FINAL REPORT UPDATE SACRAMENTO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT UPDATE SACRAMENTO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM Prepared for: SACRAMENTO COUNTY Prepared by: DKS Associates In Association With: November, 2008 (Revised March, 2010)

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Fee Districts Development Forecasts Growth in Housing and Employment Transportation Improvements Roadway Capacity Needs Other Improvements on Roadways Operating at LOS F in Improvements on Rural Roadways Walkway and Bikeways Improvement Costs Roadway Improvements Transit Improvements Walkway and Bikeway Improvements ITS Improvements Basis for Allocating Improvement Costs Roadway Capacity Improvements Use of Improvements by Trips from Fee Districts Special Financing Districts Cost Allocation for Improvements to Roadways Operating at LOS F in Other Walkway and Bikeway Improvements Shoulder Improvements on Rural Roadways Administration of Program Sacramento International Airport Methodology for Calculating Fees Dwelling Unit Equivalents Fees Calculation Implementation of Fee Program Nexus Analysis i November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

3 Appendix A: Summary of Roadway Capacity Analysis Appendix B: Roadway Improvements Costs Appendix C: Calculation of Fees for Roadway Capacity Improvements Appendix D: Calculation of Fees for Transit Improvements Appendix E: Calculation of Fees for ITS Improvements Appendix F: Calculation of Fees for Bikeway and Walkway Improvements Appendix G: Calculation of Fees for Intersection Improvements Appendix H: Calculation of Fees for Shoulder Improvements Appendix G: Calculation of Fees for Intersection Improvements Appendix H: Calculation of Fees for Shoulder Improvements to Rural Roadways Appendix I: Current and Proposed Fee Rates Appendix J: Potential Detailed Land Use Categories and Fee Rates List of Figures Figure 1: Comparison of Fees in SCTDF Program Update to Fees from Other Jurisdictions...8 Figure 2: Fee Districts...11 Figure 3: Existing LOS Deficiencies...18 Figure 4: Roadway Improvements in 2032 SCTDF Program...19 Figure 5: Frontage Improvements Excluded from Fee Estimate...20 Figure 6: Future Roadway Deficiencies with 2032 SCTDF Roadway Improvements...30 Figure 7: BRT Routes...32 Figure 8: Shoulder Improvements on Rural Roadways...34 Figure 9: Roadway Improvements Funded by Countywide Fees and Financing Districts...42 Figure 10: Construction Cost Index Comparison: Caltrans vs. ENR ii November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

4 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Fees by District...6 Table 2: Development Traffic Impact Fees from Other Local Jurisdictions... 7 Table 3: 2005 Residential Development for SCTDF Program...12 Table 4: 2032 Residential Development for SCTDF Program...13 Table 5: 2005 to 2032 Residential Growth for SCTDF Program...13 Table 6: 2005 Non-Residential Development for SCTDF Program...14 Table 7: 2032 Non-Residential Development Levels...15 Table 8: 2005 to 2032 Non-Residential Development Growth...16 Table 9: Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program...21 Table 10: Summary of Roadway Capacity Needs...29 Table 11: Summary of Walkway and Bikeway Improvements in 2032 SCTDF Program...35 Table 12: Unit Costs for ITS Improvements...37 Table 13: Basis of Cost Allocation SCTDF Program Update...39 Table 14: Roadway Improvements Funded by Both Special Financing Districts and SCTDF Program Update...41 Table 15: DUE Rates...46 Table 16: Summary of Improvement Costs Allocated to Each District...48 Table 17: Summary of Cost per DUE by District...48 iii November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

5 Executive Summary The purpose of the Sacramento County Transportation Development Fee (SCTDF) Program is to fund improvements to the County s major roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County over the next 24 years, through Sacramento County has various methods for financing transportation improvements. One of the methods is the SCTDF Program. The SCTDF Program collects funds from new development in unincorporated Sacramento County to finance a portion of the transportation improvements that result from the travel demand generated by new development. Fees are calculated by fee district, differentiated by type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes their fair share of transportation improvements, so that the County s General Plan Circulation policies and quality of life can be maintained. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors adopted a countywide transportation development fee program for roadway and transit improvements in 1988 and updated the roadway portion of the fee program in An interim fee update, based on revised construction costs estimates for the current roadway and transit project list, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March The comprehensive update to the SCTDF Program that is documented in this report is necessary for the following reasons: The incorporations of three new cities (Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova) affect fee district boundaries and funding requirements The existing SCTDF project list does not include critical roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that are necessary to meet the long-range demands of new development within the unincorporated County The land use data used for the current fee program is out of date. Development Forecasts The roadway and transit improvements in the current fee program were intended to meet 2010 travel demand levels, which is the horizon year of the County s existing General Plan. The transportation needs and fee allocation for the SCTDF Program Update are based on 2032 development forecasts prepared by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). Between 2005 and 2032, housing units in unincorporated Sacramento County are expected to grow by 52 percent and employment is expected to growth by 65 percent. This substantial 1 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

6 growth will increase travel demand throughout the County and thereby require infrastructure improvements for all travel modes. Roadway Capacity Improvements A roadway capacity needs analysis was guided by the County s level of service policy in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which calls for maintaining LOS E conditions in urban areas and LOS D on rural collector roadways. An analysis of existing traffic demand shows that about 54 miles of roadways in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County currently operate at LOS F conditions and thus have existing LOS deficiencies. The roadway needs analysis identified widening or extension of about 180 miles of roadway to meet forecasted 2032 traffic volumes. However, the maximum number of lanes on any roadway segment in the 2032 project list for the SCTDF Program Update would not exceed the number of lanes allowed in the General Plan. The General Plan calls for a maximum of six lanes on the County s busiest arterial roadways. Some of these roadways already have six lanes. Many two or four lane arterials could be widened under the General Plan, but some roadway segments would operate at LOS F conditions in 2032 with the maximum of lanes allowed under the General Plan. About 74 miles of roadway would operate at LOS F conditions during one or more hours in 2032 even with the roadway capacity improvements in the SCTDF Program update. While most of these roadway segments already operate at LOS F conditions, new development is expected to contribute an average of about 51 percent of the 2032 traffic volume on these congested roadways. While further widening of the LOS F roadways segments would not be allowed under the General Plan, there are a number of transportation improvements that could be implemented to reduce traffic demand and improve mobility in these congested corridors. The SCTDF Program includes one or more of the following improvements on these congested roadway segments: High quality transit service (such as BRT) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) measures New or improved walkways and bikeways Intersection improvements Transit improvements New development in the unincorporated Sacramento County will increase the demand for transit services and the need for improvements to the regional transit system. To accommodate new development, RT will need to increase frequency on current transit (bus and light rail) routes, extend transit routes and add new transit routes. In addition, increases in 2 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

7 traffic congestion levels on existing bus routes due to new development will require additional buses just to maintain existing headways. Thus new development will require additional buses and light rail vehicles. The increased transit fleet will require additional maintenance facilities and equipment. Additional transit stations and stops and park-and-ride lots will be needed on existing and future transit routes. While new development should contribute to a range of new transit infrastructure and equipment, Sacramento County and Regional Transit have decided to concentrate the transit improvements that are implemented by the SCTDF Program on key roadways that would operate at LOS F conditions in 2032 with the maximum number of lanes allowed under the County s General Plan. Regional Transit has identified several arterial corridors where bus rapid transit (BRT), or high quality transit, should be implemented over the next 30 years. Three of those BRT facilities would be on arterials that would operate at LOS F conditions in 2032: Watt Avenue, Sunrise Boulevard and Florin Road. Sacramento County and RT staff would like to include the capital cost to implement high quality transit improvements on these high demand corridors in the SCTDF Program. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) To maximize the efficiency of its roadway system, especially those roadways that would operate at LOS F conditions with the 2032 SCTDF Program, Sacramento County will need to use a range of technologies and management techniques. ITS uses real-time information to integrate and mange the components of a conventional transportation system (roadways, transit, traffic signals, ramp meters, etc.). ITS can help reduce the amount and duration of traffic congestion on busy roadways and provide buses with travel time savings. ITS in the 2032 SCTDF Program update could include intersection control and surveillance equipment, expansion of the County s Transportation Management Center (TMC), high-bandwidth communication between local equipment and the TMC, traveler information systems, incident management and other measures. Bikeway and walkway improvements About 33 miles out of the 74 miles of the roadways that would operate at LOS F conditions in 2032, would be widened under the 2032 SCTDF Program and thus will have new or upgraded sidewalk and bike lane facilities. Of the remaining 41 miles of congested roadway that already have the maximum number of lanes allowed in the General Plan, about 88 percent have either no or deficient sidewalks (according to the Sacramento County Pedestrian Master Plan) and 53 percent do not have bike lanes. Constructing sidewalks and bike lanes along these congested roadways are included in the 2032 SCTDF Program to reduce traffic volumes and, more importantly, improve mobility. 3 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

8 SACOG has identified other regionally significant walkway and bikeway projects for the 2032 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, including 19 miles of walkways and 26 miles of bikeways in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Providing these important linkages would increase mobility and reduce traffic volumes in the unincorporated portion of the County. New development s fair share of these improvements is based on the estimated 2005 to 2032 growth as a percent of total 2032 development levels in each district Improvements on rural roadways Few of the two-lane rural roadways in Sacramento County would have traffic volumes in 2032 that would cause a level of service problem. However, the Federal Highway Administration recommends that rural roadways that carry more than 2,000 daily vehicles should have 6 foot wide shoulders. Many of the rural roadways in Sacramento County that would carry more than 2,000 vehicles per day in 2032 already carry more than 2,000 vehicles per day. Some intersections along higher volume rural roadway will also need improvements, such as turn lanes or traffic signals, due to traffic growth. New development will account for about 25 percent of the 2032 volume on high volume rural roadways and thus new development should contribute its fair share of the cost of adding shoulders and improving critical intersections to these rural roadways. The shoulders would increase the safety on these rural roadways as traffic increases and they would provide a bike lane/walkway. Fee Calculation For roadways and intersections that currently operate at LOS E or better conditions, the entire cost of the capacity improvements (minus funding from other sources) are allocated to the SCTDF Program. For existing deficiencies (roadways that currently operate at LOS F), the cost of the improvement that is allocated to the SCTDF Program is equal to the percentage of the total change in volume/capacity (v/c) ratio due to the improvement that is needed to return the v/c ratio to current levels. For each of the roadway improvement projects, the estimated percentage of new vehicle trips by fee district that would use those roadways determines each district s cost responsibility for the improvements. The percentage use of new vehicle trips on roadways operating at LOS F was used to allocate the cost responsibility of transit, ITS, walkway and bikeway improvements along those congested roadways. In the allocation of costs to various types of developments, each development type is assigned a dwelling unit equivalent or DUE rate, which measures how the trip-making characteristics of a land use compare to a single-family residential unit. The cost responsibility for each fee district was divided by the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) in that district to determine the cost per DUE. The County has development fee programs in several special financing districts to fund major infrastructure within or near those districts including roadway improvements. Some of 4 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

9 the roadway capacity improvements that are funded by the special financing districts are also included in the SCTDF Program Update. The cost responsibility for each special financing district was reduced by the amount that is funded by that district to eliminate any overlap between the fee programs. The total amount of the transportation improvement that would be financed through the SCTDF Program is about $1.44 billion. The total cost responsibility for each fee district was divided by the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) in that district. The fee for each district and each special financing district is summarized in Table 1. The average fee per DUE countywide in the updated SCTDF is $8,824. Comparison to Fees in Other Jurisdictions Since March 2006 (when an interim update was adopted by the Board of Supervisors), the SCTDF Program fees have range from about $2,300 to $7,800 per dwelling unit equivalent for the current fee districts. The draft fees for this comprehensive update, which would help fund a much larger set of transportation project needs, would result in fees ranging from about $0 to about $11,453. Special financing districts have separate and lower countywide fee rates in the SCTDF Program to eliminate overlaps between fee programs. Table 2 and Figure 1 compare the updated Sacramento County transportation development fees to transportation fees in other jurisdictions. They indicate that updated SCTDF Program fees are higher than some and lower than other fees in neighboring jurisdictions. Implementation of Fee Update This report documents the transportation projects that would be wholly or partially funded by the updated SCTDF Program, the methodology used to estimate new development s fair share of those improvements and the resulting fee per dwelling unit equivalent in each fee district and special financing district. However, to implement the fee update, some additional details will need to be evaluated and potentially updated, including the following: DUE Rates This report documents the fees per Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) for each fee district based on general land use categories. When a developer gets a building permit and pays fees, a more specific land use is known and the number of DUEs for some specific land use will be based on specific DUE rates for that category. Appendix J provides a potential list of specific land use types and their fee rates for the County to consider. Annual Fee Adjustment The fees documented in this report reflect the existing basis for the fee calculations. The new fee ordinance will call for an annual adjustment to the fees based upon a construction cost index. The County needs to define the methodology and timing for annual fee adjustments. 5 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

10 Table 1 Summary of Fees by District Improvement Type Roadway Capacity Total Cost Funded by SCTDF Program Cost per DUE by Fee District Cost per DUE for Special Financing Districts North Antelope Vineyard Vineyard Station Mather Average Cost per DUE Countywide Projects $825,467,432 $4,669 $5,193 $9,384 $3,902 $1,204 $5,917 $4,669 $3,902 $3,902 $3,902 $5,014 Projects with Funding from Special $84,621,731 $264 $215 $520 $2,451 $603 $126 -$4,031 -$2,625 -$6,501 -$8,893 $525 Financing Districts Improvements on Roadways Operating at LOS F in 2032 Transit $267,000,000 $1,870 $2,298 $305 $2,477 $174 $90 $1,870 $2,477 $2,477 $2,477 $1,663 Bikeways and Walkways $70,854,600 $461 $1,701 $157 $465 $49 $58 $461 $465 $465 $465 $441 Intersections $27,666,700 $173 $416 $128 $206 $31 $20 $173 $206 $206 $206 $172 ITS $53,968,400 $337 $812 $250 $401 $61 $38 $337 $401 $401 $401 $336 Other Bikeways and Walkways $50,992,018 $423 $307 $455 $329 $337 $0 $423 $329 $329 $329 $318 Shoulders on Rural Roadways $23,959,800 $4 $13 $45 $76 $3,175 $19 $4 $76 $76 $76 $149 Sidewalks $5,000,000 $27 $20 $33 $44 $16 $5 $27 $44 $44 $44 $31 Administration of Program $28,190,614 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 $176 Total $1,437,721,294 $8,402 $11,150 $11,453 $10,526 $5,826 $6,448 $4,108 $5,450 $1,574 -$818 $8,824 Growth in DUEs ( ) 32,506 10,926 19,768 53,836 5,399 22,024 1,477 7,188 5,909 1, ,358 Total Source: DKS Associates, November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

11 Table 2 (Update March 2010) Comparison to Development Traffic Impact Fees from Other Local Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Sacramento County (2008 Update) Elk Grove 1 Single Family (per unit) Multi Family (per unit) Transportation Impact Fee Retail 7 (per sq ft) Office 7 (per sq ft) <175,000 >175,000 Industrial 7 Area sq. ft. sq. ft. (per sq ft) District 1 $8,402 $5,126 $9.41 $12.00 $9.66 $6.00 District 2 $11,150 $6,801 $12.00 $12.00 $10.00 $6.00 District 3 $11,453 $6,986 $12.00 $12.00 $10.00 $6.00 District 4 $10,526 $6,421 $11.79 $12.00 $10.00 $6.00 District 5 $5,826 $3,554 $6.52 $9.50 $6.70 $5.30 District 6 $6,448 $3,933 $7.22 $10.51 $7.41 $5.87 $4,108 $5,450 East Antelope SCTDF $2,506 $4.60 $6.70 $4.72 $3.74 Total 6 $13,792 $10,196 $20.91 $23.01 $14.37 $3.74 Vineyard SCTDF $3,325 $6.10 $8.88 $6.27 $4.96 Total 6 $18,480 $13,538 $30.84 $33.62 $20.46 $11.67 N. Vineyard SCTDF $1,574 $960 $1.76 $2.57 $1.81 $1.43 Station Total 6 $19,930 $14,552 $35.00 $35.81 $21.06 $1.43 Mather SCTDF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 6 $0 $0 $5.68 $5.68 $3.52 $2.70 Zone 1: Elk Grove $8,106 $5,716 $6.10 $14.37 $7.17 $4.72 Zone 2: Laguna $6,901 $4,765 $4.20 $9.62 $5.35 $3.79 Zone 3: Laguna West $6,094 $4,328 $4.01 $9.14 $5.79 $3.76 Zone 4: Lakeside $4,487 $3,219 $1.45 $2.74 $3.09 $2.63 Zone 5: Stonelake $7,937 $5,599 $5.90 $13.87 $6.99 $4.60 Rancho New Development Area $18,915 $12,629 $14.04 $10.78 $5.49 Cordova Infill Area $8,900 $5,941 $8.36 $8.10 $5.49 Folsom 2 Citywide $7,004 $4,892 $9.75 $4.16 $4.23 District 1: Southport $11,572 $9,197 $18.77 $16.05 $13.64 West Sacramento 3 Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 $8,758 $6,961 $14.21 $12.14 $10.32 District 4: Riverfront $4,866 $3,868 $7.90 $6.75 $5.73 NEASP $7,703 $5,753 $7.11 $5.07 $4.43 Galt All except NEASP $13,984 $9,688 $18.36 $9.76 $2.89 Zone 2: Cameron Park $41,700 $27,180 $12.17 $3.11 $1.99 Zone 3: W of Placerville $41,700 $27,180 $12.16 $3.11 $1.97 El Dorado Zone 6: Pleasant Valley $27,050 $17,600 $9.62 $2.45 $1.56 County 4 Zone 7: South County $17,140 $11,140 $9.61 $2.47 $1.56 Zone 8: El Dorado Hills $32,420 $21,160 $9.86 $2.51 $1.61 Natomas 5 $7,568 $6,220 $14.35 $7.97 $4.02 City of Richards $4,207 $4,207 $8.80 $8.00 $2.90 Sacramento Railyards $4,076 $4,075 $8.65 $7.74 NA Notes: Downtown $869 $869 $1.82 $1.65 $ Includes separate fees for transit and ITS 2. Includes both transportation improvement and light rail fees 3. Includes interim fee for Harbor Improvements 4. Includes both local road and US 50 components 5. Includes transit fees; Retail & office assume 10,890 and 13,068 sq ft per acre respectively 6. Total includes roadway and transit fees from special financing districts (see Table I-2) 7. Rates reflect caps on retail, office and industrial uses approved by Board of Supervisors in December November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

12 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $8,402 Figure 1 Comparison of Fees in SCTDF Program Update to Fees from Other Jurisdictions Key: $41,700 $41,700 Countywide Fees Finance District Fees Other Jusristictions $32,420 $27,050 Countywide Average Fee SCTDF Program Update ($8,824) $18,480 $19,930 $18,915 $17,140 $13,792 $13,984 $11,453 $11,150 $10,526 $11,572 $8,824 $8,106 $7,937 $8,900 $8,758 $6,901 $6,448 $7,703 $7,568 $5,826 $6,094 $7,004 $4,487 $4,866 $4,207 $4,076 $0 $869 Dist 1 Dist 2 Dist 3 Dist 4 Dist 5 Dist 6 Antelope Vineyard North Vineyard Station Mather Average Zone 1: Elk Grove Zone 2: Laguna Zone 3: Laguna West Zone 4: Lakeside Zone 5: Stonelake New Development Area Infill Area Citywide District 1: Southport Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 District 4: Riverfront NEASP All except NEASP Zone 2: Cameron Park/Shingle Sprgs Zone 3: West of Placerville Zone 6: Pleasant Valley Zone 7: South County Zone 8: El Dorado Hills Natomas Richards Railyards Downtown SCTDF Update Elk Grove Rancho Cordova Folsom West Sacramento Galt El Dorado Co City of Sacramento

13 Credits and Reimbursements Procedures for applying credits and reimbursements will be necessary for capital projects funded by the fee that are constructed privately by developers and dedicated to the County Updates of Fees to Account for Changes in Special Financing Districts Special financing districts have separate fee rates in the SCTDF Program to eliminate overlaps between fee programs. For roadway improvements funded by both programs, the SCTDF Program fees are adjusted to account for funding provided by special financing districts. The County needs to define the methodology and timing for those fee adjustments. Comprehensive Fee Program Updates Aside from annual adjustments for inflation, it is recommended that the SCTDF Program is updated at least every five years, or when there is a major change in the General Plan. The County should define the events that would trigger updates to the fee program. Frontage Improvements The fees do not include frontage improvements (curb/gutter, sidewalks, and the outside bike lanes) on roadways improvements. The fees do include the outside travel lanes. However, when development occurs along major roadways, that development would typically be required to construct frontage improvements adjacent to their development. The construction of improvements fronting a development project without completion of improvements along an entire roadway segment can cause sawtooth problems where the number of travel lanes and/or the existence of bike lanes and sidewalks changes and this change can negatively affect safety. The updated SCTDF Program provides a revenue source to address the sawtooth issue on those roadways included in the Program but the County should establish policies on how frontage improvements are implemented to avoid sawtooth issues. 9 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

14 Introduction 1.1 Background The purpose of the SCTDF Program is to fund the construction of roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County through The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors adopted a countywide transportation development fee program for roadway and transit improvements in 1988 and updated the roadway portion of the fee program in Although the region has changed significantly since 1993, there had been no subsequent update for 13 years. Cost estimates for the 1993 roadway improvement list were significantly underestimated relative to today s costs and would provide inadequate funding for the construction of those projects. Therefore, an interim fee update, based on revised construction costs estimates for the current project list, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March The on-going, more comprehensive update to the current SCTDF Program is necessary for the following reasons: The incorporations of three new cities (Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova) affect fee district boundaries and funding requirements The existing SCTDF project list does not include critical roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that are necessary to meet the long-range demands of new development within the unincorporated County The land use data used for the current fee program is out of date. This report documents the transportation improvement projects that would be wholly or partially funded by the SCTDF Program and the methodology used to estimate the updated fees. 1.2 Fee Districts The fee that the developer pays for a new residential unit or commercial building varies by the fee district that it is located in. For each of the roadway improvement projects, the number of new vehicle trips traveling to or from each fee district, estimated by SACOG s regional travel demand model, was used to determine each district s cost responsibility for the improvements. The cost responsibility for each fee district was then divided by the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) in that district. Sacramento County currently has seven fee districts. The fee district boundaries are being revised in the SCTDF Program update to reflect the incorporations of new cities. Six fee districts have been defined for the fee update and these are shown in Figure November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

15 ELVERTA ELKHORN HAZEL FULTON POWER LINE SAN JUAN EL CENTRO WATT GARFIELD HOWE WATT SCOTT SUNRISE 47TH BRADSHAW FLORIN WATERMAN IONE VINTAGE PARK GREEN BRUCEVILLE EXCELSIOR CALVINE GERBER CLAY STATION RILEY ALTA MESA EASTERN FRUITRIDGE POWER INN BILBY ESCHINGER FRUITRIDGE ELDER CREEK FRENCH ELK GROVE FLORIN VINEYARD CHEROKEE NEW HOPE MICHIGAN BAR TWIN CITIES LATROBE PKWY PRAIRIE CITY OAK WALNUT MADISON GREENBACK WINDING FAIR OAKS G OLD COU N TRY EASTON VALLEY tu 50 WHITE ROCK SUNRISE MATHER KIEFER JACKSON KIEFER 16 GRANT LINE WILTON DILLARD ARNO 99 BORDEN STOCKTON SIMMERHORN DON J ULIO HILLSDALE AUBURN ROSEVILLE AUBURN MARCONI EL CAMINO ARDEN DEL PASO Figure 2 Fee Districts SCTDF Program KIEFER EAGLES NEST WALNUT LEGEND City Boundaries County Boundaries DISTRICTS District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 ² Miles FOLSOM STOCKTON MARKET FRANKLIN FREEPORT FRANKLIN HOOD FRANKLIN FRANKLIN DEL PASO G ARDEN Notes: 1. Precise Fee District boundaries can be determined using GIS files available at County Department of Transportation 2. Remaining unincorporated portion of Sacramento County in Delta area not shown on map is part of Fee District 5. S A C R A M E N T O E L K G R O V E C I T R U S H E I G H T S R A N C H O C O R D O V A G A L T F O L S O M

16 2.0 Development Forecasts 2.1 Growth in Housing and Employment The improvements in the current fee program were intended to meet 2010 travel demand levels, which is the horizon year of the County s existing General Plan. The transportation needs and the cost per unit of future development (i.e. per dwelling unit or per square foot of commercial or industrial space) for the SCTDF Program Update are based on 2032 development forecasts prepared by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). Tables 3 through 8 show the estimated housing and jobs in each fee district for 2005 and 2032 and the growth over that 30 year period. Between 2005 and 2032, housing units and employment in unincorporated Sacramento County, are expected to grow by 52 percent and 65 percent, respectfully. While growth was assumed in the proposed Folsom Sphere of Influence south of US 50 and in the proposed Greenbrier development in the North Natomas area, these future developments were assumed to part of the cities of Folsom and Sacramento and thus were not included in the growth shown in Tables 3 through 8. Table Residential Development for SCTDF Program Fee District Dwelling Units Single Family Multi-Family Total 1 24,018 8,393 32, ,744 34, , ,130 8,811 36, , , Antelope 9,566 1,529 11,095 Vineyards 6, ,054 North Vineyards Mather ,308 Total 147,027 55, ,490 Source: SACOG November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

17 Table Residential Development for SCTDF Program Fee District Dwelling Units Single Family Multi-Family Total 1 33,972 24,518 58, ,696 40, , ,608 5,813 13, ,987 21,722 77, ,418 2,088 15, Antelope 10,947 1,233 12,180 Vineyards 10,576 3,028 13,604 North Vineyards 4,717 1,350 6,067 Source: SACOG 2006 Mather 1, ,597 Total 207, , ,678 Table to 2032 Residential Growth for SCTDF Program Fee District Dwelling Units Single Family Multi-Family Total 1 9,954 16,125 26, ,952 6,470 8, ,588 5,636 13, ,856 12,911 40, ,604 1,276 3, Antelope 1, ,085 Vineyards 4,450 2,100 6,550 North Vineyards 4,569 1,295 5,863 Source: SACOG 2006 Mather Total 60,582 45, , November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

18 Table Non-Residential Development for SCTDF Program Fee District Retail Office Industrial/Other Total Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF 1 10,111 5,055 9,526 2,858 9,125 7,300 28,762 15, ,313 25,157 39,230 11,769 27,574 22, ,117 58, , ,710 2,168 5,262 3, ,760 5,880 11,148 3,344 15,799 12,639 38,707 21, , , ,081 2,465 6,952 3, , Antelope ,680 1,344 2,867 1,866 Vineyards , North Vineyards Mather , ,838 1,262 Total 77,122 38,561 66,605 19,981 62,023 49, , ,161 KSF= 1,000 square feet Square footage estimates are based on 500, 300, and 800 square feet per employee for retail, office and industrial/other employee, respectively. Source: SACOG November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

19 Table Non-Residential Development Levels Fee District Retail Office Industrial/Other Total Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF 1 15,058 7,529 23,897 7,169 15,017 12,013 53,971 26, ,215 27,108 42,468 12,740 29,215 23, ,898 63, ,721 3,361 11,425 3,428 4,506 3,605 22,652 10, ,786 9,893 28,810 8,643 24,632 19,705 73,228 38, ,541 1,270 4,253 1,276 3,952 3,162 10,746 5, ,671 5,836 13,069 3,921 14,305 11,444 39,045 21,200 Antelope ,915 1,532 3,355 2,141 Vineyards 1, , ,159 2,036 North Vineyards , Mather , ,802 1,442 4,598 2,408 Total 114,076 57, ,369 38,511 96,365 77, , ,641 KSF= 1,000 square feet Square footage estimates are based on 500, 300, and 800 square feet per employee for retail, office and industrial/other employee, respectively. Source: SACOG November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

20 Table to 2032 Non-Residential Development Growth Fee District Retail Office Industrial/Other Total Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF Employment KSF 1 4,947 2,474 14,370 4,311 5,891 4,713 25,209 11, ,902 1,951 3, ,641 1,313 8,781 4, ,908 2,954 9,686 2,906 1,796 1,437 17,390 7, ,027 4,013 17,662 5,298 8,833 7,066 34,521 16, , , ,794 1, ,960 5,480 12,847 3,854 13,753 11,002 37,560 20,337 Antelope Vineyards 1, , ,683 1,093 North Vineyards Mather ,269 1,015 1,760 1,146 Total 36,954 18,477 61,764 18,529 34,342 27, ,060 64,480 KSF= 1,000 square feet Square footage estimates are based on 500, 300, and 800 square feet per employee for retail, office and industrial/other employee, respectively. Source: SACOG November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

21 3.0 Transportation Improvements 3.1 Roadway Capacity Needs The roadway capacity needs analysis was guided by the County s level of service policy in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which calls for maintaining LOS E conditions in urban areas and LOS D on rural collector roadways. An analysis of 2005 and 2006 traffic demand shows that about 54 miles of roadways in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County currently operate at LOS F conditions. Those roadway segments with existing LOS deficiencies are shown in Figure 3. The 2032 travel demand forecasts were prepared using SACOG s regional travel demand model. The travel demand forecasts assume that land uses in new growth areas will be consistent with SACOG s Blueprint and thus some areas would have lower vehicle trip generation than typical development 1. The needs analysis started with a set of planned roadway and transit improvements that are included in the current 2027 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). An iterative analysis was conducted to test the need for those planned improvements and the need for additional improvements under the 2032 development forecasts. Roadway improvements were identified to meet forecasted 2032 traffic volumes. However, the maximum number of lanes on a roadway segment in the 2032 project list would not exceed the number of lanes allowed in the General Plan. The capacities per lane by roadway type listed in Sacramento County s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines were used for the roadway needs analysis. The existing and 2032 roadway level of service analysis is summarized in Appendix A. Figure 4 shows the 180 miles of roadway that would be widened or extended in the 2032 SCTDF Program update. Table 9 summarizes these roadway capacity improvements. The SCTDF Program includes frontage improvements (curb/gutter, sidewalks, and the outside bike and travel lanes) on all improvement projects except on roadway segments where frontage improvements would clearly be funded by adjacent development, either because it is already funded by a special financing district or would likely be included in a future special financing district. Figure 5 shows frontage improvements excluded from SCTDF Program fee calculation.. 1 The impact of land uses that consistent with the Blueprint is captured by using SACOG s 4D Postprocessor, which adjusts mode choice to account for urban design and land use mix factors which may not be fully captured by SACOG s SACMET travel demand model. In general, the adjustments reduce vehicle trips in areas with high density, highly diversity of land uses and good pedestrian/bicycle accessibility. 17 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

22 ELVERTA ELKHORN HAZEL FULTON POWER LINE SAN JUAN EL CENTRO WATT GARFIELD HOWE WATT SCOTT SUNRISE 47TH BRADSHAW FLORIN WATERMAN IONE VINTAGE PARK GREEN BRUCEVILLE EXCELSIOR NEW HOPE GERBER CALVINE CLAY STATION RILEY ALTA MESA EASTERN KIEFER FRUITRIDGE POWER INN BILBY ESCHINGER FRUITRIDGE ELDER CREEK EAGLES NEST WALNUT FRENCH ELK GROVE FLORIN VINEYARD CHEROKEE MICHIGAN BAR TWIN CITIES LATROBE PRAIRIE CITY OAK KIEFER WINDING tu WALNUT ELVE RTA AN TELOPE DON J ULIO GREENBACK HILLSDALE ROSEVILLE MADISON AUBURN FAIR OAKS G OLD COU N TRY AUBURN MARCONI EL CAMINO WHITE ROCK SUNRISE ARDEN MATHER FOLSOM KIEFER JACKSON GRANT LINE WILTON DILLARD ARNO BORDEN STOCKTON SIMMERHORN 6 5T H STOCKTON FRANKLIN DEL PASO MARKET City of Sacramento City of Citrus Heights City of Rancho Cordova City of Elk Grove City of Galt City of Folsom Figure 3 Existing LOS Deficiencies 2005/06 Conditions LEGEND Existing LOS F Conditions ² Miles FRANKLIN FREEPORT FRANKLIN HOOD FRANKLIN DEL PASO G ARDEN

23 ELVERTA ELKHORN HAZEL FULTON POWER LINE SAN JUAN EL CENTRO WATT GARFIELD HOWE WATT SCOTT SUNRISE 47TH BRADSHAW FLORIN WATERMAN IONE VINTAGE PARK GREEN BRUCEVILLE EXCELSIOR NEW HOPE GERBER CALVINE CLAY STATION RILEY ALTA MESA EASTERN KIEFER FRUITRIDGE POWER INN BILBY ESCHINGER FRUITRIDGE ELDER CREEK EAGLES NEST WALNUT FRENCH ELK GROVE FLORIN VINEYARD CHEROKEE MICHIGAN BAR TWIN CITIES LATROBE PRAIRIE CITY OAK EASTON VALLEY KIEFER 5 hg hg 80 5 hg WINDING hg tu 50 hg WALNUT GREENBACK MADISON FAIR OAKS G OLD COU N TRY WHITE ROCK SUNRISE MATHER KIEFER JACKSON GRANT LINE WILTON DILLARD ARNO BORDEN STOCKTON SIMMERHORN DON J ULIO HILLSDALE AUBURN ROSEVILLE DEL PASO DEL PASO MARKET G ARDEN AUBURN MARCONI EL CAMINO ARDEN FOLSOM City of Sacramento FRANKLIN STOCKTON FREEPORT FRANKLIN City of Elk Grove City of Citrus Heights City of Rancho Cordova City of Galt City of Folsom Figure 4 Roadway Improvements Draft 2032 SCTDF Program LEGEND Roadway Improvements 2032 Lanes 2 Lanes (County Standard) 4 Lanes 4 Lanes Plus 6 Lanes Interchange Improvements New or Modified Interchange hg ² Miles HOOD FRANKLIN FRANKLIN

24 ELVERTA ELKHORN HAZEL FULTON POWER LINE SAN JUAN EL CENTRO WATT GARFIELD HOWE WATT SCOTT SUNRISE 47TH BRADSHAW FLORIN WATERMAN IONE VINTAGE PARK GREEN BRUCEVILLE EXCELSIOR NEW HOPE GERBER CALVINE CLAY STATION RILEY ALTA MESA EASTERN KIEFER FRUITRIDGE POWER INN BILBY ESCHINGER FRUITRIDGE ELDER CREEK EAGLES NEST WALNUT FRENCH ELK GROVE FLORIN VINEYARD CHEROKEE MICHIGAN BAR TWIN CITIES LATROBE PRAIRIE CITY EASTON VALLEY OAK KIEFER WINDING tu WALNUT GREENBACK MADISON FAIR OAKS G OLD COU N TRY WHITE ROCK SUNRISE MATHER KIEFER JACKSON GRANT LINE WILTON DILLARD ARNO BORDEN STOCKTON SIMMERHORN DON J ULIO HILLSDALE AUBURN ROSEVILLE AUBURN MARCONI EL CAMINO ARDEN FOLSOM STOCKTON FRANKLIN DEL PASO MARKET City of Sacramento City of Elk Grove City of Citrus Heights City of Rancho Cordova City of Galt City of Folsom Figure 5 Frontage Improvements Excluded from Fee Estimate LEGEND Frontage Improvements Both Sides One Side North South West ² Miles FRANKLIN FREEPORT FRANKLIN HOOD FRANKLIN DEL PASO G ARDEN

25 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway 16 th St Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Kasser Rd Elverta Rd (Reconstruct) 1.00 Elverta Road Q St (Reconstruct) 1.12 Q St Elkhorn Blvd (New) 0.66 Existing Deficiency Elkhorn Blvd Ascot Ave (Reconstruct) th St SR-99 Stockton Blvd (ROW and S Walls) 1.19 X Alta Florin Rd Power Inn Rd Florin-Perkins Rd (New) 1.00 Antelope Rd Antelope Rd North Bradshaw Road Calvine Rd Don Julio Blvd Antelope Rd North (ROW and S Walls) Mulberry Way Olive Ave X Goethe Rd Morrison Creek Morrison Creek Florin Rd X Florin Rd Calvine Rd X Power Inn Auberry Dr Auberry Dr Elk Grove-Florin Rd (Portions of segment) 0.64 X Elk Grove-Florin Rd Kingsbridge Dr Kingsbridge Dr Vineyard Rd Vineyard Rd Excelsior Rd Excelsior Rd Grant Line Rd (Reconstruct) November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

26 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Cypress Ave Edison Ave Manzanita Ave X Douglas Rd Ext Mather Blvd Excelsior Rd 4 NA 4 4 (New) 3.57 Dry Creek Rd Elkhorn Blvd Sac City Limits (Reconstruct) 1.00 Existing Deficiency Eagles Nest Douglas Rd Kiefer Blvd (New) 2.18 Rd Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd (Reconstruct) 1.25 Easton Valley RC City Limits Hazel Ave (New) 0.70 Pkwy Hazel Ave Prairie City Rd (New) 3.40 Elder Creek S Watt Ave Bradshaw Rd Rd Bradshaw Rd Excelsior Rd Elk Grove- Florin Rd Gerber Rd X Florin Rd Gerber Rd Calvine Rd X Elkhorn Blvd Road B Metro Pkwy Metro Pkwy Lone Tree Rd Lone Tree Rd SR Marysville Bl 16th St th St Watt Ave Watt Ave Don Julio Bl November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

27 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Elverta Rd Excelsior Rd Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Metro Pkwy Lone Tree Rd Lone Tree Rd SR SR 70/99 Rio Linda Bl (Reconstruct) 4.15 Rio Linda Bl Dutch Haven Dutch Haven Watt Ave Douglas Rd Ext Jackson Rd (Reconstruct) 0.87 Jackson Rd Florin Rd (Reconstruct) 1.54 Florin Rd Gerber Rd (Reconstruct) 1.01 Gerber Rd Calvine Rd (Reconstruct) 2.00 Existing Deficiency Fair Oaks Marconi Ave Engel Rd Aux 2 Aux lanes 1.00 Blvd Sunset Madison Ave Stockton Bl Power Inn Rd (ROW and S Walls) 1.08 Florin Perkins Rd Elk Grove-Florin Rd Florin Rd Elk Grove-Florin Rd Bradshaw Rd Bradshaw Rd Vineyard Rd Vineyard Rd Excelsior Rd (Reconstruct) 1.00 Excelsior Rd Eagles Nest Rd (Reconstruct) November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

28 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Fruitridge Rd S. Watt Ave Hedge Ave Gerber Rd Elk Grove-Florin Rd Bradshaw Rd Bradshaw Rd Vineyard Rd Vineyard Rd Excelsior Rd (Reconstruct) 1.01 Glenborough Folsom Blvd Easton Valley Pkwy (New) 1.10 Grant Line Rd Greenback Lane Hazel Avenue Hood Franklin Rd White Rock Rd Douglas Rd (Reconstruct) 2.68 Douglas Rd Kiefer Blvd (Reconstruct) 2.91 Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd (Reconstruct) 1.75 Jackson Rd Sunrise Blvd (Reconstruct) 1.55 Sunrise Blvd Calvine Rd (Reconstruct) 2.93 Existing Deficiency Sunrise Blvd Hazel Ave X Placer County Line Oak Ave X Oak Ave Greenback Ln X Greenback Ln Madison Ave (Reconstruct) 1.00 X Madison Ave Gold Country Bl (Reconstruct) 2.15 X SR 99 Franklin Rd November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

29 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Florin Perkins Rd So Watt Ave Existing Deficiency Jackson Rd So Watt Ave Bradshaw Rd (Reconstruct) 2.04 Bradshaw Rd Excelsior Rd (Reconstruct) 2.11 Excelsior Rd Sunrise Blvd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Rd Jackson Rd Grant Line Rd Dillard Rd Dillard Rd Murrieta Pkwy Bradshaw Rd Excelsior Rd (New) 2.34 Kiefer Blvd Excelsior Rd Eagles Nest Rd (New) 1.78 Eagles Nest Rd Sunrise Blvd (Reconstruct) 1.00 Lone Tree Rd Meister Way Elkhorn Bl Elkhorn Bl Elverta Rd Madison Ave Sunrise Blvd Hazel Ave X Hazel Ave Greenback Ln Manzanita Ave Fair Oaks Blvd Lincoln Ave X Meister Way Metro Pkwy Lone Tree Rd November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

30 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Metro Parkway Oak Ave Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) I-5 Elkhorn Bl Elkhorn Bl Road A Road A Elverta Rd Hazel Ave Folsom City Limits Prairie City Rd US 50 White Rock Rd Rio Linda Blvd Elkhorn Blvd Sac City Limits Road A Metro Pkwy Lone Tree Rd Roseville Rd Existing Deficiency Airbase Dr Walerga Rd X Walerga Rd Antelope Rd S. Watt Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd Avenue Jackson Rd Florin Rd X 65th Ave Gerber Rd Stockton Blvd Gerber Rd Elsie Ave X Elsie Ave SR November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

31 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway Sunrise Blvd Vineyard Rd Vintage Park Rd Waterman Rd Segment From To SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Douglas Rd Kiefer Bl Kiefer Bl Jackson Rd Jackson Rd Florin Rd Florin Rd Grant Line Rd Jackson Rd Elder Creek Rd 4 NA 4 4 (New) 0.90 Elder Creek Rd Florin Rd (New) 1.00 Florin Rd Gerber Rd (New) 1.01 Gerber Rd Calvine Rd (Reconstruct) 2.00 Elk Grove-Florin Rd Bradshaw Rd Florin Rd Gerber Rd (New) 1.01 Gerber Rd Calvine Rd 0/ (New) 2.02 Existing Deficiency Placer County Line Antelope Rd 2/ Watt Avenue Antelope Rd Elkhorn Blvd Elkhorn Blvd Don Julio Blvd Airbase Dr Roseville Rd (RR) 0.38 X 27 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

32 Table 9 Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects for SCTDF Program Roadway White Rock Rd Segment From To 2005 Luyung Dr Rancho Cordova City Limits Prairie City Rd Rancho Cordova City Limits 2032 SCTDF General Plan Lanes Change 2005 to 2032 Lanes in Countywide Fees Distance (miles) Prairie City Rd (Reconstruct) 3.95 El Dorado Co Line (Reconstruct) 4.12 Existing Deficiency Winding Way Auburn Blvd Garfield Ave X Zinfandel Dr Ext/ Douglas Rd International Dr Sunrise Blvd 0/ (New) 1.10 Elverta Rd SR 70/99 New Interchange Hazel Avenue US 50 Modify Interchange and extend Hazel Avenue 0.90 Metro Parkway I-5 New Interchange Sunrise Blvd US 50 Modify Interchange Source: DKS Associates, 2008 Total November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

33 The General Plan calls for a maximum of six lanes on the County s busiest arterial roadways. Some of these roadways already have six lanes. Many two or four lane arterials could be widened under the General Plan, but some roadway segments would operate at LOS F conditions in 2032 with the maximum of lanes allowed under the General Plan. Figure 6 shows the 74 miles of roadway that would operate at LOS F conditions during the peak hour in 2032 even with the roadway improvements shown in Figure 4. While most of these roadway segments already operate at LOS F conditions, new development is expected to contribute about 40 percent of the 2032 traffic volume on these congested roadways The roadway system needs analysis is summarized in Table 10. Table 10 Summary of Roadway Capacity Needs Mileage Existing Deficiencies (LOS F during peak hour) 54 Roadway Improvements in SCTDF Program Update 2 lane roadway 4 4 lane roadway 86 6 lane roadway 90 Total 180 Roadways that would operate at LOS F in 2032 Already at maximum General Plan lanes 41 Improved to maximum General Plan lanes 33 Total 74 Intersections Would operate at LOS F in Addition of turn lanes could significantly improve LOS 28 Source: DKS Associates, Other Improvements on Roadways Operating at LOS F in 2032 While further widening of the LOS F roadways segments shown in Figure 6 would not be allowed under the General Plan, there are a number of transportation improvements that could be implemented to reduce traffic demand and improve mobility in these congested corridors. The SCTDF Program includes one or more of the following improvements on these congested roadway segments: High quality transit service Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) measures Adding or improving walkways and bikeways Intersection improvements These improvements are discussed below: 29 November 2008 (Revised March 2010)

34 ELVERTA ELKHORN HAZEL FULTON POWER LINE SAN JUAN EL CENTRO WATT GARFIELD HOWE WATT SCOTT SUNRISE 47TH BRADSHAW FLORIN WATERMAN IONE VINTAGE PARK GREEN BRUCEVILLE EXCELSIOR NEW HOPE GERBER CALVINE CLAY STATION RILEY ALTA MESA EASTERN KIEFER FRUITRIDGE POWER INN BILBY ESCHINGER FRUITRIDGE ELDER CREEK EAGLES NEST WALNUT FRENCH ELK GROVE FLORIN VINEYARD CHEROKEE MICHIGAN BAR TWIN CITIES LATROBE PKWY PRAIRIE CITY EASTON VALLEY OAK KIEFER WINDING tu WALNUT GREENBACK MADISON FAIR OAKS G OLD COU N TRY WHITE ROCK SUNRISE MATHER KIEFER JACKSON GRANT LINE WILTON DILLARD ARNO BORDEN STOCKTON SIMMERHORN DON J ULIO HILLSDALE AUBURN ROSEVILLE AUBURN MARCONI EL CAMINO ARDEN FOLSOM STOCKTON FRANKLIN DEL PASO MARKET City of Sacramento City of Elk Grove City of Citrus Heights City of Rancho Cordova City of Galt City of Folsom Figure 6 Future Roadway Deficiencies with 2032 SCTDF Roadway Improvements LEGEND LOS F ² Miles FRANKLIN FREEPORT FRANKLIN HOOD FRANKLIN DEL PASO G ARDEN