The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD General Plan 2040 - Downtown Precise Plan PPTSan Rafael General Plan 2040 Progress Report #3 PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 2, 2019 OVERVIEW Steering Committee Membership Changes General Plan Progress •Policy Development •Land Use Map and Alternatives •Downtown Precise Plan Transportation Policy Issues STEERING COMMITTEE CHANGES 24 members/ 22 alternates Attendance has exceeded 80% at every meeting to date Youth Rep Bromberg to be replaced by Eleanor Huang Youth Alternate remains unchanged Resolution included with Agenda materials POLICY DEVELOPMENT DRAFTS COMPLETED Land Use Open Space Conservation Air and Water Quality Sustainability Safety Noise Infrastructure UNDERWAY •Transportation •Neighborhoods •Community Design •Parks and Recreation •Economic Vitality •Arts and Culture •Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (JEDI) NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT •On-Line Tool Developed •Meetings with Individual Neighborhood Groups and Coalitions •Spanish-language Focus Groups through Canal Alliance •Recommending follow-up plans for Canal and Northgate areas LAND USE MAP AND ALTERNATIVES 2040 Draft Plan Map completed Adjustments to Land Use Map categories Included General Plan Map Amendment requests still being considered Three alternatives will be developed, each with different assumptions about job and housing growth Alternatives will be modeled for impacts on traffic, services, etc. DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN Profile Report and Options Report Council Briefed on Downtown Options on October 7 Staff is working with Opticos to address issues raised thusfar Economic feasibility/ parcel assembly challenges Future of retail Transportation improvements Public space improvements Outline of Form Based Code under review TRANSPORTATION POLICY ISSUES GENERAL PLAN 2040 Informational Report CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 2, 2019 RAJ; ~ 0 .... ~ "'r.,, ('/ )' ----~' y WITH p,. WHAT IS “VMT?” Measures the amount and distance of vehicle travel (origin and destination) attributed to a project or use. o the greater the number of vehicle trips and the longer the distance of those trips; the greater the impact Assesses the effects of a project on overall vehicle travel Favors higher density or mixed use projects close to transit OVERVIEW Must Adopt CEQA VMT Impact Evaluation Methodology prior to July 1, 2020, and apply in subsequent CEQA studies General Plan Update Policy Revisions on LOS Next steps CEQA VMT Methodology Decisions Metrics,or how VMT is presented Screening,or when to do a quantitative analysis Methods,or how VMT will be calculated Thresholds,or when a significant impact is triggered Mitigation Options,or how to address VMT impacts CEQA VMT Project Type Applications Land Use Projects, development projects Land Use Plans,including General Plans, Specific Plans, etc. Transportation Projects,roadway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian projects VMT –Climate Change Context Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP, May 2019) CCAP targets 80% reduction in 1990 GHG emissions by 2050 CCAP targets are in line with or more aggressive than State’s targets Climate action and adaptation measures o Low Carbon Transportation (38%)-measures to increase use of ZEV/hybrid vehicles, bike/walk, transit, carpooling VMT Screening, qualitative analysis City may screen projects that are presumed to have a less- than-significant VMT impact Land Use Project Examples: o Projects within ½ mile of major transit station or routes o Small projects (less than 110 trips per day) o Affordable housing near major transit stations o Local-serving retail less than 50,000 SF o Downtown San Rafael –projects in DPP study area VMT Methods, quantitative analysis For projects that are not subject to screening and require a quantitative VMT forecast TAM Marin County Travel Model, for larger land use projects and all land use plans Spreadsheet-Based Assessment,for smaller land use projects VMT Thresholds, impact trigger Land Use Option A –Set threshold based on state goals o OPR:VMT reduction of 15% below the regional (i.e., Bay Area) baseline (current at time of analysis) average o ARB:Same as above, but VMT reduction of 16.8% Land Use Option B –Set threshold based on General Plan VMT performance o VMT reduction on a citywide basis using new TAM model Transportation Projects –net increase in citywide VMT compared to no project scenario VMT Mitigation Options Trip Reduction Strategies, increased use of transit, carpool, biking, and walking Change in Land Use Project Mix or Density Citywide TDM Ordinance,monitoring element would require new staff resources Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update, add VMT reducing programs and projects VMT -Next Steps General Plan Alternatives Analysis (January/February) o Includes assessment of Citywide VMT for 3 alternatives, VMT forecasts to inform VMT Threshold determination VMT CEQA Recommendations to City Council (Early Spring) LOS OPTIONS Status Quo, Maintaining Level of Service Arterial Delay Index No Local Monitoring –Use VMT as the only metric Status Quo, Maintain LOS Continue to use LOS in our current General Plan Requires greatest level of resources and time Arterial Delay Index Develop a simple ratio between congested and uncongested travel time o Basically a simplified version of arterial level of service Include major arterials for each area of the City i.e for the Downtown area (Ex. Second and Third Streets) A project will be cleared locally if the expected travel times after the project is maintained. VMT Only: No Local Monitoring Apply the CEQA VMT evaluation as described earlier No other analysis would be used to monitor local growth Council Feedback Requested 1.Use a locally-based VMT Target (rather than 15% below regional average) 2.Retain LOS as a Planning Tool a.Larger developments outside of Downtown would continue to be required to evaluate local congestion impacts. b.A “delay index” would be used instead of intersection LOS 3.Retain trip-based mitigation fees