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