2009 Growth Policy

Growing Smarter
Planning Board Status Report
May 28, 2009

• What’s changing?
• Why change?
• Staff Draft Recommendations
• Smart Growth Criteria
• APFO Transportation
• Impact Tax Transportation
• APFO Schools
• Outreach Efforts
2009 Growth Policy
APFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

Growth Policy only affects APFO

Growth Application Proposed

Management Tool
Master plans Where Same
Zoning How Same
Subdivision How Same
regulations
School capacity When Same
LATR When Same
PAMR When Stay within general
bounds of PAMR –
encourage smart
growth
 2009 Growth Policy
APFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

Currently, an applicant must mitigate

site impacts:

- Local Area Transportation

Review
- Policy Area Mobility Review
- School Impacts
2009 Growth Policy
APFO – WHAT’S CHANGING?

Proposed changes allow an applicant

to mitigate PAMR by directing
50% of the PAMR fee toward
affordable or workforce housing
 2009 Growth Policy
APFO – 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.
POLICY AREA MOBILITY REVIEW – WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

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

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%

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

PAMR: Arterial Level of Service
Congested auto speeds

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

F

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

E

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

D

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

C

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

B

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

A
0 25% 40 55 70 85 100
Free-flow auto speeds % % % % %
 PAMR: Arterial Level of
Service

F E D C B A
0 25% 40% 55% 70% 85% 100%
PAMR: Arterial Level of
Service
100
% A
85
% B
70
%
C
55
%
D
40
%
E
25%
F

0%
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
PAMR: Transit Level of Service
Transit speeds

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

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

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

auto speed D

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

C
auto speed
Level of Service B: Transit speed is 75-100% of congested
B
auto speed
Level of Service A: Transit speed is faster than congested
auto speed A
0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
Congested auto %
speeds% % % %
 PAMR: Transit Level of
Service
Transit LOS

F E D C B A

0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
% % % % %
 Scoring Policy Areas Using
PAMR
100
% A
85
% B
70
%
C
Arterial LOS

55
%
D
40
%
E
25%
F
F E D C B A
0%
0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
% % % % % Transit LOS
Relationship of Transit and
Arterial Levels of Service
TRANSIT ARTERIAL
A FFD
B FED
C D
D C
E B
FF E A
 Scoring Policy Areas Using
PAMR
100
% A
85
% B
70
%
C
Arterial LOS

55
%
D
40
%
E
25%
F
F E D C B A
0%
0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
% % % % % Transit LOS
 Scoring Policy Areas Using
PAMR
100
% A
85 Acceptable
% B
70
%
C
Arterial LOS

55
%
D
40
%
E
25%
Acceptable with full
mitigation

F E D C B A
0%
0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
% % % % % Transit LOS
 Scoring Policy Areas Using
PAMR
100
% A
85 Acceptable
% B
70
%
C
Arterial LOS

55
%
D
40
%
E
25%
Acceptable with full
mitigation

F E D C B A
0%
0% 42.5 50 60 75 100
% % % % % Transit LOS
2009 Growth Policy
APFO – BACKROUND

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 Policy
APFO – 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 Policy
SMART 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
2009 Growth Policy
SMART GROWTH CRITERIA

An applicant can mitigate PAMR by

directing 50% of the PAMR fee
toward affordable or workforce
housing
2009 Growth Policy
SMART 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 Policy
SMART 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 Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO TRANSPORTATION – NON-AUTO FACILITIES

Non-auto facilities
other than
sidewalks and
bike paths
valued at
$11,000 per trip
2009 Growth Policy
APFO TRANSPORTATION - TRANSFERABILITY

APF rights could be

transferred into
an Urban Area
from an adjacent
policy area
2009 Growth Policy
APFO TRANSPORTATION - TRANSFERABILITY

PAMR could be
satisfied in Urban
Areas by
demonstration of
mobility
standards on
affected arterials
through adjacent
communities
2009 Growth Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO TRANSPORTATION – WHITE FLINT APF APPROVALS

Follow White Flint

Sector Plan
implementation
proposal to
replace APFO
transportation
tests with system
of
assessments/tax
es
2009 Growth Policy
APFO 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 Policy
APFO - 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 Policy
APFO - 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 Policy
APFO - 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 Policy
POLICY AREA BOUNDARY CHANGES

Change policy area

boundaries to
follow
recommendation
s in draft White
Flint,
Gaithersburg,
and Germantown
Sector Plans
2009 Growth Policy
Growing Smarter
Planning Board Status Report
May 28, 2009

• Current PAMR Process

• Why change?
• Staff Draft Recommendations
• Smart Growth Criteria
• APFO Transportation
• Impact Tax Transportation
• APFO Schools
• Outreach Efforts