South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Livable Communities Working Group
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
2:30 to 4:30 p.m.
South Bay Environmental Services Center
20285 Western Ave., Suite 100
Minutes
I.
Welcome & Introductions
Attendees: Michael Gainor (SCAG), Rebecca Cutting (Torrance), Leza Mikhail
(RPV), Andrea Giancoli (Beach Cities Health District), Zak Gonzales (Carson),
Perry Banner (Lawndale), Pam Townsend (Hermosa Beach); Jacki Bacharach,
Rosemary Lackow, Steve Lantz, Lena Luna, Sabrina Bornstein and Wally
Siembab (SBCCOG),
Jacki Bacharach welcomed all and shared an article in the LA Times about the
millennial generation (18-30 years old). The article reports a study that shows
that millennials goals or values include living in the suburbs. Brief discussion
followed regarding planning implications, including that the current regional
planning is focused mainly on urban infill, however planners should be looking at
models for “greenfield development”.
II.
Minutes: May 21 and July 16 Meetings – received and filed.
III.
Overview of SB 743: Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in CEQA
Guidelines
Mike Gainor, PTP
Senior Regional Planner, SCAG
Wally S. gave a brief introduction noting this legislation is very important because it
represents a shift in analyzing traffic impacts away from driver delay and toward:
reduction of greenhouse gas, creation of multimodal networks and sustainable
communities/mixed use. Mike G. gave an overview, distributing a handout. Mike has
experience with this subject in that he has analyzed the 5 alternatives to LOS (Level of
Service) analysis that Sacramento (OPR) has identified as replacement methodologies.
The 5 methods are: Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), Automobile Trips Generated (ATG),
Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS); Fuel Use, and Motor Vehicle Hours Traveled
(VMT).
Mike explained that current LOS metric relies exclusively on vehicle delay at local
intersections and road segments (using Levels A through F). LOS has been criticized
because the typical mitigation impacts run counter to modern sustainability goals
(increasing capacity can also diminish air quality by encouraging car use).
OPR’s preferred option now is VMT which measures number of miles travelled by
vehicles attracted to or resulting from a project. It is by per capita annual miles travelled
for residential and measured by employee miles travelled or per trip miles traveled for
commercial. VMT analysis is relatively simple to calculate compared to LOS and
provides support for achieving sustainability goals. For now it is only applicable for High
Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC) projects but if it works well, its application could be
expanded. High Quality Transit corridors are those corridors that have transit service
(bus, light & heavy rail) minimally with 15 minute headways.
At the federal level, the EPA has developed new methods for estimating trip-generation
impacts of mixed use developments (MXD). The EPA MXD tool (spreadsheet) is
available from SCAG or can be downloaded from the EPA’s website:
http://www.epa.gov/dced/mxd_tripgeneraton.htm. This tool has been tested in a
number of cities on TOD centralized densification type projects and seems to be
addressing the VMT analysis issues satisfactorily.
Mike G. responded to questions:

How does this relate to TOD (Transit Oriented Development)? The legislation intent
is to promote TOD infill type projects in High Quality Transit Corridors – to make an
exception for those types of projects, relieving them of the burden of onerous
conditions that would be counter to the sustainability goals for those areas. It was
noted that most cities in the South Bay have one or more HQTD’s and would be
affected.

What types of mitigations can be applied? Based on VMT these can include anything
that encourages less auto use and not add to the number of cars on the road.
Example more centralized site, and physically, safety improvements to encourage
bike riding or getting to public transit could be a mitigation, ore designing mixed-use
or using Travel Demand Management features into the project.

How to explain to propospective developers? Planners can explain that the types of
conditions that may be applied to a project based on VMT may not involve onerous
penalties such as downsizing the project or paying for expensive roadway
improvements. A developer can mitigate impacts for example, by incorporating
mixed-use (desegregating residential and commercial) or Travel Demand
Management features into projects.

How does the MXD spreadsheet address the goals of SB 743? Mike explained that
several variables (e.g. density) are input into the model, and the output is the
projected VMT that will be generated. The analysis does not account for how robust
the transit service is but does account for proximity to other HQTCs. A point was
made that studies show that people more readily take rail than bus. Mike G.
responded that he was not sure if the EPA tool takes into account the extent of the
transit service in analyzing a project.

Does this override zoning? SB 743 does not authorize any higher density than
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.

How is environmental review (CEQA) affected? Currently OPR is revising the CEQA
Guidelines and October 10th is a deadline for local jurisdiction input. SCAG will be
commenting and will be recommending going with VMT. Discussion followed about
the South Bay NOD model (Neighborhood Oriented Development) in which it was
noted that SCAG’s definition of TOD does not take into account NOD as a strategy
for the South Bay. It was requested that SCAG if possible incorporate in their
comments regarding the proposed CEQA Guidelines for SB 743 that NOD as
promoted by the COG be taken into consideration, as well as the level of service of
transit service along a HQTC.

Is it mandated to use VMT vs. LOS? No, but a lot of funding for projects will depend
on how (the project) sizes up, under VMT analysis.
Mike G. noted that SCAG will be doing a workshop on SB 743 in the next couple of
months. Jacki B. noted that SB 743 will have a big effect on funding of projects and
Wally S. observed that this is a huge push towards increased density. Mike agreed to
provide additional information on the other four options to LOS methodology.
IV.
Metro’s Mobility Matrix for the South Bay
Steve Lantz, Transportation Consultant
SBCCOG
Steve L. provided an overview, noting that Metro is reaching out to LA County to
develop the next long range transportation plan and to plan ultimately for sales tax
increases for roadway improvements. About a year ago Mike Antonovich said that
Metro needs to go to the cities to find out what transportation projects are needed.
SCAG hired consultants to make a “Mobility Matrix”, a master list of transportation
projects (long range) that could be evaluated and ultimately packaged to support tax
measures to pay for roadway mobility improvements.
Steve explained how Measure R projects relate (projects that will relieve freeway
construction). What is missing is the newly emerging sustainability related
improvements (e.g. complete streets). Metro now is asking cities for their lists of
transportation projects (bikeways, etc.) or land use related projects. Cities need to
get those types of projects in to Metro to complete the list, to broaden the eligibility
for projects. The slogan for this effort is “neighborhood up” because the paradigm
for sales tax measures in the past has been “regional down” and cities have lost
funding as money has gotten siphoned off to regional projects first.
Steve urged cities to look for all unfunded projects that improve sustainability goals
through a more mobile roadway system. Planners and Public Works should both be
involved. Cities should send Steve the list of projects, with one sentence detailing
the project. A “project” could include a planning document as long as it is not
general (General Plan Update) but is specifically tied into transportation and mobility.
Wally S. noted that Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan governs funding for
cities, and also feeds into SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan program. The COG
has an ongoing effort to have SCAG include the South Bay NOD (Neighborhood
Oriented Development) strategy.
Jacki B. thanked Steve and switched the subject to the SBCCOG’s Strategic Growth
Council grant work. One goal is to “break down silos” and integrate many pieces of
the puzzle together (air quality, transportation, land use). Will be using the money to
write transportation chapters for each of the cities’ CAPs (Climate Action Plans)...
The Mobility Matrix will be incorporated into the CAP implementation. Will start
working on this January 1st.
Sabrina Bornstein added that the CAP program will be also working on energy
efficiency chapters and the Strategic Growth is the next phase, and they are trying to
connect the dots and integrate pieces. Looking at strategies for reducing GHGs and
the COG grant work will be doing the work of analyzing the carbon footprint reduction
for the cities. Cap and trade is a big new issue because energy and transportation
are two of the biggest issues in addressing GHG emissions.
Sabrina announced an ICLEI solar workshop for cities on Monday October 6th at the
Environmental Services Center.
V.
SBCCOG’s Comments on Metro’s Complete Streets Policy Draft
Wally Siembab
SBCCOG
Jacki distributed a letter dated 9/11/14 transmitting the SBCCOG’s comments to
Metro on their draft Complete Streets policy. Wally asked how many cities have
adopted Complete Streets policies. Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach are working on a mobility plan or element in the General Plan as
part of the work with the Beach Cities Health District.
Wally S. noted that Metro has published its draft policy and noted that the SBCCOG
has done a lot of studies and believes that “complete street’ discussion about
alternative modes needs to include a whole “family” of slow street modes (NEV’s,
segues, etc.) not just pedestrians and bicycles. This will allow achieving great
reduction in GHG emissions. The SBCCOG has commented that Metro stop using
terminology of “bike lanes”. The COG is not saying bike riders should not be
protected, but many others should also be protected, based on a speed of vehicles.
Jacki B. noted that the COG’s goal is to get this discussion into the dialogue. Wally
emphasized that performance measures also need to be developed.
Pam T. (Hermosa Beach) spoke about the city’s work on developing a Community
Source Aggregation (CCA) program and how CCAs work. The goal is for cities to be
able to purchase clean energy for a reasonable price by creating a JPA (joint powers
authority) comprised of multiple jurisdictions. A critical mass of consumers is needed
to make it feasible. Issues of how enrollment is structured (opt in vs. opt out) is
important. Pam noted that so far some cities are interested but this will take a few
years to develop.
VI.
Updates
SBCCOG’s Strategic Growth Council Grant
(see Item IV)
Holiday Light Exchange - November 13 and 14 to be hosted by the COG. South bay
residents will be able to exchange incandescent lights for LED. This year they are
soliciting corporate sponsors and there will be publicity provided through news
broadcasts so if anyone has ideas for sponsors let her know.
New Working Groups. There are 2 new active COG committees, a Senior Services
Group and a Social Media Working Group. Both are very active. Social Media is an
opportunity for cities to learn about and apply social media with residents and will next
meet Sept 25.
Homeless Services. COG has a pending proposal from PATH, for providing services
for homeless in the South Bay. The COG is now asking cities if they are interested. So if
anyone is interested in homeless services now is the time to let the COG know.
2015 General Assembly – Feb 27, 2015 with the topic of South Bay neighborhoods.
Wally S. asked the group how their cities define their neighborhoods. In some cases
(Torrance) neighborhoods are described in their General Plans. In Carson or Lawndale,
street names or location can define a neighborhood. RPV has a lot of names of
neighborhood but they are not formalized (e.g. Portuguese Bend, Eastview). In Hermosa
Beach they are developing “community character” areas which might be included in the
updated General Plan. In Lawndale they use “Nixle” (social media) to communicate with
residents. Wally explained he is looking for neighborhoods and how they are serviced for example is a neighborhood “destination poor”? He would like information about
neighborhoods in the next couple of weeks. Jacki also invited the cities to also provide
ideas as to what creates a “good neighborhood”.
VII.
Other Business
Jacki noted the next meeting will be the last of the year, on November 19th.