HomeMy Public PortalAbout10) 8A Adoption of Traffic Thresholds of SignificanceAGENDA
ITEM 8.A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE : April 18, 2017
TO: The Hon orable City Cou nci l
FROM: Bryan Cook , City Manager
Via : Michael D. Forbes, Community Development D i rector ~
By : Scott Reimers, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR
REVIEWING PROJECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION :
The City Council is requ ested to adopt Resolution N o . 17-5247 (Attachment A) adopting
thresholds of signifi cance for reviewing traffic impacts of projects in compliance w ith the
Ca l ifornia Environme ntal Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND:
1. On August 18 , 2015 , the City Counci l reviewed recommendations from the General
Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Comm ission regarding the Gene ral Plan
Land Use Diagram and th e associated growth projections . The City Council d irected
staff to move forward with prepa rati on of an Env iro nmental Impact Report (EIR) as
required by CEQA.
2. On February 13 , 2017 , the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended
approva l of the proposed thres hold s of significance .
3 . On February 22 , 2017 , the Planning Co mm ission adopted a resolution
recommend ing that th e City Co uncil adopt the proposed thresholds of significance
(Atta chme nt B).
ANALYSIS :
CEQA and Thresholds of Significance
CEQA, the State's preemi nent envi ronm e nta l la w that sets standards and practices for
reviewing a project's imp act on th e environment, requires jurisdictions to review and
City Council
April18 , 2017
Page 2 of 7
disclose the impact a project would have on the environment to the public and decision
makers and as a result reduce those impacts . CEQA establ ishes four categories of
environmental impacts:
1. No impact
2. Less than significant impact
3. Less than significant impact with the adoption of mitigation measures (a way of
reducing an impact's effect)
4. Significant unavoidable impacts
A threshold of significance is the point at which an impact moves from less than significant
to significant. CEQA defines a significant impact as "a substantial, or potentially
substantial , adverse change in the environment." Agencies adopt defined thresholds of
significance for each of the 18 areas studied under CEQA. In relation to traffic , the City
for many years has followed a common practice of using the County of Los Angeles ' traffic
thresholds of significance . Staff is recommending that the City change its current practice
and set its own thresholds of significance.
Context Sensitive Approach to Traffic Analysis
The recommended thresholds of significance are adjusted to the unique character of
Temple City . It is currently the City's practice to use thresholds of significance created
for and by the County of Los Angeles for its vast street network and oriented to the
County's goals . Almost every street, no matter its size or designation , has the same
threshold of significance . The recommended thresholds seek to develop a more sensitive
approach to traffic planning so that streets with different purposes , functions , and in
different neighborhoods have different thresholds .
The foundation of this approach is based on the idea that people do not expect al l streets
to function in the same manner. As the number of vehicles , pedestrians , bicycl ists and
other uses increase or decrease , drivers typically respond by speeding up or slowing
down. Similarly , when a street adjoins schools , residences , or mixed use areas drivers
adjust their expectations . Even the proximity or setback from a building (house , shop , or
shopping center) to a street changes a driver's expectations . Each situation calls for a
different and refined expected roadway performance and threshold of significance .
Staff's recommended approach looks at three aspects of a street that set a user's
expectations :
• The adjacent land use proposed by the General Plan
• Whether the street carries mostly regional or local traffic
• Whether the street design is oriented to automobile traffic or multiple modes of
transportation
From these three aspects the City's street system is placed into three categories , see
Table 1.
City Council
April18, 2017
Page 3 of 7
Table 1 -Categories of Streets
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Adjacent Uses
Mix of commercial,
mixed use, &
multi-family
housing
Multi-family &
Sing le-family
Single-family
Roadway Use
Regionally
oriented
Regionally &
Locally oriented
Locally oriented
Roadway Design
Designed to make alternatives to driving
attractive (e.g. wide sidewalks , covered and
lit bus stops , street furniture, a full canopy of
street trees , and Bike Lanes)
Safe and comfortable streets (e .g . B ike
Routes and Bike Bou levards , consistent
system of s idewalks, and consistent street
canopy)
Safe and comfortable streets (e.g . Bicycle
Routes, consistent system of sidewalks, and
consistent street tree canopy)
These categories were then applied to the intersections and street segments being
studied in the General Plan and Specific Plan Traffic Study, see Attachments C and D.
When future traffi c studies or traffic impact analyses review intersections or street
segments not shown on Attachments C and D, the Community Development Director
would determine the appropriate category based on the criteria found in Table 1.
Setting Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service & Thresholds of Significance
Once street segments and intersections were identified , then a minimum acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) and threshold of significance was set for each . Table 2 provides
the recommended performance standard for eac h category of interse ct ion or street
segment. These performance standards us e a six point scale ranging from A to F . A
LO S of A represe nts streets with excessive ca pacity in compared to the street's volume .
A LOS of F represen t s streets where capacity exceeds volume .
It is imp ortant to note that unlike grades in school , an LOS of A does not ne cessa rily mean
exce ll e nt and an F does not necessarily m ea n failure . While a LO S of A sounds like the
goal all jurisdictions should strive for, it li ke ly means the intersection's capacity is so much
greater than its volume that the jurisdi ction is maintaining more infrastructure than is
necessary. While a LOS of F sounds like failure it is imp ortant to take into acco unt two
important factors.
• Traffic analysis focuses on the worst case scenario , wh ich is typically a two hour
window in the day when traffic is at its peak . An intersection functioning at a LOS of
F on a Friday at 6:00 p.m., is lik ely functioning at an improved LOS earlier and later
that same day .
• It is not unusual for jurisdictions to decide, that traffic is not the most important goal ,
but that it must be balanced with other goa ls . In the end , most juris dictions aim for
a LOS of D or E but are willing to accept a lower level if the project meets the
jurisdiction 's goals and provides community benefits such as j obs , affordable
housing , and a stronger ta x base .
.----------------------
City Council
April 18 , 2017
Page 4 of 7
Table 2-Minimum Acceptab le Level of Service
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Intersections
F
E
D
Roadway Segments
F
D
c
The acceptable leve l of serv ice for each category of roadway segment and intersect ion ,
noted in Table 2 , was determ ined based on th e draft General Plan 's vision . For example,
ca tegory 3 roadway segments and in tersections are auto-centric and serve single family
areas . It is expected that th ey s hould not experie nce a great deal of change and
therefore , they shou ld have a minimum acceptable LOS of D at intersections and C for
roadway segments. Category 1 streets are areas that the General Plan expects to see a
great deal of change. These areas are where the General Plan and Crossroads Specific
Plan expect to see pedestrian , bicycle , and automobile movement; a vibrant economy;
and more people travelling from th e reg ion to visit. Since the street will be serving multiple
users , the areas are expected to see more economic activity , and the street will be
designed in a sustainable manner, these intersections and roadway segments should
have a minimum acceptable LOS of F .
Table 3 represe nts the conversion of the performance standards in Table 2 into the
recommended thresholds of significance . For Category 2 and 3 intersections and
roadway segments that are already functioning at the acceptable leve l of service , a two
percent reduction in leve l of service is a llowed without cons id ering the impact significant.
T ab le 3-Thresholds of Significance
Category 1
Category 2
Intersections
F
If existing LOS is A to E
significa nt impact is created if LOS
degrades to F
Roadway Segments
F
If existing LOS is A t o D
significant impact is created if LOS
degrad es to E or F
City Council
April 18 , 2017
Page 5 of 7
Table 3-Thresho lds of Signifi cance (Continued )
Category 3
Intersections
If existing LOS is F
significant impact is created if vo lu me to
capacity rat io increases by .02 or more
If existing LOS is A to 0
sign ifican t im pact is created if LOS
degrades toE or F
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if vo lu me to
capaci ty ra ti o in creases by .02 or more
Result of Proposed Thresholds of Sig nificance
Roadway Segments
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
If existing LOS is A to C
significan t impact is created if LOS
degrades to D, E, or F
If existing LOS is 0 , E, or F
sig ni ficant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio i ncreases by .02 or more
The recomm en ded threshold s of sign ifi cance wi ll not in crease traffic in the city ; instead
they modify how traffic will be studied in the future . Under the existing CEQA thresho lds ,
if a project we re to create a sig nifica nt im pact , mitigation measures would be needed to
reduce those impacts to a less than sign ifi cant level. Typically, this would be
accomp lished through widening streets . However, it is unl ike ly t hat those mitigatio n
meas ures wou ld be acceptab le , feasible , or comp ly with the City 's goals . For insta nce
widening Rosemead Bou levard north of La s Tunas Drive would require the removal of a
bicycle lane and median wh ic h wou ld be inconsistent with goals regarding improving
comm u nity health and s ustainabi lity by providing alternate forms of transportation . The
proposed thresho lds of signific ance seek to a lig n th e goals in the Gene ral Plan and the
Crossroad Specific Plan with traffic ana lysis f rom the start.
Alignm e nt wi th Best Practi ces and State Legislation
The prop osed cha nge in method is the result of two major shifts -the Complete Streets
movement and Senate Bill (SB) 7 4 3. The C ity Council adopted a Complete Streets policy
on December 6 , 2017 (see Attachme nt E). A complete street is one that is planned,
operated , and ma intain ed to enab le safe , convenie nt, comfortable travel for all users .
State la w requires that Genera l Plan to include comp lete streets poli cies. SB 7 4 3
reorients CEQA away from traffic congestion and toward the negati ve environme ntal
effects of automobile trip s (ai r pollution and greenhouse gas emissio ns) thus refocusi ng
CEQA on the en vironment. It accomp lishes this by directing CEQA documents to study
a project's ability to red uce vehicle miles trav e led , not the amount of co ngest ion a project
would create .
City Council
April18, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Conclusion :
The recommended thresholds of significance seek to amend the City's current practice
so that it aligns with recent State legislation (SB 7 43) and current best practices.
Furthermore , they reflect that one threshold of significance does not work for all streets ,
across the County; a more nuanced approach to traffic analysis is needed . This nuanced
approach is based on adjusting traffic ana lysis to match the use of roadways , the design
of roadways , the future uses adjacent to the roadway , and General Plan goals . Adoption
of thresholds of significance requires the jurisdiction to determine that the thresholds are
based on substantial evidence . The attached resolution includes substantial evidence for
the record .
Commission & Comm itt ee Recommendations :
The Planning Commission and General Plan Ad vi sory Committee reviewed the
recommended traffic thresholds of significance on February 13 and February 28 ,
respectively . Both bodies supported staff's recommendation acknowledging that the
existing standards should be refined to Temple City 's context and General Plan goals.
Staff responded to concerns from the Committee about traffic safety by noting that CEQA
includes a separate question related to a project creating a potential hazardous traffic
condition .
Next Steps :
Once the City Council takes action on the thresholds of significance , the traffic study for
the General Plan and Specific Plan EIR will be completed . After the EIR is complete , the
City will host comm unity meetings in the summer to discuss the Draft General Plan and
Specific Plan and their environmental impact. Based on feedback from the public , the
Plans and EIR will be revised and presented to the General Plan Advisory Committee ,
the Planning Comm ission, and City Council in the autumn of 2017 .
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
The City Council is requested to adopt traffic thresholds of s ignificance for reviewing
projects in compl iance with CEQA furthering the City's Strategic Goa l of Quality of Life ,
Sustainable Infrastructure, and Economic Development.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adopting thresholds of significance for traffic would have no impact on the Fiscal Year
2016-17 City Budget.
City Council
April18 , 2017
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. City Council Resolution 17-5247
B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution (February 28 , 2017)
C . Map of Category 1, 2 , and 3 Street Segments
D . Map of Category 1, 2 , and 3 Street Intersections
E. Temple City Complete Streets Policy
ATTACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION Ill
RESOLUTION NO. 17-5247
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY ADOPTING TRAFFIC RELATED
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PROJECTS AND
PLANS REVIEWED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS , on February 13 , 2017 , the Genera l Plan Advisory Committee met ,
reviewed a nd provided comme nt on the recommended thresholds of significance for
traffic related impacts; and
WHEREAS , ten days prior to th e Planning Commission meeting, the City gave
public notice by publishing notice in th e Temple City Tribune of the holding of a public
hearing at which the Commission would provide a recommendat ion to the City Council
on proposed thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS , on February 28, 20 17 , the Planning Commission held a noticed public
hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in
opposition to , the proposed thresholds of s ignifi cance and at which time the Planning
Commission co nsidered the proposed thresholds of significance and re commended that
the City Council adopt the thres holds of significance; and
WHEREAS , ten days prior to the City Council meeting , the City gave public notice
by publishing notice in th e Temple City Tribune of the holding of a public hearing at which
the amendment to the City 's Zoning Code would be co ns idered ; and
WHEREAS , on Apri l 18 , 2017, the City Counci l held a noticed publ ic hearing at
which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to ,
the proposed thresholds of significa nce and at whic h time the City Counci l considered the
proposed thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS , the City has analyzed the proposed thresholds of significance and
determined that they are exempt from e nvi ro nm ental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in that Sectio n 15064 .7 of the CEQA Guidelines
esta bli shes th e process for adopting thres holds and CEQA review is not part of this
procedure and adoption of thresholds is not a "project" because environmental changes
that might result from their adoption are too specu lative to be considered "reasonably
foreseeable" under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, attached as Exhibit A are the proposed thresholds of significance .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby
reso lve as follows :
SECTION 1. The threshold s of sign ifi cance have been developed through a public review
process.
Resolution No . 17-5247
Page 2 of 3
The thresholds were adopted through a publ ic review proc es s including public meetings
before the General Plan Advisory Committee , the Planning Commission , and the City
Council. Additionally the item has been published in a newspaper of general circulation
at least ten days prior to the Planning Commission and City Council meetings .
SECTION 2. The thresholds of significance are supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is defined by Section 15384 as enough relevant info rmat ion
and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached . Substantial
evidence shall include facts , reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts , and expert
opinion supported by facts. The proposed thresholds of significance are based on a long
standing and well adjudicated practice of using level of service to analyze an intersection
or roadway segment's functioning. Nearly every jurisdiction in the State of California and
the Highway Capacity Manual uses this method of analysis .
The thresholds of significance that are proposed are in alignment with best
practices, namely complete streets . A complete street, is a street planned , operated , and
maintained to enable safe , convenient, comfortable travel for users of all ages and
abilities regardless of whether the user is using a wheelchair, walking , bicycling , driving,
or riding on public transit. Complete streets was recognized by the U .S. Department of
Transportation in 2010. It has been championed by a coalition of organizations including
the AARP , professional organizations overseeing the design of streets (including the
American Planning Association , the American Society of Landscape Architects , and
Institute of Transportation Engineers), and the National Association of Realtors . On
December 6 , 2016 , the City Council of Templ e City adopted a complete streets policy .
Complete streets recognizes that since intersections and street segments must be
designed fo r all potential users , that the former level of service standards are no longer
achievable as they would violate the principles of complete streets and General Plan
goals . Thus , level of service may decline for automobiles. However, the safety and
convenience of other users will likely increase and General Plan goals related to
environmental and social sustainability and economic vitality will be achieved .
The proposed thresholds of significance are responsive to the Southe rn California
Association of Government's Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable
Communities Strategies . These regional plans expect future growth within the City. That
growth , in line with these Plans and best practices, are being focused near major
intersections where more transit service is provided and to increase accessibility .
A degradation of level of service for vehicles at intersections for a one or two hour
period would not cause a significant impact on the environment. Designing streets and
neighborhoods so that they increase accessibility (bringing more destinations closer to
users) and so that they increase the convenience and safety of alternative modes of
transportation (bicycling and walking) would result in comparatively less greenhouse
gasses , particulate matter, other emissions , an d noise.
Resolution No. 17-5247
Page 3 of 3
Expanding intersections and streets segments , would either require the removal
of bicycle lanes or the purchase of land and the possible demolition of buildings . The City
has significant constraints on expanding intersections and street segments.
The City of Sacramento and other jurisdictions have accepted level of service ofF
in certain contexts , namely in downtown areas where pedestrian and bicycle circulation
is encouraged.
Fehr and Peers, transportation consultants , assisted the City in the preparation of
the thresholds of significance . Fehr and Peers is a company specializing in traffic
analys is . Fehr and Peers has provided guidance and advice to the State of California
Office of Planning and Research assisting in the preparation and analysis of guidelines
required under SB 743 . Additionally, the proposed thresholds of significance were
reviewed by the City's Contract City Engineer, Transtech .
SECTION 3. This project is found to be exempt from CEQA review. Section 15064.7 of
the CEQA Guidelines establish the process for adopting thresholds and CEQA review is
not part of this procedure. Additionally, adoption of thresholds is not a "project" because
environmental changes that might result from their adoption are too speculative to be
considered "reasonably foreseeable" under CEQA .
SECTION 4 . The City Council hereby adopts the proposed thresholds of sign ificance
which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 181h day of April, 2017 .
Cynthia Sternquist, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 181h of February,
2017 , the following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A m
TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ~~~
EXHIBIT A
TRAFFI C THR ES HOLDS O F SIGNI FICAN CE
ADO PTE D B Y T H E CITY CO U NCIL ON APRIL 18 , 20 1 7
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Intersections
F
If existing LOS is A to E
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to F
Intersections
If existing LOS is F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
If e xisting LOS is A to D
significan t impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
Roadway Segments
F
If existing LOS is A to D
sign ificant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
Roadway Segments
If existing LOS is E or F
significa nt impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
If existing LOS is A to C
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to D , E , or F
If existing LOS is D , E , or F
significant im pac t is created if vo lume to
capacity rati o increases b y .02 o r more
*In inst ance w he re traffic studi es or traffi c i mpac t analyses rev iew int ersection s o r stree t segmen t s tha t
have not been d esig nat ed w ith a spec ific cate g ory, t he Community Deve lopment Direct or shall determine
the ap propriat e category b ase d o n the criteri a estab lished by t he Tab le 1 in t he re lat ed st aff report to City
Co uncil dat ed Apri l18, 2017.
ATTACHMENT B -
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND m
RESOLUTION ~~~
City of T emple City
Planning Commission
Sta ff Report
February 28, 2017
FILE: PL 17 -599
ADDRESS : Citywide
DESCRIPTION : Adopting t raffic related thresholds of significance for projects and plans
reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
APPLICANT: Temple City Community Development Department
PROJECT PLANNER: Scott Re imers, Pl anning Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The ado ption of t hresholds of significance is exempt from CEQA rev iew.
Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines estab lish the process for
adopting thresholds and CEQA review is not part of this proced ure.
Additionally, adoption of thresholds is not a "proj ect" because
environmental changes t hat might result from their adoption are too
speculati ve to be considered "reas onably foreseeab le" under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution fin ding that the project is exempt from
CEQA and recommending t hat the City Cou ncil adopt traffic related
threshold s of sign ificance f or reviewi ng proj ects i n compli ance with
CEQA.
SUMMARY:
This proposa l to adopt traffic related t hresh o lds of si gnificance requires action by th e City Counci l to
ado pt a resol ution. The followi ng report will review topics including:
• CEQA and threshold s of significance
• Traffic Ana lysis and leve l of service
• Alignment wi th best practices and state legislati on
• Context sens itive approa ch to traffic ana lysis
• Results of new thresholds
ANALYSIS:
CEOA and Thresholds of Sig nificance
CEQA requ ires jurisd ictions to review the impact a p roject would have on t he existi ng environment and
to di sclose those impacts to the public and de ci sio n m akers and as a result reduce those impacts. CEQA
establishes four categories of environmenta l i mpa cts:
1. No i mpact
2. Less than sig nifi can t impact
Februa ry 28, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
File: Pl17-599
3. Less than significant impact with the adoption of mitigation measures (a way of reducing an impact's
effect)
4. Significant unavoi dable impacts
A threshold of significance i s the point at which an impact moves from less than signi f icant to significant.
CEQA defines a significant impact as "a substantial, or potentially substantia l, adverse change in the
environment." To determ ine what that means for the 18 areas studied in a CEQA document an agency
adopts defined thresholds of significance. In re lation to traffic, the City for many years ha s followed a
common practice of us i ng the Co unty of Los Angeles' traffic thre sho lds of significance. Staff is
recommending that the City change its current practice and set its own t hresho ld of significance.
Traffi c Analysis & Level of Service
The focus of most t raffic analysis is on a p roject's impact on nearby intersections and roadway segments.
This ana lysis compares how the existi ng i nt ersection or roadway segment f u nctions i n comparison to how
it w i ll function when t he project i s complete. At the heart of this ana lysis, is h ow an intersection or street
segment shou ld functi o n. To ana lyze this, eng ineers look at the i ntersections' and roadway se gments'
level of service (LOS). LOS, in its simplest f orm, is a ratio of an i ntersectio n 's or roadway segment's vo lume
to its capacity. If the vo lume of traffic exceeds the intersection's capacity, one would expect to find t raffic
delays. If the capacity exceeds volume, one would expect to f ind an absence of congestion . LOS does
not take into co nsiderat io n traffic signal timing , so w hile an i nte rsection's volume to capacity ratio cou l d
dem onstrate significa nt capacity the tim in g of the i ntersection could resu lt in congestion .
Leve l of service i s assessed using a six po i nt scale with l etter grades A through F. An intersectio n with a
LOS of A is free flowin g, while a LOS of F i s congested. However, it i s importa nt to note that unlike
g rad es in a sc hool, an LOS of A does not nece ssar il y mean ex cell ent and an F does not necessari ly mea n
f ai l ure. While a LOS of A sounds like t he g oal all j urisdictions should strive for, it likely m eans the
intersec t ion's ca paci ty i s so much greater than its volume t hat t he jurisd ictio n i s mai nt aining m ore
in f rastr uct ure tha n i s ne cessary. Whi le a LOS of F so unds li ke f ailu re it is important t o take into accou nt
two im portant facto rs. One, traffic analysis focuses on the worst case scenario, which is typica ll y a two
hour w indow i n t he day whe n traffic is at its peak . An intersection f unctio nin g at a LOS of F on a Frida y
at 6:00 p.m ., is l ike ly fun cti oning at an improved LO S ear lier and lat er that sa m e day. Two, it i s not unusua l
for jurisdictions t o d ecid e, either th rough t heir t raffic threshol ds of significance or throug h adopt ing a
st at ement of overrid i ng con si derations with an envi ronmenta l impact report, that t he traffic i s not t he
m ost im porta nt goal, but that it m ust be b alan ced wi t h ot her goa ls. I n the end, m os t j urisdictio ns aim for
a LO S of D or E but are wi ll ing to acce pt a l owe r leve l if t he proj ect meets the ju ri sdiction's goa ls and
provid es community be nefits such as j obs, afford ab le housing, and a stronger tax base.
A li gnment w ith Best Pract ices and State Leg i slat ion
The proposed cha nge i n method of st udyi ng t raffic is rela t ed to a movem ent t hat started in Portla nd,
O regon in 1971 and sl ow ly was recognized by t he U.S. Depa rtme nt of Transpo rtat ion in 2010. This
m ovement, called Co m plete St ree t s, was ch ampioned by a coa li tion of orga ni za t ions includi ng the
Associa t ion of American Retired Persons, p rofessional organizati ons overseeing t he design of st reets
(inclu ding the America n Pl ann i ng Association, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and Institute
Page 2
February 28, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
File: PL 17-599
of Transportation Engineers), and the National Association of Rea ltors. A com plete street i s a street
planned, operated, and m aintain ed to ena ble safe, co nvenie nt, comfortable trave l for users of all ages
and abilities regardless of whether the user is using a wheelchai r, walking, bicycling, driving, or ri di ng on
public transit. On December 6, 2016, the City Council adopted a complete streets policy (see Attachment
D).
In September of 2013, th e California Sta te Legis lature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 743. Th is law set the State
down a course o f measuring a project's environmental impact not by its creation of congestion, but by
whether and how much it i ncreases tota l veh icle miles traveled. Vehicles miles trave led (VMD is t he
number of miles all ve hicl es travel and it is the State's goal to red uce VMT and thereby reduce air pollution
and greenhouse ga s emis sion s.
The legislation was spurred by occasions w here the CEQA ana ly sis concluded that a project would have
a negative effect on t he environment even t hough the purpose of the project was to i mprove the
environment. In a notable case, the City of San Franci sco wanted to replace a traffi c lane with a bicycle
lane. This project woul d be expected to have a positive effect on the environment because it would
red uce pollution and greenhouse gas em issions. However because the change would resul t in additional
automobile congestion, opponents to t he b icycl e lane argued that there would be a si gnifican t
environmental effect.
Whi le SB 743 changes the focus of traffic ana lysis to reducing VMT, it also does not prohibit cities f rom
setti ng LOS standards in its General Plan for i nfrastructure planning purposes. SB 743 reorients CEQA
away from traffic congestion and toward the negative environmental effects of automobil e trips (a ir
poll uti on and greenhou se gas emissions) th us ref ocusi ng CEQA on the envi ronment.
Co ntext Sensit ive Approach to Traffic A nalys i s
Staff's recommende d thres holds of sign if i ca nce are adjusted to t he unique cha racter of Temp l e City. It i s
cu rrent ly the City's practic e t o use thresho lds of significance created for and by the County of Lo s Angeles
for its vast street netwo rk and oriented to t he County's goa ls. A lmost every street in unincorporated
County no matter it s size or designation h as t he sam e threshold of si gnificance. Staff's recommended
thresholds seek to develop a more se nsitive approach to traffi c plann ing so that streets with different
pu rp oses, functi ons, and in different neighborhoods have di f ferent thres ho lds.
The f oundation o f thi s approach i s based o n t he idea that peop l e do not expect all streets to f uncti o n in
t h e same manner. As t he number of vehicles, p edestrians, bicycl ist s and other uses increase or decrease,
drivers typically respo nd by speeding up or slowing down. Sim il ar ly, when a st reet adjoins schoo l s,
res i dences, or mixed use areas drivers adjust thei r expectations. Even the proxi mi t y or setback from a
buil ding (house, shop, or shopping cente r) to a street change s a driver's expectations. Each situation ca ll s
for a different and refi ned expected leve l of service and threshold of si gnifi ca nce .
Staff's recommende d approach looks at three aspects of a street that set a use r's expectations:
• The adjace nt lan d use p roposed by t he Genera l Plan
• Whether the street car ries mostly regional or local traffi c
Page 3
Febru ary 28, 201 7 Pl an ni ng Commissi o n M eeting
File: PL 17-599
• Whether the street design is oriented to auto m obile traffic or multipl e modes of t ra ns portation
From t h ese three aspe cts th e City's st reet system is pl ac ed into three categories , see Table 1.
Table 1-Categories of Streets
Adjacent Uses
Mix of commercial,
mixed use. & multi -
family housi ng
Category 2 Multi-family &
Sing le-fam ily
Category 3 Single-family
Roadway Use
Regiona ll y
oriented
Regiona lly &
Locally oriented
Locally orie nted
Roadway Design
Designed to make alternatives to driving attractive
(e .g. wide sidewalks, covered and lit bus stops,
street furniture, a full canopy of street trees. and
Bike Lanes)
Safe and comfortable streets (e.g . Bike Routes and
Bike Bouleva rds, consistent system of sidewalks,
and consis t ent street canopy)
Safe and comfortable streets (e.g. Bicycle Routes,
consistent sy stem of sidewa lks, and consiste nt
street t ree ca nopy)
The se categories were then app li ed to the intersecti ons and street segments being studied i n the Gen eral
Plan and Specific Plan Traffic study, see Attachments 2 and 3. When future traffic studies or t raffi c impact
ana lyses review intersections or street segments not shown on Figures 2 and 3, the Community
Development Di rector wou ld determine the appropriate category based on the criteria found in Table 1.
Setti ng Minimum Acceptab l e Levels of Service & Thresholds of Si gn ificance
Once street segments and intersections are identified , then a minimum acceptable level of service and
threshold of sign ificance i s set for each . Tab le 2 below provi des the recommended performance standa rd
for each category of intersection or street segment. Since Category 3 roadway segments and
intersections are auto-cent ric and serve single family areas it is expected t hat they should not experience
a great deal of change and therefore, they should have a minimum acceptable LOS of D at intersections
and C for roadway segments. Category 1 streets are areas that the Genera l Plan expects to see a great
deal of change. These areas are where t he General Plan and Crossroad Speci f ic Plan expects to see
pedestrian, bicycle, and automobi le movement; a vibrant economy; and more peop le travelling from the
reg ion to visit. Si nce the street wi l l be servi ng multiple users, the areas are expected to see more
economic activity, and t he street will be designed in a sustainable manner, t hese intersections and
roadway segments sho uld have a minimum acceptab le LOS of F.
Table 2 -Minimum Acceptable Level of Service
Category 2
Category 3
Intersections
F
E
D
Roadway Segments
F
D
c
Page 4
February 28 , 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
File: PL 17-599
Th ese performance standards are converted into thresholds of significance. Table 3, below, provides the
recommended thresholds of significance for each category of inte rsections and st reets. Fo r Category 2
and 3 intersections and road way segments that are already functioning at the acceptable level of service,
a two percent degradation in level of service is all owed without considering the impact significant.
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
F
If existing LOS is A toE
significant impact is created if LOS degrades
to F
If existin g LOS is F
significant impact is created if vo lu me to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
If existing LOS is A to D
significant impact is created if LOS degrades
toE or F
If existing LOS is E or F
sig nificant impact is created if vo lu me to
capac ity ratio increases by .02 o r more
Result of Proposed Thresholds of Significance
Roadway Segments
F
If existing LOS is A to D
significant impact is created if LOS degrades
toE or F
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
If existing LOS is A to C
significant impact is created if LOS degrades
to D, E, or F
If existing LOS is D, E, or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capac ity ratio increases by .02 or more
The recomm ended threshold s of sign ifi ca nce will not in crease traffic in the city; instead they modify how
t raffi c will be stud ied in the future. If t hese thresholds are not modified it i s likely that the General Plan
and Crossroad Specific Plans will be found to create a significant impact. To mitigate or reduce those
impacts to a less than significant level, measures such as street widening would be looked at to reduce
these impacts. However, it is unlikely that those mitigation measures would be acceptable, feasib le, or
comply with the City's goals. For instance widening Rosemead Boulevard north of Las Tunas Drive would
require the removal of a bicycle lane and median which would violate goals of improving community
health and sustainabil ity by providing alternate forms of transportation. The proposed thresholds of
sign if i cance seek to align the goals in the Genera l Plan and the Crossroad Specific Plan with traffic analysis
from the start.
Page 5
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 2017 Planning Comm ission Meeting
File: PL 17-599
CONCLUSION:
The recommended thres holds of significance seek to amend t he City's current practi ce so that it al igns
with recent Sta t e legislation (SB 743) and cu rrent best practices. Furthermore, th ey reflect that one
threshold of sig nificanc e does not work for all streets, across the County; a more nuanced approached to
traffic analysis i s nee ded. Thi s nuanced appr oach is ba sed on adjusting traffic an alysis to match the u se
of roadways, the design of roadways, the future uses adjacent to th e roadway, and General Plan goa ls.
Adoption of threshol ds of sig nificance requires t he jurisdiction to determi ne that the t hresholds ar e base d
on substantial ev idence. Th e attached resolution includes substanti al evid ence for the re cord.
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
The General Plan Advisory Committee review ed the recomme nded t raffic thresholds of significance on
February 13. Th e Committee supported st aff's recommendation ac kn owledging that the existing
sta ndard s sho uld be r efin ed to Temp le City's context and General Pl an goals. Staff responded to concerns
from th e Committee about traffi c safety by noting that CEQA in cludes a separate q uestion rela t ed to a
project creating a potenti al haza rd ous traffic condition.
NEX T STEPS:
The recommended thresholds of si g nificance will be reviewed by the City Council on April18. If approved,
they wi ll be utilized in t he EIR for the Genera l Pl an Update and Crossroads Specific Plan .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The adoption of thresholds of sig ni f icance is exempt from CEQA review. Section 15064.7 of the CEQA
Guidelines establish the process for adopting thresholds and CEQA review is not part of this procedure.
Additionally, adoption of threshold s is not a "project" because environmenta l changes that might r es u lt
from their adoption are too specu l ative to be co nsidered "reaso nabl y foreseeable" under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution fi nding that the proj ect is exempt from CEQA and recommending that the
City Council adopt traffic rela ted thresholds of si g nificance for reviewi ng projects in compliance with
CEQ A.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planni ng Commission Resolution
2. Map of Category 1, 2, and 3 Street Segments
3. Map of Category 1, 2, and 3 Street Intersection s
4. Temple City Complete Streets Policy
Page 6
City of Temple City
Resolution 17-2500 PC
Traffic Thresholds of Significance
File No. PL 17-599
A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TRAFFIC RELATED
THRES HOLD S OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PROJECTS AND PLANS REVIEWED
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered a ll of the evidence submitted into
the administrative record which includes but is not limited to :
1. Recommendation s and comments from the Genera l Plan Advisory Committee; and
2. Reports and presentation s of project related data and ana lys is prepared by the
Community Development Department; and
3. Public comments, both written and ora l, received or submitted at or prior to the
public hearing; and
4. All other related documents received or submitted at or prior to the public hearing.
SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following prefacing facts as
more fu ll y set forth in the administrative record:
1. On February 13, 2017, the General Plan Advisory Committee met, reviewed and
provided comment on the recommended thresholds of significance for traffic
related impacts.
2. On February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the applicatio n.
3. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted at the Council
Chambers .
4. Notice of the Planning Comm i ss i on public hearing was pub lished in a newspaper
of general circulation at l east ten days prior to the hearing .
5. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth 1n
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
Resolution 17 -2500 PC
Traffic Thresholds of Significance
File No. PL 17 -599
Page 2 of 6
SECTION 3. Based on the public hearing for File No. PL 17 -599 and pursuant to
Government Code Section 15064.7, the Planning Commission makes the following finding:
1. The thresholds of significance have been developed through a public review
process.
The threshold will be adopted through a public review process includ ing public
meetings before the General Plan Ad visory Committee, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council. Additionally the item ha s been published in a newspaper of
general circulation at least ten d ays prior to the Planning Commission and City
Council meetings.
2. The thresholds of significance are supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence i s defined by Section 15 384 as enough relevant information
and reasonable inference s from this information that a fair argument can be m ade
to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be
reached. Substantial evidence shall in clude fact s, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts , and expert opinion supported by facts. The proposed
thresholds of significance are based on a long standing and well adjudicated
practice of using level of service to analyze an intersec tion or roadway segment's
functioning. Nearly every jurisdiction in the State of California and the Highway
Capacity Manual uses this method of analysis.
The thresholds o f sign ifican ce that are proposed are 1n alignment with best
practices, namely complete stre et s. A complete street, is a street planned,
operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, comfortable travel for users
of all ages and abilities regardless of whether the use r is using a wheelchair,
walking, bicycling, driving, or riding on public transit. Complete streets was
recognized by the U.S. Department of Tr anspo rtation in 2010. It has been
championed by a coalition of organizations including the AARP, professional
organizations overseeing the design of streets (including the American Planning
Association, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and Institute of
Transportation Engineers), and the National Association of Realtors. On December
6, 2016, the City Council of Temple City adopted a complete streets policy.
Complete streets recognizes that since intersections and street segments must be
designed for all potential users, that the form er level of service standards are no
longer achievable as they would violate the principles of complete streets and
General Plan goals. Thu s, level of se rvice may decline for automobiles. However,
Resolution 17-2500 PC
Tra ffic Thresholds of Sig nificance
Fi le No. PL 17-599
Page 3 of 6
the safety and convenience of o thers users wi ll likely increase and General Plan
goals related t o environmenta l and social susta in ability and economic v itality will
be ach ieve d .
Th e p r oposed thres ho ld s o f sig nifica nce are responsive to the So uthern Cali forn ia
Assoc iation of Government's Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable
Communities Strateg ies. These regional plans expect f uture growth with in the City.
That growth, in line with these Plans and best practices, are being focused near
major intersections where more transit service is provided and to increase
accessibility.
A degradat ion of level of serv ice f or vehicles at intersections for a one o r two hour
period wou ld no t cause a signifi cant i mpact on t he environment. Designing streets
and neighborhoods so that they in crease access i bi lity (brining more destinations
close r to use rs) an d so that th ey increase t he co nvenience and sa f ety of alternative
modes of transportati o n (bicycling and walk ing ) wou ld resul t in co mpara t ive ly less
greenhouse gasses, particu late mat ter, ot he r emi ssions, and no ise.
Expanding intersec ti o ns and stree t s segments, would ei ther require the remova l of
bicycle lanes or the purchase of land and the poss ible demolition of buildings. The
City has sig nifica nt constrain t s o n expanding intersections and street segments.
The City of Sac ramento and other jurisdictions have accepted level of service ofF
in certain co ntexts, namely in downtown areas where pedestri an and bicycle
circu lati o n is enco uraged .
Feh r and Pee rs ass i sted t he City in the preparation o f the threshol d s o f significance.
Fehr and Peers is a compa ny spec i ali zi ng in traffic analysis. Fe hr and Peers has
provided g uidan ce and advice t o th e State of California Offi ce of Planni n g and
Research ass isting in the prepara ti on and analys i s of g uid elines required under SB
743. Additionally, the proposed t hresholds of significance were reviewed by the
City's Contract City Engineer, Tra nst ech.
SECTION 5. Th i s project is found to be exempt from CEQA review. Sec t ion 15064.7 of the
CEQA Guidelines es t ablish t he process for adopting thresholds and CEQA review is not
part of this procedure. Additionally, adoption o f thresho l ds i s not a "project" because
enviro nmenta l changes t hat might result f r om their ad option are too speculative to be
considered "reaso nabl y fore seeable" under CEQA.
Reso lution 17-2500 PC
Traffic Thresholds of Significance
File No. PL 17-599
Page 4 of 6
SECTION 6 . According ly, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the traffic related thresho lds of significance for p roj ect s and pla n s reviewed unde r
the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in !:xhibit A.
SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution .
EXHIBITS:
A. Traffi c Thresholds of Significance
Pffr:Jin; Commission Acting -Chair
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu t ion was adopt ed by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a meeting held on the 28th of February, 2017 ,
by the foll owi ng vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner-Cordes, Leung, O'Leary, Marston
Co mmissi oner-None
Commissioner-Haddad
Comm iss ioner-None
---------
EXHIBIT A
TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE •
Exhib it A
Traffic Thresholds of Sig nificance
Adopted by the City Coun ci l on Apri l l8, 2017
Traffic Thresholds of Significance
Intersections
Cat egory 1
LOS ofF
Cat egory 2
If existi ng LOS i s A to E
significant i mpact i s created if LOS
degrad es to F
If existing LOS is F
Ca tegory 3
significant impact i s created if volume
to capacity rat io in creases by .02 or
more
If ex isting LO S is A to D
si gnificant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
If exi sti ng LOS i s E or F
significant i mpa ct is created if vol ume
to capacity ratio increases by .02 or
mo re
Roadway Segments
LOS ofF
If existing LOS is A to D
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E o r F
If exi sting LOS i s E or F
sign ificant i mpact is created if volume
to capacity ratio i ncrease s by .02 or
more
If exi sting LOS i s A to C
sig ni ficant i mpact is cre ated if LOS
degrades to D, E, or F
If exi sting LOS is D, E, or F
significant impact is created if volume
to capacity rat io i ncreases b y .02 or
more
ATTACHMENT C
MAP OF CATEGORY 1, 2 AND 3 STREET
SEGMENTS Iii
ATTACHMENT C -MAP OF STREET SEGMENTS
~0 a.
o ua<'e r::-"\ 0
; 19 I
?d -Northeast San-Gabriel
• ~ -~· ......... "'-----... -.. -~·
tAST SA.N
GABRIEL
• • ...
"\
-o Las Tunas Dr ~ \..i"e 1
;. .,..,. t'rtY I . ~~2~u~Af" _1\ \_.r--·\lla•O. • ..i. ~ -·~ .
Elm Ave • + * } L _.....,r1r'llr1'1" .... ~ \
... 0. ~ •• • • ~ •••• ~ 0 h~ast San Gabri ~ ! ~~tetta•• ~rty ~; T emple}1 a 1
fitJ s r n' hri! I ..}_.~ • . • • • • • i e~'il -.-. • • • ..,_.-• ~ rq
Cl • , ... ~ ~ ~ o·v ~' • • ~-
1 -Northeast ~Sa abrie l • ~ ~ . .
~ ~ • LaRo~Or
5 \ •
:§ .z '
w 1 •
"tJ >
;:; Cii
~ "tJ
10
Qi
i E
Qi NnllTHWF(T .... ...
••
AAOEN VIllAGE ~
~
&
~
~--_nmcc n
Erner
ATTACHMENT D -
MAP OF CATEGORY 1, 2 AND 3 STREET m
INTERSECTIONS •
ATTACHMENT D -MAP OF INTERSECTIONS
ouac\C \\d a. -i (1jJ 0
~d -Northeast San-Gabriel
Elm Ave
e l h~ast Sa abriel
tJ r ' I fi eas; San Gl \
EAS T SAN
GABR IEL
< t~ I -Northeast ·San Gabrie l t: .
~
"0 >
~ Cii
~ "'0
~
!!. E
.... ~
Oaines OC
0\iVC S\
ARDEN VIllAGE ~
~ ....
&
NOR THW~U
E Longe
ftntor
~
ATTACHMENT E
TEMPLE CITY COMPLETE STREETS POLICY Iii
AGENDA
ITEM 7.F.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2016
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Michael D. Forbes , Commun ity Development D i rector~
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COMPLETE STREETS POLICY TO MAINTAIN
ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No . 16-5220 (Attachment "A") adopting
the Temple City Complete Streets Policy.
BACKGROUND:
1. In 2008, the legislature approved Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the California Complete
Streets Act of 2008. AB 1358 requires cities to include policies in their General Plans
to support and implement complete streets concepts.
2 . In 2014, the Los Angeles Metropolitan T ransportation Authority (Metro) adopted its
Complete Streets Po li cy document. The Metro Complete Streets Policy requ i res that
all cities in Los Angeles County adopt complete streets policies by January 1, 2017 ,
to maintain eligibility for Metro capital grant funding opportunities .
ANALYSIS:
"Complete streets" is a term used to describe an integrated transportation network
designed for safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users including
but not limited to pedestrians , bicyclists, public transit users, persons with disabilities, and
seniors , in addition to motorists . Complete streets incorporate features that enhance the
mobility and safety of all users such as sidewalks , bike lanes, and transit stops. AB 1358
requires that when a city makes substantive revisions to the General Plan C irculation
Element after January 1, 2011 , the revisions must include policies that address complete
City Council
December 6, 2016
Page 2 of 2
streets . Temple City is in the process of updating its General Plan, but has not made any
substantive revisions to the plan since before 2011 . As such , Temple City's General Plan
does not include complete streets policies, although such policies will be in cluded in the
forthcoming draft of the updated General Plan.
Metro's Complete Streets Policy document, adopted in October 2014 , builds upon AB
1358 by establishing a deadline for cities to adopt comp lete streets policies. In order to
be e l igible for future Metro capital grant funding opportunjties, cities must have adopted
a General Plan update that includes complete streets policies , or a separate complete
streets policy document, before January 1 , 2017 . Cities that have not adopted such
policies by January 1, 2017 , w ill be ineligible to apply for future Metro capital grants
including but not limited to Call for Projects and Express Lanes Toll Revenue Grant
Program. Metro staff have confirmed that having a General Plan update in progress , as
Temple City does now, is not adequate to satisfy this requirement; only a General Plan
or separate policy adopted by the City Council before the deadline is acceptable .
Since the General Plan update is still in process, the City Council is being asked to
consider adopting a separate Complete Streets Policy to satisfy Metro's requirement by
the January 1, 2017, deadline and maintain Temple City 's eligibility for future grant
opportunities . The proposed policy (included in Attachment "A") is similar to policies that
will be includ ed in the forthcoming General Plan update draft. The policy does not obligate
the City to specific programs or projects, but rather acknowledges the City's commitment
to considering and implementing complete streets concepts and considering the needs
of all users in capital improvement projects .
STRATEGIC GOALS:
Adopt ing the Comp lete Streets Policy to maintain e ligibility for Metro grant funding is
consistent with the City Strategic Goals of Good Governance, Public Health and Safety,
Quality of Life, and Sustainable Infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Complete Streets Policy does not commit th e City to carrying out any specific projects
or programs and therefore would not have any impact on the Fiscal Year 2016 -17 City
Budget. Not adopting the policy would make the City ineligible for Metro capital grant
programs and as such could lim it fund ing sources for future City Budgets.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Resolution No . 16-5220 with Complete Streets Policy attached
r--~~~~~~-------
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 16-5220
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY , CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A COMPLETE
STREETS POLICY
WHEREAS, the term "Complete Streets " describes a comprehensive , i ntegrated
transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient
travel along and across streets for all users , including pedestr ia ns , users and operators of
public trans it , bicyclists, persons with d isab ilities , seniors , children , motorists , users of
green modes , movers of commerc ial goods , and emergency first responders ; and
WHEREAS, the plann ing and coord inate d development of Complete Streets
infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastru cture cost
savings , publ ic health , and environmental sustainabil ity ; and
WHEREAS , Compl ete Streets provide benefits and value for the publi c health and
welfare of reducing vehic le miles traveled and increasing transportation by wa lking ,
bicycl ing , and public transportation ; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete
Streets by enacting the Ca li fornia Comp le te Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB
1358), wh ich requires that when cities make substantive rev is ions to the Circu lation
Elements of their Genera l Plans , they identify how they w ill provide for the mob ility needs
of all us ers of the roadways , as well as through Deputy Directive 64 , in which the
Cal iforn ia Department of Transportation explained that it "views all tran sportation
improvements as opportun ities to improve safety, access , and mobility for all trave lers in
Cal iforn ia and recognizes bicycle , pedestrian , and transit mod es as integral elements of
the transportat ion system "; and
WHEREAS, the Cal ifornia Global Warming Solut ions Act of 2006 (known as AB
32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Ca lifornia , and the
Sustainable Communities and Cl imate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375 ) requires
emiss ions reductions through coordinated regiona l planning that integrates transportation,
housing , and land-use pol icy, and achieving th e goals of these laws w ill requ ire significant
increases in travel by public trans it , bicycling , and walking ; and
WHEREAS , nume ro us California counties , cities , and agenc ies have adopte d
Comp lete Streets policies and legislation in o rder to further the health , safety, welfare ,
econom ic vitality , and environmental well -bei ng of their communit ies ; and
WHEREAS , the Los Ang eles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro), through its Metro Comp le te Streets Pol icy, requires that all jurisdictions address
complete streets polic ies at the local leve l through the adopt ion of a comp lete streets
policy res ol ution , which sho uld include the "Elements of an Ideal Complete Streets Policy"
deve loped by the National Complete Streets Coalition, or through a General Plan that
compl ies with the Cal ifornia Complete Streets Act of 2008 to be eligible for Metro Capital
Grant funds ; and
Resolution No. 16-5220
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS , in light of the foregoing benefits and considerations , Temple City I
wishes to improve its comm itment to Complete Streets and des ires that its streets form a
comprehensive and in tegrated transport ation network p romoting safe and convenient
travel for all users while preserving flexibility , recognizing community context , and us ing
design guidelines a nd standards tha t support best practices .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby
resolve , find , determine, and order as fo ll ows :
SECT ION 1. T he Temple City Complete Streets Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A " and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2 . The next substa ntia l revis ion of the Temple City General Plan will
incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with the Californ ia
Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Comp lete Streets Policy adopted by
th is resolution .
SECTION 3. T he City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this I
Resolution and it s hall thereupon take effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOP TE D on th is 61h day of December, 20 16 .
ATIEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Pegg o, C1ty Cle rk Eri
I
I
I
I
Resolution No. 16 -5220
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORN IA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY)
I hereby certify that the foregoing reso l ution , Resolutio n No . 16-5220 , was duly passed ,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the C ity of Temple C ity at a regular meeting
held on the 61h day of December, 2016, by the follow ing vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Councilmember-Chavez , Fish , Man , Sternquist , Yu
Councilmember-None
Councilmember-None
Councilmember -None
Exh i b it A
Te m ple City Com plete Streets Pol i cy
A. Comp lete Str eets Pri nciples
1. Complete Streets Serving All Users and Modes. Temple City expresses its
commitment to creating and maintain ing Comp lete Streets that provide safe ,
comfortable , and convenient trave l along and across streets (including streets , roads,
highways , bridges , and other portions of the transportat io n system ) through a
comprehensive , in tegrated transportation network that serves a ll categories of users ,
including pedestrians , users and operators of public trans it , bicyclists , persons with
disabil itie s , seniors, children , motorists , users of green modes , movers of commercial
goods, and eme rgency first responders .
2. Context Sen sitivity. In planning and implementi ng street projects , Temple City w ill
mainta in sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts and will
work with reside nts , merchants , and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense
of place ensues . Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks , shared use
paths , bikeways , paved shoulders , street trees and landscaping , planting strips,
accessible curb ramps , crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian s ignals , signs, street
furniture , bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities , transit
prio rity sig nali za t io n, and other f ea tures assisting in t he provision of safe travel for all
users , inc luding th ose features identified in the Bicycle Master Plan and Traffic
Calming Master Pl an as app rop ria te .
I
3. Com p lete Streets Routi ne ly Addressed by All Depa rtme nts. All relevant I
departments and agenc ies of Temple City will work towards making Comp lete Streets
pract ices a rou tine part of everyday operat io ns ; approac h every relevant project ,
program , and practice as an opportunity to im prove streets and the transportation
network for all categories of users; and work in coordination with other departments ,
agencies , and j urisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets,
connectivity , and cooperation .
4 . All Projects and Ph ases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable
reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users
wi ll be incorporat ed into all pla nning , f unding , desig n, approval , and implementation
processes for any constructio n, reconstruction , retrofit , maintenance , ope rations,
alteration , or repai r of streets (including streets , roads, highways, bridges , and other
portions of the transportation system), except that specific in frastructure for a g iven
category of users may be excluded if an exception is approved via the process set
forth in section C.1 of this pol icy .
B . Imple m enta t i on
1. Des i g n . Temple City w ill generally follow its own accepted or adopted design
standards , including those promulgated by the County of Los Angeles and the State of
California where appropriate, and wil l also evaluate using the latest des ign standards
and innovative des ign options , with a goal of balancing user needs. I
I
I
I
Temple City Complete Streets Pol icy
Page 2
2 . Network/Connectivity. Temple City will incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure
into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of all users , with the
part icular goal of creat in g a connected network of facilities accommodating each
category of users, and increasi ng connect ivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for
anticipated future transportation investments .
3. Implementation Next Steps . Temple City wi ll take the follow ing specific next steps to
implement this Complete Streets Policy :
A . Plan Consultation and Consistency : Maintenance, planning, and des ign of
projects affecting the transpo rtat io n system will be consistent with local bicycle,
pedestrian, trans it, multimodal, and other relevant plans .
B. Stakeholder Consultation: Develop and/or clearly define a process to all ow for
stakeholder involvement on projects and plans includ ing , but not lim ited to , local
bicy cle and pedest rian advisory groups , transit riders and operators , access ibility
adv isory groups, movers of commercial goods, businesses , res ide nts , emergency
responders, and/or other stakeholders , as defined necessary to support
imp le mentation of this Complete Streets Pol icy.
4 . Performance Measures. All relevant agencies or departments will perform
evaluations of how well the streets and transportation network of Temple City are
serving each category of users by collecting baseline da ta and collecting follow-up
data on a regular basis .
C. Exceptions
1. Exception Approvals . A process will be developed for approving exceptions to this
Comp lete Streets Po li cy , including who has the authority to approve exceptions .
Written findings for exceptions must be included in a memorandum, approved by the
designated authority, and made publicly available. Except ions must explain why
accommodations for all users and modes were not included in a plan or project.