Ce2Da66Ecf — Santee City Council, August 27, 2025

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
Gary Halbert, Interim City Manager
Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney
FROM: James Jeffries, City Clerk
DATE: August 27, 2025
SUBJ: Updated Meeting Materials – August 27, 2025, City Council Meeting PUBLIC HEARING:
(8) Public Hearing for a Development Review Permit (DR-2023-0002) and Conditional Use Permit (P2023-1) to Construct a 300,145 Square-Foot Industrial Building Located at 10990 N. Woodside Avenue in the Light Industrial (IL) Zone and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (ENV-2024-0003) (Applicant: North Palisade Opco, LLC). (Planning and Building – Sawa)
The attached correspondence for the above-mentioned Item was received and is provided for your consideration.

From: West, Aaron
To: Sandi Sawa; Clerk
Subject: Support for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center at 10990 N. Woodside Avenue.

Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 2:19:19 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image005.png
Letter of Support - Palisade Santee Commerce Center.docx Palisade Santee Flyer.pdf
Good afternoon Ms. Sawa,
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Palisade Santee Commerce Center. Please see my attached letter outlining my support. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Aaron West
Managing Director | San Diego Region
CA Lic. 02025732; NV Lic. B.1002825
Direct: +1 619 595 0823 | Mobile: +1 818 674 6001
5901 Priestly Drive, Suite 100 | Carlsbad, CA 92008
4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500 | San Diego, CA 92122 View Privacy Policy
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Support for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center at 10990 N. Woodside Avenue.

Dear Ms. Sawa,
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Palisade Santee Commerce Center. As a longtime member of this community, I look forward to having the now closed and blighted Santee Drive-In property reactivated into a better use that will help Santee grow and thrive. The Palisade Santee Commerce Center will bring significant benefits to our community, including:
• Job Creation: The project is expected to generate hundreds of construction jobs initially, followed by an estimated 185 long-term well-paying jobs. • Economic Growth: The new commerce center will expand the city’s tax base, providing much-needed revenue that can support public services, schools, and parks, generating over $1.6M in revenue over the next ten years.
• Modern Design: The project will replace a vacant lot with a modern and sustainable development that will bring new industry and jobs to our city and allow for Santee’s businesses to expand without leaving the city.
• Compatible Location: The project follows the City of Santee’s General Plan and zoning ordinances. The surrounding properties are also industrial in nature, making the project highly compatible and appropriate use for this location. • Infrastructure Improvements: Project will contribute over $1M in traffic fees to fund street upgrades along Woodside Avenue, which is currently in disrepair.

The Palisade Santee Commerce Center is exactly the kind of investment that Santee needs to ensure a strong economic future while respecting the existing zoning, the general plan, and neighboring land uses.

I strongly encourage the City to approve this important project.

Sincerely,
Aaron West
Local Resident

From: alan thompson
To: Clerk
Subject: Suport for Palisade Santee Commerce Center
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:11:37 PM
August 24,2025
Dear Ms. Sawa,
I am writing to express my support to the proposed Palisade Commerce Center to replace the closed Santee Drive-in Theater. As a nearly forty-year resident who happens to live across Highway 67 from the drive-in, I think this project is a great fit for Santee. A now closed and blighted property that will be vastly improved with the completion of this project and what makes it a perfect fit because it is located inside the current industrial zone.

There are other specific benefits to supporting the Palisade Commerce Center: job creation, in the construction of the facility and an estimated 185 long term well-paying jobs once it is built; economic growth, significantly more revenue to support local entities such as schools, parks; infrastructure improvement, Palisade Commerce Center will contribute funds to improve Woodside Avenue, which is a mess.

The Palisade Commerce Center is exactly what Santee needs while respecting the existing zoning, the general plan, and neighboring land uses.

I strongly encourage Santee to approve this important project.

Sincerely,
Alan Thompson
Santee Resident

From: McDonald, Evan
To: Sandi Sawa; Clerk
Subject: Support for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center at 10990 N. Woodside Avenue.

Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 9:58:03 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Letter of Support Sample.docx
Palisade Santee Flyer.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Ms. Sawa,
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Palisade Santee Commerce Center. As a longtime member of this community, I look forward to having the now closed and blighted Santee Drive-In property reactivated into a better use that will help Santee grow and thrive. The Palisade Santee Commerce Center will bring significant benefits to our community, including:
• Job Creation: The project is expected to generate hundreds of construction jobs initially, followed by an estimated 185 long-term well-paying jobs. • Economic Growth: The new commerce center will expand the city’s tax base, providing much-needed revenue that can support public services, schools, and parks, generating over $1.6M in revenue over the next ten years.
• Modern Design: The project will replace a vacant lot with a modern and sustainable development that will bring new industry and jobs to our city and allow for Santee’s businesses to expand without leaving the city.
• Compatible Location: The project follows the City of Santee’s General Plan and zoning ordinances. The surrounding properties are also industrial in nature, making the project highly compatible and appropriate use for this location. • Infrastructure Improvements: Project will contribute over $1M in traffic fees to fund street upgrades along Woodside Avenue, which is currently in disrepair.

I strongly encourage the City to approve this important project.

Sincerely,
Evan McDonald
Santee Business Owner
Evan McDonald, SIOR
Executive Vice President | San Diego
Industrial Division
[email protected]
CA Lic. 01813359
Direct: +1 858 677 5339 | Mobile: +1 858 353 8669
4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500 | San Diego, CA 92122 | U.S. colliers.com | View Privacy Policy
No representation or recommendation is made by Colliers International as to the legal sufficiency or tax consequences of this document or the transaction to which it relates. These are questions for your attorney and/or other advisors. In any real estate transaction, it is recommended that you consult with a professional such as an attorney, accountant, civil engineer, property inspector or other person, with experience in evaluating the transaction, and the legal documents prepared in connection therewith.

I don't know if these Emails are in time to be considered in making the decision on this project but I appreciate you reading my concerns. I fear this project will forever change the atmosphere of Santee and destroy the ambience of this city being a residential community in the future and decrease the desirability of moving here and lowering housing values. I hope you got both Emails.

Thank you,
McKenzie Williams

also true at this exit from about 2:30 pm to about 6:00 pm in the afternoons due to commuter traffic flowing in the opposite direction. This traffic is also going to and from North county employees living in the east and south counties plus vise-versa commuters. During these heavy traffic periods that also affect Hwys 67, 52 and 125 plus egress from Santee on Mission Gorge Rd, Prospect and Mast truck drivers will be looking for access on north-south streets (Cuyamaca, N. Magnolia, Carlton Oaks, Fanita and Mast at Mission Gorge. Allof these routes have freeway onramps and access to Mast Blvd. at Santana High and at each street mentioned to continue out past West Hills High to onramp for Hwy 52. During Santee dump operations this intersection is impacted by large tractor trailer garbage trucks. Even during regular traffic use these trucks will still use Santee surface streets for fastest access to freeways. During the day Santee has already seen a major increase in tractor trailer flow due to grocery stores, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes, Target, Walmart, Sedano Chevrolet car transport trucks, gas station deliveries, etc.

From: Sandi Sawa
To: Clerk; Shawn Hagerty; Gary Halbert
Subject: FW: Palisade Santee Commerce Center - Final EIR -Item#8 on City Council Aug 27 Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 1:39:18 PM
Attachments: Hillcreek Neighbors Response to the Draft EIR Palisade Santee Commerce Center Project June 2025.docx.pdf Site Plan.pdf
image001.png
Sandi Sawa, MPL, AICP
Director of Planning and Building/City Planner
(619) 258-4100 x 167
[email protected]
Please note that my next regular day off is Friday, August 29th.

From: Stacey LoMedico
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Rob McNelis <[email protected]>; John Minto <[email protected]>; Ronn Hall <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]>
Cc: Sandi Sawa <[email protected]>; Karen Maillet <[email protected]> Subject: Palisade Santee Commerce Center - Final EIR -Item#8 on City Council Aug 27 August 25, 2025
Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers - This email is to share a copy of the letter a number of Hillcreek Neighborhood homeowners sent in response to the Draft Project EIR for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center. You can find our letter and responses in the Final EIR (Letter No.2).

The project applicant proactively engaged with a few of us in Feb. 2023, and more residents engaged when the Draft EIR was released. While each resident has their own concerns and may speak to those at City Council, we can overwhelmingly agree that the noise and hours of operation are our key

Stacey L.

From: Travis Jokerst
To: Clerk
Subject: Written Comment RE: Item No. 8, City Council"s 8/27/25 Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:13:32 PM
Attachments: image001.png
SR_240_WSD_2017_Plate1.pdf
Dear Santee City Council Members:

The Final EIR for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center Project (Item 8) fails to adequately address potential Project impacts to mineral resources. The EIR fails to mention that the California Geological Survey has classified the Project site as “Mineral Resource Zone 2” (MRZ-2). This classification identifies areas where significant and valuable mineral deposits are known to exist or are highly likely to be present (see attached map). MRZ-2 is the highest designation in the state’s Mineral Land Classification system under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. It signals to local agencies that these areas are important for long-term mineral supply. By identifying and protecting MRZ-2 areas, California aims to ensure a sustainable supply of these critical resources. SMARA requires local agencies, such as the City of Santee, to consider these zones and the valuable mineral resources within them in their land use planning processes.

Local agencies must recognize and evaluate the importance of MRZ-2 areas when making zoning and development decisions. Specifically, state law requires that local agencies develop and adopt mineral resource management policies to be included within its general plan or municipal code that emphasize the conservation and development of the identified mineral deposits. Article 6, §11.40.600 of the City’s Municipal Code encourages the “production and conservation of minerals.”
Section 5.3 of the Project EIR states, “While mining for construction sand has been permitted in portions of the San Diego River in the past, there are no mining permits near the project site.” The fact that there are no mining permits near the site has no relevance when determining a significant impact to mineral resources.

There have been several other sand mines along the same section of the San Diego River for the past several decades. Most of these operations included mining and then backfilling to meet compaction standards prior subsequent development. Examples include Lakeside Land Company (approx. ½ mile east of Drive-In), which now consists of multiple commercial/industrial buildings, and RCP Block & Brick (from immediately west of Drive-In to approx. ½ mile west), which now consists of recreational uses and a new residential development. Also, Martin Marietta’s Channel Road Mine (less than 2 miles east of Drive-In) is still a permitted sand mine that will be backfilled and subsequently redeveloped. The proposed Project should be redesigned so that sand resources are extracted from the site prior to any new construction.

Section 5.3 of the EIR goes on to say, “The Project site is not large enough to effectively extract mineral resources.” This statement is incorrect. The Project site (13.5 acres) is similarly sized to other sand mining operations, including the nearby Channel Road Mine. Depending on the proposed depth and quality of sand extracted from the Project site, we estimate that between 527,000 tons to 1,054,000 tons of sand are available for extraction. If the proposed Project is approved as it is currently designed, these resources will be permanently extinguished.

This Project site was designated MRZ-2 because aggregate resource evaluation reports indicate that aggregate resources at this site meet engineering specifications for PCC-grade aggregate. The extraction of PCC-grade sand is a declared public necessity in San Diego County. The County Board of Supervisors has formally recognized that mineral extraction “is essential to the continued economic well-being of the County of San Diego.” This policy is reinforced by the County’s General Plan Update EIR, which identifies construction aggregates (particularly sand, gravel, and crushed rock) as the most economically important mineral resources in the region. These materials are foundational to the construction of roads, homes, schools, hospitals, and other critical infrastructure that support San Diego County’s population.

The mineral resources available for extraction within the County have dwindled, even though continued development, including housing development, within the County requires more resources. While there were 25 active sand mine sites in San Diego County in 1980, that number reduced to 8 active sand mines in 1995, and reduced to two active sand mines by 2015. In 2025, there is now only one active sand mine within the County. As a result, locally permitted construction aggregate supply has not kept up with demand, which has increased over that same 45-year horizon. As a result, San Diego County has the highest aggregate prices in California, driven in part by a shortage of local supply and the need to import sand from distant sources, including Mexico.

This reliance on imported aggregate is not sustainable. Transporting sand over long distances increases construction costs, especially for housing and infrastructure projects that are already strained by high prices. It also contributes significantly to regional greenhouse gas emissions at a time when both the County and the state are working to reduce emissions and meet climate goals. Importing sand, especially over an international border exposes the County to supply chain disruptions, including those resulting from tariffs. Continuing to rely on distant imports works directly against regional affordability and environmental targets.

I hope you will consider opposing this Project unless it is redesigned to include mineral extraction prior to new construction.

Thank you,
Travis Jokerst
Mine Permitting/Compliance/GIS & Aerial Mapping
4711 Viewridge Avenue
Suite 270
San Diego, CA 92123
Office: (619) 284-8515
[email protected]
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This electronic mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone. Thank you.

From: Sandi Sawa
To: Clerk; Marni Borg; Madeline Mattson; Gary Halbert
Subject: FW: Palisade Santee Commerce Center - Caltrans Letter - Response to Comments - DEIR - SCH#2023090144 Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 7:41:25 AM
Attachments: SD_67_3.054 Palisade Santee Commerce Center Response to Comments DEIR 08-25-2025.pdf image002.png
Sandi Sawa, MPL, AICP
Director of Planning and Building/City Planner
(619) 258-4100 x 167
[email protected]
Please note that my next regular day off is Friday, August 29th.

From: Mccumsey, Mark@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 4:13 PM
To: Sandi Sawa <[email protected]>
Cc: Dodson, Kimberly@DOT <[email protected]>; OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]>
Subject: Palisade Santee Commerce Center - Caltrans Letter - Response to Comments - DEIR - SCH#2023090144
Hi Sandi,
Attached find Caltrans letter on the Response to Comments on the DEIR of the Palisade Santee Commerce Center. Please reach out if you would like to meet with us.

Thank you!
Mark McCumsey
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans District 11
Local Development Review Branch, MS 240
4050 Taylor Street, San Diego, CA 92110
[email protected]
Cell: (619) 985-4957
Telework: Mondays, Wednesdays and every other Friday
Office: Tuesdays & Thursdays
Some Fridays off

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 985-1587 | FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 25, 2025
11-SD-67
PM 3.054
Palisade Santee Commerce Center
Response to Comments
DEIR/SCH#2023090144
Ms. Sandi Sawa
Director of Planning & Building
City of Santee
Planning & Building
10601 Magnolia
Santee, CA 92071
Dear Ms. Sawa:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the “Response to Comments” for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center located at 10990 North Woodside Avenue near State Route 67 (SR-67) in Santee. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.

Safety is one of Caltrans’ strategic goals. Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network. These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.

Caltrans is committed to prioritizing projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities, to ultimately improve transportation accessibility and quality of life for people in the communities we serve.

Ms. Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning & Building
August 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” We look forward to working with the City of Santee in areas where the City and Caltrans have joint jurisdiction to improve the transportation network and connections between various modes of travel, with the goal of improving the experience of those who use the transportation system.

Caltrans has the following comments:

Traffic Engineering and Analysis
• It was noted that a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Synchro Model has not been provided to Caltrans by the developer. We received comments to their April 2025 TIS that had the traffic analysis for the widening of North Woodside Avenue and other improvements on Caltrans Right-of-Way (R/W) Also, previously Synchro files sent were incorrect. The Developer has changed the scope of work inside Caltrans’ R/W with this latest submittal and Caltrans is required to review the updated TIS and Synchro Model with the new proposed changes.

Updated Intersection Improvements comments:
• The latest updated intersection Improvement exhibit Figure RTC-1 has removed the previously proposed roadway widening of North Woodside Avenue approach leg to the SR-67 off-ramp intersection.
o There are still sidewalk improvements being proposed on Caltrans’ R/W. This will require an Encroachment Permit through the Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP).
o There are also bike lanes that can be improved.
o This proposed project needs to follow Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB-94), “is to be used in conjunction with the Complete Streets Decision Document (CSDD) when making decisions to maximize the use of the public R/W to achieve sustainable and equitable mobility. DIB-94 and the CSDD will help to accomplish the State Highway System Management Plan performance objectives for Complete Streets projects and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.”
 DIB-94 provides guidance for the scoping and design of Complete Streets projects on the State Highway System (SHS).
 As established in Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36), Caltrans is committed to a safety-first mindset to prioritize the elimination of fatal and serious injury crashes and eliminate disparities in road safety outcomes consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe System approach.
 Per section 2.4 Applying Complete Streets Standards to Local Projects of DIB-94: “DP-37 calls for the provision of Complete Streets facilities in “… all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans”17. For Ms. Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning & Building
August 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” locally or privately funded projects (projects-funded-by-others) on State highway R/W, the project sponsor may work with Caltrans to accomplish the same Complete Streets goals of providing or improving a bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facility. In order to use the standards of this DIB on a Complete Streets project segment, the segment must meet the context criterion (a)and (b) in Section 2.3 and the project report, project approval document, or similar document from the project sponsor must document the reasons why this segment should use the Complete Streets standards of this DIB due to the specific project constraints.”
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Palisades Santee Commerce Center Project review comments are the following:
• See attached redlined Final EIR Report for comments and details not mentioned here.
• Proposed improvements in Caltrans’ R/W will need to go through the LDR process in which the Caltrans District 11 Multi-Modal Branch will review proposed improvements. Then after that through the QMAP Permit approval process. • Regarding response comment S1-2: Yes, the previous comment meant to state April 2025 TIS.

Ms. Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning & Building
August 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” • Regarding response comment S1-3: “the Project does not propose any roadway improvements to alleviate Level of Service (LOS) or traffic impacts at the North Woodside Avenue and SR-67 southbound (SB) off-ramp Intersection, per current CEQA guidelines for determining transportation impacts.” o Previous TIS dated April 2025 and June 2024 showed Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Impacts that require mitigation.
 “Because the project’s VMT is higher than the regional average of the census tract it is located within, the project would result in a significant VMT impact. Table 5 provides project’s VMT summary. Figure 9 illustrates the SANDAG SB 743 VMT Map for the project site.” o A revised TIS has not been provided to Caltrans by the developer to verify the impacts due to the change in scope of the project which previously showed widening of North Woodside Avenue approach leg to the SR-67 SB off-ramp Intersection which now has changed.
• Regarding response comment S1-3: “The analysis indicates there are currently no queuing issues that may potentially spill back onto the SR-67 mainline.” o A revised TIS has not been provided to Caltrans by the developer to verify the 95th percentile queue now associated with the project’s change in scope. o A revised Synchro Model will need to be submitted for review along with the revised TIS to check foundation of the analysis.
• Regarding response comment S1-8: This response and the S1-3 response comment regarding the ‘Caltrans Local Development Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (February 2024)” is not sufficient to negate the need for this Safety Review Policy.
o Per the ‘LOCAL DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW SAFETY REVIEW PRACTITIONERS’ GUIDANCE’ the Developments are not required to go through a safety review if they meet both of the listed criteria. You can refer to the LDR Safety Review Screening Guidelines (Appendix E) for detailed information.” Both criterias are not met:
 This project makes physical modifications to the Highway System (SHS) R/W by the proposed installation of pedestrian infrastructure shown by developer.
 The project results in additional (1,000) trips as stated in the response S1-3 and previous TIS. This development also will add potential pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to this intersection.  The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to include a safety review that follows the Caltrans “Local Development Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioner’s Guidance” https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/202402-ldrsafety-review-practitioners-guidance-a11y.pdf.

Ms. Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning & Building
August 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” • Regarding response comment S1-46 through S1-48. A revised TIS with an updated 95th percentile table needs to be submitted to Caltrans for review along with the Synchro Model.
o The revised TIS must show the latest change in scope of work at the intersection, which will most likely affect 95th percentile queues on all segments.
 Please submit the latest revised TIS with revised 95th Percentile analysis.  Please submit the latest Synchro Model files for Caltrans to review. • Previous comment not addressed regarding Adjusting 95th percentile after trip distributions have been updated.

Environmental
Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ R/W through the form of an encroachment permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the elements of the Environmental Document that Caltrans will use for our subsequent environmental compliance.

An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

We recommend that this project specifically identifies and assesses potential impacts caused by the project or impacts from mitigation efforts that occur within Caltrans’ R/W that includes impacts to the natural environment, infrastructure including but not limited to highways, roadways, structures, intelligent transportation systems elements, on-ramps and off-ramps, and appurtenant features including but not limited to fencing, lighting, signage, drainage, guardrail, slopes and landscaping. Caltrans is interested in any additional mitigation measures identified for the project’s Final Environmental Document.

Right-of-Way
There is one monument on the Caltrans’ R/W. Since the rear set back is determined by the R/W, please confirm it has been properly surveyed.

Ms. Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning & Building
August 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction.

Any work performed within Caltrans’ R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.

Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by visiting the website at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep. Projects with the following:
• require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit
• have completed the Caltrans Local Development Review (LDR) process • have an approved environmental document
need to have documents submitted for Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP) process via email to [email protected]. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mark McCumsey, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 985-4957 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kimberly D. Dodson
KIMBERLY D. DODSON, GISP
Branch Chief
Local Development Review
Attachments – Caltrans Letter dated 07-24-2024
Redlined comments – FEIR
DIB-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 985-1587 | FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
July 24, 2024
11-SD-67
PM R2.677
N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB Off-ramp Improvements
Conceptual Design Review
Mr. William Jacobs
Senior Development Manager
North Palisades Partners
1330 Factory Place, Suite 105
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Dear Mr. Jacobs:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the design review process on the N. Woodside Avenue and State Route 67 (SR-67) southbound (SB) Off-ramp Intersection Improvements located at SR-67 and N.

Woodside Avenue in Santee. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.

We look forward to working with the City of Santee in areas where the City and Caltrans have joint jurisdiction to improve the transportation network and connections Mr. William Jacobs, Senior Development Manager
July 24, 2024

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” between various modes of travel, with the goal of improving the experience of those who use the transportation system.

Caltrans has the following comments:

Traffic Operations
• The proposed widening of N. Woodside Avenue approach leg to the Caltrans intersection of SR-67 triggers the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Policy per Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) #13-02. • The submitted Traffic Impact Study (TIS) recommended improvements do not meet Caltrans policy directives. Please see redline comments on attached redlined TIS. • The TIS shows Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impacts that need to be mitigated. • Adjust 95th percentile after trip distributions have been updated. • The TIS shows a direct impact to the intersection of N. Woodside Avenue and SB SR67 exit-ramp with the increase of passenger vehicles and varying sizes of trucks now proposed accessing the site through Caltrans facilities. The current use of the closed Drive-in theater during peak hours is zero vs the now proposed use shown in Table 4 from the TIS increases it.

Hydrology and Drainage Studies
• Please provide hydraulics studies, drainage and grading plans to Caltrans for review.
• Provide a pre- and post-development hydraulics and hydrology study. Show drainage configurations and patterns.
• Provide drainage plans and details, include detention basin details of inlets/outlet.
• Provide a contour grading plan with legible callouts and minimal building data. Show drainage patterns.
• On all plans, show Caltrans’ R/W.
• Early coordination with Caltrans is recommended.
• Caltrans generally does not allow development projects to impact hydraulics within the State’s R/W. Any modification to the existing Caltrans drainage and/or increase in runoff to State facilities will not be allowed.

System Planning
• The Coast, Canyons, and Trails Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) should be reviewed and incorporated in the development of the N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB Off-ramp Intersection Improvements project. The final Mr. William Jacobs, Senior Development Manager
July 24, 2024

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” document and appendices are located here: https://www.sandag.org/regionalplan/comprehensive-multimodal-corridor-plans/coast-canyons-trails-cmcp. • Particular attention should be given to Appendix B: Existing and Future Conditions, that discusses the broader transportation network as well as Appendix D:

Transportation Solution Strategies, for transportation solution strategies. There are various strategies listed in the document with the one below being the most relevant:
o CC150 Riverford Road Class IV Separated Bikeway Riverside Drive to Woodside Avenue.
• There is a planned Caltrans project (11-43031) on SR 67 from postmile 4.1 to 15.9.

The project will include culvert repairs/replacement, sign panel replacement, Americans with Disabilities’ Act (ADA) upgrades, and worker safety enhancements and LED lighting. The project is expected to be completed in 2028. • Caltrans has a maintenance agreement (#11-8051) with the County of San Diego on SR-67 from postmile (PM) R0.712 to R5.194. Please review to determine any impacts or needs in the project area.
• There are no existing transit routes serving this area. System Planning Branch recommends evaluating the future need for transit in this area and including possible enhancements.

Design
County of San Diego project (EA11-24640) proposes to reconstruct the interchange at SR-67 and Bradley Avenue. The purpose is to alleviate existing and future traffic congestion along Bradley Avenue between Mollison and Graves Avenues and improve traffic operations at the Bradley Avenue/SR-67 interchange. The anticipated Ready to List date for this project is 7/14/25. Caltrans is providing oversight and will advertise, award, and administer the construction contract. Please coordinate with Caltrans and the County of San Diego to prevent conflicts should there be any overlap of construction work.

County of San Diego project (EA 11-43118) proposes to construct roundabouts at two intersections at the interchange of SR-67 and Riverford Road. The project is in an unincorporated area of San Diego County within the Community of Lakeside and a portion in the City of Santee. The project aims to improve overall operations, circulation, complete streets, accessibility, and public safety and is part of a County of San Diego Specific Plan to help coordinate flood control, native habitat restoration, recreation, and land development. The project anticipates delivering the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) on 1/17/25. Please coordinate with Mr. William Jacobs, Senior Development Manager
July 24, 2024

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Caltrans and the County of San Diego to prevent conflicts should there be any overlap of construction work.

Please provide the latest updated schedule and cost estimate for the “N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 Off-ramp Intersection Improvements” project once one is available.

Please coordinate traffic circulation improvement strategies in relation to the nearby proposed projects noted above.

Noise
The applicant must be informed that in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772, Caltrans is not responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing configuration of SR-67.

Environmental
Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ R/W through the form of an encroachment permit process. Please indicate our status as a Responsible Agency for the Final Environmental Document. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the elements of the Environmental Document that Caltrans will use for our subsequent environmental compliance.

An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project that include the work in Caltrans’ R/W, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

Mr. William Jacobs, Senior Development Manager
July 24, 2024

Page 5 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Right-of-Way
• There is one monument on the Caltrans’ R/W. Since the rear set back is determined by the R/W, please confirm it has been properly surveyed. • Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction. • Any work performed within Caltrans’ R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.
• An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mark McCumsey, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 985-4957 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kimberly D. Dodson
KIMBERLY D. DODSON, GISP
Branch Chief
Local Development Review
Attachment: TEA Reviewed Layout Sheets Exhibits

WOODSIDE
AVE

WOODSIDE AVE
ASPH
375
380
385
390
390
375
380
385
390
370
370
365
370
365
360
STOP
AHEAD
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
ENAL
LANE
EKIB
BIKE
371
170
2 3 1
9 3 4 65
7 2 3 1 8 9
4 170 4 6 175
9 7
8 8
175
6 7
4 8
9 POTS
LAN
BIKE
E
STOP
AHEAD
POTS
BIKE
LANE
ENAL
EKIB
City of Santee Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp / N Woodside Ave Intersection 67 67
TE

OU R ND
OU
HB
UT
SO
67 TE

OU R ND
OU
HB
RT
NO
SR-67SBOFF-RAMP
OODSIDEAve
W
W

OODSIDE
Ave
WOODSIDEAve
GRANADASt

CALIFORNIA
14'
12'
14'
12'
14'
14'

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W
CAL

CITYR/W

TRANSR/W

CITYR/W
11'
17'
12'
14'

CALTRANSR/W
THRU
R/W CL
15' Var 6'

SECTION A-A
A
A
6'
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
WALK

SIDE RIGHT TURN
8'
6'

5.5'
VAR

2.5'
1:1SLOPE
14'

THRU/RIGHT
VAR
R = 125'
R/W
12'
VAR R = 50'
10'
VAR

PROJECT OVERVIEW
SCALE: 1" = 80'
LEGEND:

AND SIDEWALK

REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED AC ROADWAY WIDENING
(RECORDED 9/29/1969 #177971)

EXISTING EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
(RECORDED 11/03/2004 #2004-1041412)

EXISTING EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET

PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(1,223 SF)
(IN PROGRESS)

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

EXISTING SOUNDWALL

PROTECT IN PLACE

STORM DRAIN OUTLET AND PIPE

RECONSTRUCT EXISTING

INLIEUOFRETAININGWALL
PROPOSED 1:1 SLOPE

PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALK/RAISED MEDIAN

WOODSIDE
AVE

OU R ND
OU
HB
UT
SO
67 TE

OU R ND
OU
HB
RT
NO
SR-67SBOFF-RAMP
OODSIDEAve
W
W

OODSIDE
Ave
WOODSIDEAve
GRANADASt

CALIFORNIA
14'
12'
14'
12'
14'
14'

CITY R/W

CALTRANS R/W
CAL

CITYR/W

TRANSR/W

CITYR/W
11'
17'
12'
14'

CALTRANSR/W
THRU
R/W CL
15' Var 6'

SECTION A-A
A
A
6'
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
WALK

SIDE RIGHT TURN
8'
6'

5.5'
VAR

2.5'
1:1SLOPE
14'

THRU/RIGHT
VAR
R = 125'
R/W
12'
VAR R = 50'
10'
VAR

PROJECT OVERVIEW
SCALE: 1" = 80'
LEGEND:

AND SIDEWALK

REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED AC ROADWAY WIDENING
(RECORDED 9/29/1969 #177971)

EXISTING EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
(RECORDED 11/03/2004 #2004-1041412)

EXISTING EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET

PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(1,223 SF)
(IN PROGRESS)

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

EXISTING SOUNDWALL

PROTECT IN PLACE

STORM DRAIN OUTLET AND PIPE

RECONSTRUCT EXISTING

INLIEUOFRETAININGWALL
PROPOSED 1:1 SLOPE

PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALK/RAISED MEDIAN

WOODSIDE AVE
ASPH
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
170
2 3 1
9 3 4
2 3 1
4 4 6 175
7 8
STAA Design Vehicle (56 FTRADIUS)
CALTRANS 2020 (US)
(c)2024 TransoftSolutions,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

STAA DesignVehicle(56FTRADIUS)
CALTRANS 2020 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

STAA Desgin Veh ci el (56 FT RAD UI S)
CALTRANS 2020 (US)
P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
P
AASHTO 2018 U(S)
P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions,Inc.Allrights reserved.

P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

City of Santee Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp / N Woodside Ave Intersection

TURN TEMPLATE EXHIBIT A
SCALE: 1" = 50'
Lock to Lock Time
Width
Track
:
:
:
feet
P

6.0 6.00

7.00 3.00 11.00

19.00 Steering Angle :31.6
Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time
Articulating Angle
STAA Design Vehicle (56 FT RADIUS)
Trailer Track
Tractor Track
Trailer Width
Tractor Width

4.00 23.00
feet

8.50 :8.50

8.50 8.50
:
:
:

0.00 3.00 41.00

19.00 48.00
:
:
:6.0

26.1 70.0

WOODSIDE AVE
ASPH
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
170
2 3 1
9 3 4
2 3 1
4 4 6 175
7 8
P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft So ultoins, nIc.Allrgihts reserved.

P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

P
AASHTO 2018 (US)
STAA Design
C
V
AL
e
TR
h
AN
i
S
c
2 le(56FTRADIUS)
020 (US)
(c)2024TransoftSolutions,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

STAA Design Vehicle (56 FTRADIUS)
CALTRANS 2020 (US)
(c)2024 TransoftSolutions,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

STAA Desgin Veh ci el (56 FT RAD UI S)
CALTRANS 2020 (US)
City of Santee Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp / N Woodside Ave Intersection

TURN TEMPLATE EXHIBIT B
Lock to Lock Time
Width
Track
:
:
:
feet
P

6.0 6.00

7.00 3.00 11.00

19.00 Steering Angle :31.6
SCALE: 1" = 50'
Steering Angle
Lock to Lock Time
Articulating Angle
STAA Design Vehicle (56 FT RADIUS)
Trailer Track
Tractor Track
Trailer Width
Tractor Width

4.00 23.00
feet

8.50 :8.50

8.50 8.50
:
:
:

0.00 3.00 41.00

19.00 48.00
:
:
:6.0

26.1 70.0
State of California California State Transportation Agency

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Memorandum
To: DEPUTY DIRECTORS Date: January 16, 2024

DISTRICT DIRECTORS

DIVISION CHIEFS
From:

LISA RAMSEY
Acting Chief
Division of Design
Subject: DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN-94 COMPLETE STREETS: CONTEXTUAL DESIGN

GUIDANCE
Caltrans recognizes the importance of Complete Streets in supporting our mission to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. In the 2021 Director’s Policy on Complete Streets (DP-37), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) committed to the design and development of comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail. This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) is issued in accordance with DP-37 and is effective immediately. DIB-94 represents the latest significant step in the implementation of that policy and meets a critical need by providing new flexibility in the design of context-sensitive facilities that serve travelers of all ages and abilities.

No single guidance document can fully capture all the considerations for the diverse climate, topography, and people across California, and so project development teams are encouraged to continue to collaborate with community members and exercise design flexibility and engineering judgement in the development of Complete Streets projects. The Division of Design continues to collaborate on the development of guidance to support livable main streets, traffic calming, and intersection and interchange designs for bicyclists and pedestrians, and designers are encouraged to consult the numerous resources and subject matter experts available to them.

DIB-94 is to be used in conjunction with the Complete Streets Decision Document (CSDD) when making decisions to maximize the use of the public right of way to achieve sustainable and equitable mobility. DIB-94 and the CSDD will help to accomplish the State Highway System Management Plan DEPUTY DIRECTORS, et al.

January 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” performance objectives for Complete Streets projects and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

For projects where the project development process has started, follow the procedures in the Highway Design Manual Index 82.5 “Effective Date for Implementing Revisions to Design Standards.”
Project specific applicability and questions should be referred to the Division of Design, Project Delivery Coordinators or the District Design Liaisons. DIB-94 training will commence in the Spring of 2024.

Attachment
DIB-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
c: Susan Lindsay, Chief, Office of Complete Streets
Pyo Hong, Chief, Office of Standards and Procedures
David Cordova, Office of Standards and Procedures
Project Delivery Coordinators
District Design Liaisons
DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN NUMBER 94
California Department of Transportation
Division of Design
Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
APPROVED BY:

January 16, 2024
© 2024 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved.

LISA RAMSEY
Acting Chief, Division of Design
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Use of This Guidance........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Identifying Complete Streets Scope.................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Application of Standards and Guidance.............................................................................................. 4

2.4 Applying Complete Streets Standards to Local Projects .................................................................... 5

2.5 Complete Streets Design Team........................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Design Contexts ................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Place Types ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Prioritizing Modes ............................................................................................................................ 16

4.0 Vehicle Speeds................................................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Proposed Operating Speed ................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Place Type Transitions...................................................................................................................... 20

5.0 Roadway Cross Section Development ............................................................................................ 21

5.1 Bicycle Facilities............................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 37

5.3 Lane Width........................................................................................................................................ 41

5.4 Shoulder Width ................................................................................................................................. 44

6.0 Crosswalks and Enhanced Crosswalks ........................................................................................... 46

6.1 Where to Consider Crosswalks ......................................................................................................... 47

6.2 Approvals.......................................................................................................................................... 47

6.3 Additional Resources ........................................................................................................................ 48

7.0 Bus Transit ...................................................................................................................................... 49

7.1 Network Connectivity ....................................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Bus Stop Configuration..................................................................................................................... 49

7.3 Reducing Conflicts with Bicyclists................................................................................................... 51

7.4 Additional Resources ........................................................................................................................ 57

8.0 Green Streets ................................................................................................................................... 58

8.1 What are Green Streets?.................................................................................................................... 58

8.2 Why Green Streets? .......................................................................................................................... 58

8.3 Green Streets Elements ..................................................................................................................... 60

8.4 Site Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 74

8.5 Additional Resources ........................................................................................................................ 75

9.0 Complete Streets Graphic Examples by Place Type....................................................................... 76

9.1 Urban Area – Example Cross Sections ............................................................................................. 76

9.2 Suburban Area – Example Cross Sections........................................................................................ 79

9.3 Rural Main Street – Example Cross Sections ................................................................................... 81 DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) provides guidance for the scoping and design of Complete Streets projects on the State Highway System (SHS).

The DIB identifies best practice and establishes standards for development of Complete Streets facilities to support the design of comfortable and convenient streetscapes by utilizing space-efficient forms of mobility such as people walking, biking, rolling, or accessing transit 1 .

Complete Streets are vital community spaces that connect people both within and across communities.

This design guidance takes a context-based approach, since the most successful streets respond to the various aspects of their context. Contextual design includes consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, varied user groups, place type, land use, community destinations, topography, community input, and environment.

As defined in Director’s Policy 37 “Complete Streets” (DP-37) 2 : “A complete street is a transportation
facility that is planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to provide comfortable and convenient mobility, and improve accessibility and connectivity to essential community destinations for all users, regardless of whether they are travelling as pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders, or drivers. Complete streets are especially attuned to the needs of people walking, using assistive mobility devices, rolling, biking, and riding transit. Complete streets also maximize the use of the existing right-ofway by prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, such as walking and biking, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. Complete streets shift the focus of transportation planning and project development from vehicle movement as the primary goal to the movement of people and goods.”
Beyond being used for transportation, DP-37 also recognizes that streets are valuable community spaces and Complete Streets projects contribute to placemaking and can contribute to business vitality, public health, and community identity. Further, Complete Streets projects should also consider integration with the broader transportation system to support complete networks to serve broader mobility connections.

The California Department of Transportation (Department or Caltrans) published the California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2050) that establishes eight priority goals to guide transportation decision-making including addressing safety, increasing resilience to climate change, equity, quality of life and public health, a vibrant and resilient economy, and enhancing environmental health while maintaining a high-quality transportation system that improves multimodal mobility access to destinations for all users 3
. Caltrans’ Complete Streets Action Plan specifically identifies actions that are needed to fully implement the goals of DP-374
. For information on how Complete Streets are managed as an asset on the SHS, please refer to the current State Highway System Management Plan5 .

As established in Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36), Caltrans is committed to a safety-first mindset to prioritize the elimination of fatal and serious injury crashes and eliminate disparities in road safety outcomes consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe System approach6 .
1 See the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 231 and Section 467 for definitions of bicyclists and pedestrians. 2 Director’s Policy 37 “Complete Streets” (DP-37)
3 California Transportation Plan 2050
4 Complete Streets Action Plan 2022-23
5 State Highway System Management Plan
6 Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36), FHWA Safety System Approach © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 3 The Safe System approach is organized around six principles: eliminate death and serious injury, humans make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, redundancy is crucial, and safety is proactive and reactive 7
. Achieving the DP-36 vision of zero traffic deaths means addressing every aspect of crash risk through the five elements of a Safe System: safer roads, safer speeds, safer people, safer vehicles, and post-crash care. Incorporating particular design elements during project design can help mitigate human mistakes, account for injury tolerances, encourage safer behaviors, and facilitate safe travel for all road users. Complete Streets are an important component of the Safe System approach by accommodating all road users.

In addition to the commitment to the Safe System approach and the ongoing implementation of its principles and elements into Caltrans’ project development processes, Caltrans’ Performance-Based Decision-Making using the Highway Safety Manual Memorandum establishes guidance on implementing performance-based decision-making on design solutions using the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to reduce the frequency and severity of collisions 8
. The HSM analysis provides a “quantitative performance-based safety analysis that facilitates the Department’s safety-first goals and objectives in the decision-making process throughout project development which includes eliminating fatal and serious injury collisions.” The HSM policy guidance establishes when the HSM methodologies should be applied, including nonstandard traffic lane or shoulder widths, and roles and responsibilities for staff. For Complete Streets projects, performance-based decision-making can help evaluate the expected changes in safety performance for different design elements and alternatives under consideration for the project.

For guidance on integrating the Safe System approach into a Complete Streets project, consult the District Safety Engineer. For guidance on applying HSM performance-based decision-making into a Complete Streets project, see the “Supplement to the Application of the Highway Safety Manual Methodology for DIB 94 Eligible Projects” 9 and consult District and Headquarters HSM subject matter expert staff. 7 Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36) 8 Performance-Based Decision-Making using the Highway Safety Manual Memorandum, 2022. See also the Caltrans Highway Safety Manual webpage for additional information on the policy memorandum and additional HSM-related guidance. 9 See the Caltrans Highway Safety Manual webpage for additional information.

2.1 Purpose and Scope
This bulletin was prepared for the Department by the Division of Design for use on the California SHS.

This bulletin establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out the State highway design functions of the Department. It is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for these functions. The standards, procedures, and requirements established and discussed herein are for the information and guidance of the officers and employees of the Department. Many of the instructions given herein are subject to amendment as conditions and experience warrant. Special situations may call for deviation from policies and procedures, subject to Division of Design approval, or such other approval as may be specifically provided for in the text of this bulletin. It is not intended that any standard of conduct or duty toward the public shall be created or imposed by the publication of this bulletin. Statements as to the duties and responsibilities of any given classification of officers or employees mentioned herein refer solely to duties or responsibilities owed by these in such classification to their superiors. However, in their official contacts, each employee should recognize the necessity for good relations with the public.

This bulletin is not a textbook or a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience, or judgment.

2.2 Identifying Complete Streets Scope
Caltrans projects, in accordance with DP-37 and the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Appendix FF, record the inclusion of Complete Streets features in projects on the SHS in the Complete Streets Decision Document (CSDD) 10 . The CSDD additionally serves as the scoping document that is used to identify multimodal needs, appropriate Complete Streets improvements, and project scope consistent with the guidance in this DIB. The Caltrans Active Transportation Plans (CAT Plans) 11 , Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheets (TPSIS) 12, the Complete Streets Elements Toolbox13, and the Main Street, California guide 14 may be used in conjunction with the CSDD, and the guidance contained in this DIB to scope appropriate Complete Streets facilities.

Caltrans’ Complete Streets funding is available to achieve Complete Streets goals and features. Design guidance and standards in this DIB or in other Caltrans’ publications, e.g., the Highway Design Manual (HDM) or DIB 8915 , may be used to develop projects to satisfy performance measures and goals for Complete Streets infrastructure.

2.3 Application of Standards and Guidance
This DIB provides design guidance and best practices to incorporate Complete Streets facilities into projects and establishes separate policies, procedures, and standards to be applied in accordance with the HDM Chapter 80 Application of Design Standards. The applicable design standards for a Complete Streets project segment will be either the design standards of this DIB or the design standards in the HDM and DIB 89. This is an opt-in or opt-out concept to accomplish the Complete Streets goals for a project.

When this DIB is silent on a subject covered in the HDM or DIB 89, the HDM or DIB 89 will apply. If the design standards of this DIB are used, these design standards will supersede the HDM or DIB 89 standards within a Complete Streets project segment in the State right of way. Note, superseding the 10 Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), Appendix FF. 11 Caltrans Active Transportation (CAT) Plans 12 Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheets (TPSIS) 13 Complete Streets Elements Toolbox 3.0 14 Main Street, California 15 DIB 89 Class IV Bikeway Guidance DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 5 HDM standards would also mean superseding the design standards in DIB 79 . In order to use the design standards of this DIB, the Complete Streets project segment should 16, since it is referenced in
the HDM
meet all of the following context criteria:
a. The Complete Streets project segment is located within an Urban Area, Suburban Area, and/or Rural Main Street place type;
b. Posted speed within the Complete Streets project segment does not exceed 45 miles per hour; and,
c. With the implementation of the project, a bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facility will be provided or improved within a Complete Streets project segment according to the CSDD.

Design standards in this DIB are presented as underlined standards, which requires a design standard decision document (DSDD) for noncompliance. Additionally, design decisions for the values in compliance with the underlined standard of this DIB will also require documentation in the project report or project approval document. A direct statement of the decision to opt-in is required if using the design standards of this DIB. After project approval, any change in the design decisions regarding the selected values of the underlined standard should be documented in a Memo to File. This documentation will explain the reasons for the values selected based on the unique characteristics and constraints of the project. Cost should not be the sole reason for the decision. This added discussion will contribute to the purpose and need of the project scope in support of multimodal accommodation based upon engineering judgement.

2.4 Applying Complete Streets Standards to Local Projects DP-37 calls for the provision of Complete Streets facilities in “… all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans” 17 . For locally or privately funded projects (projects-funded-by-others) on State highway right of way, the project sponsor may work with Caltrans to accomplish the same Complete Streets goals of providing or improving a bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facility. In order to use the standards of this DIB on a Complete Streets project segment, the segment must meet the context criterion (a) and (b) in Section 2.3 and the project report, project approval document, or similar document from the project sponsor must document the reasons why this segment should use the Complete Streets standards of this DIB due to the specific project constraints. Also, a direct statement of the decision to opt-in is required if using the design standards of this DIB. The design standards in the HDM and DIB 89 may be used instead of the design standards of this DIB as described in Section 2.3. Whether the project is using HDM, DIB 89, or the standards of this DIB, the project sponsor is required to document their selected geometric features by using the HSM to conduct a performance-based safety analysis as described in Section 1 of this DIB. For guidance on applying HSM performance-based decision-making using the standards of this DIB, see the “Supplement to the Application of the Highway Safety Manual Methodology for DIB 94 Eligible Projects” 18 .

For projects-funded-by-others, maintenance agreements with the local agency may be necessary for the Complete Streets facilities that are constructed within State highway right of way. This coordination should occur early in the project development process. See the PDPM Chapter 13 Article 5 for more 16 DIB 79 Design Guidance and Standards for Major Pavement Roadway Rehabilitation Projects 17 Director’s Policy 37 “Complete Streets” (DP-37) 18 See the Caltrans Highway Safety Manual webpage for additional information.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 6 information19 . The maintenance agreements should be developed after the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase but finalized before advertising the construction contract.

2.5 Complete Streets Design Team
Complete Streets projects are multifaceted, and their design is an interdisciplinary undertaking that should consider the appropriate balance of transportation needs to arrive at a context sensitive design given the community context and site constraints. A core element of the project development process is a project development team (PDT). The PDT works together to ensure that Complete Streets features are fully coordinated across disciplines, from multimodal facility design to green streets elements. This can include discussing and identifying multimodal safety considerations, maintenance responsibility needs for green streets features incorporated into the project, consideration of truck access needs, stormwater considerations, and integrating input from local agency planning and engineering staff or transit agencies, among others. The team will also develop the project scope in accordance with the asset management requirements of the Department.

See the PDPM Chapters 2 and 8 for more information on PDTs 20 . 19 Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), Chapter 13, Article 5. 20 Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), Chapters 2 and 8.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 7 3.0 DESIGN CONTEXTS
Caltrans policies have long considered project context in the development of State highway facilities. To achieve the vision of socially and economically vibrant, thriving, and resilient communities laid out in DP-37, this DIB expands on the idea of context sensitive solutions to identify specific aspects of context that should inform multimodal facility selection and design for Complete Streets.

The context of a transportation project includes community needs and desires, an understanding of community destinations, geography and topography, development and land use, users, and current and expected modal use, as follows:
• Community needs, desires, and destinations are best understood through early and ongoing community engagement and thoughtful site analysis. Site analysis is described in detail in the latest edition of the Main Street, California guide 21 . This engagement and analysis will support the development of the project’s purpose and need.
• Geographic and topographic information are readily available, and surveys are often developed through the standard project development procedures. The HDM provides guidance on design of roadways through varied terrain, but the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists should be given special consideration, as their forward movement is physically taxing and opportunities for rest and shelter are of special importance.
• Development and land use patterns can be characterized by descriptions of place type. The various Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Area place types are discussed in Section 3.1.

These place types are characterized by common opportunities and challenges for Complete Streets.
• Different place types also correlate with different user profiles and accommodate varied mode share. Successful integration of different modes should consider both the speeds and volumes of different users, with a special emphasis on providing comfortable and convenient facilities for road users who may be underrepresented in the existing roadway environment. This concept of modal priority is discussed in Section 3.2.

A preliminary understanding of project context is needed to adequately plan and scope a Complete Streets project, but a much more nuanced understanding of the project site is necessary to develop a detailed design. This could be described as identifying project context at the “macro” versus the “micro” scale.

Project development procedures have been created to reflect this process. The TPSIS and CSDD are used to identify critical, “macro-scale” information for planning and scoping. Likewise, community engagement and site analysis are critical to the development of context sensitive “micro-scale” project alternatives and detailed project design.
21 Main Street, California
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 8 3.1 Place Types
Place types are used to describe a key component of project context, and provide insight into land use, development density, population, and transportation and mobility options and issues. Definitions of the place types used in this DIB are provided in HDM Topic 81. Figure 3-A depicts these place type development patterns and highlights the Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Street place types where the standards in this DIB may be applied.

Figure 3-A - Place Types for Contextual Design Guidance Place types can help planners and designers to identify common transportation needs, priorities, challenges, and solutions, and may inform discussions with the community. Guidance for developing mobility and transportation options across different place types is available in the Smart Mobility Framework documents and the Main Street, California guide. Opportunities for Complete Streets projects in the different place types are discussed below.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 9 (1) Urban Areas. Urban Areas are high-density locations with a full range of land uses, and they can be further broken down into City Centers and Urban Communities. (a) City Center (Central City, Center City). In City Centers, much of the transportation network has already been built out, but the existing right of way can be optimized to move people and goods most efficiently, while serving as a vital community space. Complete Streets projects in City Centers may focus on:
• Managing the network and increasing person throughput using space efficient modes, such as transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Enhancing connections between modes, for example with Mobility Hubs (places in a community that bring together multiple modes), bicycle or micromobility parking, and pedestrian amenities at transit stops.
• Managing curb space to accommodate transit, deliveries, bicyclists, parking, and loading. • Developing high quality facilities that improve the comfort of varied users.

Figure 3-B – Example of the City Center place type on US-101 in San Francisco DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 10 (b) Urban Communities. In Urban Communities, the public right of way is often constrained and needs to balance different transportation modes and evolving mobility needs. Complete Streets projects in Urban Communities may focus on:
• Balancing the needs of varied users across a constrained roadway cross section, often through road diets or narrowing of vehicle lanes.
• Addressing congestion by improving active transportation, transit, and ride-sharing options. • Implementing transit, transit-only lanes, or transit-priority features to enhance connections to multiple destinations.
• Developing a bicycle network that closes gaps and provides connections between State and local facilities.
• Enhancing pedestrian facilities to provide sufficient space for users and include landscaping, utilities, shade, furnishings, and marked or enhanced crossings.

Figure 3-C – Example of the Urban Community place type on SR-123 in Albany DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 11 (2) Suburban Areas. Suburban Areas are prevalent throughout California and their arterial roadways have traditionally been designed to accommodate high volumes of vehicles, and often include sidewalks, but not bicycle facilities. Complete Streets projects in Suburban Area communities may focus on:
• Connections to transit. These projects may include Mobility Hubs, which can provide a connection from Suburban Areas to other urbanized areas, first-mile/last-mile connections between communities and transit service, or transit service improvements, which may include transit stops, transit-only lanes, and transit-priority features. • Retrofitting existing roadways to support densification, including the reconfiguration of moderate to high speed roads as multimodal corridors, consolidation of curb-cuts, incorporation of traffic calming and landscaping, and expansion of pedestrian facilities. • Improving the comfort and safety of the multimodal network by adding separated bikeways to arterials, improving narrow sidewalks, closing gaps at ramps to controlled-access facilities, providing furnishings at transit stops, and installing landscaping and street trees. • Supporting transit and carsharing through park and ride facilities and providing bus stop amenities.

Figure 3-D – Example of the Suburban Community place type on SR-113 in Dixon DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 12 (3) Rural Areas. The Rural Area place type applies to the low-density areas outside the built-up urban and suburban communities. Rural Areas can be further broken down into Rural Main Streets, Transitional Areas, and Undeveloped Areas. Single occupancy vehicle use is high in Rural Areas, but zero- or low-vehicle ownership households may exist here as well. a) Rural Main Streets (Rural Towns). State highways in these areas are usually a conventional highway main street through the center of town, where they may be the only main street or one of several. Due to the variable nature of development, projects on Rural Main Street highway segments can be more complicated and costly than similar projects in less-developed rural settings. Complete Streets projects in this place type may include:
• Providing crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, whether in the form of sidewalks and bike lanes, or shared use paths.
• Incorporating transit into the highway environment and coordinating with agencies to provide appropriate amenities for transit users.
• Implementing traffic calming measures to achieve operating speeds that are desired by the community and support a walkable and bikeable town center. • Addressing community desires for an attractive streetscape to support livability. • Connecting Gateway Communities to nearby scenic resources with transit, shuttles, and multi-use trails. Gateway Communities are visitor-serving places situated near entries to national parks, recreational areas, and other scenic places.

Figure 3-E – Example of the Rural Main Street place type on SR-299 in Weaverville DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 13 b) Transitional Areas. State highways through the Transitional Areas between populated Rural Towns and Undeveloped Areas serve both inter-regional traffic and locals seeking to access services. The standards of this DIB do not apply to this place type; nevertheless, projects in these corridors may incorporate Complete Streets features. Traffic calming features may be employed to support the transition from high speed rural highways to low speed main streets and reinforce the lower posted speeds. Projects in Transitional Areas may include features of Complete Streets, such as:
• Providing separation for pedestrians and bicyclists users. Class I bikeways can be an efficient option to provide comfortable access for these users where moderate to high vehicle operating speeds are anticipated.
• Providing a roadway design that supports the reduction of operating speeds and incorporates traffic calming features as vehicles approach the Rural Main Street place type.

Figure 3-F – Example of the Transitional Area place type on SR-116 between Sebastopol and Graton
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 14 c) Undeveloped Areas. State highway projects in Undeveloped Areas have traditionally focused on efficient movement of vehicles and freight over long distances, but often the State highway provides the only connection between destinations for non-motorized users as well. The standards of this DIB do not apply to this place type; nevertheless, projects in Undeveloped Areas may incorporate Complete Streets features such as:
• Providing bicycle and pedestrian crossings and connections, including at interchanges and in the vicinity of schools and bus stops.
• Supporting transit, car-share, and ride-share through park-and-ride facilities and bus stop amenities.
• Providing connected access, either on the State highway or on a parallel route, for pedestrians and bicyclists. This may include separated multi use paths or shared shoulders. See discussion of Intercommunity Connectors in Section 3.2.2.

Figure 3-G – Example of the Undeveloped Area place type along SR-29 in Napa County DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 15 (4) Special Use Areas and Protected Lands. These place types generally have a character separate from their surroundings and a specialized land use. The standards of this DIB do not apply to this place type; however, improving bicycle/pedestrian and transit/shuttle infrastructure in these areas can help to minimize environmental impacts.

Figure 3-H – Example of the Special Use Area place type on SR-61 adjacent to the Oakland Airport
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 16 3.2 Prioritizing Modes
Caltrans accommodates all modes of transportation in accordance with our Vision, Mission, and Director’s Policies. But, for the purpose of this DIB, the Complete Streets modal focus is relative to Complete Streets project segments, which are identified by place types. The place types defined in the previous section can help planners and designers understand the existing and anticipated types of users and intensity of use within a project segment. Furthermore, these generalized place types can be used to facilitate project designs that are in line with agency goals to provide comfortable, convenient, and connected facilities for all users of the SHS. Once the place type and potential users are identified, the existing roadway should be evaluated to determine if it is appropriately integrating those users. Table 3.2 illustrates the relative priority that different transportation modes should be given on the SHS by place type.

Table 3.2 Modal Priority
Accommodating all users and modes within the SHS may necessitate trade-offs in the priority of modal improvements, appropriate to the place type. In accordance with DP-37, Complete Streets shift the project focus from vehicle movement to the movement of people and goods. In each place type, the Complete Streets project goal should give the highest priority to the modes indicated in dark blue. Modes in light blue and gray may be given less priority and trade-offs may be needed to best serve priority modes. This prioritization is generalized for conventional highways and local roads within the State right of way but may be adjusted based on local contextual criteria. For example, in an Urban Community the State highway may be used by an important transit line, while parallel local roads provide a comfortable and connected bikeway. These circumstances may lead the project development team, in consultation with the © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 17 community, to prioritize transit above bicycle infrastructure on a highway segment. The intent of this guidance is to provide a starting point for the allocation of space within the State right of way.

3.2.1 Considering Road User Safety
The safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is a major consideration in setting modal priorities 22 . Bicyclists and pedestrians are two of the road users most susceptible to severe injury and death from crashes, and every traveler is ultimately a pedestrian, as each trip begins and ends on foot or on wheels 23 . Designing for pedestrians and bicyclists can create a roadway that is safer for everyone 24. Consistent with the Safe System approach, facilities should be designed to “minimize the transfer of kinetic energy through the adoption of design elements that minimize crash speeds and impact angles” 25 . In addition to safety factors that can be quantified through crash data, designers may consider perceived safety. Comfortable, lowstress facilities can improve a user’s perception of their own safety and accommodate walking, rolling, and biking for a broader range of ages and abilities. Often, when more people bicycle and walk, there is an increase in the safety of these user groups; this effect is commonly referred to as “safety in numbers” 26 . The presence of more pedestrians and bicyclists encourages motorists to look for these road users where they are prevalent. As such, designing for the widest range of users will best accommodate the majority of users 27 .

Complete Streets provide connectivity to essential community destinations for all users, regardless of their transportation mode. To maximize the use of existing right of way where space is limited, spaceefficient forms of mobility, such as walking, rolling, and biking, should be prioritized while also facilitating goods movement. To strike a balance among the transportation modes that use a specific facility, reallocation of roadway space may be necessary. The following are potential strategies for reallocating roadway space to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities that may be considered 28:
• Narrowing traffic lanes, including medians/turn lanes, when width is available • Removing travel or turn lanes
• Removing parking on one or both sides of the street
• Converting angled parking to parallel parking
22 Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36) 23 Transportation Research Board (TRB) NCHRP Research Report 1036: Roadway Cross Section Reallocation, 2022
24 Marshall, W.E. and N.W. Garrick, Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users.

Environmental Practice, Vol. 13, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 16-27 25 Director’s Policy 36 “Road Safety” (DP-36) 26 Jacobsen, P. L. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2003, pp. 205–209. Elvik, R. The Non-Linearity of Risk and the Promotion of Environmentally Sustainable Transport. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 849–855.

Marques, R. and V. Hernandez-Herrador. On the Effect of Networks of Cycle-Tracks on the Risk of Cycling: The Case of Seville. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 102, 2017, pp. 181-190 27 Ohio DOT Multimodal Design Guide 28 Ohio DOT Multimodal Design Guide DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 18 3.2.2 Modal Priority in Rural Areas
Rural Areas can be particularly challenging locations to incorporate Complete Streets facilities. Long distances, variable terrain, lower population density, and high vehicle speed may contribute to low volumes of active transportation users, making it difficult to achieve the effect of “safety in numbers” in Rural Areas. These factors also may require distinct design consideration in rural locations. Nevertheless, these areas are often home to equity priority populations and households with limited or no access to a vehicle. For these highway users, Intercommunity Connectors can play an important role. Intercommunity Connectors are segments of the SHS that link small rural communities to each other and to larger or more urban places. Often, they are the only route between destinations. These connectors are the rural highway type most likely to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists due to their function in linking residents to services, and their shorter average length. Along these corridors, consider providing a bicycle and pedestrian facility separate from the roadway and shoulder. Often, this will consist of a Class I bikeway along one side of the highway. Long distance bike routes are also important multimodal facilities that may pass through Rural Areas, where wide shoulders or Class I bikeways may provide the best access.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 19 4.0 VEHICLE SPEEDS
Research has shown that vehicle speeds play a significant role in the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. Setting the right speeds is a critical part of implementing the Safe System approach – encouraging drivers to operate at speeds appropriate to the place type. Place type can be used to help identify appropriate speeds for a project segment. For example, Urban Areas would have lower speeds due to the numerous users and types of use (e.g., pedestrian crossings, driveways, street parking) that occur together. There may be additional factors within a project segment or place type that indicate the need for further speed management such as business activity districts, school or senior zones, or crossing locations. This section discusses speeds considered in project design and introduces the concept of proposed operating speeds specific to Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets.

4.1 Proposed Operating Speed
Considerations of speed in highway design have traditionally focused on the development of corridor geometrics to support a set design speed for motorists. However, to address the diversity of users in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Street place types, a proposed operating speed should also be identified. The proposed operating speed, also referred to as target speed, is the speed at which the community expects drivers to operate their vehicles consistent with local goals for streets that support multimodal travel and community livability. The selected proposed operating speed for the roadway may be used to identify various design elements during the planning and project development process. In some cases, taking measures to lower the operating speed can encourage walking, rolling, and biking by improving comfort, while reducing fatalities or serious injuries. Table 4.1 lists the recommended ranges of proposed operating speeds based on place type.

Overall understanding of the relationship between design, posted, operating, and proposed operating speed will provide designers with deeper perspective in considering the trade-offs of design elements that may affect the safety and comfort of all users of the facility, and especially those walking and biking. For definitions of design speed, operating speed, and posted speed, refer to HDM Index 62.8(13). For more information regarding the selection of these speeds, refer to Chapter 100 of the HDM. Whereas the design speed may be higher than the posted speed, to account for those vehicles exceeding the 85 th percentile, a
proposed operating speed may be lower than the current posted speed.

Determining the proposed operating speed involves communicating with the local community to understand users and preferences, as well as consideration of multimodal activity, adjacent land uses, and mobility choices. The community may also help the PDT identify areas on the corridor that need more attention with regards to speeding and safety. The proposed operating speed should be selected for the entire corridor to encourage a consistent speed profile appropriate for the place type context and discourage sharp acceleration or decelerations by users. The PDT should consult law enforcement agencies, local agencies, local communities, and transit agencies and take into consideration their recommendations. These consultations are critical to learning local perspectives regarding existing and future land use, road user expectation, nonapparent conditions, collision history, and feedback on potential speed changes.

Where the proposed operating speed is lower than the current posted speed, speed management treatments or appropriate geometric design elements may be considered to help achieve the proposed operating speed. Selecting a proposed operating speed without design elements to encourage travel at the slower speed can result in higher than desired operating speeds. While introducing the design elements that are addressed in this DIB may help reduce existing operating speeds, further speed management strategies may also be necessary to consider. Refer to the Caltrans “Traffic Calming Guide” for more information. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 20 Until additional research is conducted on the combined effects of individual speed management treatments, speed management will be an iterative process and a single project may not reduce the speed immediately to the proposed operating speed.

Ultimately, the District/Region will decide what is a reasonable proposed operating speed based on all factors and considerations.

Table 4.1 Ranges of Proposed Operating Speed by Place Type for Conventional Highways in California
Place Type
Proposed Operating
Speed
Recommended
Ranges
Discussion
Urban Area –
City Center 25 mph or below
City Centers may include business activity
districts with prima facie speed limits of 20 or
25 mph. Condensed right of way may lead to
various user types sharing roadway and
sidewalk space.

Urban Area –
Urban Community 25 – 35 mph
Schools, senior centers, high pedestrian
crossing volumes, frequent bus stops, and
restricted sight distances are examples of
shorter segments that indicate a need for
lower operating speeds along a corridor.

Suburban Area 30 – 45 mph
Suburban Areas transitioning to Urban Areas,
and spot locations such as schools or
community facilities with higher pedestrian
usage, may benefit from lower operating
speeds.

Rural Main Street 25 – 35 mph
Rural Main Streets may lack the developed
infrastructure that provides clearly defined,
separated spaces for pedestrians and
bicyclists, and thus would require a lower
operating speed.

4.2 Place Type Transitions
Transitions will occur between the place types identified in Section 3.1. It may be helpful for communities to work together with the PDT to identify the locations of these transitions. Gateway treatments may help drivers acknowledge the transition. Visual cues that alert drivers to the change in context are important. Speed management and traffic calming measures could be used to achieve the speed reduction from high speed to low speed facilities. Speed management is particularly important for Rural Main Street place types, which may include a rapid transition from a high speed to low speed environment. For rural communities, refer to AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 7.2.19 Speed Transitions Entering Rural Towns for more information29 .
29 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, 2018 DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 21 5.0 ROADWAY CROSS SECTION DEVELOPMENT
In Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets, the public right of way is almost always constrained, and designing within constraints necessitates trade-offs. Planners and designers should recognize that every element in a street cross section is an important choice. This section provides flexibility in making those choices to support the design of Complete Streets that serve all users. The underlined standards of this section are reflective of the constrained highway environment.

The project cross section should be developed with consideration of community goals, land use and community destinations, and an understanding of the corridor’s role within the transportation network.

The place types and modal priorities discussed in Section 3 of this guidance should be evaluated for each project segment. Planners and designers should seek and consider community input with regards to users, destinations, and proposed speed in the corridor. Consideration of whether the project can allow for reconstruction and relocation of curbs, or whether the project is limited to resurfacing and restriping, will influence the cross section design. In some cases, an interim design solution can offer near-term improvements, but wherever possible, project designs should support the ultimate goal of the community.

Roadway design and right of way allocation are powerful tools that directly impact safety, equity, climate resiliency, livability, and economic prosperity.

This section provides guidance on best practices for Complete Streets, but it also provides design flexibility in the form of revised standards from the HDM for Complete Streets in Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets. The following sections outline considerations for reducing the width of vehicle traffic lanes and shoulders to provide more comfortable and lower stress facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. This approach is consistent with the Caltrans’ adoption of the Safe System approach.

Repurposing vehicle lane space for bicyclists generally leads to increased perceived safety for bicyclists.

And while increases in the numbers of bicyclists may lead to an increase in the overall number of crashes involving bicyclists, the number of crashes per bicyclist decreases. For pedestrians, increased sidewalk width and buffer space tend to increase comfort and perceived safety. Additionally, reduced pedestrian crossing lengths— particularly if there are fewer lanes to cross, not just narrower lanes—reduces pedestrian exposure to vehicles and decreases crossing time. Greater perceived and objective safety, as measured by a reduction in crashes, can encourage walking, rolling, and bicycling. In contrast, removing traffic lanes may lead to lower motorist volumes 30 . Thus, the guidance and standards discussed in this section can help achieve the goal of developing comfortable, convenient, and connected facilities on the SHS.

This DIB offers a range of considerations for each design element within different contexts. The ability to select from a range of choices is not indicative of nor encouraging a default selection of either the minimum or the maximum. The range of choice allows for the flexibility to thoughtfully integrate these elements into each project given its unique context. After identifying current and potential users of the facility, the priority and needs of the different classes of users may be ranked. Common community destination routes that currently exist or that are proposed in local plans should be identified. Rather than beginning the design by identifying the minimum required dimensions for each cross section element to piece them together, the practitioner should utilize performance-based decision making tools, such as the HSM guidance and methodologies, to compare and select roadway cross section configuration(s). The Project Guidance for Performance-Based Decision-Making Using Highway Safety Manual Memorandum 30 TRB NCHRP Research Report 1036: Roadway Cross Section Reallocation, 2022 DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 22 establishes the guidance for utilizing the HSM guidance and methodologies on projects 31 . The selected roadway configuration(s) should provide a safe environment for all road users while balancing all users’ needs.

5.1 Bicycle Facilities

5.1.1 Bicycle Facility Standards
The four types of bikeway classifications used in California:
(a) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)
(b) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane and Buffered Bike Lane) (c) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route)
(d) Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway)
See Chapter 1000 in the HDM and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Part 9 for definitions and additional guidance on bikeways 32 . Refer to DIB 89 for more information on Class IV bikeways 33 .

Bicycle facility selection is an important step in creating a connected, convenient, and comfortable bicycle network. In a memorandum issued on June 30, 2020, the Division of Design adopted the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (with some textual exclusions) as a resource for supplemental guidance to assist transportation practitioners with making informed decisions about trade-offs relating to the evaluation and selection of bikeway facility types 34 . Below are some of the factors to consider:
• Place type including Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets as discussed in Section 3.1 of this DIB
• Environment including unique climate conditions like snow or heat, topography, landscape • Equity, community desires, and identity
• Physical constraints including right of way width
• Average daily traffic (ADT), speed, and volume of users • Maintenance considerations
• Barriers such as railroads and waterways
Maintaining a comfortable, convenient, and connected bicycle facility is the key goal. Designers should adapt the design of the bicycle facility to match changing site conditions throughout each project segment.

Design flexibility allows for transition between facility types as designers encounter constraints like pinch points, speed transition zones, bus transit stops, popular destinations, and other unique site conditions.

The facility selection process begins by identifying opportunities to provide the most physical separation for bicyclists. Figure 5-A Recommended Bicycle Facilities should be reviewed and evaluated for the speeds and ADT of the existing route. Tables 5.1.1-5.1.4 will aid in understanding the dimension requirements for each type of bicycle facility. Class I and Class IV bikeway facilities are to be the first considerations for the facility to maximize the benefit of horizontal and vertical separation whenever feasible. If constraints do not allow for those facility types, consider Class II buffered bike lanes then 31 Project Guidance for Performance-Based Decision-Making using the Highway Safety Manual Memorandum, 2022
32 HDM Chapter 1000, CA MUTCD Chapter 9 33 DIB 89 Class IV Bikeway Guidance 34 Bikeway Facility Selection Guidance Memorandum, 2020 DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 23 Class II bike lanes in order of priority. The selection of a facility with less vertical or horizontal separation, or the use of a narrower bikeway width, is likely to decrease comfort and functionality, making the bikeway less appealing to some bicyclists. In general, Class III facilities should only be considered for limited distances, as an interim measure, at locations where very low volumes of bicyclists are anticipated, or where the value of providing a constrained facility outweighs the option of providing no facility at all. Once the most appropriate bicycle facility has been identified for each segment of a project, the transitions between any facility changes may be designed. Tables 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 provide the recommended ranges for bicycle traveled ways that should be applied to the respective bikeway classifications. Designers should strive to provide a usable traveled way width within these ranges to the maximum extent feasible. The values within the recommended range will be optimal for most locations. The practical maximum value or range should only be considered when bicyclist volumes are high and there are clear benefits. When space is available for a maximum value, there may be other options for the use of that width, such as additional bike lane buffer space or wider sidewalk.

Widths approaching the minimum values should be considered only for short distances and where the benefit of providing a narrow facility outweighs the alternative of no facility at all.

The minimum bikeway width should be as indicated in the underlined text in Tables 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4.

The following sections provide more details about each bicycle facility type.

Figure 5-A - Recommended Bicycle Facilities for Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 24 5.1.2 Class I Bike Path
Figure 5-B - Class I Bike Path
Table 5.1.1 Standard Bicycle Traveled Way Widths (Class I) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (ft) Preferred (ft) Practical Maximum (ft)
One Way 6-7 7 8
Two Way 10-12 10-12 12-15
On structures between railings and in
tunnels (one or two way) 10-14 10-14 15
At sidewalk level 12-16 12-16 20
Advantages:
• Class I facilities are shared between pedestrians and bicyclists allowing for a single path to meet the needs of both user groups.
• Class I facilities have wide horizontal separation between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists.

They are well suited for corridor segments with higher speeds as the separation offers a higher level of comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Considerations for Use:
• Consider if specific pavement markings and striping are necessary. Refer to the CA MUTCD Section 9C.03 for these requirements.
• Designing for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian accessibility is required. See DIB 82.

In busy areas with a variety of users, a total paved width of 12 to 15 feet plus shoulders is recommended.

One-way bike paths in these settings should have a minimum width of 7 feet.

Consideration should be given to how people with different modes will use the Class I bike path. Space should be provided for people to walk or bicycle two-abreast and for faster users to pass lower speed users. The social aspect of walking, rolling, or biking together can create a comfortable and inviting facility for users. Marking a centerline may discourage side by side use. Unmarked paths also allow for peak volumes of directional traffic that fluctuate throughout the day including routes to and from schools or commute routes. However, striping may be preferred when bicycle and pedestrian volumes are higher or when the paved width is wider. In this case, if the path is wide enough to dedicate separate spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists to prevent conflicts, striping may be considered. Figure 5-C shows a Class I facility with a striping configuration that considers pedestrian use. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 25 Figure 5-C - Class I bikeway along I-5 and San Elijo Lagoon in San Diego County

If the Class I bike path is to be added adjacent to an existing roadway with a nonstandard shoulder width, check with Asset Management if there is a plan for future work to widen the shoulder to standard width.

If there is future work, place the Class I bike path edge of traveled way at least 5 feet from the future edge of shoulder to accommodate future widening. If no future work is identified and the probability is low for nonstandard shoulder improvements, then place the Class I bike path edge of traveled way at least 5 feet from the existing edge of shoulder.

Within the separation, there is an opportunity to include landscaping elements. When selecting plants, consider maintenance and irrigation needs. Consult with the District Maintenance and Landscape Architect for design and maintainability concepts. Class I bike paths also work when an existing drainage ditch is present adjacent to the roadway. The ditch can be left in place or minimally impacted while serving as part of the required separation.

Class I bike paths are pedestrian facilities and ADA access is required. Please review and comply with DIB 82 Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects.

For Roundabout shared use paths see HDM Index 405.10.

The minimum separation between the edge of traveled way of a one-way or a two-way Class I bike path and the edge of traveled way of a parallel road or street should be 5 feet plus roadway standard shoulder width per Section 5.4 of this DIB.

Class I sidewalk level facilities should provide a separation from vehicles as described in guidance for Class IV bikeways at sidewalk level in DIB 89 Section 3.3.

For other geometric design requirements, refer to HDM Index 1003.1 for Class I bike path standards. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 26 Urban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
Class I bike paths may not be a feasible option in urban environments due to constrained space.

Additionally, separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities are generally more desirable in urban settings because of high volumes of users.

Suburban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
Suburban Area place types typically have higher vehicle speeds than Rural Main Streets and Urban Areas.

If pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are low to moderate and space allows, Class I bike paths are an option that can serve both pedestrians and bicyclists and may provide a more comfortable user experience.

Rural Main Street Contextual Guidance and Considerations Class I bike paths should be considered first if the community desires separated facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and the corridor has the physical space for the separation.

Also, when a rural town wants to preserve its natural character, an unmarked Class I bike path may blend in better with the original environment than the alternative bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Class I bike paths may be an appropriate choice for developing Transitional Areas between Undeveloped Areas and Rural Main Streets.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 27 5.1.3 Class II Bike Lanes and Class II Buffered Bike Lanes Figure 5-D - Class II Bike Lane and Class II Buffered Bike Lane Table 5.1.2 One Way Standard Bicycle Lane Widths* (Class II, Class II Buffered) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (ft)** Preferred (ft) Practical Maximum*** (ft)
Adjacent to edge of pavement 5-7 6-7 8
Adjacent to curb 5-7 6-7 8
Between through lanes and turn lanes 5-7 6-7 8
Adjacent to buffers 4-7 5-7 8
Adjacent to parking 5-7 6-7 8
* Exclusive of the gutter.
** At posted speeds greater than 40 miles per hour, the minimum bike lane width should be at least 6 feet.
*** If the available pavement width is 7-feet or wider, consider providing a 5-foot minimum lane width with 2-foot minimum buffer.

When provided, buffers adjacent to Class II bike lanes should be a minimum of 2-foot width, 2 to 4 feet preferred.

Advantages:
• Class II bike lanes can be implemented more easily within the corridor given their narrower required width compared to Class I or Class IV bikeways while providing exclusive use for bicyclists.
• Class II bike lanes without buffers offer the smallest footprint among the different classes of bicycle facilities.
• Where space may be prioritized for sidewalks or where the community has a strong desire to maintain street parking, Class II bike lanes offer the most flexibility given their reduced bikeway lane width requirements.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 28 Considerations for Use:
• Class II bike lanes are recommended for roadways posted 25 mph and under. Class II bike lanes with buffers are recommended for roadways posted 35 mph and under. • Where feasible, painted buffers between the traffic lane and bike lane to maximize separation should be provided.
• For corridors where posted speeds are 40 to 45 mph, Class II and Class II buffered bike lanes are not recommended. However, where a separated facility is not feasible, consider a Class II bike lane with a minimum 4-foot buffer.
• Where Class II bike lanes are located adjacent to on-street parking, a buffer between the bicycle lane and the parking lane should be provided. The width of the door zone buffer may vary from 2 to 4 feet.

If Class I bike paths and Class IV separated bikeways cannot be accommodated due to space, cost, or maintainability, Class II buffered bike lanes or Class II bike lanes may be considered. These bike lanes do not require vertical separation and are comprised of striping and pavement markings only, making them less expensive and potentially easier to maintain. An example of a Class II bike lane is shown in Figure 5- E.

Class II bike lanes, with and without buffers, are desirable in constrained environments. When considering these two bicycle facilities, first consider a Class II buffered bike lane to maximize separation. An example of a buffered Class II bike lane is shown in Figure 5-F. If the buffer cannot be accommodated, consider the Class II bike lane. Because Class II bike lanes with buffer and Class IV separated bikeways have similar footprints, consider designing Class II bike lanes with buffer to accommodate potential future upgrade to a Class IV separated bikeway.

One alternative to consider is placing the bicycle traveled way between the on-street parking and the sidewalk. This configuration turns the Class II bike lane into a Class IV separated bikeway with the parked cars providing the required vertical element. However, site constraints like parking removal to provide sight distances from driveways may make this Class IV separated bikeway option undesirable.

If designing Class II bike lanes between on-street parking and vehicular traffic lanes, additional pavement width may be used to provide buffers on both sides of the bicyclists. If space is not available for a marked buffer next to parked cars, consider adding extra width to the bike lane for the bicyclist to avoid open doors. The CA MUTCD provides options for marking the shy space next to parked cars to mitigate for opening doors.

Where driveways are present, especially at locations of higher traffic volumes like those at commercial shopping centers, consider additional pavement markings in the bike lane to highlight these conflict zones.

Urban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
When right of way is constrained and on-street parking is not provided, or when priority is given to wider pedestrian sidewalks, a Class II bike lane may be the most feasible option.

Suburban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
Vehicle speed is typically higher in suburban area place type locations than other place type locations. If a Class I bike path or Class IV separated bikeway cannot be accommodated, a Class II buffered bike lane offers increased separation. Since space in Suburban Areas is typically not as constrained, provide the widest bike lane width and buffer as is feasible.
© 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 29 Rural Main Street Contextual Guidance and Considerations In lower speed Rural Main Street place types, Class II buffered bike lanes and Class II bike lanes may be the most feasible dedicated bicycle facility.

Class II buffered bike lanes are an alternative to Class I bike paths for Transitional Areas between Undeveloped Areas and Rural Main Streets where posted speeds do not exceed 40 mph.

Figure 5-E – Class II bike lane on SR-16 in Esparto
Figure 5-F – Buffered Class II bike lane on SR-135 in Los Alamos.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 30 5.1.4 Class III Bike Route
Figure 5-G - Class III Bike Route (Shared Lanes and Shared Shoulders) Advantages:
• For Rural Main Streets, Suburban Area, and Urban Area place types, the main purpose of shared lane Class III bike routes is to bridge a short gap between Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeways for the sake of network connectivity. For Rural Areas not covered by the standards in this DIB, a shared shoulder Class III bike route would typically be a highway shoulder designated and signed for the shared use of motor vehicles and bicyclists. Class III bike routes that are designated shared sidewalks that cannot be constructed as Class I or Class IV bikeways should only be used when there is no feasibility of obtaining the necessary right of way width to construct dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Considerations for Use:
• Class III bike routes are not considered a dedicated bicycle facility for the purposes of applying this DIB design standards to a project.
• Class III bike route linear footage does not count towards performance targets for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the SHSMP.
• Class III bike routes do not offer exclusive use for bicyclists. When bicyclists are required to share a lane with motor vehicles, their comfort and perceived safety will vary widely based on traffic speed and volume. Therefore, shared lanes should only be used in very low speed and volume locations and should be a last resort when there are no other viable alternatives for redistributing space within the cross section.
• Review Figure 5-A for speed and ADT considerations before determining if Class III shared lanes are an appropriate alternative if they are required to provide route connectivity. • If it is more appropriate for bicyclists to share the sidewalk with pedestrians than to share the lane with motor vehicles, ample signage should be provided to help pedestrians be aware that bicyclists are allowed. Under this condition, evaluate if the sidewalk is wide enough for both pedestrians and bicyclists to comfortably navigate around each other. Within many local agency jurisdictions, bicyclists may legally operate on a sidewalk with pedestrians, and the facility is not necessarily designated as a Class III bike route.
• Unlike Class I, Class II, and Class IV bikeways, the Class III bike route is not a dedicated facility for bicyclists. However, a Class III bike route provides the signage and pavement marking with the goal of bringing extra awareness to drivers that bicyclists are present and sharing the roadway.

An example of a Class III bike route in a low speed environment is shown in Figure 5-H.

Refer to HDM Index 1002.1(4) and Index 1003.3 for more details. Also refer to the CA MUTCD Part 9.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 31 Figure 5-H - Class III bike route on SR-29 in Calistoga

Urban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
A Class III bike route shared shoulder space will likely not be an option because a Class II bike lane would be the minimum solution for providing a bicycle facility. Sharing the lane or sidewalk would be the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives for redistributing space within the cross section.

Suburban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
Generally, a suburban environment would have the space required to put in a minimum Class II bike lane.

However, for short gaps along the corridor where the right of way is extremely restrictive and shoulder space may be prioritized for other uses such as on-street parking or bus transit facilities, then a Class III bike route shared lane may be considered.

Rural Main Street Contextual Guidance and Considerations Class III bike routes are one potential solution to pinch points and gaps between other classes of bicycle facilities where the other facilities will not fit on Rural Main Streets.

In Undeveloped and Transitional Areas that connect to Rural Main Streets, Class III bike routes as shoulders shared with motorists may be considered for the low volume of bicyclists if no other bicycle facility options are feasible. When deciding to designate shared shoulder usage, the width and condition of the shoulder must be evaluated. If standard shoulder widths are provided and the pavement is in good condition sharing the shoulder may be an acceptable option because it will provide the bicyclist with a space that vehicles are not expected to normally travel on. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 32 5.1.5 Class IV Separated Bikeway
Figure 5-I - Class IV Separated Bikeway
Table 5.1.3 One-Way Standard Bicycle Traveled Way Widths* (Class IV) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (ft) Preferred (ft) Practical Maximum (ft)
Between curbs if a raised island is the
separation
6-9 7-9 10
Between curb and buffer 5-8 6-8 9**
Between curb and parking buffer 5-8 6-8 9**
Between edge of pavement and
buffer, curb, or parking buffer
4-7 5-7 8**
Between through traffic lane and right
turn lane
4-7 5-7 8
* Exclusive of the gutter.
** If additional pavement width is available, consider wider traveled way for high bicycle volumes (above 400 peak hour), or wider buffer or parking separation width for average bicycle volumes (below 400 peak hour).

Note: For horizontal buffer and vertical separation guidance, refer to DIB 89.

Table 5.1.4 Two-Way Standard Bicycle Traveled Way Widths* (Class IV) Bicycle Facility Placement Minimum (ft) Preferred (ft) Practical Maximum (ft)
Between curbs 10-14 12-14 16
Between curb and buffer 9-12 10-12 14**
Between curb and parking buffer 9-14 10-14 16**
Between edge of pavement and
buffer, curb, or parking buffer
8-11 9-11 14**
* Exclusive of the gutter.
** If additional pavement width is available, consider a wider traveled way for high bicycle volumes (above 400 peak hour), or wider buffer or parking separation width for average bicycle volumes (below 400 peak hour).

Note: For horizontal buffer and vertical separation guidance, refer to DIB 89. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 33 Advantages:
• Class IV separated bikeway is suitable for all place types. • Class IV separated bikeway is the only class of bicycle facility that requires an element of defined vertical separation between bicyclists and vehicles. They are well suited for corridor segments with higher speeds as the vertical separation offers a higher level of comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Consideration for Use:
• Class IV separated bikeway is most appropriate for higher speed and/or higher traffic volume environments.
• A wide range of vertical elements can be selected for the buffered area allowing for customization and contribution to a sense of place.
• Provide a continuous detectable element or vertical separation between bikeway and pedestrian through zone.

Class IV separated bikeways can provide comfortable facilities for all users because of the enhanced separation with a vertical element. Some vertical elements may function as a barrier between the bicyclists and the vehicles, such as the landscape area shown in Figure 5-J, or the sidewalk and buffer shown in Figure 5-K. Other vertical elements, such as the delineators shown in Figure 5-L and the plastic “armadillos” shown in Figure 5-M, serve to bring additional awareness to drivers of the adjacent bikeway.

Depending on the project’s context, choosing the appropriate vertical element may require community and maintenance input. Selection of the type of vertical element should be evaluated based on its effectiveness in providing visibility and durability while considering reasonable maintenance needs.

Parking separation, as shown in Figure 5-N, may not require the installation of additional vertical elements. Additionally, community involvement should be engaged regarding the visual impact certain types of vertical elements will bring to the landscape. Vertical elements can enhance the visual environment. The District Maintenance Engineer and Landscape Architect should be contacted for support in the design and maintainability of these features. Additionally, green streets elements should be reviewed in Section 8 for consideration as the vertical element.

For more information, refer to DIB 89 and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.

Urban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
Urban environments generally have lower vehicle speeds yet much higher traffic volumes which makes selecting a Class IV separated bikeway very desirable. On-street parking is commonly allowed in Urban Area place types. In these locations, the parking lane may be used as the vertical separator between the traffic lane and bikeway. Selecting vertical elements with more separation will provide a higher level of perceived safety and comfort thereby encouraging bicyclists of all competencies to utilize the bikeway. If a particular Urban Area already has or is expected to have high volumes of pedestrians and/or commuters, providing this type of Class IV separated bikeway may potentially help relieve congested pedestrian traffic.

Suburban Area Contextual Guidance and Considerations
For segments that are longer, uninterrupted by driveways, and do not allow on-street parking, consider selecting vertical elements that provide more visibility to drivers and are more permanent. Also, various combinations of different elements may be explored. When approaching driveways, either the Class IV separated bikeway may be transitioned to a buffered facility without vertical elements or vertical elements that provide sight distances for drivers can be utilized. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 34 Rural Main Street Contextual Guidance and Considerations For speeds of 35 mph or below and lower traffic volumes, consider flexible vertical delineators or curbs.

For sections of similar or higher speeds with higher traffic volumes or truck volumes, consider vertical elements that are taller and more durable.

Figure 5-J – Landscape separates the Class IV separated bikeway from the roadway adjacent to US-101 in Carpinteria
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 35 Figure 5-K – A raised Class IV separated bikeway connects to an overcrossing over US101 in Belmont Figure 5-L - Delineators provide vertical separation on a suburban segment of SR-126 in Fillmore
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 36 Figure 5-M – Plastic “armadillos” and planters were piloted on SR-150 in Ojai Figure 5-N – Parking-separated Class IV separated bikeway on SR-41 in Atascadero DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 37 5.2 Pedestrian Facilities
On the SHS, sidewalks and walkways are designed for the exclusive use of pedestrians. While pedestrians may be permitted access to highway shoulders, these are not required to be designed to meet accessibility standards. Additionally, although many local jurisdictions permit bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk, it would not be considered a bikeway unless designated as such in a bicycle master plan. This section will focus on design considerations for sidewalks in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Street place types. For design and planning purposes, sidewalks may be divided into three general zones, as depicted in Figure 5-O:

1. The buffer zone, described in some guides as the landscape zone or the furnishing zone, provides a buffer between pedestrians and the vehicle traffic on the roadway. It is adjacent to the back of curb and is where utility poles, street lighting, street trees, landscape plantings, and fixed furnishings are typically located. Provision of a wide buffer generally enhances the pedestrian experience and improves perceived safety and livability. Horizontal clearance to all roadside objects should be based on engineering judgement. Refer to HDM Topic 309.

2. The pedestrian through zone, throughway, or pedestrian zone is located behind the buffer zone.

This includes the clear width or path of travel required for ADA access, but generally exceeds those minimum requirements. Objects such as utility poles, light posts, and trees should not obstruct the pedestrian through zone. Refer to DIB 82 for pedestrian accessibility guidelines on the SHS.

3. The frontage zone is between the pedestrian through zone and building facades. This area provides space for people to step out of the way, unload deliveries, accommodate fixed furnishings, and operate windows and doors.

Figure 5-O - Sidewalk Zones
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 38 While these zones may not be clearly demarcated, and in fact in some cases concrete pavement runs continuously from back of curb to face of building, these zones are conceptually useful to plan for a pedestrian facility that meets all users’ needs. An example of a sidewalk exhibiting these three zones is shown in Figure 5-P.

Figure 5-P – Sidewalk buffer, pedestrian through zone, and frontage zone on SR-116 in Sebastopol

The types of uses expected on sidewalks will also vary across place types. Considerations for establishing appropriate sidewalk widths are discussed below.

In Urban Areas, sidewalk space must accommodate a wide variety of users and activities. In older cities these areas can be very constrained.

In Suburban Areas, sidewalks provide critical connectivity for people of all ages and abilities. Suburban Areas vary greatly and may include important commercial or community destinations, as well as residential areas with a lower density of users.

Rural Areas may include Undeveloped Areas, Transitional Areas, and Rural Main Streets (Rural Towns).

Rural Main Streets often consist of denser downtown areas combining retail, commercial, and residential uses, and draw visitors from surrounding areas. Corridors in Transitional Areas serve to connect the surrounding residents with their town center and should carefully consider accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists. Where higher truck volumes are likely, buffer space between pedestrians/bicyclists and the roadway is important to user comfort. Where separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities and roadway buffers are not feasible in Transitional Areas, Class I bikeways or multi use paths may provide a comfortable facility. Refer to Section 5.1.2 of this guidance for recommended Class I bikeway widths. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 39 Sidewalks should be a minimum total width of 8 to 25 feet for the buffer zone, pedestrian through zone, and frontage zone.

The preferred widths for each zone by place type are shown in Table 5.2.1.

Table 5.2.1 Suggested Sidewalk Zone Widths by Place Type Place Type Buffer Zone (ft) Through Zone (ft) Frontage Zone (ft) Urban Area – City Center 4-8 6-12 2-4
Urban Area – Urban Community 4-8 6-12 2-4
Suburban Area 2-7 5-8 0-5
Rural Main Street 2-7 5-8 2-5

5.2.1 Buffer, Planting or Furnishing Zone Considerations for Sidewalks Buffer zones may be paved or unpaved, and provide space for utilities, amenities, and plantings.

Landscaping and street trees should be considered in buffer zones, as they contribute to local identity, street character, and provide shade and cooling on corridors where distances between destinations are longer. Along moderate to high speed suburban roadways, buffer zones are particularly important for pedestrian comfort. Inclusion of street trees and/or amenities at bus transit stops would need a wider buffer zone of 6 to 7 feet. In constrained areas with high vehicle volumes and low anticipated pedestrian use, a wider landscaped buffer and narrower paved pedestrian through zone may provide the highest level of comfort.

The following uses and dimensions for buffer space should be considered:
• To accommodate the utilities and signage typical for many Complete Streets projects, a minimum buffer space of 2 feet from the back of curb is typical. • Streetscape planting:
o Street trees typically require a buffer width of 6 to 8 feet. o Planters providing stormwater treatment typically require 3 to 6 feet of width. o Unpaved buffers of less than 3 feet are difficult to maintain and not recommended. • Paved buffer areas can be used to provide furnishings such as benches, bike parking, and bus transit shelters.
o Paved buffer zones may utilize various colors, textures, or paving materials to enhance aesthetics and a sense of separation from the roadway.
o Benches placed parallel to the street typically require 4 to 6 feet of buffer space. o Bike parking (bike racks) will typically require a 5 to 6 feet buffer where bicycles are to be parked parallel to the curb. When parked perpendicular to the curb, such as at bike share stations, a wider 7 to 8 feet buffer is typically appropriate. o A buffer that is 10 feet wide can accommodate a 4-foot-wide bus shelter placed 6 feet from the curb. Shelters are ideally located in the buffer area, such that a minimum of 5 feet of clear buffer space in front of the shelter and 5 feet of pedestrian through zone behind the shelter are available.
• Buffer space may be used to span grade change, especially at curb ramps and driveways. o Curb ramps will typically require a running slope of 7 feet.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 40 o For pedestrians, the preferred design is to manage grade transitions and driveway ramps in the buffer zone.
• Buffer space may be utilized for a separated bikeway on the sidewalk, or at the transition between the roadway and the sidewalk, per DIB 89.
• Where on-street parking is permitted adjacent to the curb, there should be 3 feet of clear width between objects (furnishings, utility poles, etc.) and the face of curb, to allow access to vehicles. • Where on-street parking is available adjacent to a landscaped buffer, 1.5 to 2 feet of pavement adjacent to the curb and regular access points across planting areas should be provided.

5.2.2 Pedestrian Through Zone Considerations for Sidewalks The pedestrian through zone, or the pedestrian zone, provides a continuous accessible pathway clear of fixed objects parallel to the street, and serves the number and variety of pedestrians expected in the corridor. This includes consideration of fluctuating pedestrian volumes in the vicinity of transit, schools, businesses, and entertainment venues. The pedestrian through zone also allows for various users, including those using wheelchairs, strollers, or other mobility devices to comfortably pass one another.

The following uses and dimensions for the pedestrian through zone should be considered:
• In downtown or commercial Urban Areas, the recommended width of the pedestrian through zone is 8 to 12 feet. At point locations, and to accommodate other amenities such as street trees, bike parking, or transit shelters, it may be necessary to reduce the pedestrian through zone to 6 feet in width.
• In Urban Areas which are primarily residential, a continuous clear width of 6 to 8 feet is preferred, which may be reduced to 5 feet at point locations. • In primarily residential Suburban Areas, where the volume of users is anticipated to be low, a 5- to 6-foot pedestrian through zone may be appropriate.
• Note that on State highways with designated Safe Routes to School and at key locations where high volumes of users are anticipated (such as at tourist destinations) a 10-foot pedestrian through zone may be considered. This wider pedestrian through zone may also be considered in areas where bicyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk, especially if children traveling by bicycle may be anticipated.

5.2.3 Frontage Zone Considerations for Sidewalks
The frontage zone describes the portion of the sidewalk between the pedestrian through zone and the building façade or right of way line. In Urban Areas, the frontage zone may function as an extension of the building, providing space for people to step out of the flow of other pedestrians, to unload deliveries, set out displays, or it may be used for outdoor dining. In Suburban Areas with off-street parking, the frontage zone may be less congested and may provide space for maintenance activities.

In Urban Areas, a frontage zone of 2 to 4 feet in front of a building is generally appropriate, but various site-specific considerations may apply:
• In segments with a high proportion of retail and dining, or where doors open outwards, a 5- to 6- foot frontage zone is recommended.
• In other downtown areas, a 4-foot width is typical.
• In urban residential areas or areas with lower foot traffic, 2 to 4 feet may be appropriate. • If little pedestrian interaction is expected with the building façade, 2 feet of width should be provided.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 41 • A shy distance of 2 feet between the pedestrian through way and fixed objects or façade elements should be provided.

In Suburban Areas a frontage zone of 2 feet is generally preferred, however, site analysis may indicate areas of high activity where 5 feet of frontage width is appropriate. Where the space adjacent to the sidewalk is expected to remain undeveloped, a 0-foot frontage zone can be considered, however 2 feet of shy distance between the pedestrian through zone and fixed objects should be provided.

In Rural Main Street areas, a frontage zone of 2 to 4 feet is generally appropriate, but various site-specific considerations may apply. See the discussion of the frontage zone in Urban Areas, above, for more detailed recommendations.

5.3 Lane Width
The decision-making process involved with designing a cross section begins with considering if the existing curb location can be moved or the edge of pavement can be widened. This level of extensive construction could have significant right of way, utility and environmental impacts and costs. Often, pavement rehabilitation projects may be constructed more quickly and inexpensively if using the existing curb location and roadway width. In that case, the existing roadway width should be evaluated and possibly reconfigured to free up the space needed to provide facilities that meet the needs of all users such as bike lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, landscaping, and other Complete Streets elements.

Reducing existing traffic lane widths, or perhaps narrowing or eliminating a painted median, can be a low-cost method for obtaining additional roadway space to provide for the inclusion of these features. The practice of exercising design flexibility in decision-making is the process of evaluating multimodal accommodations and then using engineering judgement in determining the most appropriate design within those considerations. The guidance and design standards contained in this DIB are intended to assist the engineer and planner to evaluate the possible reallocation of available roadway cross section to provide the necessary space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the selected project locations. For more detailed assistance in selecting lane widths, Table 5.3 was developed based on Exhibit 4.8 of the TRB NCHRP Research Report 880 35. Modifications to the original exhibit were made to accommodate the California Vehicle Code (CVC) requirement discussed in the following paragraph, typical existing roadway environments in California, and other interrelated roadway standards stated in the HDM.

Caltrans is required to follow the CVC which prescribes vehicle width requirements. CVC Section 35100(a) states that the legal width of any vehicle or its load shall not exceed 8.5 feet (102 inches). This width generally accommodates trucks, recreational vehicles, buses, trailers for boats, etc. without the need for an extra-wide transportation permit. Additionally, the CVC Section 35109 specifies that lights, mirrors, or devices may extend up to 10 inches on each side of the vehicle. As such, a minimum lane width of 10.5 feet is required to serve the maximum vehicle width of 122 inches (approximately 10.2 feet) on State facilities. Other considerations include the need for pavement widening as explained in HDM Index 206.2(3) and the need to reduce cross section elements in HDM Index 301.2(3).

Design decisions are to be documented as explained in Section 2.3. Table 5.3 and the considerations as outlined below may be used to help determine the cross section for Complete Streets projects. 35 TRB NCHRP Research Report 880: Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways, 2018.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 42 Table 5.3 Suggested Minimum Lane Widths by Place Type and Proposed Operating Speed
Place Type
Lane
Type
Suggested Minimum Lane Widths by
Proposed Operating Speed
20 mph
25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph
Urban Area –
City Center
Through 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft L/R Turn 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft TWLTL 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft Urban Area –
Urban
Community
Through 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft L/R Turn 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft TWLTL 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft Suburban Area
Through 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft L/R Turn 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft TWLTL 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft 11-12 ft Rural Main Street
Through 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft L/R Turn 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5-11 ft 11-12 ft 11-12 ft TWLTL 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft 10.5-11 ft 10.5 ft 10.5 ft Note: Cells shaded in gray are outside the range of proposed operating speeds recommended in Table 4.1.

Considerations to determine lane widths with Table 5.3:

1. Given a project’s place type and available space, evaluate the benefits and limitations of the range of lane widths with respect to all road users of the corridor.

2. In Suburban Area or Rural Main Street place types, the District Truck Access Manager (or District Truck Coordinator) should be consulted to determine if expected truck vehicle activity justifies a wider lane width to accommodate truck turning movements at intersections. When existing lane widths will be reduced coordinate with the District Truck Access Manager to update pilot car maps.

3. On roadways with transit-only lanes or with high volumes of larger design vehicles (e.g., STAA, CA Legal, or 45-Foot Bus and Motorhome), minimum right-hand, transit-only, or left turn lane widths should be 11 feet. See HDM Index 404.4.

4. Take into consideration the adjacent local road geometry to provide consistency while crossing through the State highway right of way, particularly at local road intersections and interchanges.

5. Evaluate the benefits provided by including space for landscaping, wider pedestrian and bicycling facilities, and reducing crossing exposure for people walking, biking, or rolling.

The minimum through, left-turn, and right-turn lane widths should be 10.5 to 12 feet, except this lane width standard does not apply to crossroads (local road or State highway) at interchange locations in the State highway right of way.

A lane width less than 10.5 feet may be used with appropriate documentation of design standard decision document for noncompliance. Engineering judgement may determine that this will operate adequately for
© 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 43 a right-turn lane, or through lane in tangent alignment with a shoulder, and with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane. Additionally, the design vehicle will have a direct impact on the design choice. For example, routes that have vehicles pulling trailers (boats, travel trailers, fifth-wheels, stock trailers, etc.), recreation vehicles, buses, or other vehicles at the legal maximum width will be a consideration for not designing a lane width less than 10.5 feet.

The presence of larger vehicles is a factor to consider. High truck activity may indicate the need to consider lanes widths closer to the upper limit of the recommended range. If more than one lane is proposed in each direction, evaluate the lane width requirements with respect to each other. For example, if there are two lanes in one direction, the left-hand (inside) lane may be suitable for 10.5-foot width while the right-hand (outside) lane, more commonly used by trucks, could be designed at 11 or 12 feet wide. This also allows vehicles in the right-hand (outside) lane to shy away from bicyclists or parked cars that may be adjacent to the right-hand lane.

Sometimes a median will be present to the left of the left-hand (inside) traffic lane. If this is the case, drivers will feel comfortable operating toward the left side of the lane where another user is near the right side of the vehicle. When making lane width choices, the inside lane may be narrower to sustain a reasonable level of comfort to pedestrians and bicyclists. Conversely, drivers in the right-hand (outside) lane may have vehicles to their left and possibly bicyclists and/or pedestrians to their right.

The most common scenario within the Rural Main Street place type is that the SHS corridor functions as a main street for the town. A selection toward the higher end of this range may be appropriate for a particular segment if space allows or if there is very little presence of other multimodal modes and vehicles are the predominant mode. The segment at the edge of town where the corridor transitions from an Undeveloped Area to a Transitional Area or Rural Main Street place type is a good candidate for lane widths at the higher end of the range. Lane widths may then be narrowed to the lower end of this range as other modal facilities take priority with the increased presence of pedestrians and bicyclists, or bus transit stops.

In some instances, Rural Main Streets and Suburban Area place types may be suitable candidates for implementing road diets. A road diet is a reconfiguration where the number of existing traffic lanes are reduced to provide space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A typical road diet consists of converting four lanes to three lanes – two traffic lanes, one for each direction, and one two-way left-turn lane. Road diets can also benefit from narrower lane widths. In addition to gaining space from the reallocated traffic lane, if the remaining lanes are also concurrently narrowed, the new cross section may allow for the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities or enhancing those that exist. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 44 5.4 Shoulder Width
The highway shoulder serves many purposes. For example, it allows additional maneuvering room for motorists and provides emergency parking for immobilized vehicles. This benefit is especially necessary on higher speed, higher volume highways and freeways. In lower speed (45 mph and lower) Urban, Suburban, and Rural Main Street place types, standard shoulders may be a factor that contributes to higher vehicle speeds. Where excessive speeds are a concern, refer to the Traffic Calming Guide. The AASHTO Green Book allows for the provision of shoulders on a discretionary basis when roadway space is utilized for bike lanes, sidewalks, transit lanes, and designated on-street parking.

The considerations for shoulders in these environments are different than for a high speed facility where there may be competing needs for the available cross section right of way. Examples where shoulders may be considered in lower speed Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Street place types include:
• In a main street setting, the curb, gutter, and shoulder space may be designed only to accommodate necessary drainage flows.
• The provision of on-street parking is considered shoulder width per the HDM. On-Street parking can also operate as a vertical separation for a Class IV separated bikeway when parking is allowed all times of the day.
• In residential areas, shoulder space may need to be provided for temporary use by trash receptacles, leaf piles awaiting pick-up, snow removal storage, etc. • For projects on evacuation routes, shoulder space may be needed to provide additional room for law enforcement vehicles and related activities. It may also be used as an additional evacuation lane, access lane for emergency vehicles, or space for broken down vehicles to be moved out of the traffic lane(s).

Engineering judgement and design flexibility are to be exercised when determining the need for a shoulder in the Complete Streets environment and the decision to provide a shoulder should be evaluated against other cross section needs to serve place type context.

For right shoulders: The minimum continuous usable paved shoulder width should be 4 feet. In situations where a sidewalk, Class I or Class IV bikeway is provided, the shoulder width of 0 to 4 feet is allowable except the minimum width should be 4 feet at an interchange crossroad (local road or State highway) or adjacent to a barrier or railing.

There are situations where the 4-foot minimum shoulder width standards will be satisfied, although exceeded. These situations are, but not limited to, the following:
i) Where there is a Class II bike lane facility since the bike lane is considered part of the shoulder. ii) Where a wider shoulder is necessary to accommodate gutter or drainage inlets that are present and to accommodate water spread. See HDM Chapter 830 – Transportation Facility Drainage. iii) Where the project is on an evacuation route and additional shoulder width is needed to serve evacuating traffic or emergency operations. See DIB 93 “Evacuation Route Design Guidance.” iv) Where there is on-street parking, since on-street parking is considered part of the shoulder.

See the CA MUTCD Section 3B.19 for parking width guidance. v) Where the shoulder is used by transit vehicles.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 45 Evaluate the potential benefits of repurposing shoulder space to provide or enhance cross section elements that positively impact the community such as providing space for landscaping, wider pedestrian and bicycling facilities, and the benefits of reducing crossing distance for people walking, biking, rolling, or accessing transit. Unique community uses for shoulder area may also be considered in a context sensitive design, as illustrated in Figure 5-Q, where shoulder and vehicle turnout area are used. NCHRP Research Report 1036: Roadway Cross Section Reallocation provides additional guidance for considering how to prioritize and allocate roadway space by considering important aspects, including but not limited to comfort, accessibility, and other community goals that are unique to the context 36 .

Overall shoulder width needs to be balanced with all other cross section elements and drainage needs.

Figure 5-Q – A community use of shoulder area on SR-1 in Gualala 36 TRB NCHRP Research Report 1036: Roadway Cross Section Reallocation (2022) DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 46 6.0 CROSSWALKS AND ENHANCED CROSSWALKS
Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths for pedestrians to cross the street and to help alert road users of designated pedestrian crossing points. Crosswalks come in various forms: unmarked crosswalks, marked crosswalks, marked mid-block crosswalks, etc. For the purposes of this DIB, the term “crosswalk” refers to crosswalks marked with two transverse white or yellow (in school areas per CVC 21368) pavement marking lines across a roadway that identify a pedestrian crossing per CA MUTCD Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings. “Enhancements” or “enhanced crosswalks” refer to any features supporting crosswalks beyond the two white or yellow pavement marking lines which may include high visibility crosswalk markings. Note that crosswalks may be unmarked at intersections where sidewalk connects to the intersection and pedestrians may cross at unmarked locations using due care per the CVC. This DIB encourages increased visibility of crosswalks to increase driver awareness at crossing locations. See HDM Index 62.4(5) and HDM Index 105.6 for guidance on designing pedestrian crossing facilities at crosswalks.

There are many tools available to support this goal and they can be combined to enhance crosswalks with additional safety and comfort features depending on the site conditions. Crosswalks should be considered where Class I bikeways cross the roadway, since the Class I bikeway is for pedestrians and bicycles.

When identifying potential crosswalk users, keep in mind individuals who may have more limited mobility, such as children and seniors. A lack of existing pedestrian crossings at a particular location within the project should not imply a lack of pedestrian crossing demand. Community engagement can help determine if there are pedestrians in the community who would be using a crosswalk if a crosswalk or enhanced crosswalk were provided. The Caltrans Active Transportation (CAT) plans and District planners can also help identify new or enhanced crosswalk locations. The PDT may also consult law enforcement agencies, local agencies, local communities including senior and school communities, and transit agencies and take into consideration their recommendations. Comfortable, convenient, and connected facilities can encourage and empower travelers to take trips on foot or provide more inviting crossings for bicyclists. Providing passage for travelers on foot can connect larger multimodal networks both along State highways and across State highways to adjacent community networks including access to transit and other multimodal opportunities.

Please refer to the HDM Index 105.6 Pedestrian Crossings, CVC Section 275, and CA MUTCD Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings for guidance and requirements. See also Caltrans 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures website and the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossings Locations for additional guidance for crosswalk enhancements 37 . 37 Caltrans 28 Proven Safety Countermeasures website, FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, 2018
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 47 6.1 Where to Consider Crosswalks
Crosswalks and enhanced crosswalks should be considered at the locations below where feasible and supported by engineering judgment or an engineering study. The study should consider the number of lanes, the presence or absence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the vehicular ADT, the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed, the geometry of the location, sight distance, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors (see CA MUTCD Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings). Check with the District Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic Safety Engineer to verify that the locations for proposed crosswalks or enhanced crosswalks are not already in the Safety Monitoring Program. Potential locations to consider new or enhanced crosswalks include:
• At locations with a roundabout, or traffic signal where engineering judgement indicates crosswalks are needed to delineate pedestrian paths through these intersections 38 . o See HDM Index 405.10 for guidance related to crosswalks at roundabouts. • At non-signalized locations where feasible and supported by engineering judgment that have:
o On or off-ramps that have ADA curb ramps and sidewalks. o Bus transit stops: Consider providing a crosswalk or enhanced crosswalk within 50 to 200 feet of a bus transit stop. Preferred placement is behind, or upstream, of the bus transit stop to avoid conflict between pedestrians and transit buses and allow the transit buses to merge with traffic more easily.
o Community destination(s): Consider providing a crosswalk or enhanced crosswalk within 50 to 200 feet of a community destination where feasible. Examples of community destinations may include shopping areas, dining areas, schools, hospitals, senior centers, places of worship (as shown in Figure 6-A), sports facilities, public parks, beachfront or nature areas, and playgrounds.
o In Urban Areas consider providing crosswalks or enhanced crosswalks approximately every 250 to 500 feet at intersections that fall between these limits, and/or midblock on long blocks.
o In Suburban Areas and Rural Main Streets, consider providing crosswalks or enhanced crosswalks every 500 feet where feasible.
• At crossing gaps or needs identified in the District’s CAT plans. • At crossing gaps or needs identified in the future District Roadway Safety Infrastructure Plans. • At crossing gaps or needs identified in local planning documents. • At crossing gaps or needs identified by community engagement. • At locations where bicyclists or pedestrians are present or projected to be present once pedestrian and bike facilities are constructed.

6.2 Approvals
The District Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic Safety Engineer provides approval of crosswalk markings or enhancements.
38 Refer to (upcoming) Caltrans Intersection Safety and Operations Assessment Process (ISOAP) policy (formerly known as Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)).

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 48 Figure 6-A – Enhanced crosswalks serving a community destination on I-5 Business/ SR-36 in Red Bluff

6.3 Additional Resources
Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM)
Caltrans Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Caltrans Traffic Calming Guidance Memorandum
FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, 2018 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 49 7.0 BUS TRANSIT
Integration of bus transit within Complete Streets projects supports the efficient movement of people within a limited right of way. Additional forms of transit (e.g., streetcars, light rail, etc.) also support Complete Streets and the efficient movement of people but are not addressed in this DIB. Caltrans does not develop or operate bus transit systems, but where these systems exist, the designer should collaborate with the district transit coordinator and local transit agencies regarding placement of transit loading facilities (bus stops) that meet all users’ needs. Consulting with transit operators early and often can help support designs that include information only the transit operator can provide such as the length of buses that serve the stop, the number of buses anticipated to use the stop concurrently, existing operational challenges, future service plans, and bus turning templates. This section highlights current practices for the design of bus stops in a multimodal Complete Streets environment. For additional design guidance, see the resources listed at the end of this section.

7.1 Network Connectivity
Every bus trip begins and ends either on foot or by bicycle, thus it is important that bicyclists and pedestrians have convenient access to bus stops. Routes designed to help people access public transportation are commonly referred to as first-mile/last-mile connections. Many of these connections will be made on local streets, but it is important that the State highway also provides connectivity.

Planning for first- and last-mile connections should consider:
• Accessible sidewalks
• Marked or enhanced pedestrian crossings
• Comfortable bicycle facilities 39
• Short- and long-term bicycle parking
• Access to other modes, such as bike or scooter share, parking, or rideshare

7.2 Bus Stop Configuration
Bus stop configurations are shaped by the operational requirements of the transit vehicles using them and must be developed in conjunction with the transit operator. Bus stops may be in-lane or may allow a bus to maneuver out of the traffic lane for passenger boarding. While stopping in the traffic lane may impact traffic operations, the AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets notes that, “There are situations where preferential treatment for transit (dedicated lanes, stations, and priority at traffic signals) may be desirable. In those cases, the benefits to transit riders should be balanced with the effects on road traffic. The goal is to minimize overall person delay. The provision of bus transit recognizes that a single bus can carry as many commuters as 40 or 50 personal vehicles and that urban transportation systems should focus on the efficient movement of people and goods, not merely vehicles” 40 . These considerations are particularly relevant to the Complete Streets contexts addressed in this DIB.
39 The Federal Transit Administration considers bike facilities within three miles of a public transportation stop eligible for funding due to their “de facto functional relationship.” 40 AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, 2014, Section 5.1.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 50 7.2.1 Busbulbs and Busbays
Busbulbs, or curb extensions, as discussed in HDM Index 303.4 and shown in Figure 7-A, may be useful in Urban Areas with frequent bus service, relatively low traffic volumes, low speeds (usually under 40 mph), and where parking is permitted at all times.

According to AASHTO, “Bus bulbs and curb extensions provide additional space for waiting, boarding, and alighting passengers. They better segregate waiting bus passengers from pedestrians walking or rolling along sidewalks, reduce street crossing distances for pedestrians, and provide space for amenities such as shelters and bus benches. They eliminate lateral movement of buses to enter and leave stops, and they eliminate possible delays for buses re-entering a traffic lane. They also can result in more on-street parking than would exist with a conventional bus stop that requires additional space for bus transitions” 41 . Busbays, as discussed in HDM Index 303.4, create a space for buses to pull out of the traffic flow to load and unload passengers. Busbays may be created with an indentation in the curb, as shown in Figure 7-B, or by restricting on-street parking. Busbays are used mainly on suburban roads with speeds greater than 40 mph.

Figure 7-A – Example of a busbulb in Oakland
41 AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, 2014, Section 5.2.

7.3 Reducing Conflicts with Bicyclists
Where both buses and bikeways are present in the same corridor, consideration should be given to minimizing conflicts between buses, bicyclists, and pedestrian passengers. As bus stops and bikeways are both frequently located adjacent to the curb, this is the most common conflict point. There are numerous ways to configure stops, and the designer should employ engineering judgment based upon site analysis to develop an appropriate design. In general, preference should first be given to a design that provides separate spaces for bicyclists to move within their travel way, for buses to stop, and for pedestrians to wait and board bus vehicles. The next-preferred design option would provide a lower degree of separation, integrating pedestrians and bicyclists through the boarding area. The third preference would be to provide a space shared by bicyclists and buses. Examples of each of these configurations are discussed below. It is important to note that these examples do not represent design standards, but rather offer inspiration to the designer to develop a solution appropriate to the project context.

7.3.1 Bus Stop Designs Featuring Separated Spaces
Island platforms, also termed side-boarding islands or floating islands, provide separate spaces for buses to stop (within or outside their traffic lane), for passenger waiting, boarding, and alighting, and for bicyclists to move through a separated bikeway. The bikeway surface may be at roadway level, raised to sidewalk level, or at an intermediate elevation. Design considerations for island platforms are discussed in DIB 89 and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide 42 . Examples of these bus stop designs built by various other agencies are provided as inspiration in the figures below. 42 DIB 89 Class IV Bikeway Guidance, FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2018, Section 5, Figures 16 and 17.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 52 Figure 7-C - A Bus boarding island from the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
Figure 7-D - Bus boarding island in San Francisco
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 53 Figure 7-E - Bus boarding island in Oakland
Figure 7-F – Bus boarding island integrated with parking separation in Berkeley DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 54 7.3.2 Bus Stop Designs Featuring Integrated Bicycle/Pedestrian Spaces Where insufficient right of way exists to provide a boarding area separate from the bikeway, an integrated bicycle/pedestrian zone may be developed. The bikeway may be raised to sidewalk level at the bus stop location to allow for passenger boarding and alighting. Bicyclists should yield to crossing pedestrians before entering this conflict zone. The shared space is treated as a crossing and should provide detectable warnings for the visually impaired. Figure 7-G shows this bus stop design from MassDOT below.

Figure 7-G - Diagram of an integrated bicycle/pedestrian zone at a bus stop (MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Guide)

7.3.3 Bus Stop Designs Featuring Shared Bicycle/Bus Spaces In highly constrained locations or as an interim solution, buses and bicyclists may operate in a shared space at bus stops. The roadway-level mixing zone should be marked to increase awareness between bicyclists and bus operators of possible conflicts. When buses are present at the stop location, bicyclists merge left to pass. The FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, adopted by Caltrans in DIB 89, has additional information on when a shared facility, rather than a separated or integrated facility may be appropriate. Additional examples of these bus stop designs from various other agencies are provided as inspiration in the figures below.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 55 Figure 7-H - Diagram of bus stop mixing from the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
Figure 7-I - Example of bikeway markings at a bus stop and Bus Only lane in San Francisco
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 56 Figure 7-J - Conflict zone markings at a bus stop on SR-116 in Sebastopol Figure 7-K - Bus stop at a Class IV separated bikeway in Hayward DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 57 7.4 Additional Resources
AASHTO Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, 2014, Chapter 5:

Guidelines for Bus Facilities on Streets and Roadways
Caltrans DIB 82 Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects Caltrans DIB 89 Class IV Bikeway Guidance
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM)
• HDM Index 108.2 Transit Loading Facilities
• HDM Table 302.1 includes shoulder widths for bus stops • HDM Index 303.4 Curb Extensions discusses Busbulbs and Busbays • HDM Index 1003.3 Shared Transit and Bikeways
FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2018 FHWA Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicycles Accessing Transit, 2021NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 58 8.0 GREEN STREETS
Complete Streets incorporate green street concepts where possible to address environmental needs, support livable spaces, and enhance community character. DP-37 recognizes streets as valuable community spaces, and these spaces will best meet the needs of all users when they are designed as green streets. Green streets integrate green infrastructure into the streetscape to improve air and water quality, reduce temperatures, and create beautiful, livable places. This section discusses incorporating green streets features into project design, types of green streets elements, and design considerations.

8.1 What are Green Streets?
Green streets are a system of “green” infrastructure that uses permeable surfaces, tree canopy, and landforms to manage stormwater runoff at its source. At the street scale, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up, storing, and/or improving the quality of water. These systems employ vegetation, soils, and other drainage design practices to capture, treat, infiltrate, and slow runoff. These can restore some of the natural processes required to manage water and create healthier built environments. For typical Complete Streets projects, green street elements may include street trees, stormwater planters, and planting areas.

8.2 Why Green Streets?
Green streets can provide numerous benefits that are both quantitative and qualitative. These benefits are of particular importance in an Urban, Suburban, or Rural Main Street place type where a variety of nonmotorized users are to be expected: “A flooded street is not a complete street. During storm events, people walking, bicycling, and using transit are the first users to encounter barriers and lose access to the street and are the last to regain it. Green street design tools, which integrate stormwater control and management within the right-of-way, are a critical component of complete street design, ensuring the street remains usable and safe for all people during storm events, regardless of mode” 43 .

Leveraging Complete Streets projects to develop green infrastructure systems can realize complementary goals, including climate action, economic efficiency, and social equity:
• Climate action. Green stormwater infrastructure improves water quality by reducing both the amount of pollution and the volume of runoff entering oceans, rivers, and streams. Managing runoff prior to entering storm sewer systems may help reduce flood potential, and increased infiltration can help recharge groundwater and restore hydrologic systems. The vegetation in these systems contributes to carbon sequestration, reduces fugitive dust and pollution, enhances water quality, and can provide wildlife habitat linkages. • Economic efficiency. Green infrastructure systems are often less costly to install than traditional “gray” infrastructure, and their ability to reduce the load on storm sewers can help extend the service life of existing infrastructure. The landscapes that result from green infrastructure systems contribute to increased property values, reduced heat island effect, and shade from tree canopy can extend pavement life and reduce building energy costs. • Social equity. Green infrastructure systems can realize social equity goals, supported through comprehensive public engagement, to identify improvements, such as street trees, which contribute to vibrant, livable communities while limiting exposure to the burdens noted above.

These features can contribute to improvements in mental and physical health through shade and cooling, improved air quality, and beautification.
43 NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 59 8.2.1 Regulatory Framework
Additionally, many green streets features are important to achieving compliance with State and Federal regulations. The U.S. Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters such as oceans, bays, rivers, and lakes. Additional federal regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process and U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) control pollutant and stormwater discharges. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) serves as the implementing agency for these regulations in California 44. The Stormwater Quality Handbook: Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG) provides guidance on the process and procedures for evaluating project scope and site conditions to determine the need for and feasibility of incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) into projects within the State right of way 45. The BMPs for green streets describes strategies that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution and minimize potential impacts upon receiving waters.

For additional information on implementing BMPs, the PPDG provides design guidance in support of the Statewide Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) during the planning and project development process including staff responsibilities, selection of BMPs, and identification and evaluation of stormwater quality issues 46 . To meet the Caltrans stormwater permit requirements, designers should identify and design project features that promote and maximize infiltration including using low impact site design principles and infiltration-type Design Pollution Prevention (DPP) BMPs during site development and design47 .

Figure 8-A – Green street features in Sacramento
44 Stormwater Quality Handbook: Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG), Section 1.4.1 45 PPDG, Section 1 Introduction 46 Statewide Stormwater Management Plan 47 PPDG, Section 5.1 Introduction and Objectives DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 60 8.3 Green Streets Elements
Green street designs may include a variety of elements, from street trees and ornamental plantings to engineered stormwater treatment BMPs. While street trees and planted areas may be provided to meet livability and climate goals, BMPs are typically designed to address specific stormwater quality and permit requirements. The following subsections introduce these green street elements and considerations for their inclusion into a project.

Figure 8-B - Green streets may include landscape, street trees, and/or stormwater treatment BMPs

8.3.1 Street Trees
Street trees provide essential and cost-effective infrastructure for climate change resilience and enhancing community livability. Street trees provide environmental benefits by improving air quality, absorbing stormwater and removing pollutants, cooling the air through evapotranspiration, shading roads and buildings in summer, and reducing heat island effects in developed areas. Crucially, trees consume carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. Street trees also improve conditions for multimodal travelers by providing shade to support active transportation in hot weather and reinforcing traffic calming, making walking, rolling, and biking more inviting. Mature trees sequester more carbon, provide more shade, and weather drought conditions more successfully. Existing street trees should be protected in the project corridor, and then new trees should be established under conditions where they can thrive. The visual and aesthetic beauty provided by trees contributes to a community’s sense of place, as seen in Figure 8-C. Including street trees in projects is an equity consideration as underserved communities may have been passed over for street trees in the past or may not have the © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 61 resources to plant and maintain street trees within their communities. As a result, these communities may disproportionately be excluded from the multiple benefits that trees can bring to a community.

When considering street trees in a project, consult with the District Landscape Architect, Landscape Specialist, and Tree Supervisor. Landscape Architects will consider utility conflicts, sight distance and setback requirements, and prioritize a selection of regionally appropriate shade trees that fit the needs of the project site, local climate, water conditions, and be the appropriate size at maturity.

Refer to HDM Chapter 900 for Tree and Irrigation guidance and standards.

Figure 8-C - Street trees lining US-50/I-80 Business to reinforce the neighborhood sense of place in Sacramento
Protecting Existing Trees
Because it can take many years for a tree to confer maximum climate and aesthetic benefits, preservation of existing mature trees and their root structures should be a top priority in roadway projects. Damage to tree roots through excavation and construction within the trees’ dripline is a frequent cause of structural damage and tree mortality. When reconstructing a sidewalk or roadway, consider the following ways to address tree roots and minimize impacts on existing street trees:
• Go around the roots. If there is enough room, the sidewalk can narrow or “meander” to go around the structural roots near the base of the tree.
• Go over the roots. Consider rebuilding the sidewalk like a bridge over the roots. A curb or guard may be needed to avoid creating a drop-off at the edge of the sidewalk. Piers can support the sidewalk from below.
• Go under the roots. Consider excavating out under the roots with an air spade, creating space for the roots to settle into and extend downward. Pea gravel can be used to support the new sidewalk and keep oxygen available to the roots.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 62 While trenching, consider the following ways to address tree roots:
• Use hand tools to dig within the root zone.
• Use micro-trenching to trench under, over, alongside, or through the root zone. • Consider root pruning in challenging conditions according to Arboricultural Standards to avoid tree removal where possible.

These techniques do not work in every situation, but collaboration between engineers, landscape architects, and arborists can often identify the appropriate opportunities to utilize these solutions.

Adding Street Trees
The best way to grow a successful street tree is to invest in the right soil structure to support street tree growth. Suspended pavement and structural soils both provide a rigid structure to support pavements, while preserving uncompacted areas for roots to grow. Suspended pavement (Figure 8-D) is supported by an underground cage-like structure, which keeps the pavement from settling, but still lets roots grow.

Coarse structural soils (Figure 8-E) can be compacted to support pavement, while still retaining the oxygen roots need in the pore spaces between the aggregate.

Consult the District Landscape Architect for additional guidance.

Consult District Maintenance for additional input on maintenance needs.

Figure 8-D – Diagram of a suspended pavement system
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 63 Figure 8-E – Diagram of a structural soil system
Drought and Water Needs
Trees are a valuable environmental resource and maintaining them through drought may be an appropriate use of water. During project development, consider whether existing tree planting areas can be modified to capture stormwater runoff to help water infiltrate into the soil and prolong water availability to tree roots.

When new trees are added as part of the project, pick regionally appropriate tree species that will be drought tolerant once established and consider the type of irrigation necessary to establish new trees. In some locations three to five years of irrigation may be sufficient to establish new trees but in other locations permanent irrigation systems may be necessary. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 64 8.3.2 Stormwater Treatment BMPs
As green infrastructure designs have gained popularity, the terminology around these features continues to evolve. Rain gardens, bioswales, bioretention features, and stormwater planters often describe similar features. This DIB uses the term stormwater planter broadly to describe any planting area designed to serve a stormwater management purpose. Other terminology will match that used by the Caltrans Office of Hydraulics and Stormwater Design and the PPDG.

Treatment BMPs (TBMPs) are designed and sized to treat either a certain volume of runoff, a particular flow or rate or runoff, or a particular pollutant of concern. The first priority in TBMP development is to infiltrate runoff from the contributing areas, then treat any excess runoff with a flow-through BMP or other TBMP to achieve compliance. TBMPs are not flood control measures designed for large storm events, but instead are typically designed for the lower volumes or flows of stormwater associated with frequent storms (such as those storm events with a return period of less than two years). The project engineer with the support from the Design Stormwater/NPDES coordinator will determine treatment requirements and appropriate BMP sizing. The PPDG identifies more than a dozen types of Treatment BMPs for application in State highway projects, but only a small subset of these is generally suitable in the constrained site conditions of a Complete Streets design.

A brief overview and examples of the relevant TBMPs are included in this DIB to aid the designer in identifying opportunities for incorporation of these features into their green street design. The relevant Treatment BMPS include Bioretention, Biofiltration, Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Areas (DPPIAs), Detention Devices, and Pervious Pavement 48 . Examples of each of these TBMPs are shown in Figures 8-F through Figure 8-J.

Figure 8-F – Example Bioretention Treatment BMP
48 For additional design guidance see the Caltrans Treatment BMP Design Guidance webpage.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 65 Figure 8-G – Example Biofiltration Strip and Swale Treatment BMP Figure 8-H – Example Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Area Treatment BMP Figure 8-I – Example Detention Basin Treatment BMP
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 66 Figure 8-J – Example Pervious Pavement Treatment BMP Bioretention
Bioretention systems can filter or infiltrate stormwater directly into the soil to recharge streams, lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers, retaining a designated design volume of stormwater on site. In urbanized areas, they are the most common type of BMP in use, and they can help to reduce ambient temperatures and the urban heat island effect, while addressing both water quality and quantity concerns.

In a Complete Streets environment, bioretention features are often designed as linear planting areas that accept runoff from the adjacent roadway surface (Figure 8-K). They may be used to separate bicycle or pedestrian facilities from the roadway, improving the comfort of non-motorized users (Figure 8-L). They can provide additional environmental benefits with the incorporation of native or climate-adapted planting (Figure 8-M), and shade with the incorporation of street trees.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 67 Figure 8-K – Bioretention planters before and after planting on US-101 in Eureka Figure 8-L – Bioretention features separate modes on SR-123 in El Cerrito DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 68 Figure 8-M – Climate-adapted plant material in a median bioretention feature at the Palomar Transit Center in Chula Vista

Bioretention planters typically filter pollutants by allowing stormwater to percolate through an engineered planting media consisting of topsoil, compost, and sand. These planters may reduce both the volume and flow (or rate) of stormwater runoff leaving a site. The fast-draining soil blends typically utilized are underlain with a layer of drainage rock, which provides temporary storage for the stormwater until it infiltrates into the native soil or is transported to a drainage system. Depending on site conditions such as soil permeability and structural requirements, bioretention planters may be designed to convey treated stormwater through an underground permeable pipe, and they may include an impermeable liner to prevent infiltration in place.

Where bioretention planters are located adjacent to a roadway, sidewalk, or bikeway, concrete curbs and stemwalls may be needed to support the pavement section against the uncompacted soils. Where bioretention planters are adjacent to a pedestrian path of travel, the soil elevation and desired ponding depth for stormwater should be considered and curbs or railings may be utilized to address any drop-off concerns for pedestrians (Figure 8-N). The project engineer will typically develop the cross section and sizing of the bioretention feature. The landscape architect should inform pedestrian path of travel, planter design and placement, and develop planting and irrigation design. The project engineer should also review curbs and structural sections, and the hydraulics engineer should review drainage. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 69 Figure 8-N - Warning curbs surround bioretention planters adjacent to on-street parking on SR-123 in El Cerrito
Biofiltration
Biofiltration strips and biofiltration swales are soil-based Low Impact Development (LID) Treatment BMPs capable of treating both water quality flow and volume. They function primarily through the flow of runoff over a sloping vegetated area, where plants aid in removing pollutants such as sediments, metals, oils, and grease through sedimentation, infiltration, and uptake by plants. Biofiltration strips are generally wide grassy areas adjacent to the roadway. Runoff flows over these planted strips. The planted strips should have a slope flatter than 4:1 that extends at least 15 feet beyond the roadway. Biofiltration swales, by contrast, treat a concentrated flow of stormwater moving through a vegetated open channel (Figure 8-O). Both biofiltration strips (sometimes called biostrips) and biofiltration swales (bioswales) are required to maintain 65% vegetated cover to meet treatment and permit requirements (Figure 8-P). As a result, climate considerations and plant selections are critical to their success. In contrast to the engineered soils utilized in bioretention features, biofiltration is typically designed to work with the native soil, incorporating compost and applying seed or installing young plants. Biofiltration strips and swales are most often utilized in a more rural setting without curb and gutter, but there may be opportunities to incorporate biofiltration in suburban and rural main street environments or parking lots. © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 70 Figure 8-O - Biofiltration swale along SR-92 near the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge.

Figure 8-P - Biofiltration swale adjacent to I-5 in San Diego DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 71 Design Pollution Prevention Infiltration Areas (DPPIAs) DPPIAs treat stormwater runoff from paved areas by infiltrating the water quality volume to remove pollutants of concern, such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, metals, and pathogens (Figure 8-Q). These Treatment BMPs are generally designed as relatively flat amended areas that could use Class 2 Aggregate Base, Shoulder Backing, or native material or rock – with or without vegetation (Figure 8-R). They may include a layer of rock material to prevent erosion if velocities warrant or aesthetics dictate a desired finished appearance.

Figure 8-Q – Hybrid DPPIA-Bioretention feature on SR-99 in Live Oak

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 72 Figure 8-R – Arid climate DPPIA utilizing aggregates on SR-14 near Santa Clarita Detention Basins
Detention basins, sometimes also known as detention ponds, are excavated or bermed areas that temporarily detain stormwater runoff to allow sediment and particulates to settle out. Basins may be lined or unlined, depending on subgrade conditions, and are designed to completely drain within 96 hours after a storm event. While this type of treatment may be used in a Complete Streets project, Caltrans design guidance is geared toward large-scale detention basins, often 20 to 50 feet across with depths of 3 to 10 feet. These footprints rarely fit within the roadway right of way in Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, or Rural Main Street place types, but may sometimes be developed through cooperative agreements, as in the example shown in Figure 8-S. The large grassy field serves as a detention basin for storm events, but doubles as a neighborhood park when not inundated.

Figure 8-S – Detention basin adjacent to SR-16 in Esparto DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 73 Pervious Pavement
Pervious pavements may be used to reduce site runoff, eliminate standing water, prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater system, and reduce the urban heat island effect. They allow stormwater to filter through voids in the pavement surface into an underlying rock reservoir where it is temporarily stored and infiltrated into the ground below. The surface pavement layer may consist of Pervious Concrete Pavement (PCP), Pervious Asphalt Pavement (PAP) (also known nationally as Porous Asphalt Pavement), or Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (PICP). Regular maintenance of these pavements is critical to preserving their permeability, and typically requires use of specialized vacuum equipment. Currently, pervious pavements within State right of way are considered on a project-by-project basis and are limited to parking lots (Figure 8-T), rest areas, sidewalks, bikeways, and similar areas with very low vehicular use.

Figure 8-T -Pervious concrete pavement at a park and ride lot in Chula Vista DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 74 8.4 Site Analysis
Site analysis will inform both the selection and design of green streets features. Considerations for implementation of green streets are discussed below.

Physical and Geotechnical Components
• Available space: Typically, green space is constrained in Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Street place types. Green street elements may be planned into new facilities or retrofit into portions of existing facilities. Consider green streets elements for the linear separation elements in Class IV bikeways and bulbout areas outside the pedestrian crossing path of travel.

Consideration should also be given to planting areas in the buffer zone of the sidewalk including planter strips between the curb and sidewalk, and street tree planting areas. • Topography: Grades need to accommodate drainage flowing from paved surfaces including roadway, bikeways, and sidewalks into green streets planting areas. Consider existing roadway grading and existing inlet locations before locating green street elements. For new facilities, design grading and green streets facilities in tandem.
• Landscaping: Protect existing vegetation (especially mature trees and sensitive plant species), design irrigation & select adapted plants. Landscape architects should collaborate with engineers to determine bioretention soil mixes and compatible plant material. • Utilities: Identify and locate existing utility locations (e.g., water, sewer, gas, electric) or future utility plans to avoid conflicts and ensure adequate clearances. • Infiltration considerations: Consider existing material infiltration rates, soil types, and depth to groundwater before identifying potential stormwater BMP types. • Flow considerations: Identify existing flow patterns and possible floodplain locations.

Context
• Circulation patterns: Green streets elements should support or enhance rather than obstruct bicycle and pedestrian circulation patterns, pedestrian access points, and loading and unloading zones.
• Plant establishment and maintenance considerations: Plant establishment and long-term maintenance requirements need to be resolved during the design development process. • Climate considerations Arid and colder climates require additional consideration. Plants may need to tolerate drought and inundation. Permanent irrigation may be necessary for long term success of vegetation. In colder climates snow and deicing agents will impact vegetation. • Litter abatement considerations: Significant trash generating areas should be identified and trash capture devices should be considered for those sites.
• Other considerations: Archaeological, historic, or cultural resources should be reviewed and considered. Historic districts may have their own design guidelines to guide how to design around eligible resources (e.g., buildings, bridges, monuments, etc.). Areas with historic built environments may pose additional constraints to available space for green street elements.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 75 8.5 Additional Resources
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapters 800, 810, and 820 Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Maintenance Staff Guide Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG) Caltrans Treatment BMP Design Guidance
City of Portland Green Streets Program
City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual (includes typical details in PDF and DWG format) City of San Francisco Green Infrastructure Maintenance Guide Book, 2018 City of San Francisco Green Infrastructure Construction Guide Book, 2017 City of San Francisco Stormwater Management Requirements and Design Guidelines (includes vegetation palettes and green infrastructure typical details in PDF and DWG) City of San José Green Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Field Guide, 2019 EPA Green Streets Handbook
MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, Chapter 3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Stormwater Manual NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Green Infrastructure Design Guide, 2020 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Green Stormwater Infrastructure Handbook, 2019
DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 76 9.0 COMPLETE STREETS GRAPHIC EXAMPLES BY PLACE TYPE
This DIB discusses multiple considerations for the redesign of an existing conventional highway in Urban Area, Suburban Area, and Rural Main Street place types. This section provides examples of how these concepts may be applied to sample roadway cross sections in each place type. The importance of detailed, site-specific project context and community input is stressed throughout the DIB. Dimensions shown in this chapter are provided to illustrate the variety of solutions that are possible using design flexibility and applying design guidance of this DIB. These dimensions and configurations should not be construed as setting standards or defining a preferred design. Rather, these sample cross sections, based on actual Caltrans facilities, should be viewed as inspiration for the project design team.

9.1 Urban Area – Example Cross Sections
Conventional highways in Urban Areas are often challenged with a high density of users, great variety in user types, and a tightly constrained right of way. As discussed in Section 3 of this DIB, highest priority should be placed on space-efficient forms of transportation (walking, rolling, cycling, and transit) in these areas. Existing facilities designed for motor vehicles, particularly shoulders and parking, may be reallocated for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit use. Vehicle lanes may additionally be narrowed, in accordance with the guidance in Section 5, to provide higher quality facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.

The existing roadway considered in this example includes two traffic lanes in each direction, a raised median, on-street parking, and sidewalks on both sides. See Figure 9-A.

Figure 9-A – Urban Area – Existing Cross Section
Several modifications can be made to the cross section of this high volume arterial to better accommodate existing bus transit and provide comfortable facilities for bicyclists. See Figure 9-B.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 77 Figure 9-B - Urban Area – Example Alternative 1
This design adds Class IV separated bikeways, incorporates landscaping in the sidewalk buffer zone, and modifies the raised median to serve as a boarding and waiting area for center-running bus-only lanes, all while preserving the existing curb and gutter. Bus-only lanes may be preferred along corridors that have rapid or express bus service or at spot locations that allow buses to bypass congestion. Locating bus-only lanes to the left of the general-purpose lanes avoids conflicts between buses and bicyclists but necessitates a crossing to allow passengers to reach a bus stop. However, left-side boarding must be coordinated with the transit operator because it necessitates the use of bus vehicles with doors on both sides. The design shown in Alternative 1 also removes parking along one side of the street, narrows the parking lane on the other side of the street, and reduces traffic lane widths to provide the one-way Class IV separated bikeways in each direction. Pedestrian facilities in this design meet the minimum width requirements but may be enhanced with street trees and furnishings.

Figure 9-C - Urban Area – Example Alternative 2
Alternative 2 relocates curb lines to widen sidewalks and create a two-way Class IV separated bikeway along one side of the street. Curb relocation will typically require relocation of utilities, redesign of the existing drainage system and may incorporate stormwater planters at the curb and/or in the median. The right traffic lanes are 11 feet wide to allow for larger vehicles, such as buses, plus a 2-foot gutter accounts for stormwater spread during storm events. Buses would continue to operate in the right lane, but conflicts
© 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 78 between buses and bicyclists are avoided through the design of the separated bikeway. Pedestrian and bicyclist interactions would still need to be managed at bus stops (see Section 7). In this example, conflicts between bicyclists and sidewalk users can be mitigated by installing the bikeway at an intermediate level (typically 2 to 3 inches below sidewalk elevation). On-street parking is eliminated in this Alternative, accounting for off-street and side street parking that may be available in the area.

Figure 9-D - Urban Area – Example Alternative 3
Alternative 3 relocates curb lines to widen sidewalks slightly and create a raised one-way Class IV separated bikeways along each side of the street. Curb relocation will typically require relocation of utilities, redesign of the existing drainage system and in this example incorporates stormwater planters at the curb as a landscaped buffer between the on-street parking and the Class IV bikeways. To allow space for the landscaped buffers, widened sidewalk, and Class IV separated bikeways, one vehicle lane in each direction is removed, and the raised median is replaced with a two-way left turn lane. Reducing vehicle lanes to provide Complete Streets elements requires detailed study to address and balance multimodal needs along the corridor such as transit operations. Vehicle lanes and parking lanes are also narrowed to provide additional space for the enhanced streetscape and Class IV bikeways. Buses would continue to operate in the right lane, but conflicts between buses and bicyclists are avoided through the design of the separated bikeway. Pedestrian and bicyclist interactions would still need to be managed at bus stops (see Section 7). In this example, conflicts between bicyclists and sidewalk users can be mitigated by installing the bikeways at an intermediate level (typically 2 to 3 inches below sidewalk elevation).

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 79 9.2 Suburban Area – Example Cross Sections
Suburban Area arterials frequently feature wide lanes and shoulders and lack, or have minimal, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Where bus transit is present, it is important to ensure that adequate facilities are available for pedestrians and bicyclists who may be using the bus. Where higher speeds and volumes of vehicle traffic are present, buffer space and separation are especially valuable to both bicyclists and pedestrians. In the examples below, shoulder space is repurposed, and traffic lane widths are reduced to serve pedestrians and bicyclists on both sides of the street.

Figure 9-E - Suburban Area – Existing Cross Section

This hypothetical suburban arterial features two traffic lanes in each direction, a median, and shoulders.

On one side of the roadway a paved walkway exists within a landscaped area. It may be anticipated that the walkway is currently serving both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Figure 9-F - Suburban Area – Example Alternative 1
In this Alternative, shoulders and some vehicle lane widths are reallocated for bicyclist and pedestrian use. Class IV separated bikeways are provided on both sides of the roadway, with curbed planters providing vertical separation. These planting areas may be designed as stormwater planters, accepting roadway runoff through curb cuts. On the left side of the section, the walkway is reconstructed as a sidewalk behind a wide planted buffer that includes street trees to provide shade. Trees are similarly DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 80 included in the raised median. At the right side of the roadway, unpaved right of way becomes a sidewalk with street trees behind the bikeway.

Figure 9-G - Suburban Area – Example Alternative 2
Alternative 2 accommodates a bus route with wider curbside lanes and sidewalks for passengers waiting and loading. Street trees are included on both sides of the roadway and in the median, providing shade and contributing to traffic calming. A two-way Class IV separated bikeway is provided for bicyclists on the left-hand side of the section, which has the benefit of avoiding conflicts with buses and pedestrians at bus stops. This configuration should consider the locations and frequency of intersections and provide convenient crossings for bicyclists to reach destinations on the other side of the roadway. If the locality allows riding bicycles on the sidewalk, it may be anticipated that some bicyclists will use the sidewalk on the other side and sufficient width should be provided.

DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 81 9.3 Rural Main Street – Example Cross Sections
This rural arterial runs through a Main Street setting, but the cross section in its current state prioritizes automobile use through wide traffic lanes and shoulders that are available for parking. Identification of the place type as a Rural Main Street and site analysis of the project segment would both indicate a strong potential for travel by foot or by bicycle if the facilities supported those modes.

Figure 9-H - Rural Main Street – Existing Cross Section Existing pedestrian facilities are discontinuous, and bicycle facilities are absent. The wide shoulders and parking lanes in this cross section present an opportunity to provide separated facilities for bicycle and pedestrian users. The presence of abundant off-street parking further supports the elimination or reduction of on-street parking in the roadway cross section.

Figure 9-I Rural Main Street – Example Alternative 1
Alternative 1 repurposes shoulder and some lane width to create Class IV separated bikeways on both sides of the road. The design accounts for a route with heavy truck usage with 12-foot traffic lanes. On the right, the bikeway is raised to the sidewalk level with a curb and buffer. The buffer space adjacent to the curb is important for accommodating utilities and shy distance for bicyclists to keep wheels away from curbs and handlebars clear of objects. If pedestrians and bicyclists operate at the same elevation, a continuous detectable element such as a landscape planter should be used to separate pedestrians. On the left side of this cross section, on-street parking is preserved and utilized to provide separation for the © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved DIB 94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance January 16, 2024 © 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 82 Class IV bikeway. The delineators shown, or any other vertical element, may also aid drivers unfamiliar with this configuration in identifying the correct area for parking. On both sides of the roadway, continuous, widened sidewalks with street trees in the buffer zone create a more comfortable and inviting pedestrian environment. This sidewalk buffer zone may also be used for furnishings such as benches, bike parking racks, or pedestrian scale lighting. The two-way left-turn lane in this alternative is replaced with a 10-foot planted median.

Figure 9-J - Rural Main Street – Example Alternative 2
Alternative 2 maintains a narrowed two-way left-turn lane and narrowed vehicle lanes. One-way Class IV bicycle facilities are provided with stormwater planters separating the bikeway from the parking on the left side of the street and vehicle lane on the right side. Parking is eliminated on the right side of the street given the available off-street parking. This additional space allows for the stormwater planter bikeway separation, as well as widened sidewalks with street trees and buffer space that may be used for furnishings.

Final Environmental Impact Report
Palisade Santee Commerce
Center Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2023090144
AUGUST 2025
Prepared for:

CITY OF SANTEE

PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Prepared by:
2280 Historic Decatur Road
San Diego, California 92106

PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 INTRO-1
Introduction to the Final EIR
In accordance with Section 15088 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), the City of Santee (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023090144) for the proposed Palisade Santee Commerce Center Project (Project) and has prepared this Final EIR with written responses to the comments. This Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the City as the Lead Agency.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:

The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.

Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.

A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.

The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to all written comments received by the City regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR. Additionally, any clarifications or revisions to the Draft EIR generated from responses to comments are stated in the Final EIR. In this Final EIR, the Draft EIR has been modified per the clarifications and revisions in the responses and is presented in the Revisions to the Draft EIR .chapter.

In addition to the Final EIR (including supporting technical appendices), the City Council will also consider the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations document, staff reports, and resolutions prior to making a decision on the project.

Content and Format
This Final EIR includes three chapters as well as a reprinting of the Draft EIR reflecting text changes made during the Final EIR process. This introductory chapter is the first chapter in the Final EIR. The second chapter of this Final EIR includes the responses to all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. The Responses to Comments chapter also includes a copy of all comment letters received within the public review period. The responses are annotated to correspond to each individual comment within each comment letter. The third chapter of this Final EIR shows the revisions to the Draft EIR that have been made to the text of the Draft EIR, with only the revised text included. Following these three chapters, this Final EIR includes a reprinting of the complete Draft EIR with text changes made consistent with the third chapter of this Final EIR.

Public Review of the Draft EIR
As required by Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Completion (NOC) and a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for the Project were filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 21, 2025, and the NOA of the Draft EIR was also filed with the San Diego County Clerk. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a minimum of 45 days, from April 21, 2025 to June 2, 2025. The NOA, NOC, and the Draft EIR and supporting 1 – INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 INTRO-2
technical appendices were also posted on the Governor’s Office of Land Use & Climate Innovation’s CEQANet Web Portal, and the NOA was sent to responsible agencies and other interested agencies and parties on or about April 21, 2025. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the City Department of Development Services (Building 4), the City’s Clerk’s Office (Building 3), the Santee County Library, and on the City’s website.

Point of Contact
The Lead Agency for the proposed Project is the City. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to:

Sandi Sawa, AICP, Director of Planning and Building
City of Santee, Planning & Building Department
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Phone: 619.258.4100 ext. 167
Email: [email protected]
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-1
Responses to Comments
During the public review period (April 21, 2025, through June 4, 2025) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palisade Santee Commerce Center Project (proposed project), the City of Santee (City) received 25 comment letters. An additional comment letter was received following the close of the public comment period. Two of the comment letters received, including the late comment letter, were later withdrawn by the commenters. The thematic responses, comment letters, and the City’s responses to them are included in this chapter. The responses to comments are based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15088(c), Evaluation of and Response to Comments, which states the following:

The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.

All comments received on the Draft EIR will, as part of the Final EIR, be provided to the City Council for their consideration during the hearing process.

Comments Received
Table RTC-1, Summary of Public Comments on the Draft EIR, lists the comment letters received from agencies, organizations, and individuals, including the two letters of withdrawal. Comments and responses to comments have been assigned a letter (S [State Agencies], O [Organizations], I [Individuals], and W [Withdrawals]). A copy of each comment letter with its corresponding responses is provided in this chapter.

As the CEQA Lead Agency and pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 21092.5, and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088(b), the City provided the public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the City’s response to those comments at least 10 days before certifying the EIR.

In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments regarding the Draft EIR within the public review period are listed below:

Table RTC-1. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft EIR No. Commenter Date
State Agencies
S1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 6/4/2025 Organizations
O1 Tom Hissong, San Diego Parrot Head Club 5/29/2025

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-2
Table RTC-1. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft EIR No. Commenter Date
O2 Hillcreek Neighbors 6/4/2025
O3 San Diego Archaeological Society 6/4/2025
Individuals
I1 Philip and Linda Decker 5/22/2025
I2 John Ryan 5/29/2025
I3 Vicki Krismer 5/23/2025
I4 Tri Dang 5/29/2025
I5 Stephanie Bowers 5/29/2025
I6 Dominic Daoust 5/29/2025
I7 Jason Lewis 5/30/2025
I8 Sara Hertweck 5/30/2025
I9 Torri Rodriguez 5/31/2025
I10 Dennis L. Canfield 5/31/2025
I11 Alishia Prescott 6/1/2025
I12 Kimberly Klingensmith 6/2/2025
I13 Mike Aiken 6/2/2025
I14 Jim Preihs 6/2/2025
I15 Carl and Mary Costantino 6/2/2025
I16 Torri Rodriguez 6/3/2025
I17 Chris Schneider 6/3/2025
I18 Evan McDonald 6/3/2025
I19 Beverly Pendarvis 6/4/2025
I20 Andrea Roth 6/4/2025
I21 Tracy Sundlun 6/4/2025
Withdrawn
W1 Advocates for the Environment 6/19/2025
W2 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 6/20/2025 The comment letters have been divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Each comment is bracketed and assigned a letter and number. Comment letters have been reduced to fit on the left side of a single page. The corresponding City response and letter-number combination is provided on the right side of the page.

In the responses to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR are indicated as underlined text (e.g., underlined text) and deletions as strikethrough text (e.g., strikethrough text). In Chapter 3, text changes resulting from the comments received are also shown as underlined and/or strikethrough text. Please note that the revisions do not affect the conclusions of the Draft EIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-3
Thematic Responses
Two topics were frequently raised in the comment letters received during the public review period: transportation and noise. Thematic responses are provided below to address these topics.

Thematic Response 1: Transportation
Revisions to PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2
Following the release of the Draft EIR for public review, the City and the Project applicant discussed changes to the Project design features (PDFs), particularly the PDF related to transportation/traffic. Changes to PDF-TRA-1 and mitigation measure MM-TRA-2 were further refined following the receipt of the comment letter from Caltrans (Letter S1). Figure RTC-1 has been included to graphically depict the type, extent, and responsibility of transportation improvements as modified by the text changes to PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2. The revisions to PDFTRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 are as follows:

PDF-TRA-1 Multi-modal Intersection Improvements: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project applicant will pay its traffic impact fees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy, the Project will construct a new on-site sidewalk to connect the main entrance of the building with the existing sidewalk on N. Woodside Avenue. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Tthe Project applicant will also fund its fair share in the amount of $476,000 payable to the City to rehabilitate the pavement with a full width and adequate structural section on N.

Woodside Avenue starting from, on the west, where it meets the Caltrans right-of-way at the intersection of the SR-67 to the eastern most edge of the Project driveway’s intersection with N.

Woodside Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Project applicant will install also approximately 1,240 SF of new roadway to fill in an unpaved area between the edge of the existing roadway and the new proposed sidewalk near N. Woodside Avenue’s intersection with the SR-67. The Project will install “KEEP CLEAR’” pavement markings west of this intersection to maintain vehicular ingress and egress to/from the Mission Del Magnolia community to eastbound Woodside Avenue.

MM-TRA 2 Construction of Sidewalk: The Project will construct a new sidewalk along a portion of N.

Woodside Avenue to create a continuous sidewalk along N. Woodside Avenue where it intersects the SR-67. Together, with the sidewalk constructed per PDF-TRA-1, this will be a total of 990 linear feet of new sidewalk. If the applicant, despite commercially reasonable efforts, is unable to obtain the necessary permits to construct the portion of sidewalk located outside of the City of Santee’s right-ofway, the applicant will have an additional six months following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to complete that portion. If, at the end of that six-month period, the applicant is still unable to construct the sidewalk due to the continued inability to obtain the required permits, the Project applicant will pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of $50,000 to the City to complete this work.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) states the following:

A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-4
added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)
Section 15088.05(b) states that “Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” In the present case, the revisions made to PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 are not significant revisions because they merely provide additional information for implementation of PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2. The revisions do not involve changes to the improvements that would be constructed but rather provide options for completion/satisfaction of the improvements. Because the improvements discussed in PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 would still be constructed, the information added is not considered to be “significant new information” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Because the text changes in PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 are not significant new information, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-5
Figure RTC-1 Updated Intersection Improvements

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-6
Traffic – LOS vs VMT
Many comments received during the public review period expressed concern about traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project. In the past, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments, which is often measured using level of service (LOS). Mitigation for impacts on vehicular delay often involves increasing capacity, such as widening a roadway or the size of an intersection, which in turn encourages more vehicular travel and greater pollutant emissions.

Additionally, improvements to increase vehicular capacity can often discourage alternative forms of transportation such as biking and walking.

The state’s adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), and subsequent adoption of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 provide that traffic delay under an LOS metric is no longer considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. SB 743 directed that an alternative metric(s) be developed for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA documents. State law now requires the use of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric for land use development projects, which is intended to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, while promoting the development of multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. However, the proposed Project’s traffic analysis using the LOS metric was included in the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) for informational purposes and to comply with City requirements.

Since adoption of SB 743, Caltrans has updated its guidelines for Land Development Review (LDR) and adopted the metric of VMT. Per Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, May 20, 2020, LOS analyses or other vehicle operations analyses for land use projects are no longer requested or required by Caltrans.

The City of Santee adopted its VMT Analysis Guidelines in April, 2022. The Caltrans guidance supports the shift away from using LOS as a metric of analysis under CEQA, in accordance with implementing Senate Bill 743.

The TIS provides analysis of the proposed Project’s potential effects relative to General Plan consistency with LOS policies used by the City over each of the study intersections. Additionally, per City of Santee Mobility Element Policy 2.1, “The City shall encourage an automobile Level of Service “D” on street segments and at intersections throughout the circulation network while also maintaining or improving the effectiveness of the non-automotive components of the circulation system (i.e., pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit). The City may approve a lower automobile LOS if it finds that the effectiveness of nonautomotive components of the circulation system would be maintained or improved as a result. In other cases, the City shall not approve any development that causes a drop in the level of service at a street segment or an intersection to LOS E or F, after feasible mitigation, without overriding social, economic, or other benefits. For impacts related to CEQA analysis(i.e., VMT analysis) mitigation measures may include Transportation Demand Management recommendations, such as transit facilities, bike facilities, telecommuting, rideshare programs, flex-time, carpool incentives, parking cash-out, complete or partial subsidization of transit passes, etc.

In conclusion, while many comments discuss existing traffic congestion in the area and express concern about worsening traffic with implementation of the Project, traffic delay is not an environmental impact under CEQA.

Because traffic delay and congestion are not considered an environmental impact, no mitigation is required.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-7
Traffic Safety and ICE/ISOAP Evaluation
Several comments were received that expressed concern for traffic safety, particularly with the addition of truck trips that would be generated by the proposed Project. Also, the comment letter from Caltrans posed specific questions regarding transportation safety impact review.

The Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Local Development Intergovernmental Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, February 2024, provides instructions to Caltrans personnel who conduct road safety reviews for proposed land use projects and plans affecting the State Highway System (SHS), within the scope of the LDR process (Caltrans 2020). This Guidance establishes the recommended transportation safety impact review process for Caltrans and lead agencies for evaluating proposed land use projects. As required by the LDR Safety Review Guidance for land use plans, the proposed Project’s TIS includes queuing analysis for the Caltrans facility in the proposed project’s study area (i.e., N. Woodside Avenue/ Woodside Avenue – State Route 67 (SR-67) southbound (SB) Off-Ramp intersection). Under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions analyzed, the westbound turn movements at the SR-67 off-ramp do not exceed the storage length available and the analysis indicates there are currently no queuing issues that may potentially spill back onto the SR-67 mainline.

The Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) is an update and renaming of Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) and supersedes Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02 and the August 23, 2013 memorandum, Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) and Design Guidance. The process is used by Caltrans to evaluate proposed traffic control and design geometrics for intersections and other access improvements proposed on the State Highway System.

As such, ISOAP analysis is beyond the scope of the Draft EIR or the proposed Project’s TIS.

SR-67/ Riverford Road Interchange
Multiple comments were received that questioned whether trucks traveling to or from the Project site would utilize the SR-67 interchange at Riverford Road, and some comments questioned the timing of the Caltrans improvements at that interchange. The SR-67/Riverford Road interchange improvements, a transportation project which would consolidate three intersections into two roundabouts on Riverford Road on both sides of SR-67, is proposed approximately one mile north of the proposed Project site. The Project’s study area does not include Riverford Road and its intersections with SR-67 because the proposed Project would not add 50 or more peak hour trips to those facilities. However, as shown in the State Route 67 and Riverford Road ICE Report, submitted to Caltrans in 2020, with the construction of proposed roundabouts, the closely spaced intersections of the SR-67 northbound offramp/Woodside Avenue, Woodside Avenue/Riverford Road, and SR-67 southbound ramps/Riverford Road would operate at LOS D or better for all movements with no spillback onto SR-67 mainline. Therefore, the SR-67/Riverford Road interchange project will improve LOS and traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed Project.

The details on the timing of construction of this interchange are not available currently. Therefore, it is unknown if construction of any part of the SR-67/Riverford Road interchange would overlap with the construction of the proposed Project. However, construction of both projects would follow standard procedures for obtaining required encroachment and trip permits from Caltrans and ensure that appropriate traffic control and construction traffic management plans are prepared and implemented along Woodside Avenue.

Roadway Damage
Several comments express concern regarding roadway damage from the increased volume of trucks that would occur with the proposed Project. It should be noted that segments of Woodside Avenue are classified as Prime or Major

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-8
Arterial in the City and classified as a Collector in the vicinity of the Project. In the City, Woodside Avenue is an important and designated truck route that connects the industrial areas to SR-52, SR-67 and SR-125. While roadway damage is not an environmental impact under CEQA, this brief response is being provided for informational purposes. The City’s Engineering Department is responsible for street maintenance and additional information can be found on the Department’s website at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/engineering/street-maintenance. The City performs street maintenance and resurfacing based on the recommendations from the most recent Pavement Management Report, which identifies the best and highest use of the annual street maintenance budget based on a condition analysis of all streets within the City. Street resurfacing is funded by three sources: 1) TransNet, the halfcent sales tax administered by SANDAG; 2) Senate Bill (SB) 1, also referred to as Road Maintenance and Maintenance Account (RMRA) gas tax; and, 3) the City’s General Fund.

As noted in PDF-TRA-1, the Project applicant will also fund its fair share in the amount of $476,000 payable to the City to rehabilitate the pavement with a full width and adequate structural section on N. Woodside Avenue starting from, on the west, where it meets the Caltrans right-of-way at the intersection of the SR-67 to the eastern most edge of the Project driveway’s intersection with N. Woodside Avenue. Therefore, the pavement on Woodside Avenue would be improved to sustain increased truck volumes in the vicinity of the Project.

Thematic Response 2: Noise
Multiple comments were received regarding Project noise, with most concerned about operational noise. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, a Noise Technical Report was prepared by Dudek in May 2024 and included as Appendix K to the Draft EIR. Many of the comments were general, lacking specific concerns regarding the assumptions or calculations in the technical report.

The City of Santee has established target maximum noise levels in the City, categorized by land use. The City’s General Plan Noise Element sets limitations on noise levels for receiving properties adjacent to the project site. The City has established a maximum noise level limit of 65 dBA Ldn for noise-sensitive land uses, such as the residences along Hillcreek Road, which the noise analyses have shown is not predicted to be exceeded during construction or operation of the Project. The City does not establish maximum operational level limits based upon the difference between measured ambient levels at noise-sensitive use property lines and predicted operational levels at proposed project property lines. Further, the City does not establish differing noise standards for weekdays and weekends. The assertion that “in many residential areas, Sundays are quieter than weekdays or Saturdays” is not based on any factual data or study; it is simply an assumption. Additionally, the noise analysis does account for the differences between day and nighttime truck operations, as shown in Appendix D of the noise memorandum (Appendix K of the Draft EIR).

The 8-foot noise barrier is not necessary for the proposed Project to avoid noise impacts and be considered less than significant. The wall was requested by the City and added by the Project applicant as a good faith measure to ease community concerns over visual and noise impacts. The wall itself attenuates predicted operation noise levels by approximately 2 to 3 dBA for the homes north of the San Diego River. Therefore, predicted operation noise levels without the wall are still well under the City threshold of 65 dBA Ldn at residential land uses. A higher wall would therefore be unnecessary, and the additional amount of noise reduction afforded by a taller wall would not be perceptible. The wall thickness is also irrelevant to the discussion of noise attenuation because diffraction of sound around noise walls limits their sound reduction effectiveness to the point at which a different material would not change its sound reduction effectiveness. The wall is expected to be a standard masonry wall of standard thickness to support the wall structure itself, which is adequate for a noise attenuating wall. Absorptive treatments may be

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-9
placed on the wall, but would not change its noise reduction effectiveness and are again not necessary for the project to avoid noise impacts.

The Project conforms to the City’s noise threshold for industrial areas, which is 75 dBA Ldn at the property line. As shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the noise technical memorandum (Appendix K of the Draft EIR), the predicted noise level in the river area ranges from approximately 40 to 45 dBA during daytime hours and 35 to 40 dBA during nighttime hours, which is already under the existing ambient noise level as measured in the area. Further, wildlife noise impact evaluations generally use a 60 dBA threshold (refer to the San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code, Biology Guideline document, which discusses this threshold for relevant nesting bird species), which is far greater than the predicted operation noise levels beyond the project property boundary.

Regarding HVAC noise, the noise model assumed that the noise sources were distributed over a large portion of the roof area as a worst-case scenario. This is unlikely to be the case as generally HVAC sources are grouped together. Additionally, according to Project plans, a parapet would be installed on the building edge, which would further reduce the line-of-sight between the HVAC noise sources and the surrounding area. This parapet was not included in the modeling effort. Therefore, the noise analysis is considered a worst-case scenario with assumptions that actually overestimate the predicted noise levels.

One common concern expressed in the comments is for operational Project noise in violation of the City’s Municipal Code. The Project would include loading and unloading activities as part of Project operation. Therefore, Project operations would be subject to Municipal Code Section 5.04.130 which makes it unlawful for any person to engage in loading, unloading, opening, idling of trucks, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, dumpsters or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance within or adjacent to a residential district. While the proposed Project may operate 24/7, loading/unloading and other noise generating activities would be restricted to the hours stated in the noise ordinance with which the proposed Project, like all operations within the City, is required to comply.

Municipal Code Section 5.04.160 applies to any noise source not specifically addressed in Chapter 5.04, Noise Abatement and Control, except where exempted or excluded by Section 5.04.170. Section 5.04.160 states that it is unlawful for any person to generate any noise on the public way that is louder than average conversational level at a distance of 50 feet or more, vertically or horizontally, from the source between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Also, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., no person is permitted to generate any noise on any private open space that is louder than average conversational level at a distance of 50 feet or more, measured from the property line of the property from which the noise is being generated.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-10
Response to Comment Letter S1
California Department of Transportation
Kimberly Dodson, Branch Chief
June 4, 2025
S1-1 The comment is an introduction to the comment letter describing the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) goals and does not raise a significant new environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-2 The comment states that Caltrans previously reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) dated April 2024 and provided feedback in June 2024. The comment also states that Caltrans compared the previous version to the April 2025 [sic] and found that comments from June 2024 have not been addressed and there are direct impacts that need to be mitigated. While the letter stated that Caltrans compared the earlier version with the “current TIS dated April 2024,” it is assumed that Caltrans meant the current TIS dated April 2025.

Attached to this comment letter dated June 4, 2025, Caltrans has provided comments in the text of Appendix L (TIS). These comments are identified as Comments S1-39 through S1-51.

Responses to Caltrans’s specific comments on the TIS are provided with those comments. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-3 The comment states that the latest TIS removed details regarding roadway widening that triggered the Intersection Control

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-11
Evaluation (ICE) and made the language very vague. Further, the comment states that the project is proposing to widen the roadway by 1,240 square feet and installing a new sidewalk, which would still trigger the ICE, which is now known as the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP).

As described in Thematic Response 1: Transportation, the Project does not propose any roadway improvements to alleviate LOS or traffic effects at the N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB Off-Ramp Intersection, per current CEQA guidelines for
determining transportation impacts. A queuing analysis of this ramp intersection included in the TIS (see Table 17) shows that under the Existing and Existing plus Project conditions, the westbound turn movements at the SR-67 off-ramp do not exceed the storage length available. The analysis indicates there are currently no queuing issues that may potentially spill back onto the SR-67 mainline. This determination satisfies the Caltrans Local Development Intergovernmental Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (February 2024) requirements and the Project would not cause any safety related impacts to Caltrans facilities. The Project does not trigger the ISOAP because it does not have any safety related impacts.

While the Project generates over 1,000 daily trips, it would not add 1,000 or more trips to the N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB Off-Ramp Intersection or SR-67 mainline. The Project does not propose a change in traffic control or install a pedestrian hybrid beacon and nor make a major physical change such as widening to provide an additional through or turn lane. Therefore, the Project would not trigger an ISOAP analysis. See PDF-TRA-1, MM-TRA-1, and MM-TRA-2 for proposed improvements and
mitigation measures consistent with City requirements. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-12
regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-4 The comment states that previous comments for the N.

Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB Off-Ramp Intersection
Improvement Project still apply. Please see Responses to Comments S1-39 through S1-51. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-5 The comment states that the latest TIS dated April 2024 [sic] with comments is attached, and that the project needs to show a layout and site plan of the proposed roadway widening and sidewalk improvements to the Woodside Avenue and SR-67
intersection.

Regarding the comments on the current TIS, please see
Responses to Comments S1-39 through S1-51. Regarding the layout and site plan, please see Figure RTC-1 illustrating Intersection Improvements at the N. Woodside Avenue and SR67 SB Off-Ramp Intersection. Also please see PDF-TRA-1. MMTRA-1, and MM-TRA-2 for proposed improvements. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-6 The comment requests clarification of whether a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be needed, as well as clarification of the location of the pavement improvements identified in the Draft EIR. The encroachment permit may be required for
construction of a small portion of the sidewalk within the

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-13
Caltrans right-of-way (ROW), as shown in Figure RTC-1 in this Final EIR. None of the proposed pavement improvements are within the Caltrans ROW. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-7 The comment directs the City to bring curb ramps at the SR-67 southbound off-ramp corner and North Woodside Avenue corner to the current standards with reference to Design Information Bulletin 82-06 for more information. Further, the comment requests confirmation of how the proposed sidewalk will be connected to existing sidewalks. Please see Figure RTC-1 in this Final EIR which illustrates the proposed Intersection
Improvements at the N. Woodside Avenue and SR-67 SB OffRamp Intersection for details of existing and new sidewalk along N. Woodside Avenue, shown in green and blue colors. The sidewalk in Caltrans ROW is shown in green and within the City’s ROW is shown in blue. The curb ramp at the SR-67 southbound off-ramp corner and North Woodside Avenue would be
constructed per applicable design standards. The pavement rehabilitation and re-striping is shown as well and would occur within the City’s ROW. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-8 The comment states that the TIS needs to include a safety review that follows the Caltrans “Local Development Review (LDR Safety Review Practitioner’s Guidance” document. Please see
Response to Comment S1-3 for discussion of consistency of the Project’s TIS with Caltrans’ safety review requirements. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-14
regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-9 The comment states that neither the Draft EIR nor the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix J-1 of the Draft EIR) provides a response from the City of Santee pertaining to the FEMA floodplain. The comment requests documentation of the City’s concurrence that the Project will not impact the FEMA floodplain/floodway and will not require coordination with FEMA and/or preparation of a FEMA no-rise certification. As stated on Draft EIR pages 4.8-25 and 4.8-26, the Project site is adjacent to a regulatory floodway but the Project site has been designed to not impact the existing floodplain, and the Project structures would be located at least one foot above the floodplain. As the Draft EIR was prepared by the City and reflects the City’s evaluation of impacts, no additional documentation is
necessary. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-10 The comment relates to system planning and requests clarification of which PRONTO monthly transit pass will be reimbursed. Item 3, Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program, under MM-TRA-1 Trip Reduction Program in the Draft EIR and TIS mentions that a monthly transit pass would be provided or cost would be reimbursed to the employees who use transit to commute to the Project. The card can be used for all buses, Trolley, Sprinter, and Coaster, including services operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) in the San Diego region. Further details would be worked out between the employer and specific

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-15
employees based on their travel needs. No further details can be provided at this time. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-11 The comment urges consideration of formalizing the southside of the San Diego River trail system adjacent to the project site and other businesses for purposes of more walking and green space access. The proposed Project does not trigger the formalization of such a system, however implementation of the proposed Project would not preclude formalizing this trail system. This comment does not raise a new significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-12 The comment relates to system planning and urges the City to look at the San Vicente Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) for projects that may align with the proposed Project. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Caltrans are developing a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) for the San Vicente corridor. The CMCP proposes local road and network improvements to balance future
transportation needs while also preserving existing rural and community characteristics including the natural landscape of mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, and creeks. It focuses on improving transportation along SR-67 between Lakeside and Ramona. As such, the Woodside Avenue Safety Improvement Project and SR/67 Riverford Road Interchange Project are noted in the CMCP. The proposed Project would improve sidewalks and striping along N. Woodside Avenue as shown in Figure RTC-1 of this Final EIR. The Project would construct an eastbound left turn

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-16
lane to facilitate safe truck turn movements to the Project driveway from N. Woodside Avenue. Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict or impede implementation of this plan, or projects proposed as part of the CMCP in the future. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-13 The comment related to system planning and urges the City to review the SANDAG Regional Plan and the Draft Proposed 2025 Regional Plan. The Project’s consistency with the SANDAG Regional Plan has been evaluated in the Draft EIR, in Table 4.9-2 beginning on page 4.9-12 of the Draft EIR. As described in Table 4.9-2, the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals set forth by SANDAG in the 2021 Regional Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Further, the VMT analysis and proposed mitigation measures will ensure the Project’s consistency with regional plan and policies. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-14 The comment identifies five planning documents frequently utilized by Caltrans that may provide background on state and regional planning. Comment noted. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-15 The comment identifies three existing Caltrans projects near the Project site. Comment noted. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-17
accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-16 The comment states that the project needs to remove the free right turn and “tee” up the intersection of North Woodside Avenue/SB SR-67 off-ramp. As shown in the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR), the Project would not add any trips to the free (channelized) right turn available at the N. Woodside Avenue/S.

Woodside Avenue - SR-67 SB Off-Ramp. There are no queuing related impacts per the safety review of Caltrans facilities conducted in the Project’s TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). As explained in the Thematic Response 1: Transportation, traffic delay under an LOS metric is no longer considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. The Project proposes multimodal improvements such as construction of sidewalk at this intersection to connect to the existing sidewalk along Woodside Avenue. The bicycle lane at the intersection and along Woodside Avenue will be maintained as-is. Bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access will be maintained during construction. For any construction work in the public ROW, the contractor shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan to ensure access for all road users is maintained during construction. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-17 The comment states that the Project needs to provide at minimum a 6-foot Class II bike lane through Caltrans ROW that connects the intersection of Woodside Avenue/SR-67 offramp on all legs of the intersection with the exception of the SR-67 offramp. There are existing bike lanes on all three legs of City streets. The striping on the southeast corner of the intersection is meant to be a bike lane, but that location is within Caltrans’

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-18
jurisdiction. The proposed Project does not include any change to the existing bike lane along N. Woodside Avenue. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-18 The comment states that the minimum width of sidewalks in Caltrans right-of-way is 5 feet. Comment noted. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-19 The comment states that a detour needs to be provided if there are any effects on pedestrian or bicycle facilities during construction.

The City of Santee requires preparation of a Traffic Control Plan for construction that includes roadways, which is the case with the proposed project. The City’s Traffic Engineering Division reviews traffic control plans, which shall follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices California Edition (MUTCD) and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings. The MUTCD includes
consideration for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-20 The comment states that mitigation to maintain bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access during construction is in accordance with Caltrans’ goals and policies. As discussed above in Response to Comment S1-19, a TCP would be prepared for the Project. Regarding transit access, the Draft EIR (p. 4.12- 23) states that the nearest bus stop is located west of Magnolia Avenue and Mission Gorge Road – Woodside Avenue
intersection, approximately 0.90 miles from the Project site.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-19
Because there are no transit facilities that would be affected by Project construction and a TCP is required by the City for construction activities that would affect roadways (including sidewalks and bike lanes), the mitigation suggested by the comment is not necessary. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-21 The comment states that Caltrans is unable to confirm the location of the sidewalk and pavement improvements identified in the Draft EIR, and requests exhibits showing the proposed improvements.

While the text of both the Draft EIR and TIS (Appendix L) described the location and extent of the sidewalk and pavement
improvements, a graphical depiction of the improvements has been included as Figure RTC-1 within this Final EIR. The figure can be found within Thematic Response 1: Transportation. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-22 The comment requests the City verify the need for a retaining wall to support the proposed sidewalk connection where North Woodside Avenue meets the southbound off-ramp from SR-67, stating that the ground elevation at the adjacent property is much lower than at the proposed sidewalk. Based on the topographic survey, there is sufficient level ground to install the sidewalk without creating a retaining condition. The City will have the opportunity to confirm this conclusion during the plan check process after a full design has been prepared. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-20
S1-23 The comment states that an encroachment permit will be required for any construction within Caltrans right-of-way, and notes that the western portion of the sidewalk connection, where N. Woodside Avenue meets the southbound off-ramp from SR-67 is within Caltrans ROW. The comment is noted. Figure RTC-1 of the Final EIR shows the portion of sidewalk within the Caltrans ROW in green color. For any construction in the Caltrans ROW, the applicant shall obtain required permits. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-24 The comment states that the City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary improvements at
intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint jurisdiction. Comment noted. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-25 The comment states that Caltrans has discretionary authority over special permits for vehicle size or weight exceeding the maximum limitations of the California Vehicle Code. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-26 The comment states that a Traffic Control Plan must be submitted to Caltrans at least 30 days prior to the start of construction for work involving the interchanges at SR-67/North Woodside Avenue. Further, the comment notes that potential impacts to SR-67 and the traveling public should be addressed before work begins. This is a standard requirement for
construction impacting Caltrans facilities and would be complied

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-21
with by the Project applicant. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-27 The comment states that the applicant must be informed that Caltrans is not responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing configuration of SR-67. The applicant is aware of the existing and cumulative noise environment at the project site, which includes traffic noise from SR-67. The noise analysis prepared as part of the project includes current ambient noise measurements that reflect traffic noise from SR-67. In addition, the cumulative noise condition takes into consideration future noise from SR-67. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-28 The comment states that Caltrans is a Responsible Agency under CEQA and would appreciate meeting with the City to discuss the elements of the environmental document that Caltrans would use for their environmental compliance. As discussed on Draft EIR page 3-47, the City acknowledges that responsible and/or trustee agencies may use the Draft EIR for CEQA documentation for approvals under their authority. Additionally, Draft EIR page 3-48 states that Caltrans’ approval would be needed for improvements within Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW). The City supports continued coordination with Caltrans. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-29 The comment states that an encroachment permit will be required prior to construction for any work within Caltrans right-of-way and

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-22
provides information regarding what information will be needed.

The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-30 The comment recommends that the Project identify and assess potential impacts caused by the Project or from mitigation efforts that occur within Caltrans ROW. Further, the comment states that Caltrans is interested in any additional mitigation measures identified in the Project’s Final EIR. As discussed in Thematic Response 1: Transportation, the text of PDF-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 have been revised. There are no changes proposed to MM-TRA-1.

This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-31 The comment recommends collaboration between the City of Santee and Caltrans. Comment noted. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-32 The comment states that perpetuation of survey monuments is required if they are being destroyed by construction. The Project applicant will adhere to all state laws, including those requiring perpetuation of survey monuments. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-33 The comment summarizes previous information about encroachment permits. The comment does not raise a new
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-23
accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-34 The comment includes a letter dated July 24, 2024 and provides comments from Caltrans regarding conceptual design review of North Woodside Avenue and SR-67 southbound off-ramp
improvements. The letter is addressed to the Project applicant, not the City of Santee. Further, Project improvements have been revised since the date of the letter (July 24, 2025). Please see Thematic Response 1: Transportation for information regarding the current plans for improvements to be constructed as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-35 This comment appears in an attachment to the letter referenced in Comment S1-34. The comment states that the proposed
widening from one lane to two triggers the ICE/ISOAP. Further, the Hybrid Roundabout Alternative is the only approved
intersection control type if widening or changing this intersection.

Please see response to comment S1-3 and Thematic Response 1: Transportation for information regarding the direct impacts per LOS and changes in proposed work at this intersection. For Project’s VMT impacts, feasible mitigation measures and applicable reduction percentages have been identified in the TIS and Draft EIR. The queuing analysis in the TIS uses the updated Project trip distribution percentages confirmed with the City’s traffic engineer and used in the TIS.

S1-36 This comment appears in an attachment to the letter referenced in Comment S1-34. The graphic depicts the Project Overview, Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp/ N. Woodside Ave Intersection. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-24
regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-37 This comment appears in an attachment to the letter referenced in Comment S1-34. The graphic depicts the Turn Template Exhibit A, Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp/ N. Woodside Ave Intersection. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-38 This comment appears in an attachment to the letter referenced in Comment S1-34. The graphic depicts the Turn Template Exhibit B, Southbound SR-67 Off-Ramp/ N. Woodside Ave Intersection. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-39 The comment includes Appendix L (TIS) as it appeared in the Draft EIR. The comments that follow are the comments made by Caltrans on Appendix L. The comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-40 The comment (imbedded within Figure 3, Project Trip Distribution, on page 15 of the TIS) states that the Caltrans comments from June 2024 have not been addressed.

Regarding the June 2024 comment letter, please see Response to Comment S1-34. Also note that the April 2024 version of the TIS that Caltrans reviewed and commented on in June 2024 was updated. The trip distribution rates were modified to reflect a portion of truck trips that would be expected to drive north along N. Woodside Avenue from the Project site. The comment does

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-25
not specify which comments have not been addressed. The comment is general and does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-41 The comment notes that the VMT impacts discussed on page 35 of the TIS dated April 2025 (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) are the same as those reflected in the April 2024 draft version of the TIS reviewed by Caltrans. The comment is general and does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required.

S1-42 The comment states that previous comments from the June 2024 review were not addressed and still apply. The comment is on page 49 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and located beneath Table 10, but does not point to specific information or specify the comments that were not addressed. The comment is general and does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-43 The comment states that there is a direct impact to a Caltrans intersection going from existing LOS C to LOS E under the Existing Plus Project scenario. This comment is on page 49 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and points to line item 4 in Table 10, which is listed as the intersection of Woodside Avenue/ S.

Woodside Avenue – SR-67 SB Off-Ramp.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-26
S1-3 and Thematic Response 1: Transportation for more
information responsive to this comment. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-44 The comment states that previous comments from the June 2024 review were not addressed and still apply. The comment is on page 63 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and located beneath Table 14, but does not point to specific information or specify the comments that were not addressed. The comment is general and does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-45 The comment states that there is a direct impact to a Caltrans intersection that requires mitigation. This comment is on page 63 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and points to line item 4 in Table 14, which is listed as the intersection of N. Woodside Avenue/ S. Woodside Avenue – SR-67 SB Off-Ramp.

As stated on page 4.12-14 of the Draft EIR, “LOS has been addressed herein for informational purposes only and can no longer be used to determine significant transportation impacts under CEQA as directed by SB 743.” Please see Thematic
Response 1: Transportation for information responsive to this comment. This comment does not raise a new significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-46 The comment states that previous comments from the June 2024 review were not addressed and still apply. The comment is on page 79 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and located

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-27
beneath Table 17, but does not point to specific information or specify the comments that were not addressed. The comment is general and does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-47 The comment states that the 95th percentile should be updated after trip distributions have been updated. This comment appears on page 79 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) and points to Table 17, Queuing Summary for Existing Conditions (95th Percentile Queue). Prior to release of the Draft EIR for public review, the Project’s trip distributions were updated, which are reflected in the TIS dated April 2025 (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). Figure 3 in the TIS illustrates the percentage distribution of cars and trucks along N. Woodside Avenue and the traffic study area approved by the City. The queuing analysis shown in Table 17 of the TIS uses the updated distribution compared to the April 2024 version of the traffic analysis. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Further, this comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and no further response is required.

S1-48 The comment states that Table 19 is missing, which previously showed Queuing Summary for Near Term Conditions (95th
Percentile Queue) and states that the table and results should be resubmitted. Beginning on page 77 of the TIS, there is a Projectspecific analysis for the Caltrans ramp intersection using queuing analysis methodology for safety review per Caltrans LDR guidelines.

The LDR guidelines require that the project’s impact be compared to the existing scenario to determine whether a deficiency currently exists and if the project contributes to or worsens an existing condition. The analysis in the TIS indicated that under Existing Plus

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-28
Project conditions, most queues would be accommodated within existing storage. Therefore, a near-term condition queuing analysis is not needed, and a corresponding table s not included in the TIS.

S1-49 The comment highlights text within PDF-TRA-1 and comments that the improvements of widening and sidewalk installation trigger the ISOAP, which supersedes the ICE. The comment also states that in previous reviews, Caltrans has made the Project applicant aware that there is an ICE Report for the approved hybrid roundabout. The comment appears on page 81 of the TIS (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). Please see Thematic Response 1:

Transportation for the updated language of PDF-TRA-1 and a discussion of the improvements. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-50 The comment states that there is no table showing the direct impacts being mitigated with the proposed widening and
sidewalk. Further, the comment states that the TIS fails to show how the roadway widening and sidewalk installation would bring LOS back to LOS D or better. Please see Thematic Response 1:

Transportation for information responsive to this comment. This comment does not raise a new significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, no further response is required.

S1-51 The comment highlights text and comments that as previously mentioned in the June 2024 review, the improvement triggers

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-29
the ISOAP and that plans have already been approved for a hybrid roundabout. Further, the comment states that the proposed Project would have direct impacts to the Caltrans intersection and further coordination with Caltrans will be required. Please see Thematic Response 1: Transportation and Response to Comment S1-3 for information responsive to this comment. This comment does not raise a new significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, no further response is required.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-30

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-31

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-32

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-33

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-34

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-35

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-36

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-37

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-38

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-39

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-40

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-41

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-42

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-43

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-44

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-45

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-46

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-47

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-48

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-49

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-50

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-51

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-52

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-53

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-54

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-55

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-56

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-57

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-58

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-59

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-60

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-61

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-62

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-63

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-64

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-65

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-66

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-67

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-68

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-69

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-70

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-71

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-72

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-73

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-74

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-75

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-76

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-77

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-78

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-79

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-80

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-81

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-82

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-83

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-84

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-85

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-86

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-87

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-88

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-89

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-90

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-91

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-92

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-93

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-94

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-95

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-96

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-97

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-98

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-99

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-100

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-101

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-102

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-103

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-104

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-105

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-106

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-107

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-108

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-109

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-110

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-111

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-112

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-113

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-114

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-115

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PALISADE SANTEE COMMERCE CENTER FINAL EIR 15138
AUGUST 2025 RTC-116

Santee City CouncilAugust 27, 2025

Santee City Council
August 27, 2025