SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2013 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, RESOLUTION NO

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2013 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, RESOLUTION NO"

Darlene Norah Harris
5 years ago
Views:

1 City of Westlake Village July 24, 2013 Agenda Item: Public Hearing No. 3 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Raymond B. Taylor, City Manager SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2013 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, RESOLUTION NO OVERVIEW This report addresses the status of the City s compliance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP), including the annual Local Development Report (LDR). BACKGROUND CMP Elements The CMP is a program mandated as a result of the passage of Proposition 111 in It is intended to serve as a key link in countywide, multi-modal planning and traffic program implementation, and consists of the following six elements: 1. A system of highways and roadways with minimum level of service performance measurements designated for highway segments and key roadway intersections on this system. 2. A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate multimodal system performance. 3. A transportation demand management (TDM) element that promotes alternative transportation strategies. 4. A land use analysis program to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system, including an estimate of the costs of mitigating those impacts. 5. A seven-year capital improvement program of projects that benefit the CMP system. 6. A Deficiency Plan. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3

2 City Compliance Activities Since the CMP was first adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in 1992, the City has taken the following actions to fulfill its CMP obligations: 1. Review of CMP draft documents, policies, and procedures. 2. Adoption of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. 3. Adoption of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program. 4. Participation in the countywide deficiency plan through tracking and annual reporting of new development activity, as well as offsetting mitigation strategies. 5. Adoption of an annual self-certification resolution and Local Development Report (LDR), formerly known as Local Implementation Report (LIR). 6. Submittal of a claim for CMP credits (earned for implementation of mitigation strategies such as the TDM ordinance and the Westlake Transit Program) for the period from 1990 to Review and comment on proposed revisions to the CMP. 8. Preparation of a Congestion Management Program Action Plan to regain a positive credit balance. 9. Meeting attendance and input to CMP Policy Advisory Committee in 1999 regarding potential modification of the deficiency plan to completely eliminate the credit/debit tracking system. Due to opposition from the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, the modification did not occur. 10. Participation as LVMCOG representative to the CMP Policy Advisory Committee regarding evaluation of various deficiency plan alternatives for the 2001 and 2002 CMP Updates. Although promising alternatives were identified, a lack of PAC consensus resulted in no substantive changes to the credit/debit deficiency plan. 11. Submittal of Arterial System Finance Program (ASFP) information, including anticipated improvement projects. 12. Coordination with MTA staff during development of the mitigation fee program subregional nexus study. Public Hearing 3 2 of 10

3 Deficiency Plan Evolution The City s Local Implementation Report (LIR) filed with the MTA in 1996 reported a net credit/debit balance of negative 691. This resulted in a mandatory noncompliance finding by the MTA Board. However, City staff and MTA staff were able to successfully develop an action plan that identified strategies planned by the City that were expected to generate more than 11,000 additional credits. This Action Plan was sufficient to restore the City s compliance standing. It should be noted that, although Westlake Village was the first city to report a negative credit balance, MTA staff observed a growing disparity between credit haves and havenots. Certain agencies, generally larger jurisdictions that have diverse economic bases and/or rapid growth, accumulated very large credit balances that continued to grow. As a group, these credit-rich agencies are responsible for the vast majority of new development in Los Angeles County. At the opposite end of the spectrum are agencies similar to Westlake Village that were concerned about their continuing ability to balance credits and debits. These jurisdictions are generally smaller, older, and more built-out, and are responsible for only a small proportion of total countywide development. In recognition of the imperfect nature of the credit/debit approach to a countywide deficiency plan, MTA staff proposed in late 1998 to eliminate the credit/debit system and replace it with the existing Call For Projects program. The Call for Projects is a periodic process by which local agency projects compete for MTA funding. Thirty-four cities (including Westlake Village) and two sub-regional councils of governments supported the change in writing, and four agencies (including the County and City of Los Angeles) opposed the change. A CMP Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was then formed to consider the matter further. Due primarily to opposition from the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, no changes were made to the deficiency plan. MTA then retained a consultant to study the existing system and a variety of alternatives following completion of the MTA Long Range Transportation Plan. A new PAC was convened to coordinate with MTA staff and the consultant and to guide the evaluation. The PAC/consultant team identified 6 adjustments to the existing credit/debit system, as well as 8 alternatives. The team also developed evaluation criteria that were used to select the best adjustments/alternatives for further development and evaluation. This led to a hybrid alternative, whereby the credit/debit deficiency plan would be replaced with a plan that combined elements of the CMP, MTA Call For Projects, and the MTA Long Range Transportation Plan. Although the hybrid appeared promising, consensus with the major PAC members could not be reached and the effort was terminated. As part of its approval of the 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan, the MTA Board authorized a nexus study to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a congestion mitigation fee. In theory, a fee would help ensure that new growth directly mitigates its traffic impacts on the regional transportation system by helping fund needed local transportation improvements. The purpose of the nexus study is to identify and justify a mitigation fee that would meet CMP Deficiency Plan requirements. Public Hearing 3 3 of 10

4 Although the mitigation fee program, as conceived, is structured to maximize local control of how much money is collected and on what improvement projects it is spent, staff was concerned that Westlake Village might once again suffer the consequences of being a nearly built-out planned community located on the fringe of the County. It was emphasized to MTA that history must not be allowed to repeat itself. This view was apparently shared by other cities, because MTA staff met with each city and emphasized their intent to maximize local control. In fact, they hope to approve local impact fee programs in their entirety, rather than on a project by project basis. Considering that only 25% of the cities in Los Angeles County have impact fee programs, it would be a significant regional achievement to establish such programs in all remaining cities, even if project eligibility standards were relatively loose. MTA staff completed pilot program nexus studies for all the subregions and intended to present findings and recommendations to the MTA Board earlier this year. The intent was to establish a minimum fee of $200 per daily trip and then begin working with local agencies to implement the fee program within the next two years. Implementation would entail updates of local transportation project lists and subregional nexus studies, followed by preparation and adoption of local fee ordinances. However, the building industry has questioned the need and fairness of not only the mitigation fee, but the entire Congestion Management Program given the 21 st century programs such as AB 32 (greenhouse gas requirements), SB 375 (sustainable community strategies), and America Fast Forward (transportation bond program) that have come forward since the CMP was created. Therefore, the MTA Board directed their staff to work with state legislators to investigate, hold hearings, and ascertain if the CMP is still an appropriate, useful, and consistent tool aligned with state and regional objectives. MTA staff is to return to the Board with recommendations no later than February, FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES While MTA staff evaluates the continued relevance of the CMP, conformity requirements are reduced and local agencies need not report transportation improvements or credit/debit balances. However, the annual reporting of new development activity and adoption of the self-certification resolution are still required during the suspension period. Because the format of the annual report has been changed to encompass only new development activity, it is now referred to as the Local Development Report (LDR). The LDR for this year is due to MTA by September 1, 2013, and must include a record of new development building permits issued between June 1, 2012 and May 31, The LDR must be accompanied by a City Council resolution, adopted at a public hearing, adopting the LDR and self-certifying the City s conformance with CMP requirements. Public Hearing 3 4 of 10

5 FISCAL IMPACT It is anticipated that adoption of the attached self-certification resolution and submittal of the 2013 LDR will fulfill the City s annual reporting requirements for 2013, thereby enabling the City to continue receiving its Proposition 111 gas tax and Surface Transportation Program (STP) local return revenues. If the City fails to take these actions, the MTA will be required by law to find the City in noncompliance and eventually withhold these annual revenues, which are in the range of $75,000 per year. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing leading to adoption of the attached self-certification resolution. Should the City Council concur with this recommendation, the appropriate motion is: MOTION: ROLL CALL: "I move that Resolution No , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Westlake Village, California, finding the City to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the 2013 CMP Local Development Report, in accordance with California Government Code Section be introduced by title only, that further reading be waived, and that Resolution No certifying compliance with the Congestion Management Program be adopted. Yes Prepared by: Mark Wessel, City Traffic Engineer Attachments: (1) Resolution No (2) 2013 CMP Local Development Report CMP Staff Report and Resolution h:\wessel\cmp staff report and resolution doc Public Hearing 3 5 of 10

6 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE 2013 CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION WHEREAS, CMP statute requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( LACMTA ), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, to annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, LACMTA requires submittal of the CMP Local Development Report by September 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on July 24, 2013, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 2010 CMP adopted by the LACMTA Board on October 28, The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management chapter. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program chapter. The City has adopted a Local Development Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the 2010 CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan consistent with the LACMTA Board adopted 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan. Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. PASSED, APPROVED, ADOPTED this 24 th day of July, ATTEST: Philippa Klessig, Mayor Beth A. Schott, City Clerk Public Hearing 3 6 of 10

7 CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE Date Prepared: July 16, CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, MAY 31, 2013 Contact: Mark Wessel, City Traffic Engineer Phone Number: (805) CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2011 DEFICIENCY PLAN SUMMARY * IMPORTANT: All "#value!" cells on this page are automatically calculated. Please do not enter data in these cells. DEVELOPMENT TOTALS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 0.00 Multi-Family Residential 0.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Net Sq.Ft. 2 Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON-RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Net Sq.Ft. 2 Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (50, ,999 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University (# of students) 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Daily Trips EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS Exempted Dwelling Units 0 Exempted Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s) 0 2. Net square feet is the difference between new development and adjustments entered on pages 2 and 3. Page 1 Public Hearing 3 7 of 10

8 CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE Date Prepared: July 16, CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, MAY 31, 2013 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." PART 1: NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 0.00 Multi-Family Residential 0.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON-RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (50, ,999 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University (# of students) 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description Daily Trips (Attach additional sheets if necessary) (Enter "0" if none) Page 2 Public Hearing 3 8 of 10

9 CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE Date Prepared: July 16, CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, MAY 31, 2013 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any structure with the reporting period. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 0.00 Multi-Family Residential 0.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON-RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (50, ,999 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University (# of students) 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description Daily Trips (Attach additional sheets if necessary) (Enter "0" if none) Page 3 Public Hearing 3 9 of 10

10 CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE Date Prepared: July 16, CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, MAY 31, 2013 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." PART 3: EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TOTALS) Low/Very Low Income Housing High Density Residential Near Rail Stations Mixed Use Developments Near Rail Stations Development Agreements Entered into Prior to July 10, 1989 Reconstruction of Buildings Damaged due to "calamity" Reconstruction of Buildings Damaged in Jan Earthquake 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet Total Dwelling Units 0 Total Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s) 0 Page 4 Exempted Development Definitions: 1. Low/Very Low Income Housing: As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as follows: - Low-Income: equal to or less than 80% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size. - Very Low-Income: equal to or less than 50% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size. 2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: Development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre is automatically considered high density. 3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: Mixed-use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing. 4. Development Agreements: Projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, Reconstruction or replacement of any residential or non-residential structure which is damaged or destroyed, to the extent of > or = to 50% of its reasonable value, by fire, flood, earthquake or other similar calamity. 6. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and where the local jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally precluded projects do not have to be reported in the LDR. Public Hearing 3 10 of 10

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

TO: ATTENTION: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager Len Gorecki, Director of Public Works Jerry Stock, City Engineer Public Hearing to Consider