Flores, Valerie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Erika Foy •
Tuesday, February 08, 2022 10:44 AM
Flares, Valeric
Wilson, Andy; hlampton, Tyron; Williams, Felicia; Rivas, Jessica; Kightlinger, Jeffrey; Thyret, Pa m
Additional Public Comment MSC LLG Report
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Please submit this addendum to my letter for the MSC meeting today.
Good afternoon-1 want to ensure the LMA update that gets approved puts in place all ofLLG's recommendations. There are a few issues I see with what LLG recommends and the LMA guidelines. One very important issue is the trip generation credits and adjustments language. The LLG report says that "supporting documentation may be required to verify the status of active or recently terminated uses at the project site." The LMA update only says that "allowable types of credits be made clear." It is imperative we have DOT show documentation for trip credits. Let me give you an example, the Affinity planned development project on Arroyo Parkway and California is being given 2,454 trip credits for a property that is basically empty. In my opinion, these credits are way over valued because the parking lots are always empty. This issue is, when these credits are issued, less cars from the project are put in as volume for the software to evaluate the impacts. The total project trips number is what gets put in the software to give the LOS measurements. Please see the chart below. The project goes from evaluating 6,366 trips to 2,454. That is enough of a difference where impacts are no longer apparent. This is an incredible problem that must be solved. It is the basis for why we are not seeing any mitigations for projects as large as the Affinity project that is an additional 430,000 sf.
In addition, LLG recommends that the LMA guidelines contain provisions that the latest version of SYNCHRO be utilized. This is not stated in the LMA city guidelines. This is one of the MOST important aspects of the issues we face. For instance, the Castle Green project used Synchro 6 software to analyze project impacts which is over 20 years old. Imagine using a Commodore computer to evaluate today's business needs? It is no different with traffic software especially in Pasadena where we have incredible transportation issues considering a train goes through our city and we are adding massive density in very compact areas.
As you will note in my previous letter, the concept of SFR and PHF are complicated yet drastically important. LLG is recommending that the city provide guidance on the parameters of the HCM analysis in order to ensure consistency and that issues like at-grade rail crossings are properly assessed and INCLUDED in reports. Using an updated software would do this. Imagine the software, Synchro 6, was the same software we used when we didn't have a train going through our city! I am not sure the LMA goes far enough to state how this will be handled in the new guidance at all. There is no mention of requiring updated software. There is cun-ently a Synchro 11 out on the market.
Overall, the language for trip credits, use of updated software, and need for the parameters ofHCM are to be consistent with Pasadena's unusual traffic needs, must be added to the LMA report. Not doing so would impede any improvements for our city. It would be an absolute shame to not bring the attention to these items if we are working through this process to find a way to grow our city yet keep is movable and safe. I believe you must require the city to list what LLG recommends and compare to what the LMA report is listing. It is not a 1 perfect match by any means. It is apparent some of the most important recommendations are missing. Thank you, Erika Foy
The industry standard procedure to determine the number of daily and peak hour trips a project would generate is based on published trip generation estimates from the ITE Trip Generation manual and is summarized in the following table:
Trip Generation Rates (proposed)
Proposed UseLand Use CodeAmountUnitsMeasureDaily
AM Peak Hour
InOut | Total
PM Peak Hour
InOut I Total
Senior Adult Housing - Attached25295|DU13.70| 0.07| 0.13| 0.20| 0.14| 0.12| 0.26| Assisted^ Living-254-85,800GFA1000^19]0.30| 0.09| 0.390.14| 0.34| 0.48| Medlcal-Dental Office Building720151,000~S^F-100034^"2:170.61^.78"0972.49-3.46| Hlgh-Tumowr (Sit-Down) Restaurant"9328,882SF1000112.185.474:479.946.0637719.77| Trip Generation Rates (previous)
Previous UseLand Use CodeAmountUnitsMeasureDaily
AM Peak Hour
InOut iTotal
PM Peak Hour
tnOut: Total
Animal Hospital/ Veterinary Clinic640| 12,676SF1000|21;5| 2.44T203.64"1.4127123.53| RetailSan Diego21,437SF1000|40|0.72^0.48|1.2011.80'1.803.6|
9.77! High-Tumowr (Sit-Down) Restaurant932F11,799SF10001112.1815.474.47'9.946.063.71 Volumes
Proposed UseDaily
AM Peak Hour
InOut ITotal
PM Peak Hour
InOut |Total
Senior Adult Housing - Attached35271219141125|
Assisted Living360|~26'7|331T229"41
Medical-Oental Office Building5,255]327~92\420^[463765221 High-Tumowr(Sit-Down) Restaurant996|-49140|"88'5433-sr
Total Project Trips6,962409152~w\226|449675|
Transit Trips (residential)20%701243|2|5|
Transit Trips (Medical Offlce)10%52533942153852
Net Project Vehicle Trips6,366375140515209|409618|
Volumes
Previous UseDaily_
AM Peak Hour
InOut |Total
PM Peak Hour
InOut iTotal
7^^
Animal Hospital/ Veterinary Clinic273311546182745|
Retail857]151^0|2639'"39|77'
High-Tumover (Slt-Down) Restaurant1,324165531177144115| Total Project Trips\ 2,45411178189128109237|
x^"
ffiar
^let total (proposed minus existing trips)
491-577 South Arroyo Parkway
Transportation Impact Analysis
3,913 264 62 326 81 300 381
3/22/2021
10 On Feb 7, 2022, at 4:02 PM, Erika Foywrote:
Hello- Can you please submit my public comment for the MSC meeting. My hope is you have a chance to look at raw video footage taken for this issue within my letter. I appreciate the city is 2 finally taking the steps to fix a very important issue. I have participated in every meeting on this issue from traffic, planning and design commission. I am not sure why those comments are not part of the ongoing record for this report. I would prefer to not have one more meeting to explain the utmost importance of why we need this report to be enacted immediately. I hope my letter and traffic report will suffice. Erika Foy
<0utside CEQA Threshold MSC-LLG Report (l).docx>
3