Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD General Plan 2040 Transportation Standards PPTSan Rafael General Plan 2040 Proposed Transportation Planning Metrics PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL JULY 6, 2020 Objectives 1.Establish CEQA standards for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as required by State law (SB 743) 2.Provide policy direction on future use of Level of Service (LOS) for planning and development review Council direction on these topics is on the “critical path” for the 2040 General Plan and Draft EIR Level of Service (LOS)Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Use Was the common CEQA threshold from 1980s until 2020 As of July 1, 2020—now the required CEQA threshold Purpose Reduce congestion Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Scale Local Regional Measures Travel Delay during peak hour Distance driven in an average day Metric Letter Grade (A through F)Miles Per Capita Mitigation Increase road capacity Reduce number and length of car trips LOS vs VMT: Key Differences Basis for Recommendations State Guidelines (CEQA and OPR Guidelines) General Plan 2040 traffic modeling and data analysis Council feedback on June 3, 2019 and December 2, 2019 Input from General Plan 2040 Steering Committee Input from community groups (Responsible Growth in Marin) Established practices (General Plan 2020) Prior Council Direction Tailor standards to local conditions Minimize the need for Council CEQA overrides/ exceptions for each project Avoid creating additional obstacles for housing Retain LOS for use in planning and development review Consider LOS exemption for Downtown San Rafael Continue collecting traffic improvement fees based on trip generation September 2013 –Governor Signed SB 743 December 2018 – OPR Finalized State CEQA Guidelines December 2018 – Natural Resources Agency Updated CEQA Guidelines Agencies have until July 2020 to implement VMT thresholds SB 743 Timeline Key Local Decisions When is a VMT analysis required? o Are there development projects or parts of the City that should be screened from a detailed analysis? What are the thresholds used to determine if a project will have a potentially significant impact? How will potential impacts be mitigated? OPR Technical Advisory Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research, and in light of an assessment by the California Air Resources Board quantifying the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. Existing and Projected VMT in San Rafael * (includes unincorporated sphere of influence) Scenario Total VMT Service Area Population* (Population plus Employment) VMT/ Service Population Baseline (2019)3,614,326 119,951 30.1 2040 No Project (TAM)3,812,138 129,111 29.5 2040 GP Preferred Alt 3,737,890 132,976 28.1 PROJECT OR AREA TYPE OPR’S SUGGESTED CRITERIA RECOMMENDATION Small Projects Projects generating less than 110 daily trips √ Projects in Low-VMT Areas Residential or office projects located in low-VMT areas with similar features to nearby uses √ Projects in Proximity to Major Transit Stops Projects within ½ mile of high-quality transit corridor or major transit stations that also meet low-VMT criteria √ Affordable Housing 100% affordable housing projects √ Local-Serving Retail Local-Serving Retail projects of 50,000 sq. ft. or less √ Transportation Projects Transit, bicycle, pedestrian, or roadway projects that do not lead to a measurable increase in vehicle travel √ Downtown San Rafael N/A All residential and local-serving retail (less than 50ksf) Recommended VMT Screening Criteria √= OPR suggested criteria would apply PROJECT TYPE VMT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD RECOMMENDATION Residential Project VMT rate exceeds 15% below existing Regional average rate (per resident) Office Project VMT rate exceeds 15% below existing Regional average rate (per employee) Retail Project Total VMT rate exceeds 15% below existing Regional average rate (per employee) Mixed -Use Aggregate metric (VMT per service population) rate exceeds 15% below existing Regional average rate Each land use type evaluated individually against residential, office, and retail thresholds above Other Use City to develop ad hoc (i.e., project-specific) VMT threshold Redevelopment If a redevelopment project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, based on evaluation of individual land uses, project exceeds respective thresholds above for applicable land use types Transportation Project results in a net increase in total VMT Land Use Plans Aggregate metric (VMT per service population) exceeds 15 percent below plan area baseline Each land use type evaluated individually against residential, office, and retail thresholds above Recommended VMT Thresholds of Significance VMT Mitigation Measures Trip Reduction Strategies, increased use of transit, carpool, biking, and walking Change in Land Use Project Mix or Density Mandatory TDM Programs Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update, including VMT-reducing programs and projects Level of Service Has been in use since in San Rafael 1980s May no longer be used for CEQA but may still be used for planning Some cities are eliminating entirely, others are retaining Staff’s initial recommendation was to shift to arterial delay index Feedback from Council and community is to retain LOS but consider exceptions Existing Policy (General Plan 2020) LOS “D” is citywide standard o Applies to intersections and arterials Exceptions apply to specific intersections and segments (listed in the Plan) o existing or projected conditions below LOS “D” o other policy objectives apply (Downtown) o traffic is regional in nature (I-580 and 101 off-ramps) City Council action is required to approve a project that exceeds adopted LOS Proposed Policy M-2.5 Maintains status quo for most parts of San Rafael Maintains LOS “D” standard with exceptions o Continues exemption for I-580 and 101 off-ramps o Allows LOS “E” or “F” for specific intersections or segments that already operate at these levels or are projected to operate at these levels by 2040, where restoration of LOS “D” is not feasible(*) Separate (non-LOS) approach taken for Downtown, recognizing context, existing congestion, planning goals, and limits to expanding capacity (*) Projects affecting these intersections/ segments will still be required to address impacts and make improvements where appropriate Proposed Programs M-2.5A, B, C Traffic studies will continue to be required Improvements to maintain LOS will continue to be required Traffic improvement fees will continue to be collected Downtown projects will be required to prepare Local Traffic Assessments that identify measures to address congestion impacts City Council action will be required to grant exceptions to LOS and other standards; specific findings will be required Update of Traffic Improvement Fee City is updating traffic improvement fee as part of General Plan Update Existing project list in GP 2020 is being updated o Some projects will be removed, others will be added o Projects to reduce VMT are encouraged Projected improvement costs and trip generation forecasts will be used to determine cost per trip Will return to City Council later this Summer to review project list and fee recommendations Requested Actions Approve the proposed screening criteria and thresholds for VMT Approve the proposed approach to Level of Service Next Steps Minor changes to the VMT screening criteria and LOS policy/programs may follow Council action Other General Plan policies will be revised for internal consistency Staff will return to City Council for discussion of traffic improvements/ fees Council will consider final version of policies/ programs during its review of General Plan 2040 later in 2020 Guidelines will be prepared for: o Application of the VMT screening criteria and thresholds (including a flow chart) o Local traffic assessment for Downtown and intersections/ segments below LOS D San Rafael General Plan 2040 Proposed Transportation Planning Metrics Thank You Supplemental F&P slides Legislation •Sets intent and goals CEQA Statute •Sets legal requirements for adequate environmental analysis Technical Advisory •Offers advice for compliance Senate Bill 743 What is the Legislative intent of SB 743 ? New methodologies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are needed for evaluating transportation impacts that are better able to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. CEQA Guidelines Excerpt Section 15064.3(b): Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts (1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Section 15064.7: Thresholds of Significance A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant… Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use … must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis. When adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision…is supported by substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Excerpt