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