Land Use and Natural Resources Committee Meeting Date: 9/6/2018 Agenda Item No.: 2018-September-2. Subject: 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Discussion Scenario (Est. time: 45 minutes) Informaon Prepared by: Clint Holtzen Approved by: Kacey Lizon Aachments: Yes 1. Issue: This item provides a briefing on the Discussion Scenario for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), including the development of a land use forecast, a list of transportation investments, and a summary of initial performance results. 2. Recommendation: This is for information, however, staff is seeking input on the transportation project selection criteria. 3. Background/Analysis: As presented to the board in April and June, the purpose of the Discussion Scenario is to examine what it will take to maintain, or improve, the performance of the current MTP/SCS, and meet a new higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The new target will require more land use and transportation efficiency than in the already high performing 2016 plan. Through the Policy Framework adopted by the board in December 2017, staff is also exploring other strategies to improve the performance of the plan. These strategies, which staff will bring to the board in the next three months, include investment in electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, innovative transit solutions, transportation demand management, and pricing (see Attachment E). The Discussion Scenario is a way to discuss the effects and trade-offs of policies in the 2020 MTP/SCS update, and decide which policies should be used to develop the growth assumptions and transportation investments in the 2020 MTP/SCS. The Discussion Scenario is not a Preferred or Final Scenario, Draft Plan, or staff recommendation; rather, it is a mechanism for discussion. 4. Discussion/Analysis: There are three foundation elements of the Discussion Scenario: 1) Land Use Forecast The land use assumptions of the Discussion Scenario were shared and discussed with the board in June and are provided again in Attachment A for reference. In May and June, a few jurisdictions and board members raised concerns about the growth assumptions in the Discussion Scenario for their specific community. SACOG has been following up with local agency staff to further discuss these concerns. In addition, staff is continuing to engage all member agency staff and stakeholders to collect more information that will help inform the final land use forecast for the plan update. Specifically, we are continuing to research and analyze the various hurdles to infill development, as well as potential solutions. Staff has also sent a survey to member agencies focused on collecting detailed information on the greenfield areas throughout the region. 2) Transportation Investments Since June, staff has worked to pair a package of transportation investments, based on local input and SACOG’s own performance analysis, with the discussion draft land uses to create a complete Discussion Scenario for 2035 and 2040. The transportation investments of the Discussion Scenario are included as Attachment B. The process that staff used to select projects for inclusion in the scenario mirrors the process we used in the 2016 MTP/SCS. This process begins with the full list of transportation projects nominated by local agency staff, then uses project screening criteria to evaluate the timing, or the phasing, of projects. This methodology is described in Attachment C. The screening questions allow SACOG staff to refine an initial set of transportation projects that can be used to model the Discussion Scenario. Refining which transportation projects are ultimately included in the draft plan is an iterative process that will go through spring of next year. The Discussion Draft transportation project list is the beginning of this process. SACOG sent the attached Discussion Scenario transportation project list to member agencies last week. This began an initial one month vetting period during which time local agencies are asked to review the project list and provide comment. SACOG staff are available to meet with local agency staff to discuss the Discussion Scenario, the screening criteria, and any questions or concerns local agency staff may have. These meetings will continue through this fall on an “as requested” basis. For the jurisdictions in El Dorado and Placer Counties, the project list review will be coordinated by the El Dorado County Transportation Commission and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 3) Performance Outcomes A partial summary of the land use and transportation inputs and the performance measures for the Discussion Scenario is included in Attachment D. Staff will provide a more complete summary at the committee meeting, and will spend more time next month on a performance outcomes briefing and how it affects board policy choices for this plan update. The inputs and performance outcomes described in the attachment are intended to give the board information needed to understand the implications and tradeoffs of various policy decisions facing the MTP/SCS. Specifically, the attachment serves as a snapshot of how the land use and transportation assumptions included in the Discussion Scenario affect the plan’s ability to meet performance objectives such as state greenhouse gas reduction targets, mode shares, congestion relief, transit productivity, natural resource consumption, and access to jobs and services. The board can use this information to provide direction to staff on major policy elements of the plan, such as the allocation of housing and jobs, strategies for managing the transportation system, and how to prioritize investments among different budget categories, including transit, road, and highway capacity, active transportation, and system maintenance and preservation. In December, staff anticipates requesting action on a framework reflecting the board's major policy interests in the final scenario. Attachment E describes the information coming to the board over the next few months in anticipation of that action. 5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no anticipated fiscal impact to SACOG’s operating budget beyond the staff and consulting resources already included in the board adopted agency budget for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. 6. This staff report aligns with the following SACOG Work Plan Goals: 1. Advance Economic Prosperity ATTACHMENTS: Descripon Aachment A - Discussion Dra Land Use Forecast Aachment B - Discussion Dra Project List Aachment C - Screening Quesons Aachment D - Discussion Dra Performance Indicators Aachment E - Board Calendar Attachment A Draft as of August 1, 2018 All estimates are rounded; subtotals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2016 MTP/SCS (this is for 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion Communities Strategy Update Existing Conditions Draft TOTAL Draft TOTAL reference only) Build Out Estimate Draft GROWTH Draft GROWTH Growth from 2016 to Growth from 2016 to Discussion Draft Land Use Scenario Estimates for 2035 and 2040 Total in Year 2016 Total in Year 2035 Total in Year 2040 Total in Year 2036 Total at Build Out 2035 2040 Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Jurisdiction/Community Type Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Placerville Center and Corridor Communites 4,260 190 4,400 210 4,430 240 4,240 230 4,940 320 140 20 170 50 Established Communitites 5,250 4,360 5,650 4,830 5,760 5,010 7,300 5,220 7,100 5,370 400 480 510 650 Jurisdiction Total 9,520 4,540 10,050 5,040 10,190 5,240 11,550 5,460 12,030 5,690 540 500 680 700 El Dorado County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) El Dorado Hills Town Center 3,050 - 3,870 260 3,870 260 3,510 260 3,870 270 820 260 820 260 Pleasant Valley Rd (between Missouri Flat Rd and Hwy 99) 170 100 250 100 280 100 490 100 610 110 80 - 100 - Established Communities 22,110 29,600 27,810 31,940 29,110 32,300 32,600 34,680 49,390 51,530 5,700 2,330 7,000 2,700 Rural Residential Communities (includes agricultural areas) 8,020 23,420 8,070 24,070 8,120 24,220 9,640 26,140 13,930 28,830 50 660 100 800 Developing Communities (listed below) Bass Lake Hills 80 140 90 1,010 110 1,140 120 950 110 1,460 10 860 30 1,000 Carson Creek 40 460 40 1,060 240 1,160 230 1,160 3,880 1,700 - 600 200 700 El Dorado Hills (including Serrano) 2,120 3,690 2,370 4,480 2,470 4,690 2,030 4,560 3,370 6,160 250 800 350 1,000 1 Marble Valley - - - 390 - 390 - 400 - 400 - 390 - 390 Missouri Flat (El Dorado Rd to Pleasant Valley Rd) 3,620 450 3,770 450 3,770 450 3,710 450 6,500 850 140 - 140 - Valley View 150 1,390 150 2,840 150 2,840 160 1,630 160 2,840 - 1,450 - 1,450 Projects Not Identified for Growth in the 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion Draft by 2040 (listed below) Lime Rock Valley - - - - - - - - 60 800 - - - - Jurisdiction Total 39,360 59,250 46,420 66,610 48,100 67,560 52,490 70,340 81,860 94,930 7,050 7,360 8,740 8,310 EL DORADO COUNTY TOTAL 48,880 63,790 56,470 71,660 58,290 72,800 64,040 75,800 93,900 100,620 7,590 7,860 9,420 9,010 1The Build Out Estimate shown reflects adopted planning documents. However, the county is processing an application for this area that could result in a change to these estimates. 1 Attachment A Draft as of August 1, 2018 All estimates are rounded; subtotals may not sum exactly due to rounding.