli -- 'Impacts and witlgationa,
.Mill and WNfERSON
\T Oto. ...1 ,•N•O.,w.
11
12
11
011
is
16
17
is
19
020
21
22
21
24
07S
26
027
lA
26
constr'•ction of the project as proposed' -- this is the first
paragraph or page 29 -- 'Construction of the project as
proposed would result In a decrease in existing traffic
congentlon,' and yet fvfthet on we're going to say that we have
pore cars, and everything is going to be up, but yet bete we
say we have a decrease. Again, it we're going to add on the
project to have decreasing traffic? That don't compute, that
don't compute.
Item five, well -- under that impact -- no, item five
Is -- under that impact, then. 'Decrease In pedestrian safety.
Do* to an estimated increase' -- we changed gears here again --
increase In traffic speeds we're going to have, okay.
Inconsistency there.
In the last sentence on that same paragraph, 'Area
residents have Indicated that simple crosswalk controls do not
appear to faciliste street crossings.* I'll certainly endocre
that, as one who walks quite a bit. I have, oh, pr:bably tire
prints on my shoe toes of every tits that was ever built from
trying to walk across an lntef. etion.
Under that, item six, '(litigation, additional safety
devices may be needed which would include additional
crosnwalks.' Any police officer will tell you that a marked
crosswalk is probably tine blggemt hazard in pedestrian safety.
It .k+esn'twork.
'Iroadway warning nigns,' thoy're fine if somebody _
would rcaJ them.
?raftrc quards,' what kind of traffic guards?
That's a very vaTpae and meaningless statement, traffic guards,
HILL WA MCISHERSON
t........ .MM •4.p NN:w 1t..
Stec.# ewe. t K✓ew.e1
it—-~ n..
I
0 2
3
0 4
S
6
1
A
9
10
Oil
12
13
14
IS
16
017
In
19
20
21
22
23
014
2S
26
027
26
27
what?
'And if necessary, traffic and pedeattlan signals.'
And that's a big if.
'Potential delay to cross -traffic.' the next
paragraph, again, the last -- well, 'necause of higher traffic
volumes and more lanes to negotiate, cars on the side streets
say hove to wait longer to find a safe gap in traffic, th,:s
causing sore delays on those intersecting streets.' If we have
sore delays on the Intersecting streets, the cars are sitting
there idling, whet happens to the alt quality and the noise?
Under Item seven, the bottom of the page, 'Impact
potential foe Increased vehicle speeds; necause drlvets may
perceive' -- and there's another understatement -- 'the road to
be safer to drive at higher speeds, overall vehicle speed way
Increase.' it will Increase, we have 35 miie speed limit
there now, it says on the signs. nut who would 90 by it?
On the top of page 10 agA1n, 'Sherd Ilmit signs' --
and we all kno•, that if it's outside of the 3S percentile, you
just as well tecr the sign down and throw It away, because it's
not going to have any effect. nut anyhow, 'Street limit signs
with sttict enforcement by the local police can help reduce
speeds. However, these oeasuces cony not be entirely
successful.' Amen, yeah.
Another impact on that one, decreased on -street
packing. Going to lose a lot of it. That's 9011111 to make
people very happy, very happy.
Anti under that, 'Mitigations, item nine, provide all
future developments with Adequate off-Gtrert parking.' Itl\at
<<.HILL and NcNiCHSON -<
28
1 ooes that have to tb with this project? Mone.
O 2 page 31, 'volae.' Down near the middle of Elie first
3 patagraph, one, two, three, tour, five, six, seven, *And heavy
4 trucks, swtuccycles, busses and/or vehicles with faulty
S wuf(leCs' -- where is our Ilam Lane patrol here -- *systems
6 traveling at moderate speeds during any pout.' --
O 7 And the next paragraph, second paragraph, starting
8 with the second sentence, 'In other words, without the
9 vehicular traffic along Ilam Lane, that* are no adequate noise
10 sources of Me constant levels...' Nell, yeah, so without the
11 traffic, we got no problem on Ham Lane.
O 12 At the bottom of that page, the last paragraph,
13 bottom cf page 11, we come up to some declW a and noise, and
14 its the second line of that last paragraph, the noise level is
1S quoted as being 60 to 70 dnA, and, 1•ct's see, heavy tt'rcks,
16 motorcycles, busses and vehicles with f1bulay strlers, got. o
17 get out that clam patrol again, peak capacity noise lsaels at 70
18 to 90 at 25 feet, and It you've got a street within 1C feet of
19 a house, the house Isn't big enough to get out of tie noise
20 level, that's harmful and dangerous to us_ And that is one
21 that I am glad to see a whole lot of Ntought being given to In
22 a lot of studios other than this one, the noise levels and the
23 Illnesses, the discomfort, the diseases that rerult from being
24 sub)ected to long-term noises.
025 Anti page 33, table five, 'Land use category, normally
26 acceptable.' and to the right ou that line, 'less than 60,' so
27 Ilam Lane of its pieuent condition, then, with things as they
28 are right now without more traffic, without higher speed,
--------•---- ---------- --
HILL and rkriltaasorl
(,• I.,6fM�, w..V ,.q�M .,N
•• a■K• r OY, C •1N 0,\4\�
I
s
\1
4
f+:d'•+}'al t R .,�.._.. .,. r*. .-f .1:?.: r p
.r- k_ _7 �. _...� 2°A.i:`.i i�.-.. ,'�::� �YA#II[+.C.� %:.i.A 4+l l,::w�h./ 1..-.-....7
-;ais,,:;� f:+a�ae:..?a E."�..: `.x t» sea ..
29
without losing some trees, is already at the maximum level.
We're going to take the trees away, add more trucks, add more
cars, going to have a higher noise level.
The paragraph under table five, the secured sentence,
'In terms of noise element guidelines, present noise levels
adjacant to Nam Lane already exceed recommendations,' pow.
Page 3S, last sentence of the first paragraph, "it
the high growth traffic projection does not occur, nn noise
levels would be generated,' Nell, that figures, if we cutdown
the traffic, whatnot, the noise is going to go down.
In the third paragraph of paye 35, one, two, three,
four, -- tourth lint, middle of the line, a very Interesting
little note her*, 'Noise increases of three to five d8A are
definitely noticeable and are potentially disturbing,' and that
would bee if 1 remember rightj a kind of an annual increase in
the noise level. As I right on that) rive d8A's -- up to 5
dRA's a year increase, ad Infinitum, with increased traffic?
HS. RUROICKi No, I don't believe so.
IIR. OCHSs However, anyhow, there would be a proportional
increase as we go along, and three to five dnA at the rate of
60 we have already quickly build ue up to a level of
intolerability.
The last paragraph of that section, near the bottcm
of the page, one, two, three, four, five, sixth paragraph, 1
have the entire paragraph marked for a particular note,
'Standard residential building design and construction methods
generally reduce outdoor noise by 20 to 25 dnA with windows
closed and no significant cracks or openings around windows and
__. HILL ane iacPHensoN
1t «u.h�r ...•p..r.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
a
9
10
Oil
12
13
14
15
016
17
is
19
20
021
22
23
24
25
26
027
28
' 1-14 1 . - ._:. y -".�. 9 ....._...
]0
doori.. with the best residential construction methods, and
traffic noise law el of 70 dnA, Ham Lane interior noise levels
will meet 45 dIIA with indoor standards. However, if ti:e
windows are open, interior noise level will be 10 to 1S d0A
less than outcoors only,' and again the question comes up, so,
okay, we're ; !^.; to double insulate and pansjll the doors and
windows in the trent, now who again i,, going to do that? I'■
sure that there are several retl:ed on tAat aces who are on
fixed inco:se, hey, a chunk of glass, double pane, sealed. is
going to be a matter of considetablo concern.
Page 36. item eleven. again, we're going to reduce
the speed. 1 don't know low we're going to do it, but it's
going do happen, 'reducing the average speed on Ham Lane would
reduce noise levels effectively." I'll grant that, if you can
reduce them. I don't think you can.
Item 12, 'teciuce local traffic volume by impx ov:ng
desitability of alternatives to the automobile, such act
carpools, bicycles and public transit.' Again, I don't think
we have anything significant to offer in substantiation of that
contention.
Item 13. I'll qo along with that, let's do it. I
always had figured that we needed to enforce the Cnlifornia
codes against faulty or modified loud exhausts. I wish there
were o few of them around that were eliminated, I certainly do.
1'd like to nee It hapix n. Also I'i. not 4 dreamer, I'm a
lrealiat.
Item 14, 'Implcxent an alternative which reduces the
Distance between affected properties and the travel lanes.'
Hell ase ilePHERSOH
t..... we e. ele...- -6.6
i
x►K�►e�. CNNOaN�
YN..M •,M.
��
1
2
3
17
1e
19
20
21
22
021
24
2S
26
27
2e
II
Now !here it a ediAtAJI&I611 If 1 Niter heal) onfl, welt@ going
to Widen the street, and yet we're goinq to incteast• the
distance between the traffic lane and the home, huh, that's a
ulracl0. I'ti Ilt.e to see It happe n.
1111. CLAMS: lit. r'ayor, can I ask a question? The lwrpuae
of the meeting -- of the hearing is to hell, the l>rnple wito
write the CI11 to know where they miused sooethinq, and I'm
getting a little confused myself as to the -- and I hope,
frankly it's not --
ttC, OCIiS, Heli, In doing it as I am, I endeaeoted -- I
hoped I was painting out the Inadequacies of the plan, of the
repo t t .
mR. CLAVES[ Could you -- would It help to identify the
Inadequacy?
Ila, OCIISI I've elaborated on each one as I read It, I
the-'s;ht. Istat more would you like me to Jot
Oft. C.LZVte8: Sonetines you're 1`6yin•1, 'I also agree with
that,' and, soot I'm -- I get a little confused where we're
going. and I'm not sure if our lady hose Is gettln.l It.
fm, OCIISt I shall endeavor to be more speclftc, I'm
softy you didn't point this out earlier. I'm gettinq cattle,]
away with myself, I guess.
okay, page 19, let's see, whete are vet air quality
we're talking about. Atlout the middle of the first paragraph,
one, two, three, four, five -- thteo, four lines down, 'Average
speeds aro achieved thtouqh less conger:ted traffic flou.' And
III level of service A earlier, it was agreed by the report that
the level of traffic vas flowing without Congestion and van no
f 2
1
4
S
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
11
014
l5
16
17
lA
19
020
21
22
21
24
O 25
26
27
2s
22
ptot,lem.
The paragral-h goes on, 'i'twever, lower emissions per
vehit'le would be offset somewhat by antic/Feted increases In
vehicle volumes let future years. The project will not generate
Additional new tflpe systemwide, tart will all -- but oely will
accommodate future project[ -d ttaffie volumer.• I don't quite
understand that, It's not -- we treed it so badly that we can't
hatdiy put up with the congestion that's there now, and yet
we're :joinq to build It and it's not going to generate any now
addstlotwl trips, but ;uat as the city gets larger and a co'.ple
of cars ate added we're going to need It. When? rew ;ear 2005
as we air this at? 1 think the comment there needs
considerable elatm.ratiun and verification.
Page 40, •Alt quality." In the paragraph tinder the
table eight ►here the middle of the paragraph, middle of tt.e
line, in brackets, '15 miles per hour versus 2S,' the spoec
limit now is 15, unlese I'm grossly mistaken. It was
Increased, oh, several months to a year ago. It Is now 25, so,
again, another inconsistency in the report.
Again in the nest paragraph. the last sentence, last
sentence reads, 'The Cti pollutant Is the wont sensitive to
speed, and, therefore, will benefit meat (row the reduced
congesliu„ tar the rout lanes,' anti again back to level of
service A. we don't have any conyestion.
Page 44, item 24, again we'te_goinq to reduce speed
alt.ng Il.w Lane. it's not going to happen, I don't think,
faulty dvtluct lon.
o: Ia qe 411, the last sentence of the second paragraph
HILL sumo MCPHILK5UN HILL ons MCPHENSCW
l { w,.. •, O .wM . w.y �{.M. {w�
t "x .•�N. I." p.,.w.
{t aC.taY•e.l Nfi{.,.•
.�,..� P....�r+•t ASR {
Cel]
2
3
4
S
6
7
e
10
11
12
13
014
1S
16
17
1R
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
2C
27
28
13
reads, 'Although trips may tN: attracted to this route which do
not currently occur, this Is not growth induced try a larger
area.' And fetor you back to page 39, where 1 think it says
souething differently. The last sentence of the first
patagfaj,l► on page I9 says, 'Tile project will not generate
additional new trips.'
And, gentlemen, I quess M have taken up all the time
allowed the me. Certainly I'm aware that I've probably worn
out my welcome, but that's my lite's story. Thank you.
MAYOR SNIDER1 Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
I'•s. nuRDICKS I'd like to interject something here if f
could.
MAYOR SHIDERI Please.
its, nuRvicrt I think it's impottant for feopl- to
understand when they read the summary of environmental imim et
effects that's in the front, that as -- there's two columns
there, ono is a projected lmla ct of the project if no
mitigations at all are Implemented, and the other column
lassumes implementation of Ali th+ mitigations that are listed.
And you'll notice that several times an lmth ct Is indicated as
being potentially significant If no mitigation is implemented,
and then also nhows as being significcnt after the recommended
mitigations ace implemented.
What that moans is that nothinq that we recoma.ended
will serve to reduce the impact, end for noise in particular
that's the case. So it should -- I may not have been totally
cleat to some people by reading this, that if .3n impact -- the
itapact that you should be concerned about is the one that shows
Hilt, and MCPHEHSON
1
2
1
A
S
6
7
6
9
10
it
12
1)
11
IS
16
17
Is
19
20
21
22
23
24
025
26
27
28
)t
under the mitigated imlvct column, because assuming that they
im plewent 41 of the measures that we tecoowend, that would be
the end result of the project.
Su for those Iwo-ple that ace worried about noise and
community character, you'!-* notice the tepott states that there
Is no way to antis(actorily mitigate those Impacts. Even
though there's mitigations listed, those In and of themselves
will not serve to eliminate the Iy►sct, so I wanted to be sure
that was clear.
1111. POIISKOt fit. Mayor, 1'd like to add one other thing as
it relates to mitigation that was put in the report. These are
all the possible mitigations that could possibly take place.
She pointed out some may or. may not help. There's
also some that may or way not be economically !easible for the
mitigation that they provide, and we're in hopes of coning back
to you with definite recommendation, but )ust because it's in
there as a mitigation doesn't mean that It's one that as we
develop .,hat the project is going to e, that that's one that
we thlrsk ought to be done.
I:R. CLAVESI rot the purposes of tonight's meeting, we
might have missed some mitigations that someone might want to
suggest, and that wuald be helpful tot tour purpose.
I►AYOt. SIIIDEk1 Is there anyone also in the audience that
I
could like to Address the EIR on the project)
1111. LCC1 I'm Oliver Lee, 220 South Ilam Lane. I've been
twee before on the same street projects, of the one prior to
this, and 1 won't go Into title report in detail, but I do
appreciate what the other two gentlemen had to say about it.
Mill ass IsCPIIERiAN
ltOtat alt_ t wama•a
Y••. IN• 1
r'
N
is
I think that this alternative C, is the only thing
that I'■ going to go ail. I've lived here tot 10 years, and
rive soon an awful lot of changes wade on Iran Lane, and I've
lived right close to the corner and I've seen improvements wade
there, But I don't see any improvement in taking the existing
trees out and destroying what we already have. Thank you.
MAYOR SHIDERt Is there anyone also in the audience who
wishes to discuss information contained or not contained within
the VIP report?
As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this meeting
was to give Mrs, nurdick an opportunity to go over her report,
see those areas that perhaps things were slated or you
disagceed with, give her an opportunity to resMod.
I'd like to remind you that November 21st is the last
day in which to submit written comment. You have an
opportunity if you think of something between now and then a -W
you'd like to put it down in writing and send it to city hall,
that we will address those concerns, also.
Is there any question on the procedure the next -- It
we do what I think we will be doinq, we will be setting this
again for public hearing on December Sth. Can I entertain a
stotion at this time tot that?
MR. STEtttt !'lease.
MR. Itthicli"AMt 1 xo move.
110. REM Second the motion.
MAYOR SMIDERt It's teen moved and seconded that we set
this again for public heating for the presentation of the final
EIR, and appropriate action on the project by the council. All
Nltt and M[PHER"
t.. •tt aY... .t. ..N.b'r.. .. .•
S
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
11
11
is
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
26
27
2e
u
those in favot, say aye.
(llhereupon all council le"becs voted aye.)
MAYor stilmu Opposed? So carried. So on december Sth,
we'll be cottductirq our filial public hearing, at which time the
council .til he taking action on a project, no project,
alternate Hro)ect, whatever would cone out of that meeting.
tit. Reid?
PIR. PEIDt I do have one question. On page six, under
mitigation, Item number 14, is that stated correctly.
.mitigation would be to implement an alternative which reduces
the distance between affected properties and travel lanes in
order to mitigate nolse'?
MS. PunnlCRt hell, what I meant to say theca was that
either alternative A or asternative n would serve to keep the
traffic further way from the housert, and I guess by saying
implement an alternative, 1 just assured that everyone would
understand that I meant of those alternatives that were
presented in the report. So I didn't mean some random
altet native.
,IR. RE1D: To mitigato the inc-waved noise, you want to
keep the distance frog the houses to the vehicular tratfic as
great as ptossible, is that not true?
IIS. Pu1101CS t Right.
HR. Rr'7: Shouldn't that be what we're saying?
IIS. POP.DICRt Tex, it should be. I think I could state it
mote clearty ft I stated it that Way, yen.
IIAYOR SHIDCR: Does anyone in the audience have a
Iquentlon?
WAW WON OWN IMS ft" bib" Uiis4 4AW bftd ft" L" -J M—
Igtb. And MtPHERSON
t.b.tlNb bMb.r.rp bt ebb tf...
►tx�tob.t��na�w�
1 �� .
1
2
1
4
S
6
7
E
9
10
11
12
11
14
IS
16
17
1R
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
2e
17
11R. xenprs Randy, will there be a coley of the final
bature it's addressed on December Sth?
1IS. DU11DICK: No, the ,final is what happens after
everybody has put In all their comments, so the final will come
atter the public hearing, right7 5o this is the final public
hearing on the EIR itself?
1111. STEIIIt flop there will be another hearing ore the Sth
lot December on the document which will have the comments and
the written cor.,ments and responses to comments In it.
HS. BURDICK: Okay.
1/R. STEIII: On the Sth of December.
MS. BURDICK: .So then In that case, yes.
FIR. SCUROEDER: The answer to his question Is yes. We
have to have them available toe the public to review before the
heating.
11P. STE1Nt I'm sure, yes. I forgot what the question
was. I was responding to Kate.
NR, SCIIIMEDERt We better have them available, there's no
sense having the public heating.
118. BURDtCKt 1 thought we vete going to leave another
public hearing.
MR. SCIIROEDER: You, that's right.
IIP.. MISKOs Randy, I just have one other comment tot she
audience. If they have any specific questions as it relates to
how any of the alternates affect their pcolcrty, Pich will tee
out in the hallway after this item is adj w rued, or you can
cal. myself or P.ich Pries on the phone, we'll lx happy to talk
to you or show you an a map if you have any questions about
mitt ano hKetiensot4
t
t
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
11
14
1S
16
11
10
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
211
31
specifically what the project does as It relates to the
property.
11AYUR S11IDE11: Thank you, Jack. Okay, ladles and
gentlemen, lust one added it®. I would just like to remind
you, you know, that sometimes you get the -- I get the
impression, you know, that we're trying to put this into an
adversary tyke arrangement, it is not adversary. It's not the
people against the city or anything like this, you know. We
have a reeponsibility to sit here, listen. make a judgment. We
have a responsibility to the property owners, we have a
responsibility to the people who drive that street. and make a
decision which we feel is in the best interest of the entire
community.
It's not an adversary situation, and I -- f know I
appreciate, and I'm sure the rest of the council members
appreciate your being here. We want you here, we want the
Inforsatio,v, we want to be able to respond to ties Information.
So thank you very much, I'm going to call tot a five
minute recess at title tip-&.
MILL W WPHERftlttl
....... ............
/Al
November 11. 1984
W. Jack L. Ilonsko
Public Works Wrector
City of Lodi
P.O. /oa 320
Lodi. CA 95241
RE: Nam line Itnprovemerrt Pro)ect
Lodi Avenue to Eta Street
Dear W. Nonsko:
Thank you for your letter of October 18th and the copy of
the Draft Envirorrrntal Impact Reports (F.IR).
Mrs. Burdick and her associates, in my opinion, did do quite
a thorough analysis of the proposed plat.
11e EIR addresses both social and economic values of circ
proposed projjoct both for the City of "i's use and its
citizens. These issues of street trees, traffic, noise,
air quality, land use, neighborhood character and construction
related impactsare 1 howrtant. Yet, hare we to determine
which of these issues holds more weight, is equal to, or :s of
less imortowe that the other? Also. twpw can non-financial
issues such as noise and air quality be measured as to the social
cost to the affected citizens and com amity?
i"t4A _ *lets address these issues directly keeping these ectapamec and sural
%lVM,4.h0"C*s is in mind:
A. Plants
A� (F QOtsd 1. Ficatomic - Financially high dollar costs to
fl, re-pvw. including subsetnent constrsrtion.
2. Social - significant loss of trees mewl land -
f/ U scaping.(Pg• 4) forty -tom trees and 10 feet
lZdl�t of lawn and landscaping. Cost to citizens
is affected by beauty lost, less privacy,
more noise and increased traffic. (At;rcnwli■ A)
1. Traffic
1. Economic - long term financial costs saved due
to decreasln: congestion of cars.
2. Social - decrease in pedestrian safety die to
increased vehicle speeds.
C. "ai se
1. Economic - higher costs for sealing windows.
putting up walls, etc.
2. Social - (refer to Table 4, pg.S3) The Ldn
noise levels are norm .ly acceptable now. (72)
(See Table S. pg. 33) with more vehicles
crossing. their Is a signifi—increase in
vehicle noise (pg. 6). and Ldn levels up to
the year ZOOS are projected as clearly un-
acceptable. As indicated an page 3S. noise
increases of 3 to S d1A are definitely notice-
able and are potentially disturbing As indicated.
even a barrior of 2 to 2.S' high would not be
perceived as a noticeable reduction in nice
levels.
'/. Its_ l i tr
1. Fconomic - difficult to judge.
2. Social - lower emissions per vehicle but sure
vehicle volume. Page 40 indicates that the M),
levels and LMC levet would be increased 71
and 191 respectively. These are t4 components
of smog. Since the current ambient air quality
of Sat Joaquin Canty. (Table 7, pg.38), indicates
at least over 20 eaceedannces currently, logic
indicates that the subsequent iperease over this
wuld be more dmngerotu to our health In the future.
E. Lad the
1. Economic - increased short term construction costs
and decrease in value of residential property in
the long ran der to destruction of trees. removal
of lana. etc. Also. potential increase in homrwr!r
energy costs bar to lack of shad
2. Social - (refer topage 7). Significant change in
the perceived neighbortuod character. Page 42 refers
to the are as characterized by older, well mmintained
how% and landscaping creating a pleasant visual quality.
Page 44 refers to future difficulties with resident
access to their homes and other potential traffic hazard
contents.
F. Construction
1. Economic - usual construction costs necessary to achieve
completion of project. Disruption of area businesses.
2. Social - significant temporary increase in noise (pg. 7).
traffic disruption. parking loss, and potential disruption
of subsurface utilities.
..,. , ... : <: � ::fi r .. :�R t..,..-.,��h R..Y:,..wA Oeo�i+y<8 4•.,�..�:a $.i.'..«".l R-"cp'"a "
live City's General pian. established in 1%0. Aleost ' r• ars
go
a, could not hew ew+islonod all the choWs in the as= of
Lodi over thr years. i m sure thr authors intended this plan
as a guideline for future growth.
Ave widswtng of Hm lrr my here been a good idea pears Or,
however, the EIR report seem to indicate that. In q opta,ica.
the long nen adverse social iagcts offset the potential costs
and incwas pro)«ted.
I urge tin city Cantil to reject this posed lop ovwewt plan
as ultiaately wdrsirable for the social needs of the iaediste
citizens affected and the entire Lodi comissity in the future.
Respectfully suSaitted.
6�Roscscc i
FM/tch
IA 1.
REL ,,
r` " 'r -D
NOV 15 1984
Ll ( Y Of LODI
W
The letter from the State Clearing-
house was not received in time to be
Included in this printing. According.
to Mr. Price Walker of the Clearing-
house, no comments have been sub-
mitted. The letter will be avail-
able at the Public Hearing on Decem-
ber 5. 1984.