San Tan Valley Special Area Plan TRANSPORTATION ... · 12/14/2016 · San Tan Valley – Special Area Plan TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #1 MEETING SUMMARY

San Tan Valley – Special Area Plan TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETING #1 MEETING SUMMARY

1

MEETING INFORMATION: San Tan Valley – Special Area Plan TIAC Meeting #1

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

1:00PM – 3:00PM

Mountain Vista Middle School

MEETING ATTENDEES: Michael Goodman, Pinal County Board of Supervisor Elect, District #2 Steve Abraham, Pinal County Evan Balmer, Pinal County Kevin Kugler, Michael Baker International Matt Klyszeiko, Michael Baker International Evan Fisher, Michael Baker International Michelle Green, ASLD

Bob Draper, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Sgt. Bryan Harrell, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Hunter Rankin, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Travis Ashbaugh, CAG Caryn Gose, SRP Shawn Gilleland, Rural Metro Brad Hinton, El Dorado Holdings

MEETING INTRODUCTION:

Pinal County along with project consultant, Michael Baker International (MBI) kicked-off the initial

meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (TIAC) for the San Tan Valley

Special Area Plan on November 15, 2016.

Kevin Kugler, the Project Director with MBI, began the meeting with opening remarks and thanked

the TAIC members for their attendance and participation with the San Tan Valley Special Area Plan.

Mr. Kugler then introduced the project team, and invited the TAIC members to introduce

themselves and identify their affiliations.

PRESENTATION SUMMARY:

Following introductions, Mr. Kugler presented a detailed overview of the project. This introductory

presentation included the following primary topics; discussion of the overall project purpose,

review of the meeting purpose, identification of primary project stakeholders, identification of the

Transportation & Infrastructure Advisory Committee’s (TIAC) role and responsibility, clarification

of what an Area Plan IS and IS NOT, addressing how this plan is not associated with ongoing

discussion of incorporation, and review of the project work plan and timeline.

Following his opening remarks, Mr. Kugler provided all in attendance with a detailed introduction

to the study area boundary, shared some regional context information about the study area such

as Land Ownership and Land Uses, as well as Demographic Trends and Benchmarking facts.

After the project overview, Mr. Kugler took TIAC members through a detailed review of the key

existing transportation and infrastructure plans and studies that impact the project study area.

Mr. Kugler explained this review was only intended to inform members of the fundamental aspects

of these important documents in order to establish a common framework from which all



2

committee members can provide guidance on transportation and infrastructure related topics

throughout the project planning process.

Mr. Kugler also invited any members in attendance who had further knowledge about a particular

plan or study to share their comments and/or identify any additional relevant plans or studies that

may have not been identified by the project team. Following is a list of the plans and studies that

were reviewed, along with any comments/questions that may have been shared by TIAC members.

Please see Appendix A: TIAC Meeting #1 Presentation to review the information summary of each

plan’s content that was presented to the TAIC.

PINAL COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: FINAL REPORT

TIAC Member Comments – It was suggested that the Pinal County Regional Transportation

Plan should be referenced as the most current planned routes and proposed project

development schedule. The status of ½ cent sales tax being proposed to help fund the plan

was also discussed. Members indicated the possible tax has been placed on hold until

clarification is made regarding how “big ticket” goods are taxed and/or exempted. Following

this decision, the proposed resolution may be rewritten for BoS consideration and brought to

Pinal County voters possibly in November 2017.

PINAL COUNTY REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ROUTES FOR SAFETY AND MOBILITY

TIAC Member Comments – Pinal County staff, believe plan is currently being updated and

may be going before the Board of Supervisors in November 2016. County staff to verify the

status and changes proposed from original plan. General purpose of the plan was to establish

alignments and right-of-way widths needed for strategically significant principle arterial

roadways (6 lanes with 130’ to 150’ ROW) and to encourage County and Cities to adopt this

plan and its policies as part of their planning process. An “early alert process” that is designed

to inform and enhance the level of coordination between Pinal County and neighboring cities

of development plan proposals and their right-of-way needs/requirements.

ADOT NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY

TIAC Member Comments – Members confirmed the North-South Corridor and SR 24 Extension

(from Ironwood Drive east to the N/S Corridor) will be planned together with current efforts

consisting of a Tier 1 EIS for the North-South corridor that will be published in 2019. No federal

funding is identified, but this potential roadway would have a dramatic effect on San Tan

Valley.

ADOT PASSENGER RAIL STUDY

TIAC Member Comments – Given the location of the preferred alternative (Yellow Line)

through San Tan, members did enquire about the use of existing tracks or double tracking

within the study area. Members believed UPRR has completed their double tracking efforts



3

within the Sun Corridor, including the STV area. The Yellow Line is the preferred alternative

because it connects existing population bases thereby increasing ridership, it has the least

environmental impacts and is the least expensive option to design and construct. Regardless,

any future passenger rail along the preferred alternative through the study area would need

to coordinate with UPRR. A federal ROD ion the Tier 1 EIS is due soon. No federal funding

source has been identified. A potential station location in STV should be identified, perhaps

on the ASLD property in the central portion of the study area.

MAG FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK STUDY

TIAC Member Comments – Members confirmed the study looked at both existing and

potential activity centers to evaluate needs and opportunities. The PHX-Mesa Gateway

airport has been identified as one of four freight focus areas which could have spin-off effects

for STV. Project efforts are now focusing on existing hubs to maintain project traction and

identify funding opportunities.

PINAL COUNTY TRANSIT STUDY

TIAC Member Comments – Members suggested also to obtain and reviewing the SE Valley

Transit System Study. Although that plan did not include the San Tan Valley per se, a large

number (possibly over 1,000) of survey respondents were from the San Tan area. Many users

in STV travel to the Apache Junction Transit Center for commutes into the Phoenix area.

Members also suggested reviewing entitlement process to ensure current plans are reviewed

as part of the approval process. RTA plans to complete further study of route locations should

a revenue source be approved by county voters.

CAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TIAC Members generally concurred with Mr. Kugler’s observation that this plan is very

regional in nature – covering both Pinal and Gila Counties. As such, roadway and trail

alignments/facility types identified in STV are more readily identified in other existing plans

presented today.

PINAL COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN

TIAC Member Comments – Pinal County has been working on updates to the 2007 plan and

will provide the updates to the project team.

UTILITY PROVIDERS IN STV

TIAC Member Comments – Members enquired about ability to show Water and Wastewater

service boundaries instead of existing service areas. Project Team confirmed information has

been requested. Members also indicated existing telecommunication providers include Cox,

Century Link, and Media Com.



4

GROUP EXERCISE

At the completion of the introductory presentation, and with the benefit of the knowledge gained

from the existing plans and studies review, Mr. Kugler initiated a facilitator-led discussion session.

During this session participants were asked a series of questions focused on transportation,

infrastructure and emergency service related topics. Attendees were encouraged, if they so

desired, to comment on any topic regardless of their personal or agency focus areas. The intent of

the exercise was to identify additional data needs, perceptions, issues and solutions that may the

project team may need to be further investigated through the STV planning process. The group

conversation resulted in participants providing a range of responses to each discussion question

as summarized below:

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:

Transportation Infrastructure

1) Today’s presentation identified and reviewed a number of studies, plans or policy documents that

have some level of impact or influence on the STV Special Area Plan process. Are you aware of any

additional plans, studies, or other documents that you feel we should be aware of for this project?

Suggested Documents:

o South East Valley Transit Study

o Mesa Gateway Airport Master Plan – update process won’t begin until 2018

o Pinal County 2013 Meridian Road Alignment Study

2) What do you feel is the greatest transportation infrastructure challenge facing STV today or in the

future?

From a policing standpoint, it is a concern how fast some people travel on roadways,

and that it is hard to get emergency vehicles through traffic especially during business

hours. Recently Hunt Highway has had an influx of accidents, and a small fender-bender

will cause enormous traffic backups. From a firefighter/EMT perspective it is a concern

on the size of the roadways that it is hard to get some emergency vehicles through

(firetrucks / ladder trucks).

There is also no ‘Point A’ to ‘Point B’ roads in parts of San Tan Valley (lacking an east-

west connectivity). A good example is near Copper Basin where Magma road should be

extended to the west for connectivity.

Hunt Highway, behind Walmart there is only one way in and out.

If there were bike lanes on Hunt Highway, they would be used a lot.



5

3) Generally speaking, please identify what accomplishments or objectives you wish to see come out of

this planning process for the STV Special Area Plan?

Besides addressing the challenges identified in the previous question, no additional

comments were offered.

Utility Infrastructure


have some level of impact or influence on the STV Special Area Plan process. Are you aware of any

additional plans, studies, or other documents that you feel we should be aware of for this project?

SRP plans out 10 years ahead

Abel Powerline a new 230kv line

Johnson Utilities are currently updating their master plans now. Hopefully they can

participate in this process in the future.

2) What do you consider to be the greatest utility infrastructure challenge facing STV today or in the

future?

A TIAC member had stated that there are multiple utility companies within the STV area,

and that the somewhat fragmented utility service geography in STV can pose a

challenge with developers.



No comments were provided.

Emergency Services Infrastructure


have some level of impact or influence on the STV Special Area Plan process. None of these studies

related to emergency services per se. Are you aware of any additional plans, studies, or other

documents that you feel we should be aware of for this project?

No comments were provided.

2) What do you consider to be the greatest challenge facing the ability to provide adequate emergency

service capabilities in STV today or in the future? Possible responses could include:

Fire/EMT



6

o There is about a 30-35% average subscriber rate in San Tan Valley for fire/medical

service (i.e., 30% to 35% of all households in STV subscribe to Rural/Metro

fire/medical service). Getting more subscribers is a big challenge, and at least

twice a year Rural Metro will mail out flyers to anyone within the service area.

They also try to reach prospective subscribers via Social Media, education, and if

there was a fire or medical emergency within the area. It was suggested that San

Tan Valley could be under a ‘Master Contract’ where one tax would cover the

entire community, as is currently the case for the Towns of Florence and Carefree.

That way, everyone has coverage. Many of the medical calls that come out of San

Tan Valley are relating to mental health.

County Sheriff

o From a policing standpoint, there is currently a staff and resource shortage for the

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. Pinal County is losing officers to other Valley police

departments (competitive pay issue) which in turn, pulls officers from other areas

of the county to be brought into San Tan Valley.

o San Tan Valley currently has about 40 deputies assigned to it, and it is

recommended that they have 80-82 officers (2.5 officers for every 1,000 people is

a national benchmark and department goal).

o On average there are about 3,000 calls a month within San Tan Valley, and 90%

of the crime press releases are coming from San Tan Valley. San Tan Valley has a

little bit of everything when it comes to crime: domestic violence, collision/traffic

related, theft (mostly from open garage doors, and unlocked vehicles), drug

activity.

o Walmart attracts a lot of criminals from shoplifting/retail theft, to car jacking’s.

o On average the Sheriff’s office for a ‘Hot Call’ (highest priority) their average

response time is about 1-2 minutes. Where a ‘Priority Call’ is about a 5 minute

response time.



More officer positions, resources and salary increases for the Pinal County Sheriff’s

Office to allow for more officers in San Tan Valley, as well as other areas.

Increase Rural/Metro subscriber rate for fire/EMT services in STV.



Appendix A:

TIAC Meeting #1

Presentation

− Project Team & TAC Members− Project Purpose− Meeting Purpose− Project Stakeholders

− TIAC Role and Responsibility

− Plan Expectations− Project Work Plan & Timeline− Context Maps and Demographic Trends and − Existing Plans and Studies in STV

County Staff: Himanshu Patel, AICP; Development Services Director Steve Abraham, AICP; Planning Manager Evan Balmer, Project Planner

Michael Baker International: Kevin Kugler, AICP; Project Director Matt Klyszeiko, AICP; Project Manager

‒ Over 40 years of combined public and private sector experience in the preparation of local government comprehensive and specific area plans, policies and ordinances in Arizona

ESI Corporation: Judie Scalise, Economic Analysis Lead

‒ Over 30 years of economic development analytics and strategic planning experience with government agencies and corporations

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

‒

Ph

ase

I PROJECT INITIATIONP

has

e II PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Ph

ase

III PREFERRED PLAN

Ph

ase

IV 60-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

Ph

ase

V PUBLIC HEARINGS / ADOPTION

Oct - DecJan -Mar

Apr -June

July -Sept

Oct -Dec

Owner Acreage Percent

Private 26,232.72 66.96%

State Trust 12,281.93 31.35%

BLM 478.77 1.22%

Bureau of Reclamation 183.80 0.47%

Total 39,177.22 100.00%

ACS 2010-2014

2010 Census

ACS 2010-2014

ESRI

Pinal County, ACS 2010-2014

2010 Census

2010 Census

Source: Pinal County Regional Transportation Authority: Figure 5-2

– Proposed Routes for the RTP.

Source: Regionally Significant Routes Plan for Safety and Mobility:

Figure 9. Regionally Significant Routes for Safety and Mobility

Corridor Preservation Map

Source: North–South Corridor Study Alternatives Selection Report: Figure 46. Route alternatives recommended to be advanced for

detailed study in the EIS

Source: ADOT Passenger Rail Study: Tucson to Phoenix: Final Alternatives & Common Corridors, June 2013

Source: Pinal County Short-Term Transit Improvements:

Figure 6-1: Potential Short-Term Transit Improvements

Source: CAG Regional Transportation Plan:Figure 23 – Preferred Alternative

Source: Pinal County Open Space and Trails Master Plan:

Figure 13. Final Master Plan Map



Appendix B:

TIAC Meeting #1

Sign-In Sheet