TRANSPORTATION IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE (TIMF) NEXUS S TUDY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "TRANSPORTATION IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE (TIMF) NEXUS S TUDY"

Transcription

1 COUNCIL OF S AN BENITO COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE (TIMF) NEXUS S TUDY FINAL REPORT MARCH 21, 2011

2 ii

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Study Objectives 1 Projects Included in the TIMF Study 1 Methodology Used in This Study 2 Fee Zones 3 TIMF Study Process 5 Fee Schedule 5 1. INTRODUCTION... 7 Background 7 Approach 8 Organization 8 2. TRIP DEMAND AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS Trip Generation by Land Use 10 Housing and Employment Growth 11 Growth in Trip Demand Through Estimated Allocation of Commercial Development Trip Demand to Residential Development TIMF PROJECTS AND PROJECT COSTS Projects 18 Project Costs COST ALLOCATION AND FEE CALCULATION Impact of Growth on Transportation Facilities 25 Existing Deficiencies 25 Select Link Analysis 27 Fee Calculation 29 Fee per Trip Demand Unit 29 Alternative Funding Sources IMPLEMENTATION TIMF Program Adoption Process 34 Reporting Requirements 34 Fee Collection and Expenditure 34 Renovations and Changes in Use 35 Inflation Adjustment MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Purpose of Fee 36 Use of Fee Revenues 36 Benefit Relationship 37 Burden Relationship 37 Proportionality 37 iii

4 APPENDIX A: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS Total Household Spending 39 Capture and Leakage 41 Local Spending Share of Total Sales 42 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC MODELING ANALYSIS iv

5 Executive Summary The Council of San Benito County Governments (COG) has prepared a Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) that would apply to new development in unincorporated San Benito County and the City of Hollister. The TIMF funds a select list of transportation system improvements. This Executive Summary provides an overview of the study objectives, methodologies, projects to be funded, and results of the nexus analysis. Study Objectives The primary policy objective of the TIMF program is to ensure that new development pays the transportation improvement costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the County and City of Hollister to expand its inventory of transportation facilities and therefore maintain its facilities standards as new development leads to increased traffic roadways located within San Benito County. The County and City of Hollister impose TIMF fees within their jurisdictions under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.. The County of San Benito is forecast to experience growth in both its incorporated cities and unincorporated areas through this study s planning horizon of This growth will create an increase in demand for transportation improvements. Given the revenue challenges that are common to most cities and counties in California; the County and City of Hollister have since 1992 implemented a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of transportation improvement costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts, facility plans, and traffic modeling to ensure that the TIMF program is representative of the transportation facility needs resulting from new development. Projects Included in the TIMF Study The following transportation improvement projects and intersections are included in the updated TIMF study: Project 1: Project 2: Project 3: Project 4: Project 5: Project 6: Project 7: Project 8: Project 9: Highway 156 San Juan Bautista to Union Road Highway 156/Fairview Road Intersection Improvements Highway 25 Operational Improvements Memorial Drive Extension Meridian to Santa Ana Airline Highway (SR 25) Sunset to Fairview Westside Boulevard Extension North Street (Buena Vista) Fairview Road Union Road (East) 1

6 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Project 10: Project 11: Project 12: Union Road (West) Meridian Extension Intersection Signalization (16 total; see below.) The following 11 intersections have been identified for intersection improvements: 1. McCloskey Rd. & Fairview Rd. 2. Memorial Dr. & Hillcrest Rd. 3. Fairview Rd. & Fallon Rd. 4. Fairview Rd. & Airline Hwy. 5. Fairview Rd. & Hillcrest Rd. 6. Union Rd. & Fairview Rd. 7. Enterprise Rd. & Airline Hwy. 8. South Street & Westside Blvd. 9. Cushman St. & Tres Pinos Rd. 10. Fourth St. & West St. or Monterey St. 11. Flynn Rd. & San Felipe Rd. In addition to the eleven (11) indentified intersection locations, five future intersection locations were purposefully not identified to allow flexibility as development occurs. Five other intersections were already included as part of the TIMF projects. Methodology Used in This Study The impact fees calculated in this study are based on maintaining specified City of Hollister, County of San Benito, and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) level of service (LOS) facility standards on roadways. The City of Hollister and San Benito have established a LOS of C. Caltrans also strives to maintain a LOS C on state highway projects. This study is an update of the previous TIMF program. Although many of the transportation system improvement projects included in this study were included in prior studies, new development is not being asked to pay to remedy existing transportation system improvements. All projects included in this study either a) met the County s and City of Hollister s roadway level of service standards at the time they were originally added to the TIMF program, or b) have an identified existing deficiency share of costs that will not be funded with impact fee revenue. Impact fees are calculated to help fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that any agency adopting impact fees establish a reasonable nexus between the projected amount of new development, the public improvements (in this case transportation improvements) needed to serve that development, and the amount of the fees. The six steps followed in this TIMF update study and described in detail in the chapters that follow include: 1. Prepare projections of travel demand; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Identify candidate facilities (transportation improvement projects); 2

7 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study 4. Determine new development s cost share; 5. Calculate the TIMF by allocating new development s cost share per unit of development, and; 6. Identify alternative funding. This report relies primarily on level of service (LOS) standards to establish a nexus between projected new development in the County and the need for improvements to roadways of regional importance. This report also relies upon the results of select link analysis. Select link analysis identifies where the traffic that will be using each roadway improvement is coming from and going to. The most recent Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) traffic model was used in this analysis for several purposes, including LOS and select link analysis. This model was used at the request of San Benito COG because the demographic projections have recently been updated as a part of the County s General Plan update process. Fee Zones Different areas of the County generate differing amounts of demand for transportation facilities. This analysis examined the demand for transportation facilities for three zones. The zones were configured such that areas with lower demand for the proposed TIMF improvements (and commensurately lower fees) could be examined independently of the areas with high demand. To facilitate traffic modeling and the select-link analysis, the zone boundaries were generally drawn along traffic analysis zone (TAZ) zone lines as identified in the traffic model. However, a TAZ was split between two zones in the case of the zone boundary line between Zone 2 and Zone 3 because one TAZ extended far to the south even though the County planning department did not anticipate significant growth south of where the boundary line is shown. The three fee zones analyzed in the study are: 1. Zone 1: The northwest corner of the County, generally surrounding Highway 101; 2. Zone 2: The greater Hollister area, including the City of Hollister and the City of San Juan Bautista; and, 3. Zone 3: The south-county area. Refer to Figure E.1 for a map of the fee zones. Although the City of San Juan Bautista is included in Zone 3, that city has historically not collected TIMF fees and it is not anticipated to implement TIMF fees at this time. 3

8 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Figure 1 4

9 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study TIMF Study Process This study is the result of the efforts of staff from the Council of San Benito County Governments, the City of Hollister, San Benito County, Caltrans, Willdan Financial Services, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Urban Economics. Throughout the study, the working group met bi-weekly to review the study s progress and give direction to the consultant team. The group also made presentations to key stakeholders, including members of the developer community to inform them regarding the comprehensive update process, and to solicit their feedback. The analysis was modified, where appropriate, to incorporate suggestions from stakeholders. Fee Schedule Table E.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified transportation impact mitigation fees based on the analysis contained in this report. Just as vehicle trip generation varies by land use, the TIMF fee varies by land use and is charged for each residential unit or each 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space. A key nexus finding is based on the setting of the TIMF proportional to the additional trip demand created by different types of new development. 5

10 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table E.1: Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) Schedule Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Admin Fee / Sq. Factor Fee 1 (2%) Total Fee 2 Ft. Zone 1 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 1, $ 1,683 $ 34 $ 1,717 n/a Multi-family 1, , ,058 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ $ 998 $ 20 $ 1, Office 1, , , Industrial 1, Zone 2 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 4, $ 5,130 $ 103 $ 5,233 n/a Multi-family 4, , ,223 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ 2, $ 3,328 $ 67 $ 3, Office 4, , , Industrial 4, , , Zone 3 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 1, $ 1,764 $ 35 $ 1,799 n/a Multi-family 1, , ,109 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ 1, $ 2,410 $ 48 $ 2, Office 1, , , Industrial 1, Fee per dwelling unit or thousand square feet of building space unless otherwise noted. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Sources: Tables 1, 10 and 11; Willdan Financial Services. 6

11 1. Introduction This study analyzes the need for transportation improvements to support the next 25 years of growth in San Benito County. This chapter provides an overview of California s Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections et seq.) and major County and State policy supporting a Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF). The chapter also provides a description of the technical approach chosen for the TIMF and report organization. Background The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, including increased thresholds of voter approval for many taxes or tax increases, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of growth pays its own way. This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. In contrast, development fees are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development countywide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. The County of San Benito and the City of Hollister have the authority to impose impact fees by virtue of their police powers, which are granted in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The exercise of that power is guided by the Mitigation Fee Act ( Act ) contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This study provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of a Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF). San Benito County first established development impact fees to fund transportation facilities in The City of Hollister has had an impact fee for traffic facilities in place since The fees have been adjusted annually for inflation, and have been comprehensively revised and updated several times, most recently in This study will comprehensively update the traffic fees for changes in growth projections, project costs and other technical considerations. 7

12 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Approach Impact fees are calculated to help fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that any agency adopting impact fees establish a reasonable nexus between the projected amount of new development, the public improvements (in this case, transportation improvements) needed to serve that development, and the amount of the fees. The six steps followed in this TIMF update study and described in detail in the chapters that follow include: 1. Prepare projections of travel demand; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Identify candidate facilities; 4. Determine new development s cost share; 5. Calculate the TIMF by allocating new development s cost share per unit of development, and; 6. Identify alternative funding. This report relies primarily on level of service (LOS) standards to establish a nexus between projected new development in the County and the need for improvements to roadways of regional importance. LOS is calculated based on the volume of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roadway or intersection. LOS A, B, and C suggest that delays are insignificant to acceptable. LOS D suggests delays are high and some short-term back-ups occur. LOS E and F suggest restricted speeds and significant delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the capacity of the facility. The current minimum acceptable LOS standard set by the County, City of Hollister and Caltrans is LOS C. This report also relies upon the results of select link analysis. Select link analysis identifies where the traffic that will be using each roadway improvement is coming from and going to. The most recent Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) traffic model was used in this analysis for several purposes, including LOS and select link analysis. This model was used at the request of San Benito COG because the demographic projections have recently been updated as a part of the County s General Plan update process. Given the projected impacts of new development, many of the facilities included in this fee program are forecast to fail to meet LOS standards by These conclusions are determined from AMBAG model analysis performed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, and documented in this report. Organization This study is divided into the following eight chapters and three appendices: Chapter 1, Introduction (this chapter): Summarizes public infrastructure financing in California, and the general technical approach used in the study; Chapter 2, Trip Demand and Growth Projections: Describes the growth projections used to estimate future demand and translates the growth into trip demand measures; 8

13 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Chapter 3, TIMF Projects and Project Costs: Details the projects that are included in the TIMF Program; Chapter 4, Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation: Describes the results of traffic modeling and the determination of development s share of cost for roadway facilities; Details maximum justified impact fees for traffic facilities; Chapter 5, Implementation: Provides guidelines for the implementation and ongoing maintenance of the TIMF Program; and, Chapter 6, Mitigation Fee Act Findings: Summarizes the five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code et. seq.). 9

14 2. Trip Demand and Growth Projections This chapter describes the estimates of trip demand for transportation facilities The most recent Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) traffic model provided the estimates of the amounts of growth expected during the planning horizon of the TIMF. These land use projections are later converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand. Trip Generation by Land Use Vehicle trips (trips) are used as a measure of the use of transportation facilities by various land uses. Trip volumes help define the need for improvements to selected road segments or intersections. A traffic model is used because it is a more accurate way of identifying trip volume from existing and projected land uses on various existing and proposed road segments, and as part of an overall transportation system. This study uses PM peak hour trip level of service (LOS) output from the AMBAG traffic model to identify improvements and allocate costs by land use category. The share of roadway improvement costs allocated to each unit of new development is based on the relative amount of new trip demand generated by that development. Trip demand during the afternoon peak hour of traffic is used because this is generally the busiest time of day for traffic, and road improvements are needed to provide capacity to accommodate peak levels of traffic. The traffic study used for this analysis identified improvements needed to mitigate deficiencies during the peak hour. As new development generates increased vehicle trips for the County s transportation network, additional capacity in the system will be needed in the form of the improvements described in this report. Allocation of cost by land use incorporates rates of trip generation, relative shares of passby and diverted trips, and relative trip length, by major land use category. Trip generation rates are applied to development projections to allocate improvement costs by land use type. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based on years of study of major land use categories by the Institute of Transportation Engineers: Single family Multi-family Commercial Office Industrial The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are defined as intermediate stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. The trip generation rate is weighted by the relative length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips. 10

15 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study These factors vary by land use category. Table 1 shows trip generation rates, adjustments, and a final trip demand factor by major land use category. The trip demand factors incorporate daily trip generation rates, relative shares of pass-by and diverted trips, and relative trip length by land use. Note that trip demand factor data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is used because it identifies pass-by and diverted trip factors, as well as average trip length. This demand factor data is not specifically available for San Benito County at this time. The SANDAG data is often cited in traffic fee studies in California. Housing and Employment Growth The planning horizon for this analysis is The nexus analysis uses 2035 AMBAG traffic model data to estimate new development s demand for transportation improvements. The increment of growth projected to occur between 2010 and 2035 is calculated as the difference between the General Plan s 2005 and 2035 land use data, net of changes estimated to have occurred between 2005 and San Benito COG specifically requested the use of the AMBAG model that was updated as part of the County s most recent General Plan Update. The model represents the latest projection of future land uses and travel demand in San Benito County available at this time. Base year (2010) assumptions for population and dwelling units are based on the California Department of Finance s (DOF) estimates. Base year employment assumptions are based on data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). Planning horizon (2035) projections for population, dwelling units and employees are all based on the General Plan land use scenario in the AMBAG traffic model. Some adjustments were made by TAZ to include anticipated development, as identified by County and City of Hollister staff, not originally included in the model. All demographic assumptions are shown for the County as a whole, and also shown for each of the three fee zones as identified previously in Figure 1. Fees are calculated independently for each zone, based on the trip demand for each specific facility from each zone. Zones 1 and 3 are projected to have significantly less trip demand relative to Zone 2. Consequently, fees in Zones 1 and 3 will generally be lower than those for Zone 2. Table 2 lists the 2010 and 2035 land use assumptions used in the nexus analysis, by zone. This study does not require that all projected growth will have occurred within the study s planning horizon. Whether this amount of new development occurs prior to 2035 or after 2035, the need for transportation improvements included in the TIMF Program and the impact fee revenues that flow with new development are mutually supportive. No funding threshold or transportation improvement is tied to any particular calendar year. 11

16 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors Primary Trips 1 Diverted Trips 1 Total Excluding Pass-by 1 Average Trip Length 2 Adjustment Factor 3 ITE Category PM Peak Hour Trips 4 Trip Demand Factor 5 A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F Residential Single Family 86% 11% 97% Single Family Housing (210) Multi-family 86% 11% 97% Apartment (220) Nonresidential Commercial 47% 31% 78% Shopping Center (820) Office 77% 19% 96% General Office Building (710) Industrial 79% 19% 98% General Heavy Industrial (120) Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips with no midway stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips whose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. 2 In miles. 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of Trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average daily trips. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, July 1998; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition; Willdan Financial Services. 12

17 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 2: Growth Projections Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Growth Growth Growth Growth Residential Dwelling Units Single Family 916 1, ,586 24,253 10, ,894 26,090 11,196 Multi Family ,745 4,900 2, ,935 5,175 2,240 Total 1,106 1, ,331 29,153 12, ,829 31,265 13,436 Population 3,210 4,486 1,276 53,524 88,758 35,234 1,147 1, ,881 94,735 36,854 Employees Commercial ,402 4,978 1, ,547 5,386 1,839 Office ,575 9,359 7, ,594 9,932 8,338 Industrial ,058 7, ,498 8, Total 542 1, ,035 21,899 9, ,639 23,423 10,784 Building Square Feet (1,000) 1 Commercial ,161 1, ,210 1, Office ,052 3, ,300 3,610 Industrial ,411 10, ,998 10, Total ,254 15,834 4, ,898 16,945 5,047 1 Conversion from employees to building square feet based on occupancy density assumptions from the Natelson Company. Sources: AMBAG Traffic Model; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001; California Employment Development Department; California Department of Finance; Willdan Financial Services. 13

18 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Growth in Trip Demand Through 2035 Based on the trip demand factors shown in Table 1, and the growth projections in Table 2, Table 3 calculates the projected travel demand growth in the County, and for each zone between 2010 and These trip demand unit totals are calculated by multiplying the trip demand factors by the development projections from Table 2. Estimated Allocation of Commercial Development Trip Demand to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 1 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, most transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. There is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. The existing County fee schedule includes the land use category Commercial, which is assumed to include retail stores and restaurants in this analysis. 1 Commercial development (including but not limited to retail stores and restaurants) is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is reflected in the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip demand to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. By local we mean residents (or local businesses) located within the area subject to the impact fee. There are three major sources of retail spending: 1 The San Benito County fee schedule includes a Commercial and an Office category. Some other counties use a Retail land use category instead of Commercial as Commercial is sometimes used to imply a combined category including retail and office land uses. 14

19 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 3: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips Land Use Trip Demand Factor 2010 Land Use 2035 Land Use Growth Units / Units / Units / 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips Total Residential Single Family ,894 16,681 26,090 29,221 11,196 12,540 Multi-family ,935 2,025 5,175 3,571 2,240 1,546 Subtotal 17,829 18,706 31,265 32,792 13,436 14,086 Nonresidential Commercial ,210 1,851 1,838 2, Office ,256 4,300 7,826 3,610 6,570 Industrial/Other ,998 2,400 10,807 2, Subtotal 11,898 5,507 16,945 13,232 5,047 7,725 Total - All Zones 24,213 46,024 21,811 Zone 1 Residential Single Family ,026 1,323 1, Multi-family Subtotal 1,106 1,157 1,598 1, Nonresidential Commercial Office Industrial/Other Subtotal Total - Zone 1 1,366 2,373 1,007 Zone 2 Residential Single Family ,586 15,216 24,253 27,163 10,667 11,947 Multi-family ,745 1,894 4,900 3,381 2,155 1,487 Subtotal 16,331 17,110 29,153 30,544 12,822 13,434 Nonresidential Commercial ,161 1,776 1,699 2, Office ,241 4,052 7,375 3,370 6,134 Industrial/Other ,411 2,259 10,083 2, Subtotal 11,254 5,276 15,834 12,394 4,580 7,118 Total - Zone 2 22,386 42,938 20,552 Zone 3 Residential Single Family Multi-family Subtotal Nonresidential Commercial Office Industrial/Other Subtotal Total - Zone Sources: Tables 1 and 2; Willdan Financial Services. 15

20 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study 1. Local households; 2. Local businesses; and 3. Visitors that travel to the area to shop. To determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development, we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2009, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization. The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Benito County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 51.1 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that residential development directly causes 51.1 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are presented in detail in Appendix A. Total Travel Demand by Land Use Category Table 4 allocates the growth in commercial square footage to either that which is associated with local serving commercial and that which is associated with visitor spending based on the analysis contained in Appendix A. This commercial trip demand shift is only needed for Zones 1 and 2, because there is no commercial development projected, and therefore no commercial trip demand projected in Zone 3. Table 4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. in San Benito Building Square Feet Share Growth Zone 1 Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft % Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 51.1% Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 48.9% Zone 2 Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft % 1,161 1, Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 51.1% Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 48.9% See Appendix A for calculation of shares. Sources: Tables 1 and A.4; Willdan Financial Services. Table 5 displays the calculation of trip demand similar to Table 3, but allocates the share of local serving commercial trip demand to residential land uses for Zones 1 and 2. The amount of square footage identified in Table as being associated with local serving retail is shifted to residential development, and trip demand growth is recalculated. 16

21 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study For example, in Zone 1, 46,000 square feet of commercial growth are shifted to residential development. The trip demand associated with that local serving commercial is then calculated (46 x trip demand factor of 1.53 = 70), and considered to be associated with residential development. Next the 70 retail trips shifted are allocated to single family or multi-family residential land uses based on the relative percentage of single family and multi-family trips to total residential trips [456 single family trips + (456 / ) x 70 = 518 total single family trips with local serving commercial shift]. Finally, the percent of trips per land use per zone is made (518 single family residential trips / 1,006 total Zone 1 trips = 51.49%). This percent calculation will be used again in the final allocation of trip share and cost per trip. (See also Table 10.) Table 5: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips, Including Local Serving Commercial (Retail) Shift (Zones 1 and 2 only) 2010 Land Use 2035 Land Use Growth Retail Shift A B A * B = C D A * D + E D - B = F E - C = G See footnotes 1, 2 and 3 Trips per Percent of Land Use unit or 1,000 SF Units or 1,000 SF Trips Units or 1,000 SF Trips Units or 1,000 SF Trips Units or 1,000 SF Total Zone Trips Zone 1 Residential Single Family ,026 1,323 1, % Multi-family % Local Serving Commercial % Subtotal 1,130 1,194 1,668 1, Nonresidential Commercial % Office % Industrial/Other % Subtotal Total - Zone 1 1,366 2,373 1,007 1, % Zone 2 Residential Single Family ,586 15,216 24,253 27,163 10,667 11,947 12, % Multi-family ,745 1,894 4,900 3,381 2,155 1,487 1, % Local Serving Commercial , % Subtotal 16,924 18,017 30,021 31,872 13,097 13,855 13,855 Nonresidential Commercial , % Office ,241 4,052 7,375 3,370 6,134 6, % Industrial/Other ,411 2,259 10,083 2, % Subtotal 11,254 4,369 15,834 11,067 4,580 6,698 6,698 Total - Zone 2 22,386 42,939 20,553 20, % 1 Single Family retail trips shift = Single Family trips +[Local Serving Commercial trips* (Single Family trips / all residential trips)] 2 Multi-family retail trips shift = Multi-family trips +[Local Serving Commercial trips* (Multi-family trips / all residential trips)] 3 Trips with Retail Shift by land use category as a percent of all trips per that zone (e.g., 518 Single Family trips / 1,007 total trips in Zone 1 = 51.44%). Total percent of trips in Zone 2 does not add exactly to % due to rounding. Sources: Tables 1, 2 and 4; Willdan Financial Services. 17

22 3. TIMF Projects and Project Costs This chapter presents a description of the transportation improvement projects and the costs of the projects included in the updated TIMF program. Projects Prior to cost allocation, total project costs must be identified. All projects included in this comprehensive updated were included in the prior study, with the exception of one project. The Meridian Street extension project was not included in prior versions of the fee program. The following twelve projects are included in the TIMF program. They are listed below and described in more detail in Figure 2, Project 1: Project 2: Project 3: Project 4: Project 5: Project 6: Project 7: Project 8: Project 9: Project 10: Project 11: Project 12: Highway 156 San Juan Bautista to Union Road Highway 156/Fairview Road Intersection Improvements Highway 25 Operational Improvements Memorial Drive Extension Meridian to Santa Ana Airline Highway (SR 25) Sunset to Fairview Westside Boulevard Extension North Street (Buena Vista) Fairview Road Union Road (East) Union Road (West) Meridian Extension Intersection Signalization (16 total) Highway 25 Highway 25 is currently in need of widening and conditions will continue to worsen with projected new development. The widening of Highway 25 was included in the previous TMF study. However, at this time it is unlikely that there will be sufficient state or local funding available to fund the entire projects, Therefore, the Highway 25 widening projects were removed from this update of the TIMF program. Instead, an interim passing lane project has been included (see Project 3). It is fully intended that the Highway 25 widening projects will be considered for inclusion in future updates of the TIMF program, at which time more will be known about available funding for these projects. Intersections The cost estimates for intersections used in the TIMF fee calculations assume the construction of improvements at 16 intersections. Eleven (11) of those intersections are identified here. Five intersections are purposefully not identified to facilitate TIMF program flexibility. Five (5) other intersections have been identified where the cost of intersection improvements are already included in other TIMF project costs. 18

23 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Figure 2 San Benito Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Projects Project Description Responsible Agency 1. Highway 156 Widening San Juan Bautista to Union Road Widen to 4-lane expressway Estimated Purpose and Need Cost Caltrans $62,900,000 The project will widen 5.2 miles of State Route 156 from four lanes to two lanes, and will realign the route. The purpose of the project is to reduce existing congestion and provide for future traffic needs, improve safety, and improve route continuity. 2. Highway 156/Fairview Road Intersection Improvements Construct new turn lanes at intersection Caltrans $6,043,800 This project will add through lanes and turn lanes at the intersection to alleviate congestion. 3. Highway 25 Operational Enhancements Construct passing lanes Caltrans $4,200,000 This project includes two 0.5 mile passing lanes. The project is intended as an interim improvement to partially relieve traffic congestion until sufficient state funding is available to proceed with planned widening of Highway Memorial Drive Extension: Meridian Street to Santa Ana Road Construct 4-lane road extension City of Hollister $2,970,800 This project will construct a 0.3 mile segment of Memorial Drive between Meridian Street and Santa Ana Road. The objective is to provide a direct connection between the residential neighborhoods located adjacent to Memorial Drive and Santa Ana Road. 5. Airline Highway Widening: Sunset Drive to Fairvew Road Widen to 4-lane expressway Caltrans $28,214,200 The Airline Highway project is needed to relieve traffic congestion along this major north-south corridor. The project widens Airline Highway from two to four lanes between Sunset Drive and Fairview Road. 19

24 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Project Description Responsible Agency Construct City of 6. Westside Boulevard Extension 2-lane road Hollister/ San Benito County Estimated Purpose and Need Cost $13,360,200 The project will construct an extension of Westside Boulevard south of Nash Road on an alignment that is east of San Benito High School and intersects at Union Road. Currently, Nash Road runs through the middle of San Benito High School creating noise, safety, and congestion problems. This project will relieve congestion on Nash Road and completes a mini-bypass around southern Hollister. 7. North Street (Buena Vista) Construct 2-Lane road 8. Fairview Road Widening Widen to 4-lane arterial City of Hollister San Benito County $4,207,000 The project objective is to provide a continuous 2-lane collector street across north Hollister. The improved roadway would significantly improve the accessibility of the neighborhoods in Northeast Hollister. Buena Vista Road currently exists along a discontinuous alignment in northeast Hollister. The project will improve this roadway so that it can serve as a westward extension of Santa Ana Road. The new roadway will be constructed from San Benito Street westward to intersect with Westside Boulevard. $13,104,000 Fairview Road is the major north-south arterial serving east Hollister. The segment of Fairview Road from McCloskey Road south to State Route 25 serves a developing residential area, and needs to be widened to 4-lanes in order to improve safety, and to provide increased roadway capacity. 9. Union Road Widening (East): San Benito Street to Highway 25 Widen to 4-lane arterial San Benito County $3,730,300 This project will widen Union Road to four lanes east of San Benito Street. The purpose of the Union Road Widening Project is to alleviate through-traffic impacts in Hollister and accommodate growth by expanding road capacity around Hollister. 20

25 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Project Description Responsible Agency 10. Union Road Widening (West): Widen to 4-lane San Benito San Benito Street to Highway 156 arterial County Estimated Purpose and Need Cost $11,501,700 This project will widen Union Road to four lanes west of San Benito Street. The purpose of the Union Road Widening Project is to alleviate through-traffic impacts in Hollister and accommodate growth in the Hollister Area by expanding road capacity around Hollister. 11. Meridian St. Extension to Fairview Rd. Construct 4-lane road San Benito County/City of Hollister $4,798,500 This project will construct a 4-lane extension of Meridian street, connecting to Fairview Rd. The connection will provide a direct route into the central Hollister area from Fairview Road. Residential development in the eastern portion of the County will benefit from the improved accessibility this extension will provide. 12. Intersection Signalizations (See separate list below of identified locations and five signals with locations to be determined.) Add or Improve Signals San Benito County/City of Hollister $4,000,000 Increased traffic throughout the county will impact level of service and safety at various intersections. When warranted, signals will be installed or modified to improve level of service and safety. 21

26 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transport Intersections were chosen for inclusion based on the following criteria: Intersections were located in areas of significant projected growth; and Intersections must be located on roadway segments that meet the Federal Highway Administration functional classification as a minor arterial or above. Identified Intersections The following 11 intersections have been identified for intersection improvements and signalization: 1. McCloskey Rd. & Fairview Rd. 2. Memorial Dr. & Hillcrest Rd. 3. Fairview Rd. & Fallon Rd. 4. Fairview Rd. & Airline Hwy. 5. Fairview Rd. & Hillcrest Rd. 6. Union Rd. & Fairview Rd. 7. Enterprise Rd. & Airline Hwy. 8. South Street & Westside Blvd. 9. Cushman St. & Tres Pinos Rd. 10. Fourth St. & West St. or Monterey St. 11. Flynn Rd. & San Felipe Rd. Unidentified Intersections In addition to the eleven (11) indentified intersection locations, five future intersection locations were purposefully not identified to allow flexibility as development occurs. The five intersections yet unidentified will also need to meet the criteria above. Intersections Already Included in TIMF Projects Five other intersections were already included as part of the TIMF projects. The intersections and the associated projects are identified below. Intersection Associated Project 1. Meridian St. & Fairview Rd. Meridian Street Extension (Project 11) 2. Memorial Dr. & Santa Ana Rd. Memorial Drive Extension (Project 4) 3. Memorial Dr. & Meridian St. Memorial Drive Extension (Project 4) 4. Westside Boulevard & Nash Rd. Westside Boulevard Extension (Project 6) 5. Westside Boulevard & San Benito St. Westside Boulevard Extension (Project 6) 22

27 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Project Costs Cost estimates are shown in the project descriptions in Figure 2 as well as in Table 6. Cost estimates used in this study were compiled by San Benito COG. They come from a variety of sources including: Caltrans; San Benito County Engineering Staff; City of Hollister Staff; Project study reports; and, Other recent cost experience for similar projects. All cost estimates include a 40 percent contingency, with the exception of the Highway San Juan Bautista to Union Road project, which is based on a 2010 cost estimate from Caltrans and is therefore not adjusted with a contingency. 23

28 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 6: TIMF Project Costs Project Improvement Estimated Construction & R/W Cost Contingency (40%) Total Cost 1. Highway San Juan Bautista to Union Road Widen to 4-lane rural highway $ 62,900,000 n/a $ 62,900, Highway 156/Fairview Road - Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements 4,317,000 1,726,800 6,043, Highway 25 Operational Improvements Passing Lanes 3,000,000 1,200,000 4,200, Memorial Drive Extension - Meridian to Santa Ana Construct 4-lane road 2,122, ,800 2,970, Airline Highway (SR 25) - Sunset to Fairview Widen to 4-lane arterial 20,153,000 8,061,200 28,214, Westside Boulevard Extension Construct 2-lane road 9,543,000 3,817,200 13,360, North Street (Buena Vista) Construct 2-Lane road 3,005,000 1,202,000 4,207, Fairview Road Widen to 4-lane arterial 9,360,000 3,744,000 13,104, Union Road (East) Widen to 4-lane arterial 2,664,500 1,065,800 3,730, Union Road (West) Widen to 4-lane arterial 8,215,500 3,286,200 11,501, Meridian St. Extension to Fairview Rd. Construct 2-lane road 3,427,500 1,371,000 4,798, Intersection Signalization (16 total) Add Signals 4,000,000 n/a 4,000,000 Total $ 132,707,500 $ 26,323,000 $ 159,030,500 Note: Costs rounded to the nearest $100. Sources: San Benito COG; Willdan Financial Services. 24

29 4. Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation This first half of this chapter documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development within the County and the share of roadway improvement costs that are associated with the need to accommodate that growth. The second part of this chapter describes the traffic impact mitigation fee calculations. Impact of Growth on Transportation Facilities The analysis of how growth impacts transportation facilities that are included in the TIMF was accomplished by running the following three scenarios in the AMBAG traffic model: 2005 County General Plan land uses updated to 2010 using California State Department of Finance and Employment Development Department data (2010 Baseline); 2035 County General Plan land uses with no improvements to the road network (2035 Without Improvements scenario); and 2035 County General Plan land uses with TIMF improvements added to the road network (2035 With Improvements scenario). Changes in the performance of roadways between scenarios inform the TIMF Program s allocation of costs between new and existing development. The metric of performance used in the TIMF is level of service (LOS). LOS data is used from the model runs to allocate the total cost of each project to the TIMF program. LOS is calculated based on the volume of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roadway or intersection. LOS A, B, and C suggest that delays are insignificant to acceptable. LOS D suggests tolerable delays although traffic is significant and some short-term back-ups occur. LOS E and F suggest restricted speeds and significant delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the capacity of the facility. Existing Deficiencies Existing roadways and intersections that do not meet County LOS standards are considered existing deficiencies. All projects included in this study either a) met the County s roadway level of service standards at the time they were initially added to the TIMF program, or b) have an identified existing deficiency share of costs that will not be funded with impact fee revenue. The share identified as an existing deficiency is equal to existing development s trip demand, relative to total trip demand in For each project included in the TIMF, Table 7 documents existing LOS, future LOS with no TIMF projects, and future LOS with TIMF projects. Without the TIMF projects included in the fee, these segments would ultimately have an unacceptable LOS. Project costs with no existing deficiencies are allocated 100% to new development. For those projects with an existing deficiency, Table 7 also documents the allocation to existing development if applicable. Projects 25

30 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 7: TIMF Project Level of Service Existing Conditions (2010) Future (2035) No Project Future (2035) with Projects Deficiency Share Allocated to New Project Improvement Description LOS Deficiency? LOS LOS Share 1 Development 1. Highway San Juan Bautista to Union Road Widen to 4-lane rural highway E Yes E C 52.6% 47.4% 2. Highway 156/Fairview Road - Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements C No F C 0.0% 100.0% 3. Highway 25 Widening - Operational Improvements Passing lanes E Yes F C 52.6% 47.4% 4. Memorial Drive Extension - Meridian to Santa Ana 2 Construct 4-lane road N/A No N/A N/A 0.0% 100.0% 5. Airline Highway (SR 25) - Sunset to Fairview 3 Widen to 4-lane arterial D Yes E D 0.0% 100.0% 6. Westside Boulevard Extension 2 Construct 2-lane road N/A No N/A N/A 0.0% 100.0% 7. North Street (Buena Vista) 2 Construct 2-Lane road N/A No N/A N/A 0.0% 100.0% 8. Fairview Road Widen to 4-lane arterial B No D A 0.0% 100.0% 9. Union Road (East) Widen to 4-lane arterial B No E B 0.0% 100.0% 10. Union Road (West) Widen to 4-lane arterial B No E B 0.0% 100.0% 11. Meridian St. Extension to Fairview Rd. 2 Construct 2-Lane road N/A No N/A N/A 0.0% 100.0% 12. Intersection Signalization (16 total) Add Signals N/A N/A N/A 0.0% 100.0% 1 San Benito County and its incorporated cities have an established level of service standard of C. For those segments that are currently deficient, only the share of project costs equal to new development's growth in trips relative to all trips at the planning horizon is charged to new development in the form of an impact fee (21,810 growth in trips / 46,023 = 47.4%). The cost of segments that are not currently deficient is fully funded by impact fees. 2 Projects involving construction of new roads or roadway segments do not have existing levels of service (Projects 4, 6, 7 and 11). As these road segments do not currently exist, no existing deficiency share is allocated. These projects are included because they have been identified in the General Plan Circulation Element as needed to improve overall traffic circulation in the County as projected new development occurs. 3 Airline Highway is currently deficient because it is operating below a level of service standard C. However, because the project does not bring the level of service any higher than the existing level of service, no deficiency share is allocated to exisitng development. Sources: Table 3; Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Draft San Benito County General Plan, 2010; Santana Ranch EIR, Transportation Impact Analysis; Willdan Financial Services. 26

31 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study that are either new roadways or new extensions have no existing level of service deficiencies and no deficiency share is allocated to existing development. Projects for segments which are currently deficient (operating below level of service C), but for which the project does not improve the existing level of service, are also allocated entirely to new development. Select Link Analysis Select link runs of the travel demand model were conducted for each of the projects included in the TIMF. A select link analysis identifies where the traffic that will be using each roadway improvement is coming from and going to. With this information, the fair share of the cost of the improvement can be allocated to new development in each of the three fee zones identified earlier in this report, and these proportional costs included in the impact fee calculated for each zone. For fee assignment purposes, there are four categories of trips identified through each select link process: 1. Trips that both start and end in San Benito County; 2. Trips that have an origin in San Benito County, and a destination outside the County; 3. Trips that have an origin outside the San Benito County, and a destination in the County; 4. Trips that have neither an origin nor a destination in San Benito County, but are using a County roadway to pass through the County. Trip types that fall into Category 4 are external trips, and are not subject to the fee program. Although these through trips take up capacity on the roadway and thereby contribute to the need for the improvement, local development cannot be held responsible for the impact of external traffic on the transportation system. The proportion of external trips on the selected link is applied to the cost of the improvement, and that portion of the improvement cost is not included in the impact fee program. The portion of the improvements that cannot be funded by local development must be to be covered with other local, state, and federal funding sources. All other trip types with an origin, destination or both in San Benito County are subject to the fee program as these trips are related to future development in the County. Table 8 first documents the share external trips using each segment, which cannot be included in this impact fee. Then the table allocates demand from trips starting or ending within the County to each fee zone. 27

32 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 8: Select Link Analysis External Allocation, Post External Trip Share Project Trip Share Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 1. Highway San Juan Bautista to Union Road 36.7% 7.6% 92.2% 0.2% 2. Highway 156/Fairview Road - Intersection Improvements 56.4% 1.9% 98.0% 0.2% 3. Highway 25 Widening - Operational Improvements 10.9% 0.2% 98.8% 1.0% 4. Memorial Drive Extension - Meridian to Santa Ana 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 5. Airline Highway (SR 25) - Sunset to Fairview 24.5% 0.0% 98.7% 1.3% 6. Westside Boulevard Extension 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7. North Street (Buena Vista) 0.0% 0.2% 99.8% 0.0% 8. Fairview Road 0.0% 0.0% 99.8% 0.2% 9. Union Road (East) 0.1% 2.4% 97.4% 0.3% 10. Union Road (West) 0.1% 3.9% 95.8% 0.3% 11. Meridian Extension 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 12. Intersection Signalization (16 total) 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Willdan Financial Services. 28

33 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Fee Calculation The analysis contained above in Table 8 enables the allocation of costs to external trips, and then to each zone. The LOS data contained in Table 7 demonstrates which projects are currently deficient. Table 9 allocates the TIMF share of each project to each zone as follow: 1. For each project, the external trip share from Table 8 is subtracted from the total project cost from Table 6 to determine the San Benito County share of each project; 2. For those projects with existing deficiencies, the deficiency share of each project is subtracted from the San Benito County share to determine the TIMF share of each project 2 ; 3. The remaining TIMF share is allocated to new development in each zone based on the select link analysis allocation to each zone contained in Table 8. Fee per Trip Demand Unit Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In the case of the TIMF, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit ($/unit) and employment space ($/1,000 square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule. Table 10 calculates the cost per trip for Zones 1 and 2. Cost per trip is calculated as follows: 1. The share of trip demand allocated to each land use after 51.1 percent of commercial trips are shifted to residential development is calculated; 2. The share calculated in Step 1 is multiplied by total project costs allocated to the TIMF in each zone to determine each land use s share of the allocated costs; 3. The allocated costs in Step 2 are divided by the pre-commercial shift growth in trips per land use to determine the cost per trip for each land use. 2 The one exception to this is the Highway 156 San Juan Bautista to Union Road project. The Proposed San Benito County 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement Program allocates $9,639,000 to the TIMF, even though the analysis contained in this report indicates that a larger share may be allocated to the TIMF. 29

34 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 9: TIMF Allocation of External Trip Share, and Project Costs A B C = A - B D E = C - D External Trip San Benito Deficiency Allocation of TIMF Share Project Total Cost Share County Share Share TIMF Share Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 1. Highway San Juan Bautista to Union Road 1 $ 62,900,000 $ 23,084,300 $ 39,815,700 $ 20,943,058 $ 9,639,000 $ 735,313 $ 8,887,701 $ 15, Highway 156/Fairview Road - Intersection Improvements 6,043,800 3,408,703 2,635,097-2,635,097 48,880 2,581,773 4, Highway 25 Widening - Operational Improvements 4,200, ,800 3,742,200 1,968,397 1,773,803 3,541 1,752,560 17, Memorial Drive Extension - Meridian to Santa Ana 2,970,800-2,970,800-2,970,800-2,970, Airline Highway (SR 25) - Sunset to Fairview 28,214,200 6,912,479 21,301,721-21,301,721-21,015, , Westside Boulevard Extension 13,360,200-13,360,200-13,360,200-13,360, North Street (Buena Vista) 4,207,000-4,207,000-4,207,000 9,841 4,197, Fairview Road 13,104,000-13,104,000-13,104,000-13,077,527 26, Union Road (East) 3,730,300 3,730 3,726,570-3,726,570 88,261 3,628,502 9, Union Road (West) 11,501,700 11,502 11,490,198-11,490, ,438 11,006,966 35, Meridian Extension 4,798,500-4,798,500-4,798,500-4,798, Intersection Signalization (16 total) 4,000,000-4,000,000-4,000,000-4,000,000 - $ 159,030,500 $ 33,878,514 $ 125,151,986 $ 22,911,455 $ 93,006,889 $ 1,333,274 $ 91,276,710 $ 396,905 1 The Proposed San Benito County 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement Program identifies $27,900,000 in Interregional Transportation Improvement Program funds for this project. This revenue can be used to fund all of the external trip share and a portion of the deficiency share of this project. The TIMF share, as identified in the STIP is $9,639,000. Other funding sources have been identified to fully fund the project. Sources: San Benito COG; Tables 6, 7 and 8, Willdan Financial Services. 30

35 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table 10: Cost Per Trip - Zones 1 and 2 Trip Share 1 Cost Share Trip Growth 2 Cost per Trip Zone 1 Residential Single Family 51.44% $ 685, $ 1,503 Multi-family 6.65% 88, ,503 Nonresidential Commercial 6.75% $ 89, $ 652 Office 32.67% 435, ,323 Industrial 2.48% 33, ,323 $ 1,333,274 Zone 2 Residential Single Family 59.95% $ 54,718,063 11,947 $ 4,580 Multi-family 7.46% 6,812,556 1,487 4,580 Nonresidential Commercial 1.96% $ 1,789, $ 2,175 Office 29.84% 27,241,344 6,134 4,441 Industrial 0.78% 715, ,441 $ 91,276,710 Note that numbers may not add exactly because they have been adjusted for rounding in cost per trip calculations. 1 After retail shift. 2 Before retail shift. Sources: Tables 3, 5 and 9; Willdan Financial Services. The TIMF cost per trip for Zone 3 is calculated for all land uses, simply by dividing total allocated costs by the growth in trip demand. This approach is acceptable because no growth in commercial land uses is projected, so there is no commercial trip demand to shift. The calculation of cost per trip for Zone 3 is shown in Table 11. Table 11: TIMF Cost Per Trip - Zone 3 Zone 3 Allocated Project Costs $ 396,905 Total New Trips 252 Cost per Trip $ 1,575 Sources: Tables 3 and 9; Willdan Financial Services. 31

36 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Based on the cost per trip calculated above in Tables 10 and 11, Table 12 shows the transportation impact mitigation fee schedule, by land use. The fee for a given land use is calculated by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip demand factor for that land use from Table 1. Table 12: Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) Schedule Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Admin Fee / Sq. Factor Fee 1 (2%) Total Fee 2 Ft. Zone 1 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 1, $ 1,683 $ 34 $ 1,717 n/a Multi-family 1, , ,058 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ $ 998 $ 20 $ 1, Office 1, , , Industrial 1, Zone 2 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 4, $ 5,130 $ 103 $ 5,233 n/a Multi-family 4, , ,223 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ 2, $ 3,328 $ 67 $ 3, Office 4, , , Industrial 4, , , Zone 3 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 1, $ 1,764 $ 35 $ 1,799 n/a Multi-family 1, , ,109 n/a Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Commercial $ 1, $ 2,410 $ 48 $ 2, Office 1, , , Industrial 1, Fee per dwelling unit or thousand square feet of building space unless otherwise noted. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Sources: Tables 1, 10 and 11; Willdan Financial Services. An administrative charge of two percent of the total impact fee is also calculated in Table 12. The administrative charge funds costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to COG, County or City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and countywide or citywide administrative support, (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, 32

37 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. Revenue from the administrative charge should be tracked and compared against actual costs. Adjustments in the percentage collected for the administrative component should be made if warranted. Alternative Funding Sources Impact fees cannot fund the shares of projects associated with either existing deficiencies or external trips. Table 9 earlier in this report identified the share of project costs related to existing deficiencies and external trips that cannot be funded by the impact fee. Table 13 below subtracts the existing TIMF fund balances, and the share of project costs allocated to the TIMF from the total project costs, to determine the amount that must be funded with non-timf revenue sources. That figure is compared to the projected non-impact fee funding as identified in the 2010 RTIP. These sources exceed the costs allocated to external trips and existing deficiencies by approximately $3 million. This surplus may be used, but is not limited, to lower overall level of TIMF fees, or to subsidize fees for certain land use categories. Table 13: Alternative Funding Sources Total Project Costs $ 159,030,500 Less: Existing County Fund Balance (1,374,333) Less: Existing City Fund Balance (4,700,000) Less: TIMF Share (93,006,889) Remainder $ 59,949,278 Expected Non-Fee Revenue RTIP $ 63,000,000 Surplus $ 3,050,722 Sources: San Benito COG; San Benito County 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement Program; Table 9, Willdan Financial Services. 33

38 5. Implementation This chapter provides guidance on major TIMF Program implementation actions that San Benito County and the City of Hollister may wish to take. The guidance provided in this study is not a substitute for legal advice and County and City staff will want to consult with its legal counsel regarding final decisions on how to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (Act). TIMF Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section Adoption of an impact fee program requires the Board of Supervisors and City Council to follow certain procedures, including ensuring availability of support documents and a public hearing. Subject to the advice of legal counsel, the Board of Supervisors and City Council should make a finding that adoption of the proposed fees is consistent with both agency processes and with California Government Code Sections through (sections of the Code which codified the Mitigation Fee Act and establish requirements for the impact fee implementation process.) The County and City of Hollister should: At least 10 days prior, publish notice of a public hearing on the proposed impact fee. At least 14 days prior, send a notice of a public hearing to any party that has submitted a written request for such a notice. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, make this report and all supporting documentation such as transportation planning and finance documents available for review by the public. Hold the public hearing to consider a resolution adopting the TIMF. Adopt a resolution establishing the TIMF fee schedule. Reporting Requirements The County of San Benito and the City of Hollister should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Act. Reports should document fees collected, expended, and programmed, along with current fee account balances. Fee Collection and Expenditure To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types used in this analysis are: Single family: Detached one-family dwelling units. Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as apartments and condominiums, plus mobile homes, duplexes, and dormitories. Commercial: All commercial development including retail, hotel, motel. Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. 34

39 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Industrial: All manufacturing, warehouse, agricultural and vehicle and freight terminal development. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as apartments over ground floor retail or a planned unit development with both single and multi-family uses. In these cases the TIMF would be calculated separately for each land use type. The County of San Benito and the City of Hollister should have the discretion to impose the TIMF based on the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The guideline to use is the daily trip generation, adjusted for trip length and pass-through rates. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the trip generation of the development. Pursuant to California Government Code section (b), fees will be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Renovations and Changes in Use Impact fees should be charged to new development projects that increase the demand for transportation facilities. Accordingly, impact fees would generally not be charged for building renovations, unless new dwelling units or new nonresidential space is created. If a renovation is associated with a change in use that results in increased trip demand factor, the difference between the fees that would have been charged for the prior use and the new use may be charged. For example, if commercial space is renovated and converted to offices, the County and City of Hollister may charge the difference between the office impact fees and the commercial impact fees. Inflation Adjustment This impact fee program should be kept up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. There are no inflation indices that are specific to San Benito County. We recommend that the Engineering News Record s national Building Cost Index (BCI) be used to estimate the change in construction costs. While there is a BCI calculated for nearby San Francisco, use of the national BCI is recommended because it is not as susceptible to wide variations as the local index. While fee updates using inflation indexes are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of transportation improvements, San Benito COG will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation when significant new data on growth projections and/or improvement project plans become available. 35

40 6. Mitigation Fee Act Findings Development impact fees are one-time fees typically imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code sections through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. Sample text that may be used for the five statutory findings required for adoption of the impact fee is presented in this chapter and supported in detail by Chapters 2 and 3 of this report. All statutory references below are to the Act. The County and City of Hollister should consult with its legal counsel for final drafting of these findings. Purpose of Fee For the first finding the County and City of Hollister must: Identify the purpose of the fee. ( 66001(a)(1)) The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development will contribute toward the cost of transportation facility improvements necessary to accommodate the types and quantities of growth identified by the County s 2035 General Plan. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling the County and City of Hollister to fund improvements to its transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. Use of Fee Revenues For the second finding the County and City of Hollister must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. ( 66001(a)(2)) The TIMF will fund a portion of approximately $383 million of transportation facility projects. These projects are identified in Table 7 of this document. Additional funding from other sources is required to fully fund these improvements. Costs for planned transportation improvements are preliminarily identified in this report. Costs funded by the TIMF may include fee collection and accounting, project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Fee revenues will be used for the sole purpose of expanding capacity in the countywide transportation system to accommodate new development. The share of project costs representing external, interregional trips will be funded with non-fee revenues from other sources. The TIMF will not be used for the purpose of correcting existing deficiencies in the transportation system. 36

41 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Benefit Relationship For the third finding the County and City of Hollister must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. ( 66001(a)(3)) The County and City of Hollister will restrict fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity to serve new development. Improvements funded by the TIMF will provide the additional residents and workers from new development in the County with the transportation infrastructure required to meet the City of Hollister and County s level of service roadway standards. These capital improvements are required to maintain acceptable levels of service as additional traffic volume accompanies development. The planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the region s transportation system to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee. Burden Relationship For the fourth finding the County and City of Hollister must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. ( 66001(a)(4)) New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are constructed, the occupants of these structures generate additional demand on the countywide transportation system. The need for the TIMF is based on projections of growth that show an increase in trip generation and a decrease in level of service primarily as a result of new development. The estimated impacts from new development are based on trip demand factors that vary by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for improvements. Proportionality For the fifth finding the local agencies must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. ( 66001(b)) This reasonable relationship between the TIMF imposed on a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trip demand that the project will add to the County s transportation system. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied the trip demand factor, which is based on the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. 37

42 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the TIMF for a specific development project and the cost of the regional transportation improvements attributable to the project. 38

43 Appendix A: Retail Spending and Sales Analysis This appendix presents the analysis conducted to estimate the amount of commercial development within San Benito County that is associated with spending by local (San Benito County) households. The following steps summarize the approach taken for the analysis and are explained in more detail below. 1. Estimate total potential spending by local households based on estimates of per household spending by retail category; 2. Compare total local household spending potential with total retail sales to estimate by retail category: a. Leakage of spending by local households to retail establishments outside the County, b. Capture of sales from visitors outside the County by local retail establishments; and, 3. Calculate the share of retail sales associated with local household spending. All data is from 2009 because this was the last complete year of retail sales data available from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) at the time of this report. Total Household Spending Total spending by San Benito households is estimated by adjusting per household spending based on statewide data for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. As an initial step in the analysis, statewide taxable retail sales by category were compared with San Benito County sales to determine if any anomalies existed in San Benito sales patterns that should be accommodated in the model. As shown in Table A.1, San Benito has about $4.2 billion in taxable retail sales in 2009 compared to statewide sales of $456 billion. Sales patterns in the County are generally consistent with statewide averages, although they differ slightly (less than ten percent) in all retail categories compared to statewide sales. 39

44 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table A.1 - Taxable Retail Sales (2009) and Sales Tax Percent by Retail Category Taxable Retail Sales 2009 Percent of Retail Category Retail Category San Benito County California San Benito County California Difference Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $ 33,108 $ 44,488, % 9.7% (1.9%) Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 5,670 21,865, % 4.8% (3.4%) Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 23,402 23,978, % 5.3% 0.3% Food and Beverage Stores 29,367 22,546, % 4.9% 2.0% Gasoline Stations 37,527 39,077, % 8.6% 0.3% Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 3,207 25,641, % 5.6% (4.9%) General Merchandise Stores 35,921 44,921, % 9.8% (1.3%) Food Services and Drinking Places 38,376 49,921, % 10.9% (1.9%) Other Retail Group 38,658 38,774, % 8.5% 0.6% Subtotal $ 245,236 $ 311,214, % 68.2% (10.2%) Non-Retail Stores All Other Outlets $ 177,704 $ 145,278, % 31.8% 10.2% Total $ 422,940 $ 456,492,945 Source: Taxable Sales In California (Sales & Use Tax) During 2009, California State Board of Equalization. To separate out household from business spending, all household spending is assumed to occur in retail stores and all business-to-business spending is assumed to occur in non-retail stores. As shown in Table A.1, non-retail stores are assumed to fall under the All Other Outlets category. The All Other Outlets category primarily includes manufacturing, warehousing and other establishments that sell primarily to businesses. There is some overlap in the source of spending (household versus business) across all retail (store and non-store) categories but this overlap is assumed to be largely offsetting between total retail store and total non-store spending. This approach is commonly used in retail spending and sales analysis to separate household from business spending. Per household spending estimates were generated based on statewide data for retail stores adjusted for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. San Benito County s median income is about 13 percent higher than the State s median income resulting in a commensurate adjustment to state per household spending patterns by retail store category. San Benito per household spending is multiplied by the number of households to estimate total spending for As shown in Table A.2 this approach results in a total spending potential for San Benito households of $475 million. 40

45 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table A.2 - Household Taxable Retail Spending Potential (2009) Total Spending Per Household Spending Total Spending California Households San Benito San Benito Households Major Business Group ($000s) State County ($000s) Households 12,732,557 17,112 Median Household Income $ 60,392 $ 68,567 Household Spending and Sales Per Household Spending Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $ 44,488,199 $ 3,494 $ 3,967 $ 68,000 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 21,865,358 1,717 1,950 33,000 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 23,978,313 1,883 2,138 37,000 Food and Beverage Stores 22,546,285 1,771 2,010 34,000 Gasoline Stations 39,077,835 3,069 3,485 60,000 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 25,641,272 2,014 2,286 39,000 General Merchandise Stores 44,921,639 3,528 4,006 69,000 Food Services and Drinking Places 49,921,543 3,921 4,452 76,000 Other Retail Group 38,774,163 3,045 3,458 59,000 Total - Consumer $ 311,214,606 $ 24,442 $ 27,751 $ 475,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; California Department of Finance, Rerpot E-5; Table A.1; Willdan Financial Services. Capture and Leakage Capture and leakage are common concepts used in retail analysis. Not all local household spending occurs in San Benito County; some spending leaks out to other areas when residents travel or are otherwise attracted to retail opportunities outside the County. Furthermore, not all retail store sales in San Benito County are generated by local households; some are captured by stores from customers visiting the County from other locations. Given this regional economic context, leakage rates by major store category were estimated to calculate net local household spending in San Benito County by category. This estimate of spending was then compared with actual sales by store category and the amount of outside capture that the category would need to force local household spending to equal local sales was estimated. This analysis is shown in Table A.3. The model resulted in a leakage estimate of 55 percent of household spending, and capture estimate of 12 percent of retail store sales. 41

46 Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Study Table A.3 - San Benito County Local Household Taxable Retail Spending & Sales (2009) A B C = A x (1 - B) D = C / E E = G x (1 - F) F = 1 - (C / G) G Major Business Group Potential Spending San Benito Households ($000s) Estimated Leakage Based on Spending ($000s) Local Spending/Sales Reconciliation Difference 1 Based on Sales ($000s) Estimated Outside Capture Actual Sales San Benito County Sales ($000s) Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $ 68,000 55% $ 31,000 0% $ 31,000 6% $ 33,108 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 33,000 85% 5,000 0% 5,000 12% 5,670 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 37,000 45% 20,000 0% 20,000 15% 23,402 Food and Beverage Stores 34,000 30% 24,000 0% 24,000 18% 29,367 Gasoline Stations 60,000 50% 30,000 0% 30,000 20% 37,527 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 39,000 92% 3,000 0% 3,000 6% 3,207 General Merchandise Stores 69,000 50% 35,000 0% 35,000 3% 35,921 Food Services and Drinking Places 76,000 60% 30,000 0% 30,000 22% 38,376 Other Retail Group 59,000 35% 38,000 0% 38,000 2% 38,658 Total $ 475,000 55% $ 216,000 0% $ 216,000 12% $ 245,236 Leakage/Capture Total $ 259,000 $ 29,236 1 Difference not equal to zero due to rounding. Source: Tables A.1 and A.2; Willdan Financial Services. The leakage rates in Table A.3 that determine the local spending amounts and outside capture rates were estimated based on assumptions that comparison goods such as apparel and general merchandise are likely to have higher leakage rates compared to convenience goods such as groceries. Local households are most likely to spend on comparison goods and travel related activities outside the County in the motor vehicle and parts dealers, home furnishings and appliance stores, clothing and clothing accessories, and food services and drinking places categories. For these categories a leakage rates of over 50 percent were estimated. For all other categories all household spending was assumed to have relative less amounts of leakage. Local Spending Share of Total Sales The share of total retail sales in the County associated with spending by local residential development can be calculated from the results of Tables A.1 and A.3. As shown in Table A.4, an estimated 51.1 percent of total retail spending (store and non-store) is associated with spending by residential development (households) located in San Benito County. Table A.4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending in San Benito County Taxable Retail Sales (2009, in Share Total Taxable Retail Spending $ 422, % Local Residential Taxable Spending 216, % Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending 206, % Sources: Tables A.1, and A.3; Willdan Financial Services. 42

47 Appendix B Traffic Modeling Analysis This appendix includes traffic modeling analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The appendix includes the following documents: 1. Council of San Benito County Governments 2010 Traffic Impact Fee Update Existing Traffic Deficiencies, Technical Memorandum, November 15, Summary of roadway segment analysis results. 3. Summary of intersection analysis results. 4. Summary of select link analysis results. 43

48

49 2010 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Update Existing Traffic Deficiencies November 15, 2010, Page 2 Definition of Level of Service and Performance Measures Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of how a roadway or intersection performs for automobile traffic. It uses a letter grade system from LOS A through LOS F and is typically used to measure peak hour performance. LOS A represents the best performance where automobiles experience negligible delay/stopping or reduction in speed while using the roadway or intersection. LOS F represents the worst condition where traffic demand exceeds the road or intersection s ability to accommodate it resulting in congestion, long delays, and reduced speeds. The performance of different types of transportation facilities is measured using different methods. The table below summarizes the most common performance measures used to determine LOS for roads, highways, and intersections. Type of Facility Measure Used to Determine LOS Basic Freeway Segments Density (pc/mi/ln) Ramps Density (pc/mi/ln) Ramp Terminals Delay (sec/veh) Multi-Lane Highways Density (pc/mi/ln) Two-Lane Highways Percent-Time-Spent-Following Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Signalized Intersections Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Urban Streets Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, (Caltrans, December 2002). Definitions: Pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane. Sec/veh = seconds per vehicle. Mi/hr = miles per hour. Percent-Time-Spent-Following = on two lane highways, the portion of a trip on a specific segment of highway in which vehicles travel in group whose speed is governed by the first vehicle in the group. Level of Service Standards and Deficiencies San Benito County and incorporated cities have established a level of service standard of LOS C. Caltrans has an objective to achieve a level of service representing the cusp between LOS C and D on state highways. A LOS deficiency is defined as a roadway, highway, or intersection that fails to operate within the standards established in the General Plans of San Benito County and incorporated cities, or established by the state in Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002).

50 2010 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Update Existing Traffic Deficiencies November 15, 2010, Page 3 The following documents are the sources of existing level of service data: San Benito County General Plan, Transportation and Circulation Chapter, March 2010 (not yet publicly available) Santana Ranch Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, August 8, 2008 Fairview Corners/Gavilan College Master Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, August 15, 2008 Existing levels of service are based on the methods published in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These methods are consistent with the County s and Caltrans traffic impact analysis guidelines. Effect of Relaxing Level of Service Standard As part of the update of the TIMF, the Council of San Benito County Governments will explore if lowering the level of service standard from its present LOS C to a LOS D will eliminate all or part of planned TIMF capital projects. Reducing the scope of some projects will reduce construction cost. This is one method the County is exploring to reduce the financial burden of impact fees on new development. The effect of this policy change on existing deficiencies is discussed in the next section. SUMMARY OF SAN BENITO COUNTY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFICIENCIES Table 1 presents the TIMF project list and identifies if an existing level of service deficiency has been measured at the project location. For each TIMF project, Table 1 also presents the source of the deficiency analysis, the standard performance measure used for the facility type, the method used to calculate the LOS, and whether altering the County LOS standard from LOS C to LOS D would change the results of the existing deficiency analysis. APPENDICES Exhibit A lists all roadways and intersections reported to fail to meet the current County standard of LOS C as identified in the traffic studies and reports identified above.

51 2010 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Update Table 1 Summary of Existing Level of Service Deficiencies TIMF Project (per 2007 TIMF Update) Is There An Existing Deficiency? Source of Deficiency Analysis Method of Analysis Would Change from LOS C to LOS D Eliminate Deficiency? 1 Highway 156, San Juan Bautista to Union Road YES SBC General Plan, 2010 HCM, PTSF NO (LOS E) 2 Highway 156, Union Road to San Felipe Road YES SBC General Plan, 2010 HCM, PTSF NO (LOS E) 3 Highway 25 Widening, San Felipe Road to Hudner Lane YES SBC General Plan, 2010 HCM, PTSF NO (LOS E) 4 Highway 25 Bypass (+ 7 Traffic Signals) Project Has Been Constructed 5 Memorial Drive, Meridian Street to Santa Ana Road NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 6 Sunnyslope Road, El Toro Drive to Highland Drive NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 7 Union Road (Crestview Drive), SR 25 to Fairview Road NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 8 Airline Highway (SR 25), Sunset Drive to Fairview Road YES SBC General Plan, 2010 HCM Intersection 1 YES (LOS D) 9 Sunnyslope Road, Highland Drive to Fairview Road NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 10 Highway 25, Sunnyslope Road to Sunset Drive NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 11 Westside Boulevard Extension, Nash Road to San Benito Street NO New Street 12 North Street (Buena Vista), Westside Boulevard to McCray Street NO New Street 13 Fairview Road, SR 25 to McCloskey Road NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 14 Union SR 156 Intersection NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 15 Union Road (East), SR 25 to San Benito Street NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 16 Union Road (West) + Bridge, San Benito Street to SR 156 NO Santana Ranch TIA HCM Intersection 17 Traffic Signals 1 Intersection of SR 25 and Union Road operates at LOS D, PM Peak Hour HCM, PTSF = Highway Capacity Manual, Percent Time Spent Following calculations based on the two-way, two lane highway segment methodology HCM Intersection = Highway Capacity Manual, signalized/unsignalized intersection analysis based on average delay All other projects - no deficiencies as all intersections along those corridors operate at County standards of LOS C or better

52 Exhibit A List of all existing traffic deficiencies identified in San Benito County Source: San Benito County General Plan Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc March 2010 Two-Lane Highways currently operating at LOS D or worse: SR 25 between San Felipe Road/Bolsa Road and SR 156 (AM LOS E, PM LOS F) SR 25 between SR 156 and Shore Road (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 25 between Shore Road and County Line (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 129 between County Line and US 101 (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 156 between The Alameda and Union Road/Mitchell Road (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 156 between Union Road/Mitchell Road and SR 25(AM LOS D, PM LOS D) SR 156 between San Felipe Road and County Line (PM LOS D) Intersections currently operating at LOS D or worse: SR 25 and Shore Road (One-way stop, AM Peak LOS E) SR 25 and Union Road (Signal, PM Peak LOS D) Source: Santana Ranch Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc August 8, 2008 Two-Lane Highways currently operating at LOS D or worse: SR 25 between US 101 and SR 156 (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 156 between The Alameda and Union Road (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) Intersections currently operating at LOS D or worse: Airline Highway and Union Road (Signal, PM Peak, LOS D) Highway 25 and Wright Road (Two-way stop, PM Peak, LOS F signal warrants met for both peak hours) San Benito Street and Fourth Street (Signal, PM Peak, LOS D) San Benito Street/San Felipe Road and Santa Ana Road/North Street (Signal, AM Peak, LOS D)

53 Source: Fairview Corners/Gavilan College Master Plan Transportation Impact Analysis Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc August 15, 2008 Two-Lane Highways currently operating at LOS D or worse: SR 25 between US 101 and SR 156 (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) SR 156 between The Alameda and Union Road (AM LOS E, PM LOS E) Intersections currently operating at LOS D or worse: Airline Highway and Union Road (Signal, PM Peak, LOS D) San Benito Street and Fourth Street (Signal, PM Peak, LOS D) San Benito Street/San Felipe Road and Santa Ana Road/North Street (Signal, AM Peak, LOS D)

54 2035 No Project Roadway Segment Analysis Results 2035 Project Roadway Segment Analysis Results Roadway Segments in Current TIMF Project List Roadway Segments in Current TIMF Project List HCM - PTSF Analysis Results HCM - Multi-Lane Highway Analysis Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2035 No Project 2035 With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Two Lane Highway Segment LOS PTSF V/C LOS PTSF V/C 4-Lane Highway Segment LOS Density LOS Density SR 25 (Project 3) San Felipe Road to Hudner Lane F 99.6% 1.07 F 98.7% 1.04 SR 25 (Project 3) San Felipe Road to Hudner Lane D 27.5 C 25.2 SR 156 (Project 2) San Felipe Road to Santa Clara County Line D 70.5% 0.34 D 79.7% 0.48 SR 156 (Project 2) San Felipe Road to Santa Clara County Line A 6.7 A 11.0 SR 156 (Project 1) San Juan Bautista to Union Road E 88.1% 0.71 E 87.7% 0.70 SR 156 (Project 1) San Juan Bautista to Union Road C 19.0 C 18.1 Fairview Road (Project 13) SR 25 to McCloskey Road D/D 75.2%/78.8% 0.38/0.45 D/E 78.3%/81.4% 0.44/0.50 Fairview Road (Project 13) SR 25 to McCloskey Road A 8.9 A 9.0 Union Road (Project 16) San Benito Street to SR E 87.2% 0.64 Union Road (Project 16) San Benito Street to SR B No Project Roadway Segment Analysis Results Projects List Other Roadway Segments NOT Currently in TIMF Project List Under Project scenario, construction of four projects, or project segments, on current TIMF list will generate acceptable condtions, if LOS D policy is adopted. Identified in YELLOW. HCM - PTSF Analysis Results 2035 No Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Two Lane Highway Segment LOS PTSF V/C LOS PTSF V/C SR 25 Hudner Lane to County Line F 98.2% 0.97 F 98.7% 1.03 SR 25 Fairview Road to Southside Road E 79.6% 0.51 E 85.0% 0.63 SR 129 County Line to US 101 D 79.9% 0.43 D 77.4% 0.42 This analysis indicates if current TIMF project MITIGATES the No Project condition. SR 156 Union Road to SR 25 D 68.4% 0.28 E 84.7% 0.59 SR 156 SR 25 to San Felipe Road D 72.7% 0.35 D 74.1% 0.37 Frazier Lake Road Shore Road to County Line C 46.4% 0.22 D 59.2% Project Roadway Segment Analysis Results Notes: Roadway Segments NOT in Current TIMF Project List Conclusions HCM - PTSF Analysis Results - SR 25 project is NEEDED 2035 With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour - SR 156 widening (both segments) is NEEDED, unless LOS D policy is adopted, passing lanes may suffice as v/c is low 2-Lane Highway Segment LOS PTSF V/C LOS PTSF V/C - Union Road is NEEDED SR 25 Shore Road to County Line F 101.8% 1.26 F 102.4% 1.41 SR 25 Fairview Road to Southside Road E 80.6% 0.53 E 85.8% 0.65 SR 129 County Line to US 101 D 80.0% 0.43 D 77.8% 0.42 SR 156 Union Road to SR 25 D 69.8% 0.29 E 87.1% 0.66 FAILURE (red) in this area of the table indicates the FEE PROJECT IS NEEDED. SR 156 SR 25 to San Felipe Road D 73.1% 0.35 D 75.5% 0.39 Frazier Lake Road Shore Road to County Line C 44.3% 0.21 D 57.8% 0.31 This analysis indicates if the OTHER roadways that have 2035 impacts remain impacted when TIMF projects are implemented. ALL of the roadways remain impacted. The roadways above, except Frazier Lake Road, require mitigation to achieve LOS policy. SR 25, SR 129, and SR 156 segments either need to be widened to four lanes, or construction of passing lanes in select segments of the highway. In a few cases, change in LOS policy to LOS D will eliminate the impact.

55 Intersection Analysis Results Intersection Traffic Control 2035 Project + Santana Ranch Existing 2035 Project 2035 No County Fee Projects Mitigation AM Peak PM Peak Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Traffic AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS Delay Control LOS Delay LOS Delay Contro LOS Delay LOS Delay Control LOS Delay LOS Delay McCloskey Road and Fairview Road TWSC B 14.7 B 13.9 TWSC C 16.6 C 20.7 TWSC C 16.6 C 20.7 TWSC C 16.6 C 20.7 Santa Ana Road and Fairview Road TWSC B 13.7 B 14.8 TWSC C 17.0 C 20.7 TWSC C 17.0 C 20.7 TWSC C 23.3 C 29.3 Hillcrest Road and Fairview Road TWSC C 20.1 B 14.3 Signal C 30.8 C 31.6 Signal C 30.8 C 31.6 Signal C 31.2 C 31.9 Sunnyslope Road and Fairview Road Signal B 16.2 B 15.3 Signal C 29.7 C 28.7 Signal C 29.7 C 28.7 Signal C 33.0 D 35.3 Sunnyslope Road and Valley View Road AWSC B 13.8 B 13.6 AWSC F F Signal B 18.0 B 18.8 Signal B 12.9 C 26.1 SR 25 and Union Road Signal C 27.5 D 35.4 Signal E 55.2 F Signal C 26.1 c 34.9 Signal F F Union Road and San Benito Street Signal B 14.8 B 11.6 Signal B 14.9 B 14.7 Signal B 14.9 B 14.7 Signal B 14.9 B 14.7 SR 25 and Fairview Road AWSC B 11.8 B 10.6 AWSC D 34.1 F 88.0 Signal C 23.8 C 27.2 Signal C 23.8 C 27.2 SR 25 and Sunnyslope Road Signal C 31.3 C 31.3 Signal C 26.6 C 34.8 Signal C 26.6 C 34.8 Signal C 32.7 D 43.7 SR 25 and Sunset Drive Signal B 12.8 B 12.1 Signal B 14.5 B 14.5 Signal B 14.5 B 14.5 Signal B 14.5 B 14.5 SR 156 and Fairview Road Signal B 17.9 C 23.4 Signal D 42.3 F Signal Signal D 42.3 F Column represents Existing Conditions (Analysis results from 2008 Santana Ranch EIR Traffic Study) Column represents 2035 cumulative WITHOUT Santana Ranch mitigation measures WITH San Benito County fee projects. (Analysis results from 2008 Santana Ranch EIR Traffic Study) Column represents 2035 cumulative + Santana Ranch WITH Santana Ranch mitigation measures and WITH San Benito County fee projects. (Analysis prepared by KHA for three intersections identified in gray highlighting) Column represents 2035 cumulative + Santana Ranch WITHOUT the San Benito County fee projects. (Analysis prepared by KHA for seven intersections identified in gray highlighting)

CITY OF CLOVIS Traffic Impact Study Guidelines

CITY OF CLOVIS Traffic Impact Study Guidelines CITY OF CLOVIS Traffic Impact Study Guidelines CLOVIS, A WAY OF LIFE Approved August 25, 2014 City Council Resolution 2014-79 Prepared by City of Clovis Engineering Division Steve White, City Engineer

More information

TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT

TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM #4 T/T MTG: 092616 DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 TO: TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: BENJAMIN CHAN, P.E, T.E., DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

More information

VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT) TRAFFIC IMPACT METRIC

VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT) TRAFFIC IMPACT METRIC VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT) TRAFFIC IMPACT METRIC A project-specific quantified analysis of the MGA Campus has been undertaken to compare BAU to the project including the project s VMT reduction program

More information

APPENDIX B. Public Works and Development Engineering Services Division Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies

APPENDIX B. Public Works and Development Engineering Services Division Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies APPENDIX B Public Works and Development Engineering Services Division Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies Revised December 7, 2010 via Resolution # 100991 Reformatted March 18, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Transportation and Works Department The Regional Municipality of York Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1

Transportation and Works Department The Regional Municipality of York Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY (TIS) GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Transportation and Works Department The Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 August, 2007

More information

CITY OF VALLEJO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT Analysis/Study GUIDELINES

CITY OF VALLEJO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT Analysis/Study GUIDELINES The City Engineer, under the authority of the Public Works Director and recommendations from the Traffic Engineer, will make the final decision on the need for a traffic study. The purpose of the traffic

More information

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADOPTED MARCH 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - STATUTE AND AUTHORITY...1 CHAPTER 1. CMP

More information

Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Town of Queen Creek

Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Town of Queen Creek Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Town of Queen Creek January 2016 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the procedures and requirements for preparing a Transportation Impact Analysis

More information

Appendix D: Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance

Appendix D: Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance APPENDICES Appendix D: Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance D.1 Functional classification identifies the role a highway or street plays in the transportation

More information

3.6 GROUND TRANSPORTATION

3.6 GROUND TRANSPORTATION 3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3.6.1.1 Area of Influence The area of influence for ground transportation consists of the streets and intersections that could be affected by automobile or truck traffic to

More information

SECTION III - REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM. The Regional Arterial System is a subcomponent of a broader regional thoroughfare system.

SECTION III - REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM. The Regional Arterial System is a subcomponent of a broader regional thoroughfare system. SECTION III - REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION The Regional Arterial System is a subcomponent of a broader regional thoroughfare system. The NCTCOG Regional Thoroughfare Plan (RTP) recognizes

More information

Congestion Management Process 2013 Update

Congestion Management Process 2013 Update OVERVIEW OF THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS Traffic Congestion In The Dallas-Fort Worth Region With the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) urban area as its center, the North Central Texas region

More information

APPENDIX H: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL VALIDATION AND ANALYSIS

APPENDIX H: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL VALIDATION AND ANALYSIS APPENDIX H: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL VALIDATION AND ANALYSIS Travel demand models (TDM) simulate current travel conditions and forecast future travel patterns and conditions based on planned system improvements

More information

Developing Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Using an Activity Based Travel Demand Model

Developing Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Using an Activity Based Travel Demand Model Developing Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Using an Activity Based Travel Demand Model Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Western District Annual Meeting Phoenix, Arizona July 14-17, 2013 By:

More information

Chapter 4: Transportation and Land Use

Chapter 4: Transportation and Land Use Chapter 4: Transportation and Land Use Transportation and land use together make possible the wide range of destination opportunities in the region. Transportation provides the connections, and, in turn,

More information

Chapter 8. Transportation Element

Chapter 8. Transportation Element Chapter 8. Transportation Element Introduction/Overview Element Requirements Transportation is a key issue and priority in Longview. State highways, local roads, transit, railroads, and the port are lifelines

More information

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.14.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents an overview of the existing traffic and circulation system in the area surrounding the project site. It also discusses the potential

More information

LAS VEGAS STREET RAILROAD CROSSING RR/PUC CONNECTION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN

LAS VEGAS STREET RAILROAD CROSSING RR/PUC CONNECTION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN LAS VEGAS STREET RAILROAD CROSSING RR/PUC CONNECTION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN Prepared for: City of Colorado Springs Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 508 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT Strasburg Road Extension From North of Stauffer Drive To New Dundee Road Class Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT APPENDICES Volume II October 2013 Strasburg Road Extension Environmental

More information

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES December 2013 The scope of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) should follow these guidelines and the requirements of VMC 11.80.130 and VMC 11.70, transportation concurrency (attached

More information

CITY OF REDLANDS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Public Finance Facilities Planning Urban Economics

CITY OF REDLANDS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Public Finance Facilities Planning Urban Economics DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF REDLANDS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY January 9, 2017 Prepared for CITY OF REDLANDS 35 Cajon Street Redlands, CA 92373 Public Finance Facilities Planning

More information

PINELLAS COUNTY MOBILITY PLAN SUMMARY REPORT

PINELLAS COUNTY MOBILITY PLAN SUMMARY REPORT PINELLAS COUNTY MOBILITY PLAN SUMMARY REPORT In September, 2013, the Pinellas County Mobility Plan Report was approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). This action endorsed a countywide

More information

CITY OF SARATOGA ROAD MAINTENANCE FEES ANALYSIS

CITY OF SARATOGA ROAD MAINTENANCE FEES ANALYSIS CITY OF SARATOGA ROAD MAINTENANCE FEES ANALYSIS Prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. June, 2007 1700 South Amphlett Blvd., Third Floor, San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 522-2500 (650) 522-2599 www.csgwebsite.com

More information

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Case No.: E Reception: 41.

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Case No.: E Reception: 41. COUN ((7\ SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT... Is. 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, Date: CA 94103-2479 Case No.: 2012.0176E Reception: 41 Project Title: Transportation Sustainability Program

More information

TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES

TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES CHATHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 2014 Table of Contents 1. PURPOSE... 3 2. CAT SERVICE GUIDELINES... 3 3. TRAVEL MARKETS... 4 4. TRANSIT COVERAGE... 4 5. TRANSIT ACCESS... 4 6. BUS STOP SPACING

More information

Appendix G: Travel Demand Model Documentation

Appendix G: Travel Demand Model Documentation Appendix G: Travel Demand Model Documentation Skagit Council of Governments TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DOCUMENTATION August 2015 Prepared by: 11730 118 th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665

More information

SR 417 Extension. June 2003 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY PROJECT SCOPE AND PURPOSE STUDY OBJECTIVE STUDY PHASES

SR 417 Extension. June 2003 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY PROJECT SCOPE AND PURPOSE STUDY OBJECTIVE STUDY PHASES Planning Feasibility Study June 2003 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The SR 417 Extension Study was a yearlong effort undertaken by Florida s Turnpike Enterprise to investigate the feasibility of a new toll road

More information

Woodburn Interchange Project Transportation Technical Report

Woodburn Interchange Project Transportation Technical Report Final Report Woodburn Interchange Project Transportation Technical Report Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation April 212 Prepared by DKS Associates Contents Methodologies... 4 Volume Development...

More information

Transportation Workshop. FORA Staff 9/8/17

Transportation Workshop. FORA Staff 9/8/17 Transportation Workshop FORA Staff 9/8/17 Overview History/Background Policy Context CEQA Mitigations Projects Status 2018 TAMC Regional Impact Fee Study Future Considerations 2 Fort Ord Transportation

More information

BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIO BOSTON REGION MPO NMETROPOLITAN BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary and CEO and MPO Chair Karl H. Quackenbush, Executive Director,

More information

Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project

Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project frequently asked questions update #1 /august 2008 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), California Department of

More information

LARKSPUR SMART STATION AREA PLAN. Public Workshop December 3, 2013

LARKSPUR SMART STATION AREA PLAN. Public Workshop December 3, 2013 LARKSPUR SMART STATION AREA PLAN Public Workshop December 3, 2013 0 PURPOSE OF Provide information about the regional planning context for the Larkspur Station Area, including Plan Bay Area, SMART, and

More information

Downtown Estes Loop Project Frequently Asked Questions

Downtown Estes Loop Project Frequently Asked Questions May 15 th, 2015 Project Status 1) Has Alternative 1 already been selected? Is it a done deal? Response: The NEPA process will proceed with environmental analysis of both the No Action and Alternative 1.

More information

THE PROJECT. Executive Summary. City of Industry. City of Diamond Bar. 57/60 Confluence.

THE PROJECT. Executive Summary. City of Industry. City of Diamond Bar. 57/60 Confluence. THE PROJECT A freeway segment ranked 6th worst in the Nation, with levels of congestion, pollution and accidents that are simply unacceptable and which have Statewide and National implications. Executive

More information

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES 1 st Edition City of San Luis Obispo 2035 Circulation Element 1 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Process... 2 When Impact Studies Are Required... 3

More information

1RUWKZHVW#:LFKLWD 0DMRU#,QYHVWPHQW#6WXG\

1RUWKZHVW#:LFKLWD 0DMRU#,QYHVWPHQW#6WXG\ 1RUWKZHVW#:LFKLWD 0DMRU#,QYHVWPHQW#6WXG\ Executive Summary 3UHSDUHGýIRUã 3UHSDUHGýE\ã.DQVDVý'HSDUWPHQWýRI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,QýDVVRFLDWLRQýZLWKã (DUWKý7HFKý,QFï EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This Northwest

More information

SCHERTZ ROADWAY IMPACT FEE

SCHERTZ ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SCHERTZ ROADWAY IMPACT FEE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FINAL REPORT Prepared for: City of Schertz October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE

More information

ADDENDUM TO THE EIR. Specifically, Section of the CEQA Guidelines states:

ADDENDUM TO THE EIR. Specifically, Section of the CEQA Guidelines states: ADDENDUM TO THE EIR Section 15160 of the CEQA Guidelines explains that there are several mechanisms, and variations in environmental documents, that can be tailored to different situations and intended

More information

VDOT Land Use Overview. Brad Shelton, AICP Transportation and Mobility Planning Division June 2015

VDOT Land Use Overview. Brad Shelton, AICP Transportation and Mobility Planning Division June 2015 VDOT Land Use Overview Brad Shelton, AICP Transportation and Mobility Planning Division June 2015 VDOT Land Development Programs Local/State Plan and Program Consistency Review local comp plan transportation

More information

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW October 2002 The Planning Department City and County of San Francisco TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Overview of Process and

More information

Transportation Concurrency

Transportation Concurrency 2015 Frequently Asked Questions About. Transportation Concurrency Q. What is Transportation Concurrency? A. Transportation Concurrency is both a State law requirement and a City pre-application development

More information

CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of Chapter 4.0 of this EIR contain a discussion of the potential environmental effects from implementation of the proposed

More information

Why a Regional Plan?

Why a Regional Plan? Why a Regional Plan? Population Growth in the Golden State California grows by 300,000 500,000 people each year due mostly to new births and longer lifespans 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000

More information

City of Palo Alto (ID # 7047) City Council Staff Report

City of Palo Alto (ID # 7047) City Council Staff Report City of Palo Alto (ID # 7047) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/13/2016 Summary Title: East Palo Alto Comment Letter Title: Approval and Authorization for the City

More information

CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES

CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES March 2008 0526 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Traffic Impact Study 1 1.2 Need and Justification 2 1.3 Purpose of Guidelines

More information

KAW CONNECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KAW CONNECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Page E-1 Introduction KAW CONNECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and the Kansas Turnpike Authority (KTA) have both recognized the need to plan for the

More information

METRO VANCOUVER MOBILITY PRICING INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE. Revised - June 30, 2017

METRO VANCOUVER MOBILITY PRICING INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE. Revised - June 30, 2017 METRO VANCOUVER MOBILITY PRICING INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE Revised - June 30, 2017 Contents 1. POLICY CONTEXT... 3 2. PROBLEM... 3 3. MANDATE... 4 4. SUPPORTING REGIONAL OBJECTIVES

More information

Memorandum. FROM: Jim Ortbal Rosalynn Hughey Barry Ng TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. DATE: June 16, 2017

Memorandum. FROM: Jim Ortbal Rosalynn Hughey Barry Ng TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. DATE: June 16, 2017 CITY OF SANjOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION POLICY UPDATE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW - LOS TO VMT Memorandum FROM: Jim Ortbal Rosalynn Hughey Barry Ng

More information

I-70 East ROD 1: Phase 1 (Central 70 Project) Air Quality Conformity Technical Report

I-70 East ROD 1: Phase 1 (Central 70 Project) Air Quality Conformity Technical Report I-70 East ROD 1: Air Quality Conformity Technical Report January 2017 I-70 East ROD 1: Air Quality Conformity Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT... 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...

More information

The Folded Interchange: An Unconventional Design for the Reconstruction of Cloverleaf Interchanges

The Folded Interchange: An Unconventional Design for the Reconstruction of Cloverleaf Interchanges The Folded Interchange: An Unconventional Design for the Reconstruction of Cloverleaf Interchanges I. ABSTRACT Keith A. Riniker, PE, PTOE This paper presents the Folded Interchange design and compares

More information

South Boston. Transportation Plan. Transportation Planning Division. Virginia Department of Transportation

South Boston. Transportation Plan. Transportation Planning Division. Virginia Department of Transportation 2020 Transportation Plan Developed by the Transportation Planning Division of the Virginia Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

More information

Purpose of the Countywide Transportation Plan SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Purpose of the Countywide Transportation Plan SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY > 12 Purpose of the Countywide Transportation Plan SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13 SAN FRANCISCO S MULTIMODAL transportation network is crucial to San Francisco s status as a major regional

More information

City of Brantford Chapter 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

City of Brantford Chapter 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 3 The Land Use & Transportation Connection TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 THE LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION LINK... 1 3.2 POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FORECASTS... 3 3.2.1 Proposed Places to Grow Plan Forecasts

More information

The Policies section will also provide guidance and short range policies in order to accomplish the goals and objectives.

The Policies section will also provide guidance and short range policies in order to accomplish the goals and objectives. 4 Goals & Objectives INTRODUCTION The 2015-2040 MTP preserves and promotes the quality of life and economic prosperity of the MAB by providing a transportation system consistent with the regional goals.

More information

Context. Case Study: Albany, New York. Overview

Context. Case Study: Albany, New York. Overview Case Study: Albany, New York Overview The Capital District, a four-county region surrounding Albany, New York, has experienced dramatic growth in vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) in recent years, which has

More information

FINAL. Technical Memorandum #2: Alternative Scenarios Performance Report

FINAL. Technical Memorandum #2: Alternative Scenarios Performance Report General Planning Consultant Services RFP P5413 Contract No. 200703566 Work Order No. 2009-01 / Task 2-3 FINAL S O U T H F U LTO N PA R K W AY T R A N S I T F E A S I B I L I T Y S T U DY Technical Memorandum

More information

Mobility and System Reliability Goal

Mobility and System Reliability Goal Mobility and System Reliability Goal Provide surface transportation infrastructure and services that will advance the efficient and reliable movement of people and goods throughout the state. Background:

More information

NORTHWEST CORRIDOR PROJECT. NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 2015 Addendum Phase IV

NORTHWEST CORRIDOR PROJECT. NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 2015 Addendum Phase IV Noise Technical Report 2015 Addendum NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT 2015 Addendum PREPARED FOR: Federal Highway Administration and Georgia Department of Transportation PREPARED BY: Parsons Brinckerhoff Project

More information

Energy Savings by replacing old facility o Energy savings o Emissions

Energy Savings by replacing old facility o Energy savings o Emissions Dubuque Intermodal Transportation Center Cost / Benefit Analysis Input values used in this analysis are taken from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) guidance on the preparation of Cost Benefit

More information

6.2.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

6.2.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 6.2 6.2.1 Introduction The existing conditions, regulatory setting, and methods of analysis for transportation under CEQA are described in Chapter 3, NEPA and CEQA Analysis. Impacts that would result from

More information

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES January 28, 2009 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES Related to Highway Occupancy Permits Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering

More information

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies 2011 ITE Quad Conference April 18 19, 2011, Embassy Suites; Lynnwood, WA Victor L. Sl Salemann, PE Senior Associate David Evans and Associates Bellevue, WA

More information

September Public Meetings. Developing a Blueprint for the Corridor

September Public Meetings. Developing a Blueprint for the Corridor September Public Meetings Developing a Blueprint for the Corridor Study Background Study initiated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) and administered by VDOT in association with VDRPT. Addresses

More information

The Three C s of Urban Transportation Planning

The Three C s of Urban Transportation Planning The Three C s of Urban Transportation Planning Edward G. W etzel Engineer of Transportation Policy Port of New York Authority The need for continuing, comprehensive, urban transportation planning on a

More information

Appendix H. Millennium Hollywood Project Trip Cap and Mitigation Triggers

Appendix H. Millennium Hollywood Project Trip Cap and Mitigation Triggers Appendix H Millennium Hollywood Project Trip Cap and Mitigation Triggers MILLENNIUM HOLLYWOOD PROJECT TRIP CAP AND MITIGATION TRIGGERS Crain and Associates Introduction The Millennium Hollywood Project

More information

From Policy to Reality

From Policy to Reality From Policy to Reality Updated ^ Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development 2000 Environmental Quality Board 2008 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Funded by a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sustainable

More information

CE 452 Traffic Impact Assessment

CE 452 Traffic Impact Assessment CE 452 Traffic Impact Assessment 1 Why Required? New developments Produce/ attract new traffic Production: Residences Attraction: Shops, Offices, Schools, Hospitals etc. etc. Changes in traffic pattern

More information

Current Trends in Traffic Congestion Mitigation

Current Trends in Traffic Congestion Mitigation Current Trends in Traffic Congestion Mitigation April 24, 2009 NCSL Spring Forum Washington, DC Jeff Lindley Associate Administrator, Office of Operations Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department

More information

3.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

3.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to explain the methodology for the cumulative project analysis presented in this EIR. This section is important because,

More information

3. STATION SPACING AND SITING GUIDELINES

3. STATION SPACING AND SITING GUIDELINES 3. STATION SPACING AND SITING GUIDELINES The station spacing and siting guidelines are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 also includes benchmark information for local transit service and express bus as

More information

Jim Alexander Director of Design and Engineering, Southwest Light Rail Transit Project

Jim Alexander Director of Design and Engineering, Southwest Light Rail Transit Project Memorandum Date: January 15, 2014 To: CC: From: Subject: Jim Alexander Director of Design and Engineering, Southwest Light Rail Transit Project Paul Danielson, P.E. Project Manager, Southwest Light Rail

More information

Transit Service Guidelines

Transit Service Guidelines G R E AT E R VA N CO U V E R T R A N S P O RTAT I O N A U T H O R I T Y Transit Service Guidelines PUBLIC SUMMARY REPORT JUNE 2004 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES

More information

CHAPTER 12 TRANSPORTATION. Introduction Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2015 Plan Alternatives

CHAPTER 12 TRANSPORTATION. Introduction Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 2015 Plan Alternatives CHAPTER 2 TRANSPORTATION Introduction Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the 205 Plan Alternatives CHAPTER 2 TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the traffic impact analysis conducted

More information

Technical and Physical Feasibility Fact Sheet Alternative 28: Infill/Density

Technical and Physical Feasibility Fact Sheet Alternative 28: Infill/Density Technical and Physical Feasibility Fact Sheet Alternative 28: Infill/Density Acknowledgements: This fact sheet was written by Phyllis Taylor of Sites Southwest as part of the Evaluation of Alternative

More information

1.1 Purpose of the Project

1.1 Purpose of the Project Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for East Link Project 1.1 Purpose of the Project The purpose of the East Link Project is to expand the Sound Transit Link light rail system from Seattle to Mercer Island, Bellevue

More information

Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project

Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project Los Angeles County, CA DISTRICT 7- LA- 138 (PM 0.0/36.8); DISTRICT 7- LA- 05 (PM 79.5/83.1); DISTRICT 7- LA- 14 (PM 73.4/74.4) 265100/ 0700001816

More information

CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT PLANNING SERVICE STANDARDS AND PROCESS. Planning Department

CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT PLANNING SERVICE STANDARDS AND PROCESS. Planning Department CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT PLANNING SERVICE STANDARDS AND PROCESS Planning Department January 2016 INTRODUCTION Transit Service Standards are public rules and guidelines used to make decisions about where transit

More information

DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN OF A NEW PARKWAY AT GRADE INTERSECTION (PAGI)

DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN OF A NEW PARKWAY AT GRADE INTERSECTION (PAGI) 2013 ITE Western District Annual Meeting COCEPT DEVELOPMET, AALYSIS, AD DESIG OF A EW PARKWAY AT GRADE ITERSECTIO (PAGI) Lead Author: James M. Witkowski, PhD Supporting Author: Darrell Truitt, PE The Pima

More information

Charlotte Region HOV/HOT/Managed Lanes Analysis. Technical Memorandum Task 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Charlotte Region HOV/HOT/Managed Lanes Analysis. Technical Memorandum Task 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA Charlotte Region HOV/HOT/Managed Lanes Analysis Technical Memorandum Task 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA October 23, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EVALUATION PROCESS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Table of Contents. City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center

Table of Contents. City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center Executive Summary... ES-1 Section 1: Introduction...1-1 1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process...1-1 1.2 - Scope of the EIR...1-5 1.3 - Organization of the EIR...1-8

More information

Eliot Route 236 TIF District Overview

Eliot Route 236 TIF District Overview Memorandum 1 ` To: Town of Eliot Board of Selectmen From: John Melrose, Senior Consultant Date: March 25, 2013 Re: Route 236 TIF Overview In September 2012, the Town of Eliot contracted Eaton Peabody Consulting

More information

Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan Niagara-Hamilton Trade Corridor Technical Paper

Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan Niagara-Hamilton Trade Corridor Technical Paper Niagara-Hamilton Trade Corridor Technical Paper 1. Purpose In the report to Council on the Regional Council Strategic Priorities Implementation Plan, pursuing Provincial commitment for the Niagara to Greater

More information

SBCAG STAFF REPORT. Fast Forward 2040 RTP-SCS Preliminary Scenarios Analysis and SB 375 Targets Update Process

SBCAG STAFF REPORT. Fast Forward 2040 RTP-SCS Preliminary Scenarios Analysis and SB 375 Targets Update Process SBCAG STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Fast Forward 2040 RTP-SCS Preliminary Scenarios Analysis and SB 375 Targets Update Process MEETING DATE: June 16, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 6 STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Julio Perucho

More information

November 8, RE: Harrah s Station Square Casino Transportation Analysis Detailed Traffic Impact Study Review. Dear Mr. Rowe:

November 8, RE: Harrah s Station Square Casino Transportation Analysis Detailed Traffic Impact Study Review. Dear Mr. Rowe: November 8, 2006 Mr. Glenn Rowe, P.E. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 6 th Floor Harrisburg,

More information

Overcoming Barriers to Mixed-Use Infill Development: Let s Get Trip Generation Right

Overcoming Barriers to Mixed-Use Infill Development: Let s Get Trip Generation Right Overcoming Barriers to Mixed-Use Infill Development: Let s Get Trip Generation Right By: Matt Goyne, Mackenzie Watten, and Dennis Lee with Fehr & Peers Please contact Matt Goyne at m.goyne@fehrandpeers.com

More information

Authority: N.J.S.A. 27:1A-5, 27:1A-6 and 27:7-44.1, and 27:7-89 et seq., specifically 27:7-91. Expires on February 27, 2021.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 27:1A-5, 27:1A-6 and 27:7-44.1, and 27:7-89 et seq., specifically 27:7-91. Expires on February 27, 2021. TITLE 16. TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 47. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT CODE Authority: N.J.S.A. 27:1A-5, 27:1A-6 and 27:7-44.1, and 27:7-89 et seq., specifically 27:7-91. Expires on February 27, 2021. SUBCHAPTER

More information

Members of the Board of Directors. Laurena Weinert, Clerk of the Board

Members of the Board of Directors. Laurena Weinert, Clerk of the Board COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL July, 06 To: From: Subject: Members of the Board of Directors Laurena Weinert, Clerk of the Board Update on the State Route Improvement Project Between Interstate 0 and Interstate

More information

UPDATE OF FDOT STATE PARK & RIDE LOT PROGRAM PLANNING MANUAL. Chapters 3, 4, and 6

UPDATE OF FDOT STATE PARK & RIDE LOT PROGRAM PLANNING MANUAL. Chapters 3, 4, and 6 UPDATE OF FDOT STATE PARK & RIDE LOT PROGRAM PLANNING MANUAL Chapters 3, 4, and 6 Principal Investigators: Xuehao Chu Laurel Land Ram Pendyala Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South

More information

FOR INTERSTATE 81 AND ROUTE 37 INTERCHANGE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MILEPOST 310

FOR INTERSTATE 81 AND ROUTE 37 INTERCHANGE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MILEPOST 310 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT FOR INTERSTATE 81 AND ROUTE 37 INTERCHANGE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MILEPOST 310 PREPARED BY: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAUNTON DISTRICT DECEMBER 13, 2006

More information

Coulter Transportation Consulting, LLC 1524 Paula Avenue Wheaton, IL Ph:

Coulter Transportation Consulting, LLC 1524 Paula Avenue Wheaton, IL Ph: MEMO To: Tri-Cities Impact Fee Review Group From: Brent Coulter, PE, PTOE Date: November 8, 2006 Subject: General Review of the Preliminary Kane County CRIP Kane County requested in recent (late October

More information

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. TRAFFIC

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. TRAFFIC 4. EVIROMETAL IMPACT AALYSIS 11. TRASPORTATIO AD CIRCULATIO 1. TRAFFIC 1. ITRODUCTIO The following section summarizes the information provided in the Traffic Impact Study, SMC Malibu Satellite Campus Project,

More information

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Volume 1. NBC Universal Evolution Plan ENV EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO Council District 4

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Volume 1. NBC Universal Evolution Plan ENV EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO Council District 4 Division of Land / Environmental Review City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Volume 1 ENV-2007-0254-EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2007071036 Council

More information

WELCOME IL 47. Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017

WELCOME IL 47. Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017 WELCOME IL 47 Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 Waubonsee Community College Wednesday, May 31, 2017 MEETING PURPOSE MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome/Introduction 2. Review Previous Public Involvement 3. Process/Schedule

More information

City of Garden Grove Legislative Advocacy Program

City of Garden Grove Legislative Advocacy Program City of Garden Grove Legislative Advocacy Program The City Manager's Office coordinates an active legislative advocacy program focused on protecting the interests of our community and identifying resources

More information

Funding Intelligent Transportation Systems in the Los Angeles Region

Funding Intelligent Transportation Systems in the Los Angeles Region Funding Intelligent Transportation Systems in the Los Angeles Region 2017 ITS California Annual Meeting Ed Alegre, PTP Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Los Angeles Region

More information

LOCATION AND DESIGN DIVISION

LOCATION AND DESIGN DIVISION VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCATION AND DESIGN DIVISION INSTRUCTIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM GENERAL SUBJECT: Interstate, NHS Non-Interstate and Non-NHS (IJR / IMR Guidance) SPECIFIC SUBJECT:

More information

City Infrastructure Financing Tools

City Infrastructure Financing Tools January 2010 Practice Group(s): Public Finance Seattle Scott A. McJannet Robert D. Starin David O. Thompson Cynthia M. Weed Spokane /Coeur d Alene Kevin R. Connelly Laura D. McAloon Brian M. Werst City

More information

Montgomery County, MD

Montgomery County, MD Montgomery County, MD Jurisdictional Context The Montgomery County Planning Board is responsible for approving private sector development projects for the unincorporated areas of the County. Cities and

More information

State of the Practice - How Public Transportation is addressed in Traffic Impact Studies ITE Transit and Traffic Impact Studies Committee

State of the Practice - How Public Transportation is addressed in Traffic Impact Studies ITE Transit and Traffic Impact Studies Committee State of the Practice - How Public Transportation is addressed in Traffic Impact Studies ITE Transit and Traffic Impact Studies Committee Purpose of Report Relevant Literature Survey Results Current and

More information

Functional Classification Comprehensive Guide. Prepared by

Functional Classification Comprehensive Guide. Prepared by Functional Classification Comprehensive Guide Prepared by June 6, 2014 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT The intent of this document is to provide a comprehensive guide to Virginia Department of Transportation

More information