Planning & Community Development Department GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT SCHEDULE AND TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Council Meeting July 21, 2014

Planning & Community Development Department Executive Summary 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,

Planning & Community Development Department Executive Summary 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

Planning & Community Development Department Executive Summary 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

Planning & Community Development Department Executive Summary 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

Planning & Community Development Department Executive Summary 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

Planning & Community Development Department Background 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

Planning & Community Development Department Background 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

Planning & Community Development Department Background 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

Planning & Community Development Department Background 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

Planning & Community Development Department Background 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,

Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Schedule Options 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

Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Schedule Options 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

Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Schedule Options 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

Planning & Community Development Department Recommendation 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

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 17 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

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric VMT Per Capita Description Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs). 18 Threshold General Plan Any increase in Existing Citywide VMT per Capita Threshold Project Level Any increase in Existing Citywide VMT per Capita

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric VT Per Capita Description Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs). 19 Threshold General Plan Any increase in Existing Citywide VT per Capita Threshold Project Level Any increase in Existing Citywide VT per Capita

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric Auto Level of Service Description LOS as defined by HCM Uses intersection control delay to evaluate auto congestion. 20 Threshold General Plan 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 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

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 21 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

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 22

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 23 Signalized Intersections Subject to Policy Based No CEQA LOS Threshold 224 (68% of All Signals) High Pedestrian Activity Areas

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 24 Signalized Intersections Subject to Policy Based Threshold – LOS F 125 (38% of All Signals) Existing Transit Oriented Development Areas

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures 25 Signalized Intersections Subject to Policy Based No CEQA LOS Threshold 158 (48% of All Signals) ½ Mile Radii Around Gold Line Stations

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network Description Percent of dwelling units and jobs within a quarter mile of each of three bicycle facility types 26 Threshold General Plan Any decrease in % of units or employment within a ¼ mile of Level 1 or 2 Bike Facility Project Level Not a CEQA measure of significance. Project analysis of adjacent effects to bike system included in CEQA doc

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric Proximity and Quality of Transit Network Description Percent of jobs located within a quarter mile of each of three transit facility types 27 Threshold General Plan Any decrease in % of units or employment within a ¼ mile of Level 1 or 2 Transit Facility Project Level Not a CEQA measure of significance. Project analysis of adjacent effects to transit system included in CEQA doc

Planning & Community Development Department Transportation Performance Measures Metric Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment Description 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 28 Threshold General Plan Any decrease in Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score Project Level Not a CEQA measure of significance. Project analysis of adjacent effects to ped. system included in CEQA doc

Planning & Community Development Department Planning Commission Comments 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 & Community Development Department Planning Commission Comments 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

Planning & Community Development Department TAC Motions 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

Planning & Community Development Department Community Workshop Comments 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