Planning Board Roundtable 7/9/15 1

2 Status and schedule of Subdivision Staging Policy and related studies LATR TPAR Travel/4 model development Travel Modeling Strategic Plan Trip generation / relationship to parking generation Type and extent of LATR revisions on the table, with a focus on: Establishing new Pro-rata Share Districts Incorporating VMT into the LATR process Relationship to other Department initiatives Master plan work program Development Review Manual

3 Status and schedule of Subdivision Staging Policy and related studies LATR TPAR Travel/4 model development Travel Modeling Strategic Plan Trip generation / relationship to parking generation

4 Implementing Subdivision Staging Policy Work Program Coordinated with PHED/Council consideration of SSP Amendment #14-02 for White Oak Development of new trip generation rates ElementLATRTPAR ScopeFull consideration of options (similar to 2012) Limited changes to transit performance calculations Working group~30-member TISTWG (monthly meetings) Technical staff TimeframeInitial recommendations fall 2015 followed by Planning Board and Council review through fall 2016

5 Building from best and emerging practices nationwide Balance of ideas and perspectives from agency, business, and civic representatives (ten meetings to date)

6 “LATR should be designed to implement the County’s plans”

7 Implementing and complementing other planning and zoning policies facilities evolution of all policies over time.

8 Three primary objectives Improve multimodal analysis, Increase predictability, Streamline implementation Three primary elements Scoping Analysis Mitigation Multiple land use contexts

9 Pro-rata share Where do we know what we want to build (both public and private)? Apply special districts Negotiated Exaction Where do we want to emphasize ped, bike, transit? Apply equivalent mitigation approaches Impact Mitigation Where do we want to achieve L/QOS standards (for any or all modes)? Apply modal tests

10 private sector funding for total system supply PRO RATA SHARE = unit of development demand Simple, powerful, flexible concept. Requires fairly extensive context-sensitive development: What functional objectives should the system achieve (i.e., how to define supply and demand)? Geographic area? Type/timeframe of improvements? Interim monitoring / measurement? Once established, private-sector participation is streamlined.

11 Increased predictability in areas of greatest planned growth Increased analysis in areas where growth less desirable Philosophical Approach #1: Streamline growth in urban areas

12 Increased analysis in areas of greatest activity where multimodal travel demands and facility needs are greatest. Philosophical Approach #2: Identify needed multimodal solutions in urban areas

13 Proposed approach: Increased analysis in areas of greatest activity where multimodal travel demands and facility needs are greatest, coupled with increased predictability in mitigation Philosophical Approach #3: Balance between streamlining and analysis

14 Proposed approach: Develop additional pro- rata share districts (or equivalent approaches such as VMT or PMT fees) in conjunction with local community involvement and detailed study. Evolution Over Time Shift towards Pro-Rata Share in smart growth areas

15 Currently, the County has: a pro-rata share approach in White Flint Alternative Review Procedures and guidance for preferential bike/ped/transit approaches in the other MSPAs / CBDs, and $12K/vehicle trip for non- auto solutions countywide Pro-rata share Negotiated Exaction Impact Mitigation

16 Pro-rata share approaches can be considered for any geographic area, but are most successful when combined with the planning and policy aspects of master planning. New Special Taxing Districts are not necessarily needed, pro-rata share approaches can take many forms. Pro-rata share Negotiated Exaction Impact Mitigation

17 Bethesda may be a good candidate for the next pro-rata share district as its plan moves forward. Many new negotiated exaction approaches are being developed. These new approaches are also being considered now for the County’s remaining urban areas. Pro-rata share Negotiated Exaction Impact Mitigation

18 Other fixed guideway station areas can be added to the Urban Area construct. The CCT and Purple Line stations are ready for such consideration. Over time, some or all of the other BRT network stations could be identified as Urban Areas and additional pro-rata share locations may emerge from local stakeholder interests. Pro-rata share Negotiated Exaction Impact Mitigation

19 Successful pro-rata share district elements: Compact geographic area Common stakeholder interests Inventory of unbuilt transportation system and private development Reflects needs and interests of constituents Coordinated with state, regional, and local implementers and operators Includes regular monitoring and revision processes and schedules Examples: Delaware TID, Florida MMTDs, special districts in Baltimore, MD and Portland, OR.

20 Type of Development VMT effectQualified asEffect on existing tests Type 1: Zero VMT Development Reduces areawide VMT (only residential applications in Bethesda/Silver Spring with very limited on site parking) Defined by lookup table in Planning Board Guidelines No action under LATR, TPAR, or transportation impact taxes Type 2: Very Low VMT Development Limited VMT (only residential applications in Bethesda/Silver Spring with relatively limited on site parking Defined by lookup table in Planning Board Guidelines No action under LATR Type 3: Mitigated VMT Development Reduction of site VMT by 50% as negotiated in “hard” Traffic Mitigation Agreement Negotiated Traffic Mitigation Agreement No action under LATR/TPAR; additional transportation impact tax

21 Type 1: Zero-VMT Development: Limit parking to < 0.16 spaces per dwelling unit (no additional parking for up to 15KGSF ground floor retail). Type 2: Very Low VMT Development: Limit parking on sliding scale per table below (no additional parking for up to 15KGSF ground floor retail):

22 Scoping Primary measure person-trips, not vehicle-trips Specific person-trip thresholds for auto, ped, bike, and transit analyses and mitigation Low-VMT Alternative Review Procedure Identify “protected intersections” where no further auto capacity to be added Analysis Bike/ped gap closure Bike/ped accessibility incentives Multimodal operations Mitigation Priorities: TDM, bike/ped, transit, auto

23

24 LATR Develop draft changes to LATR Guidelines (summer 2015) Review / refine with TISTWG (fall 2015) Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015) Present to Planning Board (early 2016)* TPAR Assess changes (summer 2015) Review/refine with partner agency staff (fall 2015) Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015) Present to Planning Board (early 2016)* Trip Generation Develop/refine approach (summer 2015) Review/refine with partner agency staff (fall 2015) Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015) Present to Planning Board (early 2016)* * - additional status roundtable discussions to be held in 2015