Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2018-0007; VALLEY VIEW; TRAFFIC STUDY; 2020-07-15MaZUTA TRAFFIC CONSULTING Technical Memorandum To: Andy Champion, Kirk Moeller Architects From: Marc :Mizuta, Mizuta Traffic Consulting Date: July 15, 2020 Re: Valley View Projecr T raflic Study Response to Comments The following are Mizuta Traffic Consulting's responses to the City of Carlsbad comments, dated July 1, 2020 regarding the proposed Valley View project. Responses were prepared to match the numbering contained in the comment letter. City of Carlsbad Comments Response 1: A trip distribution and assignment figure has been prepared showing the exempt segments and the project traffic assigned to those segments. The project does not add 11 or more peak~hour trips to any exempt segment. As a result, no additional TDM or TSM strategies are required. This figure has been added to the appendix of the revised TIA. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns with the responses. Attachment: Comment Letter Revised Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure Mizuta Traffic Consulting I 5694 Mission Center Road #60H21, San Dlego, CA 92108 I 858.752.8212 July 1, 2020 Andy Champion Kirk Moeller Architects, Inc. 2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92010 ( City of Carlsbad SUBJECT: 5th REVIEW FOR GPA 2018-0001 / ZC 2018-0001 / SOP 2018-0007 / HOP 2018-0004 / HMP 2018-0004 / MS 2018-0007-VALLEY VIEW (DEVZOlB-0099) The Planning Division has reviewed your second submittal for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Site Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit, Habitat Management Permit, and Minor Subdivision, applications no. GPA 2018-0001 / ZC 2018-0001 / SOP 2018-0007 / HDP 2018-0004 / HMP 2018-0004 / MS 2018-0007. Please find attached a list of items that need to be addressed. In addition, please be advised that the legislative applications (i.e. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) and quasi-judicial (i.e. all remaining) applications are required to remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved by City Council. As part of your re-submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: 1) a copy of these lists; 2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been addressed; 3) return red line plans and/or reports; and 4) three copies of the revised TIA. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Cliff Jones, at (760) 602-4613, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Tecla Levy, Project Engineer, at (760) 602-2733 Sincerely, Qn CLIFF JONES ;. Senior Planner CJ:mf c: Solomon Levy, Land Development LLC, P.O. Box 12409, El Cajon CA 92022 Tecla Levy, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Community Development Department Planning Division I 1635 Faraday Avenue carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 I 760-602-4600 ! 760--602-8560f I www.carlsbadca.gov GPA 2018-0001 / zc 2018--000t , ;op 2018--0007 / HDP 2018-0004 / HMP 2u18-0004 / MS 2018--0007 - VALLEY VIEW {DEV2018-0099) July 1, 2020 Pa e 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. As previously discussed, the project will likely require the preparation of a mitigated negative declaration (MND). Staff has been informed by the applicant that Dudek Is preparing the MND. 2. Please provide planning a hard copy and an electronic copy of the SWQMP. 3. Please provide a written response to all comments clearly indicating where and how each comment was addressed. Engineering: 1. The provided trip assignment figure does not clearly identify whether the project is subject to Mobility Element policy 3-P .11. Street segments exempt from vehicular level of service standards in the vicinity of the project or that would be a likely route from the project to Interstate 5 were identified in the previous comment. Expand trip assignment figure to show project trips on segments identified as exempt from vehicular level of service standards. Landscape: 1. All previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. • costaAve v-~ ~ M~ZUTA TRHFIC CO NSLLTI NG Oil 110 ~ ~ * Proj(ct S11, Exempt Segments Trip [fualbudoo '\. ~ AM I PM Trip Awgnment xxlyy Tnp Distribution and Assignment - • • • • • • • • • • • MaZUTA TRAFFIC CONSULTING Technical Memorandum To: Audrey Inskeep, OPP Management rrom: J'..,farc Mizuta, Mizuta Traftic Consulting Date: November )(\ 2021 Re: Valley View VMT Analysis Mizuta Traffic Consulting (MTC) has prepared this memo for the proposed Valley View projccl to evc1.luate the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for the project. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) \Vas approved in 201) and changes the way transportation impat:ts are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has recommended the use of VMT as the required metric to replace the automobile dday· based le\'cl of service (LOS). The VMT analysis is needed to meet statewide requirements for transportation analyses conducted under CEQA and can help support the City of Carlsbad's goals an<l policies related to its General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and City of Carlsbad Core Values. The \'MT analysis was based on the criteria outlined in the City of Carlsbad V:MT Analysis Guidelines, September 15, 202(1 (City's \/MT Analysis Guidelines). Project Description The proposed Project consists of an ll,404 square foot (sf) industrial office building to be constructed on a portion of an existing 6. !4 acre pared (APN 209-040 ·4) ·00) located on the north side of Palmer \Vay between Cougar Drive and Impala DriYe. As part of the project, the pd red will be split into two lots. Lot I will be 4.9 3 acres and remain as open space. Lot 2 will be 1.41 ancs and the project's building footprint will cover 22.9 percent of the lot. Access to the Project will be provided by two driveways off of Palmer \Vay. 1 he Project is providing 46 parking spaces on· site. Signifkancc Criteria Accl1rding to the Ci/v's VMT Analy.m ()uidclincs, an office project would have a significant transportalion impact if the project V~vfT per employee exceeds a lcYC! IS percent hclmv the regional average VMT per employee. VMT Analysis Typical office land use projects generating lt.-:ss than 2,4(1() daily trips would use the City of Carlsbad's \'MT/c.1pita and \'~tTiemployc:e ana.lysis maps. However, at this time, the City's maps have not hem finalized at the TAZ leYel and the SANDAG SB 74 ~ VivtT Maps were referenced utilizing the latest Series 14 data. The VtvlT/capita or \'fvtT/employcc of the project is estimated hascd on the average VMT/capita or \'MT/employee for the census tract in which the project is located . MaZUTA TRAFFIC CONSULTING Figure 1 shows the results of the office VMT per employee by census tract. The project is located in census tract 198.06 and results in a YMT per employee of 26.6, which is 97.9 percent of the regional mean. As a result, tbe project is proposing to implement various IDM measures to reduce its VMT and be within the allowable threshold of 15 percent or more below the regional average VMT per employee. -~ i .s.-1 .. us-,., ... o:rm • .,. • .,.. '•••• •o r...-"-•- •ot;:o-~, ••••• ;,• --~ !,-., ... -•• ._ .... ,Ho.:: ~c-., ... ,. _,.....,,...~ .... !:~!.. -~·.:::;-"~~~-!".":,:";,".::::'-- --"··-.:.>e1"4 ... .,-•........ -c-,. Wt¥' .......... _.,.J'41'\ll'• .. u:.--.,. .. ,.,-,_...,., .~_,.. ... ·~ ~ ..... • • .r , .. ,,.,. : • -----~--. -.. .. .._ ..... ,. y,_ • .,.-.. .... ~ :r, •• + ."t~ -..-.-,,,_c.:.,o• t,~ l~I -~ ~!\~::,.-~·~··: =~: ~~-~ Project Features The project proposes to implement VMT reduction strategies to achieve reducing the number of automobile trips generated by the project and/or reducing Lhe distance that people drive. Measures that reduce single occupant automobile trips or reduce travel distances arc called Transportation Demand Managemem (TDM) strategies. According to the City's TDM Handbook, new non-residential projects generating 110 or more employee daily trips are subject to the TDM ordinance and are required to complete and implement a TDM Plan. Tbe project is estimated to generate l49 daily trips based on the employee daily Lrip rate of L3 ADT per 1,000 sf for all office uses. for projects generating between U() and 220 ADT, a Tier l TOM Plan is required. The various TOM strategies contained in the Tier l TD 1 Plan would be considered Lhc project feature and the VMT reduction measures proposed v.'ill be required measures in the TDM Plan. TDM Effectiveness and Adjustments TDM strategies must have suf£icienL evidence to quantify the Level of VMT reduction that a strategy could achieve. Many TDM strategies can be quantified using the methodologies contained in the California Air Pollution Conrrol Ofjkers Association (CAPCOA) @.uantijying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August ::!010. TOM strategies can be combined with others to increase the effectiveness of VMT reductions. However, the interaction between the various strategies is Valley \'tew V'.\1T Project Fe:lrures Memo v'.l 2 - • - • - - - - - • • • • • • • • • • TRAFFIC CONSULTING complex and sometimes countetintuitive. \.Vhcn multiple strategics are being applied, the following formula is used to quantify the VMT reduction: Total VMT Reduction~ 1-(1 -Pa)• (1 -P0) • (1-P,) • ... \Vhere: l\ -Percent reduction of each VMT reduction strategy The project is proposing to use a variety of commute trip reduction strategies. The global maximum reduction for a combination of all measures in a suburban setting is expected Lo have a maximum feasible overall reduction 0f 15 percent The maximum subcategory reduction associated with the Commute Trip Reduction measures is also l) percent. The \'MT output referenced from the SAN DAG SB 743 \'MT maps arc based on the SANDAG second generation Activity Based Modd system (ABM2). The ABM system has been continuously updated to ensure that the regional transportation planning prrn.:ess can rely on forecasting tools thaL are adequate for socioeconomic environments and emerging transportation planning challenges. The output of the AB;'vl2 includes all tours and activities during the entire day (includes all work-related and non-work-related trips). The various TOM measures implemented by the projecL 1,,vould only apply to commute VMT. Since the ARM2 S:\NDAG V\ff per employee metric includes all trips (not just work related), a step must be taken to estimate the work-related portion of the metric when cakulating the effectiveness of work based TOM measures. The portion of City of Carlsbad VMT per employee that is work related is approximately 67 percent of the total \'MT per employee. Therefore, the cakulation ol Lhc \'MT reduction is determined by multiplying the TDM me.isure by 67 pe1Tent. TDM Measures There arc many tr.msportation measures that can achieve a reduction in Vlv1T. The following list summarizes these measures: • Land llse / Location • Neighborhood/ Site f:nhancement • Parking Policy/ Pricing • Transit System Improvements • Commute Trip Reduction Commute trip reduction measures were determined to be .1pproprL.11e to n:clucc the commute VMT in order to achieve the \'\.ff reductions required for the project. Table 1 summarizes tht: various trip reduction programs. It should he noted that a few strategies do not quantify the reduction of commute VMT and arc noted. The projccL will utilize a combination of the trip reduction strategics, ,vhich arc summarizd in the Tier 1 Tf)ivl Plan. The various TDM slraLegics contained in the Tier I TDM Plan would be considered the project feature and the \'MT reduction measures proposed will be required measures in the TDM Plan . \'.1lky \'ie11· \''.\IT Prnjcct fcJturc, '.lkmo ,-;: M~ZUTA TRAFF IC CONSULTING T bl I T . Rd t p '! , R,lll\!l ,,If llull\Ull·,, \h.1,[1/L" • ----:-,-l{uiLM-;,,11 I~· - \. lllllhl·[ I 11, Rnlul!11•11 ',t1.1t,.:,\ < .f I<, I 111,.._.._,.,11, l\.1,1, TRT I Voluntary CTR Programs l.0 -6.2 CommuteVMT TRT-2 Mandatory CTR Proorams -U -21.0 CommutcVMT TRT-3 Ride-Sh..tring Programs 1-15 CommutcVMT TRT 4 Subsidi::ed or Discounted Transit Program 0 . .3 -20.0 CommutcVMT TRT 5 End of Trip Facilities n/a TRT 6 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 0.07 -5.50 CommutcVMT TRT-7 CTR Marketin_g 0.8 -4.0 CommutcVMT TRT-8 Prefercnti.il Parking Permit Prcxm1m n/a TRT-9 Car-Sharing Pro>Ztarn 0.-t -0.7 VMT TRT IO SchoolPoolPrwram 7.2 15.8 School VMT TRT 11 [mploycr Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle OJ -13.4 CommutcVMT TRT-12 Bike-Sharing Program n/a TRT U School Bus Prwram 38 63 School VMT TRT14 Price \Norkplace Parking 0.1 -19.7 Commute \'MT TRT 15 [mploycc Parking ~cash-Out" 0.6 -7.7 CommutcVMT :-.:ote~: V .ilue-. shown in t.ible were referenced from T.1hle 6 1 of the C.\P(O,\ ')_11anrib'i11gGr-crnho11sc Gas .\11t1gario11 Measures. August 2010. Ride Sharing Program (TRT-3) The ride sharing program would increase the Yehicle occupancy and result in fewer cars driving the same trip resulting in a decrease in VMT. Some of the ways that the project will promote ride sharing programs include the following: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles • Providing a ,vebsite or message board for coordinating rides The range of effectiveness for this measure ranges between I and 15 percent commute VMT reduction. The following formula is used to quantify the\ 'IT reduction for implementing a ride sharing program: o/o VMT Reduction = A* B * C vVhcrc: A: 5% reduction in commute VMT for a low density suburb B: 80% employees eligible since some may be part lime employees C: 670/o of the total VMT per employee in the City o( Carlsbad is work-related VJUI'\• \'iew V\ff PrLJjcct Feature, Mc.mo \'~ .j - - - • - ... , - • - • • . . • • • MaZUTA TRHf/C CONSLJll/NG % VMT Reduction= (. 05) • (. 80) • (. 67) = 2.7% Prv;t,x·t Impleme11tation The Project will designate up to IQ parking spaces, which equates to approximately 20 percent at the available parking spaces as ride-sharing parking spaces. Signs ,vill be installed in front of each designated parking space . The Project will designate an area in the parking structure for passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles. The TOM Coordinator will work \Vith each employer's HR department and provide ride sharing options like iCommutc: for employees to use to find ride sharing opportunities. Another option is to promote ridesharing opportunities that are part of the City of Carlsbad's Commuter program (ht tps://www .earl sbadcom muter .com/). Subsidize Trans it Program (TR T ~4) The subsidized or discounted transit program woukl provide subsidized/discounted <laily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between a!\ shuttles J.nd transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer or lkw:lopmcnt . The range of dkctiwness for this measure ranges between(\ { and 10.0 percent commute VMl reduction . The following formula is used to quantify tht: VMT rl'duction for implt:menting a ride sharing program: \\'here: % VMT Reduction= A* 8 * C * D A: 1.0~'o rcductinn in commute \'~fr for a low density suburb with a Si.96 daily transit subsidy H: 3'51:'o employees eligible C: 100% factnr, assumes J.ll trip lengths arc equal (vehicle trips to VY[T) D: 67(\, of the total V\1T per employee in the City of Carlsbad is \Vork related % VMT Reduction= (. 20) • (. 35) • (1.00) • (. 67) = 4.7% lhe estimated annual cost for this program \vould be approximatdy S19,800. The projed is assumed to have a total ot !8 employees, which is based on SANDAc;·s RTCIP Impai:t Fee NexusS1t1dy where il assumed ;. ~ ~ employees for each 1,000 sf of otfkc space. \.Vith !5 percent participating in the subsidized transit program, a daily transit subsidy of S5.96, and an J.veragc of 250 working days in a typical year (indudes 10 holidays), the project is estimated to have a daily cost of approximately S79 and a yearly cost of approximately 519,800. i TRAFFIC CONSULTING Projfft Implementation The TDM Coordinator will work \Vith each employer's HR department and coordinate on the distribution of daily and monthly public transit pass<.·s. The 1DM Coordinator will deposit approximately $19,800 each year into a designated escrow account that will be used to purchase transit passes for employees_ The actual funds deposited will be based on the current occupancy of the building at the beginning of each t.:akndar yt'ar. The monthly transit subsidy for each employee choosing to commute to ,vork by public transportation ,,.·ill be $119.20 ($5.96 per day x 20 days per month). The TOM Coordinator will reimburse each employee up to S119.20 each month for the monthly transit pass. Funds will be withdrawn from the escrow account. Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules (TRT~6) The encouragement of telecommuting and alternate \York schedules would reduce the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternate work schedules could take the form of staggered start times, flexible schedules, or compressed \vork weeks. The range of effectiveness for this measure ranges het\vcen 0.07 and 5.50 percent commute VMT reduction. According to Fchrc· Pccrs MoviniCoolcr Tcd111ical i\ppendiccs, the percent reduction in commute VM·1· can be correlated to employee participation and the number of days telecommuting. The employee participation ranged from I to 25 percent. Assuming an employee participation of 25 percent and telecommuting 1.5 days a week results in a '5.5 percent reduction in commute VMT. The following formula is used to quantify the \'MT reduction for encouraging telecommuting and alternate work schedules: % V MT Reduction = A * B \Vhere: A 5.5% reduction in rnmmute VMT B: 67% of the total VMT per employee in the City of Carlsbad is work related % VMT Reduction= (. 055), (. 67) = 3.7% Profcct Implementation The TD".vt Coordinator \Vill work \.vith each employer's llR department and obtain a monthly summary of the work schedule of ca..:h employee. The participation requirement of at least 25 percent of employees telecommuting L 5 or more days a week will be checked and Yalidated on a quarterly basis. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - • •·. • • • • • MDZUTA TRAFFIC CONSULTINE CTR Marketing (TR T, 7) Implementing commute trip reduction (CTR) marketing \.VOuld reduce the number of commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategics. Some of the marketing strategics may include the following: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications The range of effectiveness for this measure ranges between 0.8 and 4.0 percent commute VMT reduction. The following formula is used to quantify the V~IT reduction for encouraging tdccommuting and alternate work schedules: \Vhcre: % VMT Reduction= A* B * C A: 4.0% reduction in commute V\lrr B: l00% employees eligible C: 67% of the total \'~ff per employee in the City of Carlsbad is work related % VMT Reduction= (. 04) • (1.00) • (. 67) = 2.7% Proicct Implcmcntadvn The TOM Coordinator wiH <le,·dor marketing material summarizing the bendits of commute trir reduction. The marketing material will Ix distributed Lo each employer's HR department and requested to he provided to each employt>e as part of their orirnU.Lion. The lD-:Vt Coordinator will have a yearly event on site that will promote the benefits of commute trip reduction. This yearly event will also be coordinated \vith the City to ensure that it occurs on a pcrm,ment basis. Project VMT Reductions The indh·idual \'\tT reduction for each respective measure should ht: dampcnl.."'.d when combining with other measures. The main purpose ol the dampening is to provide a mt..Lhanism for minimizing the pnssibility of o,·erstating V\1T reduction effectiveness. /\.dditionally, the maximum subcategory and overall global maximum was checked to ensure that the reductions did not exceed the allowable reductions. The maximum k.isible m·erall reduction would be 15 percent \Yith the combination of all measures. The following equation summarizes how the I U percent total VMT reduction was calculated: Total% VMT Reduction= 1-(1-.027) • (1-.047) • (1-.037) • (1-.027) = 13.1% 7 M~ZUTA TRAFFI C CONSULTING Table 2 summarizes the VMT reductions that the Project would achieve by implemenLing and incorporating the va rious TD 1 strategies and how it complies with the maximum reductions. As shown in the table, the Project would result in an overall 13.1 percent VMT reduction and would not exceed the maximum subcategory or global maximum reductions. T bl 2 fVMTR d \ \11 \ 1.1 \ ',11 hl ,It l'~<ll \ c;l,,h.tl \1.t\ Rnltllt1<•11 \k.1,111v '\umhL-r Knluct1Pn (",,) Kult1d!Pl1 (·I'>'',,) ( . I," , J TRT 3 2.7 TRT-4 4.7 ✓ ✓ TRT-6 3.7 TRT-7 2.7 Project VMT Reduction1 13.1 Measures did not exceed max subcategory or global maxi.mum reductions --:otes: I The combin.1t1on of \'MT rc<luction stral£-gics w.is cakul.ttcd by rhe following formula I (I P,)•(l Pb)•(l·Pc)'" .. , where P, i, the pcn:cnt reduction L~f e.1ch \'MT reduction strntegy. When multiple \'MT str,1tcgies are combined, the sum of the individu.1.I VM f reduction percentage,,\\ ill not equ.il the Total VMT reduction :? The m.iximum ~ubc.itegory n.-Juction for the Commute Trip Reduction b 15'\. and the global nu.xi.mum reducuon for ,1 suburb.ID area is 15",o. These , aluc5 were rderenced from CAPCOA 's ~110111if.•11ig Grcrnh,,usc Gas M1rigatr,111 Mcruurcs. August 1010. Accoruing to CA PCOA. The Project would reduce ils VMT ~r employee by 13.1 percent with the implementation of the required TD l measures contained in the Tier l TDM Plan. As a result, Lhe VMT per empJoyee is reduced lrorn 97.9 percent of the regional mean to 84.8 percent of the regional mean and is not considered to have a significant V IT impact. Summary and Conclusions The inilial \'MT analysis completed for the Project was referenced from SAi'\JDAG's SB 74 3 VMT maps based on VMT per employee by census tract data. The VMT per employee by census tract resulted in a VMT of 26.6 per employee, which is 97.9 percent of the regiona] mean. By implementing the TOM strategies contained in the Tier I TOM Plan, Lhc VMT per employee was reduced to 84.8 percent of the regional mean and is not considered Lo have a significant \11\ lT impact. V.11ley \'iew \'Mr Project rcJlures :-lcmo v2 - - - • -ATTACHMENTS -• Project Site Plan • Excerpts from CAPCOA -• Excerpts from SANDAG's RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study - •- .. - • - - • - - • - • - • • - ....... ....... /~tw,tf ....... ~ ....... -............ ,· -............ -............ ------ ' ' \ \ \ \ OVERALL SITE PLAN • ,_ ... "" --------------------i.-r- 8CN.,E; r • 100.0- N ii SITE PLAN -............ ~ -- -J 1 1 11 11 . ., \ . .. ,v ',/'--SCALE. 1• • 'N.fl' ., / ~ I I I J N ii OWNER: tNG OEVBDPMEllff u.c.. COlll>CT 9CI.CW()HM PAD.11G QCA.GM:CAIZIZJ ,._..., AP!'LICANT: UI00MI.OPUEIITU..C. COlilACI· SCIOMCIHNt ,Aecx,_ &CA.101<,CA-, 111- ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: -SITE ADDRESS f»AUCRWAV CNUIAD. CA. l200l ZIG& n<:IM.SMOTICRS l'G. 1t2111 LEGAL OESCRJPTION: PA#ICCLS, ~SH:JWN ON PARCEL WP Ml. tal. Ji M CITY ()F CNILSMC, C0I.N!Y CF SN< 01£00, STA'lt ()f ~MXXlADNllC-MAEOFFUD" M 0"1Cl:CfMC01.N!YfE<XR18t()F SN<IIEOO a:uff'f . .,., i ,. ZONING DATk GElol!JW."""ll(SICM110N. IJ!tl!JE_ --,. "'° YACN/TIO" PIIOP06EC USE SITT WA IOIC0-91AGE cma: 211,t23S.F_..,.ACRES W.Mts.F.(22.ftl LOT AREAS: PAACCL ' (NOt OMI.OP,sun PMC(L 2 IOMl.C)P,au) TOTAL~ lOl BUll.OING DATA. U!AC. UUC. U,AC, G.FA 1SYR.OOR l!!l)f\CXR APPROX. 11,404 $.f. 1.087$1, tOJ;J,JS.f. ~ s,-,. .....!O;HT, ""l Cl CIJll5Tll.CtOi. RA£_,..,,._ IIWlN!SflBAO<S -' 3,,.. ... ,u F"RONT-11.f' --___ , ___ ,,. PARKING DATA: USE RA110 ·-~ TOlN..PMt'HiflllCMOE.O Ct::NPM:fSTNJ.S.. tc()l,PoCT St.llil INQ.Lbl)" TOT ... NXlSS8U SUIU"fQRD -STAUS"""'41m {MXl:SSlkf $TAU$ tCI.UDeD ~ l01M.) EVCSITAU.S- {EVCS SIAU.S INC100ED" lCY ... L-SPACU-lOODIOGSl'AC0- -'01 UTILITY PURVEYORS: CIJtCE ,.,,. .tl9PJa:S 4'BPACES 1t SPACES !SPACES lll'laS • liPACES OSP,as ,..as 2211 WAtfR,1ElfllER (JJY(lf~ >-= EUC111a!YIGAS. IOGf '-«XM! .. 7)43 TEl.£PHOHE. AT&T _, CAA£. --.,.,,,, __ SCH001. DIST. °'"'-SS.0 ""'1EI> '""""''>5000 APPlJCA TION TYPES SUBMITTED: _.._.._(GPAj ZOl<EQWIGE~ SITTIIE'IQCAoENl..,.(SllP) ltillll:-P£lUIIIO'I .-,Al _..,.. __ --11111 EMPLOYEE EATING AREA: IIOUJl..0005.F Of~AAEA. 1.as.F flRCMlED muDOl.f.•...alJ:t14CNOAOSISl.•MISF. AVERAGE DAJL Y TRAFFIC (ADTt COIICACl'I. iCFflCE}llll. ffl.l:IOLF.-.a2X11$CIIOSSSJ.•Z!IAOT PROJEClED WATER USAGE: omc£. J:3GFD,U S,X 11i«li4 !l•UZ)GPO 21:JO,,OIUC• 1.82QPV PROJEClEO SEWER USAGE: Offl:I.. IECIU/t.DW•t1,«M,P1UOO•&.U?»a- t»~Y VIClNITY MAP: • .,.._ ....... -.,.r~-............... M .•1•~ ~-.... ·-· --- GPA 2018-0001 zc 2018-0001 SDP 2018-0007 HDP 2018-0:)()4 HMP 2018-0:)()4 MS 2018-0007 (DEV2018-0099) _,.. <i. t) 0 <( CD Cl') _J a: <( t) .... SITEPLAN --A1.1 PCO CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Transportation Measures (Four Categones) Cross-Category Max Reduction (all VMT) urban = 70%: compact infill = 35%; suburban center or suburban with NEV = 15%. suburban = 10% Land Use/ Neighborhood / Site Parirn,g Policy / Transit System Location Enhancement Pncing Improvements MlxRDldloll """'. 115'4 COll1)Klinll. Mac Redocbon 30'4 IC.«MnWlcerlllr. t~ Wl'10UI NEV= 5,r,, Ma.< RetM:llOII : 20% Max Reducta:in : 10% Miubat=5% ...mNEV•15'iii Par11,ng Supply l.lllkts Network ExpanSIOfl Oellllly(30%) Pedeslrian Network 12% l (125%) (82%) Oaql(21.3%) Serv1ce Frequency I Speed (2 5%) locaon Elbnc:y (65%) Bus Rapid Transd (3 2'11) DNerstty(:m.) Access Improvements Oesllnatial Accessblily Slahon Bike Parking (20%) TIWIIIAa:esslbiiy(25%) Urben Non-Motonzed local Slllllils Zones ~Hous,ng(1.2%) Park & Ride Lots· Note: Strategies in bold text are primary strategies wffh reported VMT reductions; non-bo/ded strategies are support or grouped strategies. 55 - Ma> Redud!on a 15% overall WOii< VI.IT a 25¾ SCllOOI VMT a 65~, Commute Trip Reduction (assumes mixed use) Max Reducllon: 25"-(wori. VMT) CTR Program RecJnd = 21"-wort VMT Volunlary = 6.2"' wa1t VMT T rans1t Fare Subsidy (20% work VMT) E~ Paoong Cash-out (7. 7% wonc VMTI Workplace Parking Pndng (19 7~ M>lk VMT) Alterna1M1 Work Sciledues & Telecommule (5 5'4 wont \IMT) CTR Markebng (5.5% v.on,, VMT} Employer .Sponsored Val\l)OOI/Snulie (13 4~ 1Mri. VMT) Ride Share Program (15% work VMT) Bi<e Sh.Ye Program End of Trip Facilibes Preferential Parking Perm" School Pool (15.8~ 9Cll00I VMT) School Bus (6.3'4 schcd VMTI Global Cap for Road Pncmg needs fur1her study Max Reduction = 25% (all VMT) RoNPrldng Mll.agemnt ... ......... C-.-.Plldllfc:ia) Reqiil9d~ .,,,... - Cha ter 6 U~hle Alternat ,ve Fueled Veh1t1es U~hze Elec:nc or Hylln:1 Vel11des Understanding ~ APCOA Fact Sheets Table 6-2: Transportation Category Chapter 6 Transportation Measure Grouped Range of Effectiveness Category Strategy BMP Number With# Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis LUT-1 Increase Density 1.5-30.0% VMT LUT-2 Increase Location Efficiency 10-65% VMT Increase Diversity of Urban and C LUT-3 Suburban Developments (Mixed 9-30% VMT :i Use) ~ LUT-4 Iner. Destination Accessibility 6.7-20% VMT .9 -LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility 0.5-24.6% VMT i Integrate Affordable and Below ::::> LUT-6 0.04-1.20% VMT '0 Market Rate Housing C Orient Project Toward Non-Auto cu LUT-7 NA ..J Corridor LUT-8 Locate Project near Bike NA Path/Bike Lane LUT-9 Improve Design of Development 3.0-21.3% VMT SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network 0-2% VMT Improvements C SDT-2 Traffic Calming Measures 0.25-1.00% VMT C) ·u; SDT-3 Implement a Neighborhood 0.5-12.7% VMT (1) Cl Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network (1) -c7j SDT-4 Urban Non-Motorized Zones SDT-1 NA --SDT-5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street LUT-9 NA "8 Design (on-site) 0 Provide Bike Parking in Non--E SDT-6 LUT-9 NA 0 Residential Projects .0 .r:. Provide Bike Parking in Multi-C) SDT-7 LUT-9 NA ·m Unit Residential Projects z SDT-8 Provide EV Parking SDT-3 NA SDT-9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails LUT-9 NA PDT-1 Limit Parking Supply 5-12.5% C) Unbundle Parking Costs from C PDT-2 2.6-13% C) :§ Property Cost C '-·-CL Implement Market Price ~ -PDT-3 2.8-5.5% cu >, CL .2 Public Parking (On-Street) 0 Require Residential Area PDT-1, Cl.. PDT-4 NA Parking Permits 2&3 65 Understanding Fact Sheets Category Measure Number TRT-1 TRT-2 TRT-3 TRT-4 TRT-5 V, E ro .... TRT-6 C> 0 .... a.. C TRT-7 0 :;:; 0 ::, -0 Q) TRT-8 Cl'.'. c.. ·;:: TRT-9 I- TRT-10 TRT-11 TRT-12 TRT-13 TRT-14 TRT-15 Transportation -continued Grouped Range of Effectiveness Strategy BMP With# Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis Implement Voluntary CTR 1.0-6.2% Commute Programs VMT Implement Mandatory Commute CTR Programs -Required 4.2-21.0% VMT Implementation/Monitoring Provide Ride-Sharing 1-15% Commute Programs VMT Implement Subsidized or 0.3-20.0% Commute Discounted Transit Prog. VMT Provide End of Trip TRT-1 , 2 NA Facilities &3 Telecommuting and Commute Alternative Work 0.07-5.50% Schedules VMT Implement Commute Trip Commute 0.8-4.0% Reduction Marketing VMT Implement Preferential TRT-1, 2 NA Parking Permit Program &3 Implement Car-Sharing Program 0.4-0.7% VMT Implement School Pool 7.2-15.8% School Program VMT Provide Employer-Sponsored 0.3-13.4% Commute Vanpool/Shuttle V MT Implement Bike-Sharing SDT-5, NA Program LUT-9 Implement School Bus 38-63% School Program VMT Price Workplace Parking 0.1-19.7% Commute VMT Implement Employee Parking 0.6-7.7% Commute •cash-Out" VMT 66 Chapter 6 Range of Effectiveness Category Measure Strategy BMP Grouped Number With# Percent Reduction in GHG Emissions Basis C/) TST-1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit 0.02-3.2% VMT ... System C Q) E TST-2 Implement Transit Access TST-3, NA Q) Improvements > TST-4 0 .... 0. TST-3 Expand Transit Network 0.1-8.2% VMT E E TST-4 Increase Transit Service 0.02-2.5% VMT Q) Frequency/Speed ... 1/) TST-3, >, Provide Bike Parking Near (/') TST-5 NA ... Transit TST-4 "in C TST-3, ro TST-6 Provide Local Shuttles NA .... I-TST-4 RPT-1 Implement Area or Cordon 7.9-22.0% VMT Pricing --RPT-2 Improve Traffic Flow 0-45% VMT g> C Require Project Contributions RPT-2, ·u l RPT-3 to Transportation Infrastructure NA ·c TST-1 to 6 Q. ta Improvement Projects ~ ; RPT-1 , a:: ~ TRT-11, RPT-4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots TRT-3, NA TST-1 to 6 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Truck VT-1 Require Idling-Reduction 26-71% Idling Time Systems VT-2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Varies Vehicles VT-3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid 0.4-20.3% Fuel Use Vehicles 67 Transportation MP# M0-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs Range of Effectiveness: 1 -15% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 1 -15% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. Funding may be provided by Community Facilities, District, or County Service Area, or other non-revocable funding mechanism. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles • Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides Measure Applicability: • Urban and suburban context • Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location. • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunntng Where: traveled for running emissions Inputs: VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: • Percentage of employees eligible 227 TRT-3 Transportation MP#M0-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = Commute * Employee Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Employee = % employees eligible Detail: • Commute: 5% (low density suburb), 10% (suburban center), 15% (urban) annual reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] VTPI. TOM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm; Accessed 3/5/2010. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant COie PM co NOx S02 ROG Discussion: Category Emissions Reductions58 1 -15% of running 1 -15% of running 1 -15% of running 1 -15% of running 1 -15% of running 0.6 -9% of total This strategy is often part of Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant sh ould take care not to double count the impacts. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: 58 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. 228 TRT..J Transportation MP#M0-3.1 TRT-3 Commute Trip Reduction • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible)= 5% * 20% = 1% • High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible)= 15% * 1 = 15% Preferred Literature: • 5 -15% reduction of commute VMT The Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Encyclopedia notes that because rideshare passengers tend to have relatively long commutes, mileage reductions can be relatively large with rideshare. If ridesharing reduces 5% of commute trips it may reduce 10% of vehicle miles because the trips that are reduced are twice as long as average. Rideshare programs can reduce up to 8.3% of commute VMT, up to 3.6% of total regional VMT, and up to 1.8% of regional vehicle trips (Apogee, 1994; TOM Resource Center, 1996). Another study notes that ridesharing programs typically attract 5-15% of commute trips if they offer only information and encouragement, and 10-30% if they also offer financial incentives such as parking cash out or vanpool subsidies (York and Fabricatore, 2001 ). Alternative literature: • Up to 1% reduction in VMT (if combined with two other strategies) Per the Nelson\Nygaard report [2], ride-sharing would fall under the category of a minor TOM program strategy. The report allows a 1% reduction in VMT for projects with at least three minor strategies. Alternative literature References: [2] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001 ). Index 40 Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001 . Other literature Reviewed: None 229 TRT--3 Transportation MP#M0-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program Range of Effectiveness: 0.3-20.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.3 -20.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: This project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. Measure Applicability: • Urban and suburban context • Negligible in a rural context • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT X EFrunning Where: traveled for running emissions Inputs: VMT = vehicle miles EFrunnlng = emission factor The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: • Percentage of project employees eligible • Transit subsidy amount • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location Mitigation Method: % VMT Reduction = A * B * C Where A=% reduction in commute vehicle trips (VT) (from [1]) 230 TRT-4 Transportation MP# M0-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction B = % employees eligible C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT Detail: • Daily Transit Subsidy $0.75 $1.49 $2.98 $5.96 Worksite Setting % Reduction in Commute VT Low density suburb 1.5% 3.3% 7.9% 20.0%* Suburban center 3.4% 7.3% 16.4% 20.0%* Urban location 6.2% 12.9% 20.0%* 20.0%* • Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature. • C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix -Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401 ). [2] Nelson\Nygaard used the following literature sources: VTPI, Todd Litman, Transportation Elasticities, http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); www.bts.gov/ntl/OOCS/4 7 4.html. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant PM co NOx S02 ROG Category Emissions Reductions59 0.3 -20% of running 0.3 -20% of running 0.3 -20% of running 0.3 -20% of running 0.3 -20% of running 0. 18 -12% of total 59 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles. 231 TRT-4 Transportation MP# M0-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction Discussion: This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR), another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts. The literature evaluates this strategy in relation to the employer, but keep in mind that this strategy can also be implemented by a school or the development as a whole. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: • Low Range % VMT Reduction ($0.75, low density suburb, 20% eligible)= 1.5% * 20% = 0.3% • High Range % VMT Reduction ($5.96, urban, 100% eligible)= 20% * 100% = 20% Preferred Literature: Commute Vehicle Trip Reduction Daily Transit Subsidy Worksite Setting $0.75 $1.49 $2.98 $5.96 Low density suburb, rideshare oriented 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 1.9% Low density suburb, mode neutral 1.5% 3.3% 7.9% 21 .7%* Low density suburb, transit oriented 2.0% 4.2% 9.9% 23.2%* Activity center rideshare oriented 1.1% 2.4% 5.8% 16.5% Activity center mode neutral 3.4% 7.3% 16.4% 38.7%* Activity center, transit oriented 5.2% 10.9% 23.5%* 49.7%* Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented 2.2% 4.7% 10.9% 28.3%* Regional CBD/Corridor mode neutral 6.2% 12.9% 26.9%* 54.3%* Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented 9.1% 18.1% 35.5%* 64.0%* * Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature. Nelson\Nygaard (2010) updated a commute trip reduction table from VTPI Transportation Elasticities to account for inflation since the data was compiled . Data regarding commute vehicle trip reductions was originally from a study conducted by Comsis Corporation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Alternative Literature: Alternate: • 2.4-30.4% commute vehicle trip reduction (VTR) 232 TRT-4 Transportation MP# M0-3.1 TRT-4 Commute Trip Reduction TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 (2] indicates transit subsidies in areas with good transit and restricted parking have a commute VTR of 30.4%; good transit but free parking, a commute VTR of 7.6%; free parking and limited transit 2.4%. Programs with transit subsidies have an average commute VTR of 20.6% compared with an average commute VTR of 13.1 % for sites with non-transit fare subsidies. Alternate: • 0 .03-0.12% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction Moving Cooler [3] assumed price elasticities of -0.15, -0.2, and -0.3 for lower fares 25%, 33%, and 50%, respectively. Moving Cooler assumes average vehicle occupancy of 1.43 and a VMT/trip of 5.12. Alternative Literature References: [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes -Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TOM Strategies. (3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 0 .3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler Appendix% 20B Effectiveness 102209.pdf Other Literature Reviewed: None 233 TRT-4 Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules Range of Effectiveness: 0.07 -5.50% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.07 -5.50% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. Measure Applicability: • Urban, suburban, and rural context • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunnHlQ Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: • Percentage of employees participating (1 -25%) • Strategy implemented: 9-day/80-hour work week, 4-day/40-hour work week, or 1 .5 days of telecommuting Mitigation Method: % Commute VMT Reduction = Commute Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (See table below) 236 TRT-6 Transportation MP# TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction Employee Participation 1% 3% 5% 10% 25% % Reduction in Commute VMT 9-day/80-hour work week 0.07% 0.21% 0.35% 0.70% 1.75% 4-day/40-hour work week 0.15% 0.45% 0.75% 1.50% 3.75% telecommuting 1.5 days 0.22% 0.66% 1.10% 2.20% 5.5% Source: Moving Cooler Technical Appendices, Fehr & Peers Notes: The percentages from Moving Cooler incorporate a discount of 25% for rebound effects. The percentages beyond 1% employee participation are linearly extrapolated. Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: (1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. 8 -54) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler Appendix%208 Ef fectiveness 102209. pdf Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant PM co NOx SO2 ROG Discussion: Category Emissions Reductions60 0.07 -5.50% of running 0.07 -5.50% of running 0.07 -5.50% of running 0.07 -5.50% of running 0.07 -5.50% of running 0.04 -3.3% of total This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts. The employee participation rate should be capped at a maximum of 25%. Moving Cooler (1] notes that roughly 50% of a typical workforce could participate in alternative ■ 60 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running em issions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMF AC run of all vehicles. 237 TRT-6 Transportation MP#TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction work schedules (based on job requirements) and roughly 50% of those would choose to participate. The 25% discount for rebound effects is maintained to provide a conservative estimate and support the literature results. The project may consider removing this discount from their calculations if deemed appropriate. Example: N/A -no calculations are needed. Preferred Literature: • 0.07% -0.22% reduction in commuting VMT Moving Cooler (1) estimates that if 1 % of employees were to participate in a 9 day/80 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would be reduced by 0.07%. If 1 % of employees were to participate in a 4 day/40 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would reduce by 0.15%; and 1 % of employees participating in telecommuting 1.5 days per week would reduce commuting VMT by 0.22%. These percentages incorporate a discounting of 25% to account for rebound effects (i.e., travel for other purposes during the day while not at the work site). The percentages beyond 1 % employee participation are linearly extrapolated (see table above). Alternative Literature: Alternate: • 9-10% reduction in VMT for participating employees As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2]. a Denver federal employer's implementation of compressed work week resulted in a 14-15% reduction in VMT for participating employees. This is equivalent to the 0.15% reduction for each 1% participation cited in the preferred literature above. In the Denver example, there was a 65% participation rate out of a total of 9,000 employees. TCRP 95 states that the compressed work week experiment has no adverse effect on ride-sharing or transit use. Flexible hours have been shown to work best in the presence of medium or low transit availability. Alternate: • 0.5 vehicle trips reduced per employee per week • 13 -20 VMT reduced per employee per week 238 TRT-6 Transportation MP#TR-3.5 TRT-6 Commute Trip Reduction As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2], a study of compressed work week for 2,600 Southern California employees resulted in an average reduction of 0.5 trips per week (per participating employee). Participating employees also reduced their VMT by 13-20 miles per week. This translates to a reduction of between 5% and 10% in commute VMT, and so is lower than the 15% reduction cited for Denver government employees. Alternative Literature References: [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes -Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TOM Strategies. Other Literature Reviewed: None 239 TRT-6 ~COA I I Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction 3.4. 7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 -4.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.8 -4.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. Measure Description: The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications CTR marketing is often part of a CTR program , voluntary or mandatory. CTR marketing is discussed separately here to emphasis the importance of not only providing employees with the options and monetary incentives to use alternative forms of transportation, but to clearly and deliberately promote and educate employees of the various options. This will greatly improve the impact of the implemented trip reduction strategies. Measure Applicability: • Urban and suburban context • Negligible in a rural context • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects Baseline Method: See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows: CO2 = VMT x EFrunninQ Where: VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunnlng = emission factor for running emissions 240 TRT-7 Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction Inputs: The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant: • Percentage of project employees eligible (i.e. percentage of employers choosing to participate) Mitigation Method: % Commute VMT Reduction = A * B * C Where A=% reduction in commute vehicle trips {from [1]) B = % employees eligible C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT Detail: • A: 4% (per [11) • C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail) Assumptions: Data based upon the following references: [1] Pratt, Dick. Personal communication regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes -Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TOM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables: Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions61 CO2e 0.8 -4.0% of running PM 0.8 -4.0% of running co NOx SO2 ROG 0.8 -4.0% of running 0.8 -4.0% of running 0.8 -4.0% of running 0.5 -2.4% of total 61 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMF AC run of all vehicles. 241 TRT-7 Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction Discussion: The effectiveness of commute trip reduction marketing in reducing VMT depends on which commute reduction strategies are being promoted. The effectiveness levels provided below should only be applied if other programs are offered concurrently, and represent the total effectiveness of the full suite of measures. This strategy is often part of a CTR Program, another strategy documented separately (see strategy T# E1 ). Take care not to double count the impacts. Example: Sample calculations are provided below: • Low Range% VMT Reduction (20% eligible)= 4% * 20% = 0.8% • High Range % VMT Reduction (100% eligible)= 4% * 100% = 4.0% Preferred Literature: • 4-5% commute vehicle trips reduced with full-scale employer support TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 notes the average empirically-based estimate of reductions in vehicle trips for full-scale, site-specific employer support programs alone is 4-5%. This effectiveness assumes there are alternative commute modes available which have on-going employer support. For a program to receive credit for such outreach and marketing efforts, it should contain guarantees that the program will be maintained permanently, with promotional events delivered regularly and with routine performance monitoring. Alternative Literature: • 5-15% reduction in commute vehicle trips • 3% increase in effectiveness of marketed transportation demand management (TDM) strategies VTPI [2] notes that providing information on alternative travel modes by employers was one of the most important factors contributing to mode shifting. One study (Shadoff, 1993) estimates that marketing increases the effectiveness of other TDM strategies by up to 3%. Given adequate resources, marketing programs may reduce vehicle trips by 5-15%. The 5 -15% range comes from a variety of case studies across the world. U.S. specific case studies include: 9% reduction in vehicle trips with TravelSmart in Portland (12% reduction in VMT), 4-8% reduction in vehicle trips from four cities with individualized marketing pilot projects from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Averaged across the four pilot projects, there was a 6.75% reduction in VMT. 242 TRT-7 Transportation TRT-7 Commute Trip Reduction Alternative Literature References: [2] VTPI , TOM Encyclopedia -TOM Marketing; http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm23.htm; accessed 3/5/2010. Table 7 (citing FTA, 2006) Other Literature Reviewed: None 243 TRT-7 RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY - FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 26, 2007 PREPARED FOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ~~ MuniFinancial --A WILLDAN COMPANY MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax: (510) 832-0898 Anaheim, CA Industry, CA Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA Orlando, FL www.muni.com Phoenix, AZ Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Temecula, CA San Diel!f) Auodalio11 ofGovemrnmls R1CIP lll,Pad Pee Ne>..w SIIl(!J Table 2: Occupant Density Land Use Commercial Office/Services lndustrial1 500 Square feet per employee 300 Square feet per employee 900 Square feet per employee Note: Source data based on random sample of 2,721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category (commercial, office, Industrial). 1 Adjusted to correct for over-sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. Source: The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, p. 15. MuniFinancial. Travel Demand By Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips rather than vehicle miles rrnvclcd (VM1) that were used in the initial SAl'\JD AG calculation. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigalion Fee Ad. VMT, on the o ther hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited number of "production and attraction" categories: home-work, home-school, home-college, bome- od1er, and non-home. A re,isonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant sow-ce of tra ffic congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even rhough the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (wtnsit, b.icyclc, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: • Pass-by trips are deducted from tl1e trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a fmal destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the a\'erage length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel de1mmd factors by land use category based o n the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip su1Yeys conducted in the San Diego region by SJ\I DAG. The surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. liJMunimancial 9