2009 growth policy growing smarter

2009 Growth PolicyGrowing SmarterPlanning Board Status ReportMay 28, 2009

• What’s changing?• Why change?• Staff Draft Recommendations

• Smart Growth Criteria• APFO Transportation• Impact Tax Transportation• APFO Schools

• Outreach Efforts

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

Growth Management Tool

Application Proposed

Master plans Where SameZoning How SameSubdivision regulations How SameSchool capacity When SameLATR When SamePAMR When Stay within general

bounds of PAMR – encourage smart growth

Growth Policy only affects APFO

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

Currently, an applicant must mitigate site impacts:

- Local Area Transportation Review

- Policy Area Mobility Review- School Impacts

Proposed changes allow an applicant to mitigate PAMR by directing 50% of the PAMR fee toward affordable or workforce housing

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – BACKROUND

An applicant must mitigate site impacts:

- Local Area Transportation Review

- Policy Area Mobility Review- School Impacts

LATR impacts in urban areas are often non-existent due to a combination of congestion standards and street grid, but PAMR affects all applicants.

Relative Arterial Mobility: (Congested Auto Speed / Free Flow Auto Speed)100%

Relative Transit Mobility: (Transit Speed / Congested Auto Speed)

130%100% 120%60% 70% 80% 90%20% 30% 40% 50%10%

20%

10%

30%

0%

50%

40%

110%

90%

80%

70%

60%

POLICY AREA MOBILITY REVIEW – WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Level of Service B: 70-85% of free-flow auto speed

Level of Service A: 85-100% of free-flow auto speed

Level of Service C: 55-70% of free-flow auto speed

Level of Service D: 40-55% of free-flow auto speed

Level of Service E: 25-40% of free-flow auto speed

Level of Service F: 0-25% of free-flow auto speed

Free-flow auto speeds

PAMR: Arterial Level of Service

0 25% 40% 55% 70% 100%85%

A

B

C

D

E

F

Congested auto speeds

PAMR: Arterial Level of Service

ABCDEF

0 25% 40% 55% 70% 100%85%

PAMR: Arterial Level of Service

A

B

C

D

E

F

0%

25%

40%

55%

70%

100%

85%

Arterial Level of Service: Free-flow

Conditions• 2.7 miles• 40 mph• 4 minutes

Arterial Level of Service: LOS C

• 55% of free-flow speed

• 22 mph• 1.5 miles• 4 minutes

Arterial Level of Service: LOS D

• 40% of free-flow speed

• 16 mph• 1.1 miles• 4 minutes

Level of Service B: Transit speed is 75-100% of congested auto speed

Level of Service A: Transit speed is faster than congested auto speed

Level of Service C: Transit speed is 60-75% of congested auto speed

Level of Service D: Transit speed is 50-60% of congested auto speed

Level of Service E: Transit speed is 42.5-50% of congested auto speed

Level of Service F: Transit speed is less than 42.5% of congested auto speed

PAMR: Transit Level of Service

0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

A

B

C

D

E

F

Transit speeds

Congested auto speeds

PAMR: Transit Level of Service

ABCDEF

Transit LOS

0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

Scoring Policy Areas Using PAMR

Transit LOS

ABCDEF

0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

Arte

rial L

OS

A

B

C

D

E

F

0%

25%

40%

55%

70%

100%

85%

Relationship of Transit and Arterial Levels of Service

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A F

B E

C D

D C

E B

F A

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A F D

B F D

C D

D C

E B

F E A

Scoring Policy Areas Using PAMRAr

teria

l LO

S

A

B

C

D

E

F

ABCDEF

Transit LOS0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

0%

25%

40%

55%

70%

100%

85%

Scoring Policy Areas Using PAMRAr

teria

l LO

S

A

B

C

D

E

ABCDEF

Transit LOS0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

0%

25%

40%

55%

70%

100%

85%

Acceptable with full mitigation

Acceptable

Scoring Policy Areas Using PAMRAr

teria

l LO

S

A

B

C

D

E

ABCDEF

Transit LOS0% 42.5% 50% 60% 75% 100%

0%

25%

40%

55%

70%

100%

85%

Acceptable with full mitigation

Acceptable

The current PAMR requires mitigation in 16 policy areas

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A D

B D

C D

D C

E B

E A

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – BACKROUND

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO – WHY CHANGE?

Guide smarter growth by:

- Encourage residential development in urban areas

- Move toward thinking in terms of carbon

- Promote affordable housing near transit and basic services

- Shift APF focus from greenfield to infill; protect established communities

2009 Growth PolicySMART GROWTH CRITERIA

The Smart Growth Criteria proposal considers exemptions from Policy Area Mobility Review based on extraordinary transportation and energy design elements, based on concepts in the LEED rating system and California Senate Bill 375

An applicant can mitigate PAMR by directing 50% of the PAMR fee toward affordable or workforce housing

2009 Growth PolicySMART GROWTH CRITERIA

2009 Growth PolicySMART GROWTH CRITERIA

The Smart Growth Criteria proposal introduces the concept of Road Code Urban Areas in addition to Metro Station Policy Areas.

Both area types are designated for urban street designs and in most cases already have transit service and basic community/retail services.

2009 Growth PolicySMART GROWTH CRITERIA

The Smart Growth Criteria proposal introduces the concept of Road Code Urban Areas in addition to Metro Station Policy Areas.

Both area types are designated for urban street designs and in most cases already have transit service and basic community/retail services.

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - BALANCE

The current PAMR requires minimum LOS D for Relative Arterial Mobility

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A D

B D

C D

D C

E B

E A

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - BALANCE

The Symmetrical PAMR allows LOS E for Relative Arterial Mobility

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A F

B E

C D

D C

E B

F A

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - BALANCE

The current PAMR requires mitigation in 16 policy areas

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A D

B D

C D

D C

E B

E A

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - BALANCE

The Symmetrical PAMR requires mitigation in 11 policy areas

TRANSIT ARTERIAL

A F

B E

C D

D C

E B

F A

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION – NON-AUTO FACILITIES

Non-auto facilities other than sidewalks and bike paths valued at $11,000 per trip

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - TRANSFERABILITY

APF rights could be transferred into an Urban Area from an adjacent policy area

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION - TRANSFERABILITY

PAMR could be satisfied in Urban Areas by demonstration of mobility standards on affected arterials through adjacent communities

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION – TRIP GENERATION RATES

Establishment of residential trip generation rates in Urban Areas at 80% of Countywide rates based on MWCOG Household Travel Survey information on vehicle trips.

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION – WHITE FLINT APF APPROVALS

Follow White Flint Sector Plan implementation proposal to replace APFO transportation tests with system of assessments/taxes

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO TRANSPORTATION – WHITE FLINT APF APPROVALS

Reduce transportation impact taxes for residential development in Urban Areas (other than MSPAs or Clarksburg) by 33% from General rates based on MWCOG Household Travel Survey information on VMT.

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO - SCHOOLS

Current School Tests

Compares projected 2014 enrollment with 2014 classroom capacity for each of the 25 high school clusters at the elementary, middle and high levels.

If projected enrollment at any level exceeds 105% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be required to make a school facility payment.

If projected enrollment at any level exceeds 120% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be under moratorium

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO - SCHOOLS

Current School Tests

School clusters requiring a school facility payment: B-CC Kennedy Richard Montgomery Northwest Quince Orchard Rockville Wheaton Whitman Wootton

School clusters in moratorium:Clarksburg

2009 Growth PolicyAPFO - SCHOOLS

Proposed School Tests

If projected enrollment at any level exceeds 110% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be required to make a school facility payment.

If projected enrollment at any level exceeds 120% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be under moratorium

Result: reducing from 9 to 5 the number of school clusters facing a school facility payment.

2009 Growth PolicyPOLICY AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES

Change policy area boundaries to follow recommendations in draft White Flint, Gaithersburg, and Germantown Sector Plans

2009 Growth PolicyGrowing SmarterPlanning Board Status ReportMay 28, 2009

• Current PAMR Process• Why change?• Staff Draft Recommendations

• Smart Growth Criteria• APFO Transportation• Impact Tax Transportation• APFO Schools

• Outreach Efforts