Local Planning Clause Samples

Local Planning. LIDDA shall conduct local planning in the local service area as follows: 2.1.1 LIDDA shall develop and implement a Local Provider Network Development Plan (formerly known as a Local Plan) that is consistent with the strategic priorities referenced in the HHSC Strategic Plan at ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/about-hhs/budget-planning/health-human-services- system-strategic-plans-2021-2025, and in accordance with Tex. Health and Safety Code §533A.0352. 2.1.2 In developing the local service area plan, the LIDDA shall: (1) solicit information regarding community needs from: (A) representatives of the local community; (B) individuals receiving community-based intellectual disability services and family members of those individuals; (C) residents of the State Supported Living Center (SSLC), family members of those residents, and members of SSLC volunteer services councils, if the SSLC is located in the local service area of the LIDDA; and (D) other interested persons; and (2) consider: (A) criteria for assuring accountability for, cost-effectiveness of, and relative value of service delivery options; (B) goals to ensure a client with an intellectual disability is placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate to the care; (C) opportunities for innovation to ensure that the LIDDA is communicating to all incoming and potentially interested individuals about the availability of the SSLC for individuals with an intellectual disability in the local service area of the LIDDA; (D) goals to divert individuals from the criminal justice system; and (E) opportunities for innovation in services and service delivery. 2.1.3 LIDDA shall post the current Local Provider Network Development Plan on i 2.1.4 The SSLC must be consulted in the development of this plan and the plan must specify details of the collaboration with the SSLC. 2.1.5 Through its local board, the LIDDA shall appoint, charge, and support one or more Planning and Network Advisory Committees (PNACs). The role of the PNAC is to represent the perspectives of individuals with IDD, family members of individuals with IDD, and other stakeholders on the provision of 2.1.6 PNAC members must be objective and avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest in performing the responsibilities of the committee. 2.1.7 LIDDA shall ensure all PNAC members receive initial and ongoing training and information necessary to achieve expected outcomes in accordance with relevant portions of the Guidelines for Local Service Area Plannin...

Local Planning. The project is located in the City of San Diego as well as unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego. The City limit crosses the project alignment approximately 2,000 feet east of Sanyo Avenue. The portion of the project area east of the City limit is located within the EOMSP area of unincorporated San Diego County. The EOMSP area encompasses approximately 3,013 acres of mostly undeveloped land just north of the international border. The area is bounded on the west by the City of San Diego, and on the north and east by two natural landforms, the Otay River Valley and the San Ysidro Mountains, respectively. Development of East Otay Mesa is guided by a Specific Plan (SP 93-004) that was adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1994. A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 10-001) was adopted in 2010 (see Figure 4). This plan allocates 2,110 acres for high-intensity commercial and industrial use, 552 acres for low- intensity use (residential, conservation/limited use), and 351 acres for circulation corridors.

Local Planning. Alameda CTC is the designated Congestion Management Agency for Alameda County. Alameda CTC coordinates countywide transportation planning efforts; programs local, regional, state and federal funding; and delivers projects and programs including those approved by voters in Alameda County transportation expenditure plans for Measure B, Measure BB, and the Vehicle Registration Fee. The Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP) is a long-range policy document that guides future transportation investments, programs, policies and advocacy for all of Alameda County through the year 2040. The CWTP identifies a number of future trends, issues and challenges for the County including safety, and more specifically, an increase in the number of collisions on roadways. The project has been assigned project number 030 in the CWTP. The project is also included in the 2014 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. Both plans include the continued development of express lanes in Alameda County. The projects listed in Table 4-1 are the current and future projects on I-680 in the vicinity of the project that are part of the Caltrans SHOPP. Ala 4K670 At the ramp terminus of the on-ramp to southbound I-680 and Sunol Blvd. Install left-turn channelization with signalization(PM 15.25). $4.0M 2021/22 Ala OP630 In Alameda County in Pleasanton at Stoneridge Drive – Construct Rock Slope protection at slip out. $1.5M 2020/21 Ala 4G113 In and near Fremont Pleasanton, and Dublin, from 0.3 mile south of ▇▇▇▇▇ Creek Road to 0.3 mile north of Alcosta Boulevard- Install ramp meters, ramp HOV bypass lanes and Traffic Operations Systems $40.4M 2018 The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇ Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) and the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) currently operate bus routes that use the I-680 corridor. Separate from this project, Alameda CTC is conducting a transit study of the I-680 corridor to identify one or more public express bus service options along the I-680 corridor that would leverage the existing and planned HOV/express lanes. A continuous HOV/express lane system on I-680 would improve travel time and travel reliability for public transit, increasing the incentive for transit use in the corridor. In January 2019, Alameda CTC conducted a transit operator workshop to collect input from local transit providers. The workshop was attended by representatives from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrans, CCTA, MTC, Santa ▇▇▇▇▇ Valley Transportation Authori...

Local Planning. The City of Marysville Capital Investment Plan (CIP), dated 2017, mentions and identifies the need for several capital projects that coordinate the financing and timely improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public. Relevant projects include • Bicycle Lane Street Striping (Project No. 2016-4.01). This project will place bike lane striping and legends on city streets to conform to the new standards and specifications of the Master Plan. • Sidewalk Repairs & ADA Ramps - Various Locations (Project No. 2014- 4.05). This project will focus on making sidewalk repairs to eliminate impediments to accessibility and constructing curb ramps between sidewalks. • Union Pacific Railroad Track - Reroute and Decommission (Project No. 2016- 4.03). This project would reroute the Union Pacific railroad track that bisects the city (and includes the Marysville Underpass and the south structure of the Binney Junction Underpass) to the westerly city limits. Per the CIP, the project will likely cost at least $50 million and take 8-10 years to complete. In addition, the City of Marysville General Plan, dated August 1985, which serves as a long-term guide for orderly growth and development within the City limits, provides the following aspects which are included in the proposed project: • To promote pedestrian access (II.C.4) • Landscaping and tree planting required adjacent to highways (II.C.5) • To provide a bikeway system as a beneficial transportation mode alternative (II.C.8) • To protect residents from health hazards and annoyance associated with excessive noise levels (II.E) • B Street Underpass (Marysville Underpass) lighting improvements and bridge structure protection measures (IV.C.2.c)

Local Planning. In the City of ▇▇▇▇▇ General Plan (2011) and the City of ▇▇▇▇▇ Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (2012), ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Pass Road is identified as four-lane County Road and four-lane expressway in the project area. Both documents identify Mountain House Parkway needing to be improved to meet Expressway Standards as shown on TMP Chapter 4 and also for build out of their communities.

Local Planning. Planning studies including the City of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (2014) and the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Mobility Revitalization Plan (2020) all demonstrate the need for connectivity and access to bike and pedestrian infrastructure to be incorporated into this bridge project. In addition, the community of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ has expressed the need for connectivity and safe access to bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Approximately 500 new homes are being constructed in a new development at the south end of town, resulting in significant population growth for this disadvantaged community. CONNECTIVITY: Note that bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the bridge will link to and create important connectivity to the community of Guadalupe and the future Santa ▇▇▇▇▇ River levee trail which is currently in development by the County of Santa ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Directly adjacent to this project and to south of the bridge, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ project (05-1E030) is in development with a RTL date of May 2024, that will construct pedestrian improvements, add buffered bicycle lanes and transit stop improvements as well as other improvements. The preferred alternative is compatible with local plans. The pedestrian walkway and the bicyclist path on the bridge reduces the reliance on automobile travel which reduces air pollution. Current and forecasted traffic volumes along with collision data has been collected for this project. This data is presented below.

Local Planning. For reference purposes, SR-91 is classified as a State Freeway on the OCTA’s County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). OCTA’s Measure M (M1) one-half cent sales tax funded delivery of transportation improvements between 1990 and 2011. After experiencing the success and progress of M1, Orange County voters renewed the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in November 2006 for another 30 years to 2041 to launch the Renewed Measure M (M2). In 2012, the M2020 Plan was approved by the OCTA Board to provide guidance on program delivery priorities between 2013 and 2020. This plan was developed as a self-sustaining sales tax measure; however, due to slower than anticipated growth in the M2 sales tax revenue proceeds, the M2020 Plan objectives were reevaluated in 2016 to: assess implications of the revised long-term revenue forecast, determine what had been accomplished to date, and assess what can be assumed to move forward. The OCTA Board approved the Next 10 Delivery Plan (Next 10 Plan) on November 14, 2016 as the replacement for the M2020 Plan. The Next 10 Plan provides guidance regarding what can be accomplished over the 10 years between 2017 and 2026. The proposed project is listed as Project I in the Next 10 Plan. The proposed project is included in the OCTA’s 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) titled, “Outlook 2035: Because Mobility Matters” (September 12, 2014). OCTA is responsible for planning and implementation of countywide transportation systems and projects. In this role, OCTA leads the effort to develop the LRTP as its vision for mobility of the next 20+ years. The LRTP is updated every 4 years to reflect changing demographics, economic trends, and mobility needs. As the proposed project is located predominantly within the City of Anaheim, and in and around the cities of Fullerton, Orange, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, planning with these local cities has been on-going. There is one residential development undergoing construction during preparation of the PA/ED on Riverdale Ave near ▇▇ ▇▇-91 just west of Lakeview Ave in the City of Anaheim. Another redevelopment of a commercial property to a homeless shelter, also in Anaheim, is undergoing construction and occupancy during the preparation of the PA/ED on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Place, adjacent to the ▇▇ ▇▇-91 on-ramp at ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Blvd. Both developments would likely be completed by the time the SR-91 improvement project starts construction and coordination has been ongoing with the City of Anaheim. The ...