3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92103 619-795-6086 www.CRAmobility.com
TO: Jonathan Quezada, MPA, EIT; City of San Marcos
FROM: Jonathan Sanchez, PE, TE, PTOE; CR Associates
Cristian Belmudez; CR Associates
DATE: March 13, 2023
RE: San Marcos Artist’s Village – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Technical Memorandum
This technical memorandum documents the results of the SB-743 compliant transportation impact analysis conducted for the proposed San Marcos Artist’s Village project (the “Proposed Project”). The analysis is based on the recently revised (January 2019) State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG) Guidelines dated November 16, 2020.
Project Description
The Project is a mixed-use development on 10.03 acres (4.5 acres of residential uses and 5.53 acres of office/retail uses) located at the northwest corner of Linda Vista Road and Grand Avenue in the City of San Marcos. The Project proposes to construct 102 multi-family dwelling units (on west end of project) as well as 7 live/work units (on east end of project) on approximately 4.5 acres.
Live/work units are units consisting of a residential and commercial/office component, where a resident is able to both live and work. Additionally, the Project proposes to construct 7,658 square feet (SF) of office space and 49,266 SF of specialty retail space on approximately 5.53 acres. It should be noted that the office space is intended for single tenant and the retail space is not intended to be occupied by grocery store uses or similar uses.
The property is bordered by Grand Avenue on the northeast side, Linda Vista Road on the southeast side, and industrial land uses to the west. Per the City’s General Plan, the site is designated as a Commercial (C) land use and thus the Project, being a mixed-use development, is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. However, the project applicant is processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to adjust the zoning to “Mixed-Use” in order to be consistent with the General Plan. The Project’s assumed opening year is Year 2024.
Figure 1 displays the Project’s regional location. Figure 1 displays the project site plan.
·|}þ78
City of Vista
City of
Carlsbad
City of
Encinitas
City of
Escondido
City of
Escondido
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
City of
San Diego
City of
San Marcos
N
Figure 1
Project Regional Location
San Marcos Artist’s Village
Local Transportation Analysis
0 21 Miles
Project Site
^
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
San Marcos Artist’s Village
Local Transportation Analysis
ARTISTS VILLAGE
CIVIL SITE PLAN
JOB NO.
DRAWN BY:
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 4
Project Trip Generation
Per the City’s TIAG, trip generation rates were derived from the SANDAG’s (not so) Brief Guide to Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). Table 1 displays the projected daily, as well as AM and PM peak hour, project trip generation.
As shown, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 2,241 daily trips, including 126 trips (60-in/62-out) during the AM peak hour and 189 (101-in/89-out) during the PM peak hour.
Analysis Methodology
On September 27, 2013, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed SB-743 into law, starting a process that fundamentally changes the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under CEQA.
Related revisions to the State’s CEQA Guidelines include elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts, and replacement with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the preferred CEQA transportation metric.
In December 2018, the California Resources Agency certified and adopted revised CEQA Guidelines, including the new section 15064.3. Under Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which includes the amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project, is identified as the “most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.” As of July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies must analyze a project’s transportation impacts using VMT. On November 16, 2020, the City of San Marcos adopted its Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Screening Thresholds
Many agencies use these screening thresholds to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The TIAG suggest that a detailed transportation VMT analysis applies to all land development projects, except those that meet at least one of the screening criteria. Relevant screening criteria for the Proposed Project is described below:
Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development – Residential projects with 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. If a project contains less than 100 percent affordable housing, the portion that is affordable should be screened out of requiring a detailed VMT analysis. Projects can only be screened out if they are located in parts of the city that have been identified by SANDAG and the City as Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. For mixed-use projects, this screening criteria should be applied to the residential component separately to determine if that portion of the project screens out of a detailed VMT analysis.
Local-Serving Retail - Retail projects that have 50,000 square feet gross floor area or less can be presumed to have a less than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. For a mixed-use project, this screening criteria should be applied to the retail/commercial component separately to determine if that portion of the project screens out of a detailed VMT analysis.
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 5
Table 1 – Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Trip
Rate ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% Trips Split In Out % Trips Split In Out
Residential
Multi-Family
(>20 DU/acre) 109 DU 6/DU 654 8% 53 2:8 11 42 9% 59 7:3 41 18 Employment/Office
Single Tenant Office 7,658 SF 14/KSF 108 15% 17 9:1 15 2 15% 17 2:8 3 14 Commercial/Retail
Specialty Retail
Center/Strip Commercial 49,266 SF 40/KSF 1,971 3% 60 6:4 36 24 9% 178 5:5 89 89 Subtotal 2,733 - 130 - 62 68 - 254 - 133 121
Internal Capture1 (18%2) -492 - -4 - -2 -2 - -64 - -32 -32 Net Total 2,241 - 126 - 60 62 - 189 - 101 89
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:
1 Internal capture was calculated using ITE’s trip reduction calculator, which is based on the NCHRP Report 664 Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. See Appendix E for more details.
2 1 - [(AMNet Total + PMNet Total)/(AMSubtotal + PMSubtotal)] = 1 - [(126 + 189)/(130 + 254)] = 18% DU = Dwelling Unit.
KSF = 1,000 Square Feet
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 6
Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects – Residential and employment projects that are proposed in areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. This determination must be made using SANDAG’s online residential and employment VMT maps for existing year or model baseline year VMT (whichever is available at the time analysis is being conducted), which show census tracts in the city where the VMT is below the regional average. The following types of projects could be screened out using this approach:
o Residential projects proposed in census tracts with residential VMT per capita below the City’s threshold of exceeding 85 percent of the SANDAG regional average.
In order to utilize this screening approach, the project must incorporate similar land use characteristics to other projects in the census tract. For mixed-use projects, this screening criteria should be applied to the residential and employment components separately to determine if any portions of the project screen out of a detailed VMT analysis.
Since the Project would be composed of a mix of land uses, each component was evaluated independently per land use type. The screening criteria evaluation for each component is detailed below:
Residential Component – Per Section 2.1.2.5 of the City’s TIAG, the Project is located in an efficient VMT/capita area, as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, the residential component of the Project is deemed to have a less-than-significant impact and no further VMT analysis is required.
Office Component – Per Section 2.1.2.5 of the City’s TIAG, the Project’s office component is not located in an efficient VMT/employee area, as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, the office component of the Project would not be screened out from completing detailed VMT analysis. Retail Component – Per Section 2.1.2.3 of the City’s TIAG, the Project consists of less than 50,000 SF of retail and considered “local-serving retail”. Therefore, the retail component of the Project is deemed to have a less-than-significant impact and no further VMT analysis is required.
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 7
Figure 3 – VMT Per Resident
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 8
Figure 4 – VMT per Employee
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 9
VMT Analysis
Analysis Metrics
Consistent with the City’s TIAG, the office component of the Proposed Project shall be analyzed using the VMT per employee metric. When determining potentially significant impacts using efficiency metrics, such as VMT per employee, the following analysis methods should be used:
The project’s VMT per employee should be looked up using the latest SANDAG online mapping tool and the census tract containing the project site, or should be generated for the project TAZ if the latest version of the base year SANDAG travel demand model has been run to include the project.
The existing countywide averages for VMT per employee are determined using the SANDAG online mapping tool or the latest version of the base year SANDAG travel demand model. An employee project is determined to have a significant impact if the project generates VMT per employee exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing countywide average.
VMT per employee was obtained from the latest SANDAG VMT screening maps, displayed previously in Figure 4. The existing countywide average for VMT per employee was determined using the SANDAG Series 14 ABM2+/2021 RP Year 2016 Base model. Table 2 summarizes the VMT analysis results.
Table 2 - VMT Impact Analysis – Office Component
Metric VMT per Employee
Regional Average 18.901
Significant Impact Threshold (85%) 16.072
Proposed Project 16.801
Significant Impact Yes
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:
1 Source = SANDAG Series 14 ABM2+/2021 RP Year 2016 Base Model 2 Regional Average x 85%
As shown, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a VMT per employee of 16.80 miles, which exceeds the significance threshold of 16.07 miles. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a significant VMT impact and mitigation measures are required to reduce the VMT per employee.
VMT Mitigation
The VMT per employee for the office component of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to fall under the significant threshold as the project site is located in an area primarily composed of industrial and commercial land uses where employees travel longer-than-average distances for work compared to the region. As noted in the VMT analysis, the Project would have a significant VMT impact and mitigation measures are required to reduce the VMT per employee. The Project’s total VMT per employee is 16.80 miles. To mitigate the Project’s VMT to less than significant levels, mitigation measures would need to reduce the total VMT per employee by 4.4% from 16.80 miles to
16.07 miles.
San Marcos Artist’s Village
VMT Analysis Page 10
To reduce the average VMT per employee, it is recommended that the Project implements a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. A TDM program would facilitate increased opportunities for walking and bicycling, as well as provide the resources, means, and incentives for ridesharing and carpooling. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA Report) was taken into consideration initially, however, the SANDAG Mobility Management Guidebook/VMT Reduction Tool was determined more appropriate as it identifies several measures that specifically target employee VMT.
Based on discussion with the project applicant, the property managers of the office component of the Project will provide transit information to the tenants and make a good faith effort in offering transit passes or fares. Rideshare and micro mobility parking will be provided on site, as well as bicycle racks. Tenants within the office areas will be encouraged to implement telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and/or compressed work weeks. Additionally, a preferential parking permit program will be implemented.
The above strategies would satisfy the following SANDAG VMT Reduction Tool measure:
1A – Voluntary Employer Commute Program – 5.4% employee reduction with 100% employee eligibility.
See Attachment A for details on the VMT reduction calculation. Table 3 summarizes the Project’s trip reductions and mitigation results.
Table 3 – Project VMT Mitigation
VMT/Employee Threshold Mitigation
Measure
VMT/Employee
Reduction
Net
VMT/Employee Mitigated?
16.80 16.07 SANDAG 1A -5.4% 15.89 Yes
Source: CR Associates (2023)
Notes:
1 SANDAG Series 14 ABM2+/2021 RP Year 2016 Base Model (Figure 3) 2 Regional Average x 85%
3 [Net VMT per Resident] = [VMT per Resident] X [VMT per Resident Reduction]
Based on the VMT reduction results, implementation of the TDM Program is anticipated to reduce the VMT per employee generated by 5.4%. Thus, with the implementation of the TDM program, the Project is anticipated to generate 15.89 VMT per employee (16.80 VMT per employee * (1- 0.054)).
The resulting 15.89 miles per employee does not exceed the 16.07 threshold. Therefore, since the mitigation measures would reduce the VMT per employee to less than significant levels, the impact is mitigated, and the Project is considered to have a less than significant impact.
Attachment A - VMT Reduction Calculations
Project Name (optional): San Marcos Mixed Use
Project Address (optional):
Project Type (optional): Other
If Other, please describe: Office
Scale of Analysis: Project/Site
Analysis Location: San Marcos
CPA (if applicable): n/a
VMT Type Change in VMT Exclusions
1A Voluntary Employer Commute Program Employee commute trips ‐5.4% 1B Mandatory Employer Commute Program Employee commute trips Strategy 1A selected 1C Employer Carpool Program Employee commute trips Included in 1A or 1B 1D Employer Transit Pass Subsidy Employee commute trips Included in 1A or 1B 1E Employer Vanpool Program Employee commute trips Included in 1A or 1B 1F Employer Telework Program Employee commute trips
Land Use Strategies
2A Transit Oriented Development Project ‐generated trips 2B Mixed Use Development Project ‐generated trips
Parking Management
3A Parking Pricing Project ‐generated trips
3B Parking Cash Out Employee commute trips
Employee Commute Trips ‐ Total Change in VMT ‐5.4%
Project‐Generated Trips ‐ Total Change in VMT
(1). Nelson Nygaard. 2010. “Santa Monica LUCE Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis.” City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element, Final EIR. www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Plans/2010‐Land‐Use‐and‐ Circulation‐Element/
(1). SANDAG. 2018. Commute Behavior Survey.
(3). SANDAG. 2018. SANDAG Vanpool Program
(2). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf (2). SANDAG. 2016. Activity Based Model. (v14.0.1, scenario ID 232) (5). New York State Department of Transportation. 2019. Data from 511NYRideshare program participants. (1). Tal, G., et al. 2013. "Technical Background Document on the Impacts of Transit Access (Distance to Transit) Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature." www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitservice/transit_brief.pdf (2). Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment ‐ A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association. (1). SANDAG. 2016. Land Use Inventory (SPACECORE).
(1). California Air Resources Board. 2009. "California’s Parking Cash‐Out Program: An Informational Guide for Employers." www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout_guide_0809.pdf 3B. Parking Cash Out
3A. Parking Pricing
(1). Transportation Research Board. 2009. "TCRP Report 95 Chapter 13 Parking Pricing and Fees". p13‐4. www.trb.org/Publications/TCRPReport95.aspx (2). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (2). Shoup, Donald C. 2005. "Parking Cash Out." Planners Advisory Service, American Planning Association. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ParkingCashOut.pdf 1D. Employer Transit Pass Subsidy
1A. Voluntary Employer Commute Program
(1). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf (2). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2009movingcoolerexecsumandappend.pdf (3). Boarnet, Marlon G., Hsin‐Ping Hsu, and Susan Handy. 2014. “Impacts of Employer‐Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief.” www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/ebtr/ebtr_brief.pdf
(3). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf 1B. Mandatory Employer Commute Program
(1). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf (2). City of South San Francisco. 2015. "2015 Genentech Annual Report." http://ci‐ssf‐ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=859&meta_id=62028 (3). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2009movingcoolerexecsumandappend.pdf 1C. Employer Carpool Program
(2). Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "Ridesharing: Carpooling and Vanpooling." TDM Encyclopedia. www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm (4). New York State Department of Transportation. 2019. Data from 511NYRideshare program participants. (1). Ewing, R. 1993. "TDM, Growth Management and the Other Four out of Five Trips." Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 3. (2). Transportation Research Board. 2010. "TCRP Report 95 Chapter 19: Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies." www.trb.org/Publications/TCRPReport95.aspx (4). Transportation Research Board. 2005. "TCRP Report 95 Chapter 5 Buspools and Vanpools." www.trb.org/Publications/TCRPReport95.aspx (3). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf (3). Boarnet, Marlon G., Hsin‐Ping Hsu, and Susan Handy. 2014. “Impacts of Employer‐Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief.” www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/ebtr/ebtr_brief.pdf
1E. Employer Vanpool Program
1F. Employer Telework Program
(1). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2009movingcoolerexecsumandappend.pdf 2A. Transit Oriented Development
2B. Mixed Use Development
(2). SANDAG. 2016. Activity Based Model. (v14.0.1, scenario ID 232) (3). Lund, H., et al. 2004. "Travel Characteristics of Transit‐Oriented Development in California." www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Travel_of_TOD.pdf
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
Project/Site Results
Project Information
Citations for all Project‐Level Strategies
Project‐Level Strategies
Employer Commute Trip Reduction Programs
Return to Main
Level of application: Project/Site Return to Main
Type of VMT affected: Employee commute trips Results Summary Max VMT reduction: 6.2%
Is the program contractually required of the developer no user input, source (1) or property owner and accompanied by a regular
performance monitoring and reporting program?
Place type of project/site user input
% of employees eligible 100% user input
% change in commute VMT ‐5.4% coefficient, source (2, 3) Change in VMT ‐5.4% TRUE FALSE
Sources:
(3). Boarnet, Marlon G., Hsin‐Ping Hsu, and Susan Handy. 2014. “Impacts of Employer‐Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief.” www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/ebtr/ebtr_brief.pdf (1). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf Because the user has calculated the VMT reduction for this strategy, the results for 1B will be excluded from the Results Summary total.
1A. Voluntary Employer Commute Program
Description: Employer offers a voluntary employer commute trip reduction program. The program may include a carpool or vanpool program, subsidized or discounted transit passes, bike amenities, commute trip reduction marketing, and preferential parking permit program. This strategy encompasses strategies 1C (Employer Carpool Program), 1D (Employer Transit Pass Subsidy), and 1E (Employer Vanpool Program) and cannot be analyzed in combination with these strategies. Unlike strategy 1B (Mandatory Employer Commute Program), this strategy does not require monitoring, reporting, or performance standards. If this strategy is selected, strategy 1B cannot be analyzed as part of the total VMT reduction.
Formula: % Change in VMT = % of employees eligible * % change in commute VMT (2). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2009movingcoolerexecsumandappend.pdf suburban center
Exclude from Results