Transcript Document

Planning & Community Development Department
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT
SCHEDULE AND TRANSPORTATION
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2014
Executive Summary
Planning & Community Development Department
• Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
> Tonight’s discussion is about timing and options for adoption of the
General Plan Update and how transportation performance
measures affect this timing
> Tonight’s meeting is NOT intended to discuss in detail, evaluate or
adopt new transportation performance measures
> A full presentation, discussion and consideration regarding the
adoption of any new transportation performance measures will be
scheduled with the City Council after the Planning Commission
has made a formal recommendation
> General Plan Update has been targeted for completion prior to
December 31, 2014
2
Executive Summary
Planning & Community Development Department
• Revisions to the City’s General Plan Land Use
and Mobility Elements
> Comprehensive update over the last five years
> Update has involved residents, businesses, community groups,
City Committees, Commissions and the Council
> City Council has approved draft Guiding Principles and Policies,
Land Use Diagram, Specific Plan Boundaries, Development Caps,
and Mobility Policies for EIR study purposes
> Separate from General Plan Update, in process of consideration of
revised transportation performance measures
3
Executive Summary
Planning & Community Development Department
• Implementation of the City’s General Plan Land
Use and Mobility Elements
> General Plan is First Step
> Form Based Codes: 8 Specific Plans and Zoning Code update
> Street Design Guidelines
 Complete Streets Implementation
 Form Based Street Design
> Multi-year effort including CEQA clearance to establish
consistency between General Plan and Zoning
4
Executive Summary
Planning & Community Development Department
• General Plan EIR Status
> Traffic Study for EIR has been planned to incorporate amended
transportation performance measures
> General Plan EIR analysis is complete, except for the chapters
on Traffic and Project Alternatives (both contingent upon
transportation performance measures)
> Targeted General Plan completion date assumed adoption of
revised transportation performance measures no later than
July, 2014
> Confusion about State adoption of SB 743 delay in releasing
draft guidelines has impacted schedule
> Revised transportation performance measures have not yet
been adopted
5
Executive Summary
Planning & Community Development Department
• General Plan EIR Schedule
> Staff has identified three options for moving forward
towards adoption of the General Plan:
HOLD
 Option 1: Wait for the State’s Adoption of Revised Guidelines
FINISH NOW
 Option 2: Conduct the Traffic Study of the EIR based on Existing
Performance measures
STAY CURRENT COURSE
 Option 3: Finalize and Use the Proposed Performance Measures (this
includes further Planning Commission review and recommendation as
well as City Council review and adoption)
6
Background
Planning & Community Development Department
• State Law
> On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed
 Requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) to develop guidelines for determining the significance of
transportation impacts of projects
 Automobile delay NOT a CEQA Impact as measured by:
» Level of Service
» Similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion
 Guidelines may identify certain areas where these measures
may still be considered significant under CEQA
 Subsequently, consistency must be achieved between City’s
transportation measures and State Guidelines
7
Background
Planning & Community Development Department
• State Law
> SB 743 calls for:
 OPR tentatively scheduled release of draft CEQA guidelines
July 1, 2014 for a 6 month period of public review
 Anticipated adoption of January 1, 2015
 Draft guidelines have yet to be released, OPR staff informally
indicated that the release has been delayed for several weeks
and that adoption of the guidelines will likely take place in
Spring 2015, or later
8
Background
Planning & Community Development Department
• City of Pasadena Mobility Policies
> Encourage connectivity and accessibility to a mix of land
uses that meet residents’ daily needs within walking
distance
> Minimize street and intersection widening to facilitate
pedestrian crossings and protect historic resources and
open space
> Improve public health by supporting walking and bicycling
throughout the city
> Emphasize transportation projects and programs that will
contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita
while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability
9
Background
Planning & Community Development Department
• Revisions to Existing Measures
> Over the last four years, the Department of Transportation has been working to
revise the current transportation performance measures
> Based on implementation of the four major objectives of the draft Mobility
Element:
 Promote a livable community
 Encourage non-auto travel
 Protect neighborhoods by discouraging traffic from intruding into
neighborhoods
 Manage multimodal corridors to promote and improve citywide
transportation services
> City Council Study Session regarding proposed revisions
on August 2, 2010
> DOT staff sought community input as they developed proposals for revisions to
transportation measures
10
Background
Planning & Community Development Department
• Revisions to Existing Measures
> Two Community Meetings: 03/26/14 and 06/17/14
> Three TAC Meetings: 02/27/14; 05/22/14; and 06/12/14
(recommended approval)
> Four Planning Commission Meetings: 04/14/14;
05/22/14; 06/11/14; and 06/25/14
> Two Municipal Services Committee Meetings: 03/25/14,
06/10/14
> Next Meeting: Planning Commission July 23, 2014
11
General Plan Schedule Options
Planning & Community Development Department
HOLD
• Option 1- Wait for the State’s Adoption of Revised
Guidelines
> Delay EIR preparation
> Wait for State to adopt new guidelines (Spring 2015)
> Develop revised measures consistent with the State guidelines for
consideration of the TAC, Planning Commission and City Council
adoption
> This would ensure consistency with future State law but would result
in further delays in adopting the General Plan
> Mitigation Measures for GP EIR: Consistent with Mobility and Land
Use Policies
> Additional CEQA analysis for General Plan: None
12
General Plan Schedule Options
Planning & Community Development Department
FINISH NOW
• Option 2 – Conduct the Traffic Study of the EIR
based on Existing Performance measures
> Complete traffic study based on existing measures and thresholds
(excluding street segment analysis, which is a measure of project
level impacts, not program level such as General Plan land use)
> General Plan adoption prior to December 31, 2014 target date
> Take the necessary future steps needed for consistency with State
law, appropriate CEQA process - most likely result in an Addendum,
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
> Mitigation Measures for GP EIR: Inconsistent with Mobility and Land
Use Policies
> Additional CEQA analysis for General Plan: May be moderate to
substantial
13
General Plan Schedule Options
Planning & Community Development Department
STAY CURRENT COURSE
• Option 3- Finalize and Use the Proposed Performance
Measures
> Continue to pursue revisions to measures for review and recommendation
from the Planning Commission and TAC as appropriate
> Place the matter on future City Council agenda for review and adoption
> Upon State adoption of revised guidelines, take necessary steps (if any),
to amend the measures for consistency with State law and undertake the
appropriate CEQA process - most likely result in an Addendum,
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
> Mitigation Measures for GP EIR: Consistent with Mobility and Land Use
Policies
> Additional CEQA analysis for General Plan: May be minimal
14
Recommendation
Planning & Community Development Department
It is Recommended that the City Council direct staff
to complete the EIR consistent with Option 3:
• Option 3- Stay Current Course
> Continue to pursue revisions to measures for review and
recommendation from the Planning Commission and TAC as
appropriate
> Place the matter on future City Council agenda for review
and adoption
> Take necessary steps (if any), to amend the measures for
consistency with State law and undertake the appropriate
CEQA process - most likely Addendum, Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR
15
Planning & Community Development Department
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT
SCHEDULE AND TRANSPORTATION
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2014
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Three Proposed Measures of Significance
1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita
2. Vehicle Trips Per Capita
3. Auto Level of Service – Outside High Ped. Areas
Three Proposed Measures for General Plan Only
1. Prox. & Quality of Bike Facilities
2. Prox. & Quality of Transit Facilities
3. Pedestrian Accessibility & Quality
17
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
VMT Per
Capita
Description Threshold
General Plan
Threshold
Project Level
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT) in the
City of
Pasadena
per service
population
(population +
jobs).
Any increase in
Existing
Citywide VMT
per Capita
Any increase in
Existing
Citywide VMT
per Capita
18
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
VT Per
Capita
Description
Threshold
General Plan
Threshold
Project Level
Vehicle Trips
(VT) in the
City of
Pasadena
per service
population
(population +
jobs).
Any increase in
Existing
Citywide VT
per Capita
Any increase in
Existing
Citywide VT
per Capita
19
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
Auto
Level of
Service
Description
LOS as
defined by
HCM 2010.
Uses
intersection
control delay
to evaluate
auto
congestion.
Threshold
General Plan
Threshold
Project Level
A decrease
beyond LOS D
Outside
designated High
Pedestrian Activity
Areas and Half
Mile of Gold Line
Stations
Up to and
including LOS F
will be accepted
inside designated
HPA
A decrease
beyond LOS D
Outside
designated High
Pedestrian Activity
Areas and Half
Mile of Gold Line
Stations
Up to and
including LOS F
will be accepted
inside designated
HPA
20
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Policy Based LOS Thresholds
LOS may conflict with other community values reflect in
General Plan Policies including:
• Creating pleasant and safe walking and bicycle
environments
• Developing well utilized public transportation systems
• A vision for infill development
• LOS not the best metric to demonstrate that a project is
consistent with the general plan
• The impact analysis will often ignore the effects on
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and green-house
gases
21
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
22
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
High Pedestrian Activity Areas
Signalized Intersections
Subject to Policy Based
No CEQA LOS Threshold
224 (68% of All Signals)
23
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Existing Transit Oriented Development Areas
Signalized Intersections
Subject to Policy Based
Threshold – LOS F
125 (38% of All Signals)
24
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning
& Community
½ Mile Radii
AroundDevelopment
Gold Line Department
Stations
Signalized Intersections
Subject to Policy Based
No CEQA LOS Threshold
158 (48% of All Signals)
25
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
Proximity
and
Quality of
Bicycle
Network
Description
Threshold
General Plan
Project Level
Percent of
dwelling units
and jobs
within a
quarter mile
of each of
three bicycle
facility types
Any decrease
in % of units or
employment
within a ¼ mile
of Level 1 or 2
Bike Facility
Not a CEQA
measure of
significance.
Project analysis
of adjacent
effects to bike
system included
in CEQA doc
26
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
Description
Threshold
General Plan
Project Level
Proximity
and
Quality of
Transit
Network
Percent of
jobs located
within a
quarter mile
of each of
three transit
facility types
Any decrease
in % of units or
employment
within a ¼ mile
of Level 1 or 2
Transit Facility
Not a CEQA
measure of
significance.
Project analysis
of adjacent
effects to transit
system included
in CEQA doc
27
Transportation Performance Measures
Planning & Community Development Department
Metric
Description
Threshold
General Plan
Project Level
Proximity
and Quality
of
Pedestrian
Environment
The Pedestrian
Accessibility
Score within each
TAZ. The
Pedestrian
Accessibility
Score uses the
mix of
destinations, and
a network-based
walk shed to
evaluate
walkability
Any decrease
in Citywide
Pedestrian
Accessibility
Score
Not a CEQA
measure of
significance.
Project analysis
of adjacent
effects to ped.
system included
in CEQA doc
28
Planning Commission Comments
Planning & Community Development Department
•
Support for measures and threshold relating to the Quality of the Bike and
Transit Networks and Pedestrian Accessibility
•
VMT/Capita and VT/Capita not sensitive at the citywide scale to identify
project impacts
•
Autos are still the primary mode of travel
•
Cannot force mode change by allowing intersections to operate at LOS F
•
Concern that intersections allowed to operate at LOS F would negatively
impact local businesses
•
Requested staff to consider a reduction to the size of the proposed High
Pedestrian Activity Areas (where intersection threshold would be LOS F)
•
Acknowledged some of the deficiencies of the current Street Segment
Analysis and requested staff to consider a modification to the metric which
would provide for the identification of impacts to neighborhood streets
29
Planning Commission Comments
Planning & Community Development Department
• Requested staff to consider a reduction to the size
of the proposed High Pedestrian Activity Areas
(where intersection threshold would be LOS F)
• Acknowledged some of the deficiencies of the
current Street Segment Analysis and requested
staff to consider a modification to the metric which
would provide for the identification of impacts to
neighborhood streets
30
TAC Motions
Planning & Community Development Department
• TAC strongly supports all seven of the proposed
transportation measures and CEQA thresholds.
• Second Motion:
> Support for an amended Street Segment Analysis as a
tool for neighborhood protection
> Minor Amendments to the High Pedestrian Activity
Areas
> Amend the definitions of Bike Facilities to change the
ranking of a Bike Boulevard from Level 3 to Level 2
31
Community Workshop Comments
Planning & Community Development Department
• Support for measures which will result in
improved bicycle, transit and pedestrian facilities
• High Pedestrian Activity Area map should include
Pasadena City College and Cal Tech campuses
• The definition of Level 1 and 2 Bike Facilities (bike
lanes) should related to “low stress” facilities on
the City’s Bike Stress Map
32