HomeMy Public PortalAbout06) 7C Adopt Resolution 19-5378 Opting Out from the State Mandated Congestion Management Program as Requested by LA County MetroAGENDA
ITEM ?.C.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE : January 15 , 20 19
TO : The Honorable City Co un cil
FROM : Bryan Cook , C ity Manager
Via : Mi cha el D. Forbes , Community De velopment Director
Scott Reimers , Planning Manager
By: Adam Gulick, Associate Plann e r
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ELECTING TO OPT-OUT FROM THE STATE
MANDATED CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AS
REQUESTED BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recomme nds that t he City Cou nc il approve Resolution 19-5378 (Attachment "A ")
e lecti ng to opt-out from th e Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
(C MP) in accorda nc e with the State CMP statute a nd to provid e a copy of the final
resolution to Metro.
BACKGROUND :
1. On June 5 , 1990 , th e voters of Ca lifo rn ia passed Proposition 111 ra is ing the Gas
Tax from nine to 18 cents over a 5 year period. Proposition 111 a lso required
urb a ni zed co unti es t o develop a nd im p le me nt a CMP .
2. O n Octobe r 16 , 1990 , th e City of Temp le City C ity Counci l adopted a resolut ion
designating Me tro as th e age ncy respo nsible for the Los Angeles County CMP .
3. In 1996 , Assembly Bill 2419 was enacted estab lish ing an option for jurisdictions to
opt-out of th e CMP without penalty of losing Gas Tax funds made ava ilable
through the C MP .
4 . In 2003 , the Metro Board directed Metro staff to explore a coun tyw ide mitigation
f ee to meet the CMP requirements .
5 . On Octobe r 28, 2010 , the Metro Board adopted th e 2010 CMP for Los Angeles
Co unty.
City Counci l
January 15 , 2019
Page 2 of 3
6. On January 1, 2013 , SB 7 43 was approved by the Governor creating a process to
change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the Cal ifornia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
7 . On March 4 , 2014 , Metro conducted a local CMP Stakeholder Workshop relating
to the Congestion Mitigation Fee proposal. The consensus from the stakeholders
was to postpone the Congestion Mitigation Fee proposal until the SB 743
guidelines from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), be c ause
of the conflicting transportation analysis.
8. In 2017 , the Metro Board suspended the CMP bec ause it was outdated and
increasingly out of step with the current regional , state , and federal planning
processes and requests , including new state requirements for transportation
performance measures relating to greenhouse gas reduction .
9 . In January 2018 , after four years of stakeholder-driven input, the OPR transmitted
its proposed CEQA Guideline implementing SB 7 43 to the California Natural
Resources Agency.
10 . On June 20 , 2018 , the Metro Board approved a staff recommendation to initiate
the process to opt-out of the state mandated CMP (Attachment "B ").
11. On September 12 , 2018 , City staff attended a CMP Opt-Out Workshop held by
Metro (Attachment "C").
ANALYSIS:
Metro is required by state law to prepare and update, on a biennial basis , a CMP for
Los Angeles County. A statutory element of the CMP includes local conformance for all
of the county's jurisdictions . Th e submittal of a Local Development Report (LOR ) allows
Metro to track new building activity and promote local transportation strateg ies and
programs that benefit the regional transportation system and to offset the impact of new
development. Each jurisdiction within Los Angeles County must prepare an LOR and
submit it to Metro , who verifies compliance with the current CMP .
The intent of the CMP is to tie the appropriation of gas ta x revenues to congestion
reduction efforts by improving the coordination of land use and transportation. This
system of performance-based planning was progressive when first adopted ; however,
the approach has become obsolete. The CMP primarily uses a level of service (LOS)
performance metric that is a measurement of vehicle speed , density, congestion , etc.
The LOS performance metric is inconsistent with new state-des ignated performance
measures, such as vehicle m il es traveled (VMT) that was enacted by SB 7 4 3 to change
the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA.
City Council
January 15 , 2019
Page 3 of 3
The decision to formally opt-out of the CMP is a decision that can be made exclusively
by Metro . California Government Code §65088 .3 states that jurisd ictions w ithin a county
may opt-out of the CMP requirement without penalty, if a majority of local j urisd ictions
representing a majority of the county's population formally adopt resolutions request ing
to opt-out of the CMP . A number of counties have already elected to opt-out of the CMP
over the years , including San Diego , Fresno , Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo
counties . Metro staff is now requesting that each governing body adopt a resolution to
formally opt-out of the Los Angeles County CMP .
To opt-out , the City can adopt Resolution 19-5378 (Attachment "A ") formally requesting
exemption from the CMP . Upon receipt of formally-adopted resolutions from a majority
of local jurisd ictions representing a majority of the population , Metro will notify the State
Controller , Caltrans , and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
that Los Angeles County has opted out of the CMP in accordance with the statutory
requirements . To date , the following cities have opted out of the CMP: Pasadena , La
Canada Flintridge , La Verne , Sierra Mad re , South Pasadena , West Hollywood , and
Westlake Village . Accord ing to Metro, "opting out of the CMP g ives Metro the flexibility
to implement mobility improvements through the programs and projects in the Long
Range Transportation Plan adopted by the Metro Board , while furthering improvement
to transportation capacity , choice, and cost-effectiveness ." This action will not
jeopardize any current or future transportation fund i ng .
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS :
Approva l of the resolution opting out of the CMP for FY 2018-19 will further the City's
Strategic Goals of Good Governance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will not have any impacts to the FY 2018-19 City Budget. The City will
continue to receive its appointment of the gas tax fund tied to the CMP , which is
approximately $200,000 annually .
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No . 19-5378
B. Metro Board Report, June 20 , 2018
C . Metro CMP Workshop Discussion Summary, Timeline , and FAQ
,----------------·--
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 19-5378
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY, CALIFORNIA, ELECTING TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in 1990 the voters of Ca l ifornia passed Proposition 111 and the
req ui rement that urban ized counti es develop and implement a Congestion Management
Program; and
WHEREAS, the legislature and governor established the specific requirements of the
Congestion Management Prog ram by passage of legislation which was a companion to
Proposition 111 and is encoded in Ca lifornia Governme nt Code Section 65088 to 65089.10;
and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency responsib le for Los Ange l es
County's Congestion Management Program; and
WHEREAS, Ca lifornia Government Code Section 65089.3 allows urbanized co unties
to be exempt from the Congestion Managemen t Program based on resolutions passed by
loca l jurisdictions represen ting a majority of a county's jurisdictions with a majority of the
county's population; and
WHEREAS, the Congestion Management Program is outdated and increasingly out
of step with current regional, State, and federal planning processes and requirem ents,
including new State requirements; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2018, the Metro Board of Dire ctors took action to direct
Metro staff to work with local jurisdiction s to prepare the nece ssary reso luti ons to exempt
Los Angel es County from the Congestio n Management Prog ram .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitat ions are true and correct.
2. Th at the City of Temple City hereby elects to be exempt from the Congestion Management
Program as descri bed i n Ca li fornia Governm~nt Code Section 65088 to 65089 .10.
Resoluti o n No. 19-5378
Page 2 o f 2
SECTION 1. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption o f t his reso l ution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th da y of January, 2 019 .
Wi ll iam Man, Mayor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Peggy Kuo, City Cl erk Er ic S. Vail, City Attorney
I, Peggy Kuo, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify tha t the foregoing
Reso lut ion No. 19-5378 was adopted by said Council at the regu lar meeti ng held o n t he 15th day
of January 20 19, by the fol lowing vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Council member-
Council member -
Councilmember -
Counci l member -
Peggy Kuo , City Cle rk
Metro
m MetrO' Board Report
File#: 2018-0122 , File Type: Program
ATTACHMENT B
Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transport ation
Authority
One Gateway Plaza
3rd Floor Bo ard Room
Los Ange les, CA
Agenda Number: 22 .
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE
JUNE 20 , 2018
SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OPT -OUT
ACTION: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE initiating the process for Metro and all Los Angeles County local jurisdict ions to opt out of
the California Congestion Management Program (CMP), in accordance w ith State CMP statute .
ISSUE
Metro is required by state law to prepare and update on a biennial basis a Congestion Management
Program (CMP ) for the County of Los Angeles. The CMP process was established as part of a 1990
legislative package to implement Proposition 111 , which increased the state gas tax fro m 9 to 18
cents . The intent of the CMP was to tie the appropriation of new gas tax revenues to congestion
reduction efforts by improving land use/transportation coordi nation .
While the CMP requirement was one of the pioneering efforts to conduct performance-based
planning, the approach has become antiquated and expensive. CMP pri marily uses a level of service
(LOS) performance metric which is a measurement of vehicle delay that is inconsistent w ith new
state-designated performance measures, such as vehicle miles travelled (VMT), enacted by SB 743
for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis .
Pursuant to California Government Code §65088 .3 (Attachment A , C. G . C. §65000 et seq .),
jurisdictions within a county may opt out of the CMP requirement without penalty , if a majority of local
jurisdictions representing a majority of the county 's population formally adopt resolut ions requesting
to opt out of the program . Given that the CMP has become increasing ly out of step w ith regiona l,
state , and federal planning processes and requirements , staff recommends that Metro initiate the
process to gauge the interest of local jurisdictions and other stakeho lders in opting out of State CMP
requirements .
DISCUSSION
Under the CMP , the 88 incorporated cities plus the County of Los Angeles share various statutory
responsibilities , including monitoring traffic count locations on select arterials , implementi ng
transportation improvements , adoption of travel demand management and land use ordinances , and
mitigating congestion impacts .
Metro Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/2 1/20 18
powered by Leg1star"'
File#: 2018-0122 , File Type: Program Agenda Number: 22 .
The framework for the CMP is firmly grounded in the idea that congestion can be mitigated by
continuing to add capacity to roadways . This is evidenced by the primary metric that d riv es the
program which is LOS . Recent state laws and rulemak ing , namely AB 32 (Californ ia Global
Wa rming Solutions Act of 2006), SB 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008), SB 743 (Environmental quality: transit oriented infill projects , judicial review streaml i ning for
environmental leadership development projects) and SB 32 (California G lobal Warming Solutions Act
of 2006), all move away from LOS d i rectly or indirectly . Therefo re , the CMP contradicts these key
state policies and Metro's own efforts to promote a more sustainab le and equitable region .
A number of counties have elected to opt out of the CMP over the years incl uding San Diego , Fresno ,
Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo counties. The reasons for doing so are varied but generally
concern redundant , expensive , administrative processes that come wi th great expense , little to no
congestion benefit and continue to mandate the use of LOS to dete rmine roadway deficien cies .
The passage of Measure M and the update of the Long Range Transportatio n Plan presen t Metro
with an opportun ity to co nsider new ways to measure transportation system performance , measures
that complement efforts to combat climate change , support sustainab le , vibrant communities and
improve mobility. For Metro and cities alike , the continued adm inistration of the CMP is a d istraction
at best or an impediment at worst to improving our transportation system .
Over the last several years, the CMP has become increasi ngly outdated in relation to the directio n of
Metro 's planning process and regional , state , and federal transportation planning requ irements.
Addi tional reasons to opt out of the CMP include :
• Relieves Metro and local jurisdictions of a mandate to use a single measure (LOS ) to
determine roadway deficiencies .
• Eliminates the risk to local jurisdictions of losing their state gas tax funds or being ineligible to
receive state and federal Transportation Improvement Program funds , as a result of not being
in compliance with CMP requirements or performance standa rds .
• Eliminates the administrative and financial burden to cities associated with the preparat ion of
documents to demonstrate conformance with the CMP.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Metro could continue to implement the CMP as adopted by the Board or look to update the program .
We do not recommend th is as we have examined multiple ways to adapt state legislative
requirements, but we have been unable to fit Los Angeles county mob ility complexities to statutory
requirements in a manner that achieves consensus of our stakeholders over the twenty-five-year life
of the program . Opting out of the CMP gives Metro the flexibility to imp lement mobility improveme nts
through the programs and projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan adopted by the Board ,
while furthering improvements to transportation capacity , choice and cost-effectiveness .
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
Th is Board action will have no adverse impact on safety standards for Metro .
Metro Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/21/2018
powered by Leg1star'"
File#: 2018 -0122 , File Type: Program Agenda Number: 22 .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the current fiscal year budget, nor any anticipated impact to future budgets or
the continued flow of state gas tax revenues to local jurisdictions. The recommended action may
have a positive impact on Metro and local jurisdiction budgets in future years by eliminating the
annual costs associated with implementing the CMP . Annua l costs to local agenc ies vary based on
size but generally require a staff commitment of 25-60 hours per jurisdiction plus the cost of
conducting traffic counts at the 164 CMP intersections at a cost of approximately $250 per
intersection . For Metro the annual burden of administering the CMP is approximately 1.2 Full Time
Equivalents (FTE).
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval , staff will proceed in consulting with local jurisdictions and other interested
stakeholders as follows :
• Consult with the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding opting out of the CMP
and conduct a workshop of our stakeholders to receive input on the inte res t in opting out of the
CMP .
• With the concurrence of the TAC and workshop participants , request local jurisdictions to
consider adopting draft resolution (Attachment B) to opt out of the program .
• Upon receipt of formally -adopted resolutions from a majority of local jurisdictions representing
a majority of the population , notify the State Controller, Caltrans , and SCAG that Los Angeles
County has opted out of the CMP in accordance with statutory requ irements .
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A-CMP legislation
Attachment B -Draft Resolution to Opt Out of the Congestion Management Program in Los Ange les
County
Prepared by : Paul Backstrom , Manager, Co untywid e Planning & Deve lopment, (213 ) 922-2183
Mark Yamarone, DEO , Countywide Planning & Development , (213) 418-3452
Kalieh Hanish, EO , Countywide Planning & Development , (213) 922-7109
Manjeet Ranu , SEO , Countywide Planning & Development , (213) 418-315 7
Reviewed by : Therese W. McMillan , Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-7077
Metro Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/21/2018
powered by Leg1sta r"'
File#: 2018-0122 , File Type: Program
Phillip A. Washington
Chief Executive Officer
Metro Page 4 of 4
Agenda Number: 22 .
Printed on 6/21/2018
powered by Leg 1starw
CMP Opt-Out Workshop Summary Discussion
Se ptember 12, 2018
Comment (Main Points) Response
Yes, on paper. The Debits and credits program was
Do the debits and credits accumulated by cities under the CMP Debits and Credits program still exist? suspended in 2003. The debits and credits remain in Metro's
r ecords but have no current value.
Will we still get our gas taxes if we opt out?
Yes. Other countie s have opted out of the CMP and still
r eceive their gas tax funding tied to the CMP .
No, thi s is not a replacement effort. The opt-out is strictly
Is there or will there be an alternative t o the CMP if we opt out? about removing the LA County region f rom the state-
mandated requi rements of the CMP.
Is it correct to say there is no r ule that would prevent cities from developi ng their own framework or Correct.
alternative performance based planning tool?
No, cities cannot individually opt out of the CMP. The
Can individual cities opt out if Metro does not succeed tn opting out?
decision is a collective decision requiring the concurrence of
a majori ty of the 89 jurisdictions in the County, repre senting
a majority of the total County population.
Metro consulted with the City of Los An geles early to
A while ago, the City of Los Angeles was not interested in opting out. Is the City of Los Angeles
confirm that t he City of Los Angeles is amenable to t he idea.
Formal adoption by the City of Los Angeles would of course
interested in opting out? be a decision subject to the approval of the Ci ty Council and
Mayor.
None to date but approximately 10 jurisdictions have
How many jurisdictions have opted out so far? expressed interest in taking resolutions to opt-out to their
governing bodies .
Yes. Ci ties were required to adopt transporation demand
The Demand Management component of the CMP required cities to adopt Transportation Demand management ordinances as part of their participation in the
Management {TOM) ordinances. Would those ordinances remain an enforceable element of a city's CMP . As those ordinances are part of a city's municipal code,
municipal code? it is up to the individual cities to maintain, update, or nullify
as they deem appropriate.
Analysis of project i mpacts is helpful to pers u ade developers to consider traffic and congest ion
Opting out does not preclude cities from adopting their own
project impact ana lysis requ i rements in t heir traffic study
impacts. guidelines.
The current CMP has an evaluation framework based on level of service (LOS) that is inconsistent with
the new CEQA evaluation criteria . Continued re l iance on the CMP project level analysis may lead to Concur.
CEQA problems going forward
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
FAQ
Comment
Comment
Category
)> __, __,
)>
0
I
~ m z
1 of3_,
0
CMP Opt-Out Workshop Summary Discussion
Se pt embe r 12, 2 018
Comment (Main Points) Response
None that we ar e aware of at this time. This information
Is there any other use for previously collected da t a other tha n f or debit-credit purposes? woul d r emain archive d and publicly availabl e to be used
should the informat ion be needed.
The opt-out provision was not part of the original1990 CMP
What are the teeth in the CMP if count ies can opt-out and still receive their gas tax? Why did anyone legislation. Legislation enacted in 1996 AB 2419 (Bowler)
ever c hoose to partic ipate in the CM P? amended to the CMP legislation to include the opt-out
provi sion.
No det riment in our assessment . In fact, because the CMP is
What is the negative to opting out, especially with regards to transit? rooted in measuring LOS one could argue that
implementation of the CMP harms transi t by emphasizing
the movement of cars over movement of people.
We have to be cognizant that we will receive questions from the public regarding congestion
In OPR's studies they have determined that delay, by way of reduction elements. What has been missing in these discussions is consideration of air quality. LOS
(delay) is a poor metric to capture that impact and basel i ne air quality has been improving despite the current CMP's level of service measure, does not mean
increases in vehicle delay. there is an environment al impact.
A fact sheet l aying o ut CMP his t ory and its lack of relevance would be extremely hel pful t o take to our See attached CMP M ilestones, FAQ an d Board Report governing body to show that the CMP is not necessary.
As the sta t e moves from a LOS based metric to VMT for
It would also be helpful to highlight where there might be redundancies with respect to the CMP and purposes of CEQA analysis we are seeing a fundamental
other, newer and existing programs . paradigm shift in mitigation and montioring. This makes a
one for one com pari son o f red undancies challenging.
Some traffic patterns c hange over time. Congested intersections may have shifted from what was
Concur but cities must maintain the established baseline . originally required to monitor under the Highway Monitoring portion of the CMP and, therefore,
Th e CMP does allow new intersections to be added. reflected incorrectly.
Will there be a presentation similar to this to COGs? Yes, at your request. We have two such COG meetings
scheduled.
Concur but these opportunities ma y be too few to
CMP requirements changed when SB 743 came into effect and cities can now exempt lnfill meaningfully affect CM P implementation as it stands
Opportunity zones. However, thresholds to qualify are high . because infill opportunity zones must meet strict criteria
that the majority of the County of Los Angeles does not
meet .
Can the State of California deny an opt out if Metro gets to that point? No. The state legislation authorizing the opt-out does not
provide the state legislature discretion to deny an opt-out.
Category
Comment
FAQ
FAQ
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
FAQ
Comment
FAQ
2 of 3
CMP Opt-Out Workshop Summary Discussion
Se pte mb er 12 , 2018
Comment (Ma in Points) Re sponse
What if Metro is unsuccessful i n opting out? Metro would continue to enforce the requirements of the
CMP .
category
FAQ
3 of 3
1990
1990-91
l os A ngeles Cou nt y One Gateway Plaza
Metropolitan Trans port ation Autho rit y los Angeles, CA 9001 2-2952
Metro
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
Major Milestones Timeline
213.922.2000 Tel
metro.net
Passage of Prop 111 , a state cons ti tutional amendment, which among other things
raises the Gas Tax from 9 to 18 cents over a 5 year period and establ ishes the
Congestion Management Program (CMP). Receip t of new gas tax revenues generated
through Prop 111 is contingent on participation in a congestion management program.
Al l jurisd ict ions in LA County adopt resolutions designating the County Transportation
Commission (predecessor agency to Metro) as the designated Congestion Management
Agency (CMA) charged with implementing a countywide congestion management
program.
1993 Metro begins implementation of the CM P initiating a Debits and Cred its program that
requires participants to maintain a positive balance of Cred its (transportation
imp rovements) to Debits (housing activity).
1996 AB 2419 (Bowler) enacted which establishes an option to opt-out of the CM P without
penal t y of losing 21 OS Gas Tax funds made available t h rough the original CM P
legislation.
1999 Cities express concerns to Metro about their ability to maintain conformance under the
Debit/C redit program. Urge Metro to explore alternatives . Cities cite the following
concerns:
• Cities ha ve difficulty mainta ining a positive credit balance
• Cities suffer funding shortfalls to deliver necessary transportation improvements
• CM P achieves little real mitigation and amounted to only an accounting exercise
1999 -2003 Metro undertakes study of alternatives to the Debits and Credits prog ram .
2003
2004
2013
2014
2014-18
2018
Metro Board direction to suspend the Debits and Cred its program .
Board di rects staff to study a fee program exclusive ly as an alternate to the Debits and
Credits program .
Staff brings development fee program to Metro Board for consideration and local
jurisdiction implemen tation . Metro Board directs staff to requ est state legi slature hold
hearings to determ ine releva nce of the CMP. No such legislative hearings are held .
Consensus on fee program not achieved. A decision is made to wait of Governor 's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to release SB 743 guidelines that were expected
to be released in summerjfal l 2014.
OPR releases multiple draft guidelines and technical advisories that designate Vehicle
Miles Travelled as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA. The state
Natural Resourc es Agency ha s begun the formal administrative rulemaking process.
Metro Board adopts recommendation to initiate CM P opt-out process and begin
meeti ng pub lic agency stakeholders.
September 28, 2018
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles , CA 90012-2952
LA Metro Congestion Management Program
Opt-Out FAQ
What is the Congestion Management Program {CMP)?
213.922 .2000 Te l
metro. net
The CMP is a 1990 era state-mandated performance-based planning program that
attempts to link land use and transportation decisions .
Who are the parties responsible for implementation of the CMP?
Metro is the Congestion Management Agency charged with administering the
state-mandated program. All 89 jurisdictions {88 cities plus the County of Los
Angeles) are responsible for compliance with the provisions of the program .
Why is Metro recommending an opt-out of the CMP?
While the CM P requirement was one of the pioneering efforts to conduct
performance-based planning, the approach has become antiquated. CMP
primarily uses a level of service {LOS) performance metric which is a
measurement of vehicle delay that is inconsistent with new state-designated
performance measures , such as vehicle miles travelled (VMT), enacted by SB 743
for California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) transportation analysis .
Is Metro replacing the CMP?
No, this is not a replacement effort. The opt-out is strictly about remov i ng the LA
County region from the state-mandated requirements of the CMP . Cities will
retain local control over land use decisions.
What are the requirements to opt out of the CMP?
A majority consensus of 45 jurisdictions representing approximately 5 .1 million
people in the County of Los Angeles is required to opt out formally.
Septe m be r 28 , 2018
Pursuant to California Government Code §65088.3 (Attachment A, C.G .C. §65000
et seq.}, jurisdictions within a county may opt out of the CM P requirement
without penalty, if a major ity of local jurisdictions representing a majority of the
county's population formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt out of the
program .
Has Metro contacted representatives from the City of LA and or the County?
Recognizing the population that needs to be achieved for a successful opt-out,
Metro did consult with City and County of Lo s Angeles officials to ensure that
their respective agencies were amenable to the idea. Any final decision to opt out
would require approval from their respective governing bodies.
Has Metro contacted anyone from the state about the decision to proceed with
an opt-out?
Yes . Metro consulted with the State Controller's Office, Office of Planning and
Research, Caltrans and the California Transportation Commiss ion prior to
initiating the opt-out process. None of the state agencies referenced raised any
concern s.
Will local jurisdictions continue to receive their apportionment of 2105 gas tax
funds if the opt-out is successful?
Yes. Cities will continue to receive gas ta xes tied to the CM P.
Have other regions have opted out of the CMP?
Yes. Some of the regions that have opted out of the CMP include: Fresno , Santa
Cru z, San Luis Obispo, Sacramento, Sonoma and San Diego .
What does Metro need from local jurisdictions who wish to opt out of the CMP?
Metro need s local jurisdictions to formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt
out of the program. A sample resolution is attached to this email. Once your
govern i ng body has adopted the resolution, please scan and send the final signed
copy to Paul Backstrom backstromp @ m et r o .ne t .
Se ptember 28 , 20 18
----------------------------
What is your timeline for completing the opt-out?
M et r o en courages local juris diction s to adopt r es olutions as soon as pos sibl e.
Metro inte nd s to provid e a n update to o u r Board i n Jun e . To m ee t th at i nt e rnall y
impose d time line, Metro asks th at local jurisdictions do th eir bes t to pro v id e
Metr o with adopted r es olutions by March 2 9 , 2019 .
What happens to our debits and credits accumulated under the CMP?
The d ebi t s and credits will ex ist and remain in our records b ut hold no cu r r ent
value ou t sid e of th e CMP prog r am .
What happens to the transportation demand ordinances that cities adopted to
comply with the provisions of the CMP?
The o r din ance s r e m a in i ntac t as part of ea ch city's munic ipal cod e . Th e o n ly th i ng
that would ch ange i s th at ci t i es would r et ai n th e option to re move or upd at e
those ordi n anc es at th eir own di scr etion.
What if the effort to opt out is unsuccessful?
Sho u ld efforts to opt-out f ai l, Metro would cont i nue to e nforce the r e qui re m e nts
of th e CMP .
Who can I contact for more information?
Paul Bac ks trom by em ail backstromp@metro.net or by phone 2 13 .922 .21 8 3 .
Sep t ember 28, 2018