HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs EIR Scoping - 46-2.pdfLand Use Element
• Urban Densities
Residential Rural 1du /5ac to <1 du /ac
Residential Low 1 du /ac to <10 du /ac
Residential Med 10 du /ac to <20 du /ac
Residential High ?20 du /ac
• Community Growth Boundaries
• Prescriptive Design Requirements
• Pro Agriculture
Agricultural and Economic
Development Element
• 300 foot Agricultural buffers
• Ag commercial and industrial
• Non ag land use or subdivision prohibited
• Hard edges
• Jobs Housing Relationship
— Balance
— Match
— Phasing
Health and Safety
(Noise) Element
Policy HS -7.1 Ensure that existing and planned land uses
are compatible with the current and projected noise environment.
However, urban development generally
experiences greater ambient (background)
noise than rural areas. Increased density, as
supported by the County in this General Plan, generally results in
even greater ambient noise levels. It is the County' s intent to
meet specified indoor noise thresholds, and to create peaceful
backyard living spaces where possible, but particular
ambient outdoor thresholds may not
always be achievable. Where residential growth is
allowed pursuant to this general plan, these greater noise
levels are acknowledged and accepted,
notwithstanding the guidelines in Figure HS -7.
Public Facilities and
Services Element
Policy PF -5.7 Encourage fire districts to
support narrow streets and other
desirable community design features
promoted by this General Plan.
Conservation and Open
Space Element
(Climate Change)
• Prepare Climate Action Plan before any
new growth
• Interim CEQA threshold (Action CO- A115.1)
of net zero emissions
Circulation Element
• LOS as a limit
• Farm -to- market road policies
— LOS
— Priority Roads
• Urban LOS in growth areas
• LOS Exceptions (Policy Cl-3.1 X)
• VMT Thresholds (Policy ci -3.19)
• Dunnigan Specific Plan (Policy ci -s.is)
• Analyze to agency thresholds; mitigate to
County thresholds (Policy ci- 3.z.1)
• Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
X
O
VMT and CEQA
• Measuring the differences
• Value laden text
• Limits to the modeling
• Disclosure
"In evaluating the roadway system,
a lower vehicle LOS may be desired
when balanced against other community
Values related to resource protection,
social equity, economic development,
and consideration of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit users. "
"The Draft General Plan accepts these
lower LOS values. This reflects a change
in policy for the unincorporated County to
acknowledge that transportation planning
based solely on roadway LOS, which
considers only driver comfort and
convenience, is not desirable since it fails
to acknowledge other users of the
circulation system and other community
values. "
"A higher LOS results in higher
expenditure of infrastructure dollars for
wider roadways that do not necessarily
serve all users of the circulation system
and result in less than optimum utilization
of the roadway. For example, LOS C on a
typical two -lane County road represents
about 40 percent utilization of the
roadway's capacity. "
"Furthermore wider roadways, in general,
are inconsistent with maintaining rural
character and aesthetics, cause greater
impacts to biological resources and
agricultural land, and discourage use by
pedestrians and bicyclists. "
General Plan EIR
• Subsequent Specific Plans — Tiered EIRs
• Other Projects — Reliance on GP EIR
— Section 15183 Statutory Exemption for
consistent land use actions and development
— Section 15182(a) Statutory Exemption for
consistent residential projects
VMT in Practice
• Transportation Impact Studies
• Dunnigan Specific Plan
• Climate Action Plan
Policy CC -4.11
Site specific information shall be required
for each application, subject to site
conditions and available technical
information, as determined by the County
lead department, in order to enable
informed decisionmaking and ensure
consistency with the General Plan and
with the assumptions of the General Plan
EIR:
IA
I�
Dunnigan
Specific Plan
Draft Land Use Map
2020 GHG Emissions
Reductions
• Transportation constitutes about 25% of
the County's GHG emissions
• VMT threshold results in reduction of
4406 MT CO2e or 16 percent of these
VVI
SIIOBPBal
Z
`s
SPOON IsuoiBaIJ
•sn
senlB^ A4iunwwo:D