Mobility Strategy Update Work Session November 17, 2009 Mobility Strategy Update Work Session November 17, 2009

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

 Explain how concurrency is addressed in the County’s Comprehensive Plan  Discuss the relationship between concurrency and mobility  Review options for addressing mobility Purpose

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

Comprehensive Plan – existing goal Goal 2A concurrency management system and mobility strategy that ensure that transportation facilities are available to support land use Policies

Objectives covered by Goal 2  Objective 1Levels of Service (LOS)  Objective 2Concurrency Management System  Objective 3Alternative Mobility Areas Policies

Objective 2: Concurrency Management System Ensures that transportation facilities needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development  Establishes procedures  Addresses constrained and backlogged roads  Provides for proportionate fair share Policies

Objective 3: Alternative Mobility Areas  Establishes 4 Alternative Mobility Areas  Exempts Alternative Mobility Areas from concurrency  Establishes procedures for addressing mobility Policies

Objective 3: Alternative Mobility Areas  Policy 16. The Alternative Mobility Area objective and policies shall apply to any Transportation Concurrency Exception Area designated within Orange County’s jurisdiction. Policies

Transportation Concurrency

Policies Alternative Mobility Areas

Policies Alternative Mobility Areas

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

Provisions of the law  Plan amendments and rezonings  Permit extensions  Dense urban land areas  Developments of regional impact  Transportation concurrency exception areas (TCEAs) Senate Bill 360

Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas  State designated dense urban land areas as transportation concurrency exception areas  Became effective in July  Requires adoption of a Mobility Plan within 2 years  Current statutory requirements do not apply to newly designated areas Senate Bill 360

Transportation Concurrency Exception Area designated under SB 360

Mobility plan requirements  Land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility  Include alternative modes of transportation  Transmit plan by January 2011 – adopt by July 2011 Senate Bill 360

Status  Legal challenge  Single subject rule  Unfunded mandate  Differing interpretations of the law  Legislature – TCEAs are automatic  DCA – Local governments have to amend comprehensive plan for TCEAs to take effect Senate Bill 360

Status  Mayor put SB 360 implementation on hold pending:  Court case resolution  Next legislative session – clarification of legislation Senate Bill 360

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

 Alternative Mobility Area objective and policies were developed to encourage infill and redevelopment in urban areas  Mobility guidelines were drafted to meet concurrency exception area requirements before SB 360  A policy was included to make mobility guidelines applicable in any area designated a TCEA Issues

 As written, policies are more suitable for urban infill areas – not as applicable to the rest of the County Issues

Current mobility policies  Development required to meet mobility standards  Number of standards required is based on traffic impact  Mobility standards  Intersection and/or signalization modifications  Dedicated turn lanes  Bus facilities, bus pass programs, increased bus service  Bicycle lanes  Construction or widening of sidewalks  Ride sharing or van pooling programs  Park and ride facilities Issues

Current mobility policies  Mobility standards (cont.)  Streetscaping and landscaping that increase walkability  Shading and weather protection over sidewalks  Additional bicycle parking  Removal of impediments to pedestrian movement  Enhancement of County’s greenways, bike paths and trails  Participation in a transportation demand management program  Roadway projects that increase transportation network connectivity and/or provide alternate routes to reduce congestion  Additional roadway lanes Issues

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

Option 1 OptionResultIf state takes no action If state clarifies SB 360 Make no changes to the Alternative Mobility Area policies Infill- oriented guidelines for mobility in the Alternative Mobility Areas Concurrency remains in the rest of the County Urban Service Area becomes a TCEA Infill-oriented mobility guidelines apply to the TCEA

Option 2 OptionResultIf state takes no action If state clarifies SB 360 Leave AMA policies intact, except: Remove the policy stating that the AMA policies apply to any TCEA Infill- oriented guidelines for mobility in the AMAs Concurrency remains in the rest of the County Urban Service Area becomes a TCEA No mobility guidelines or concurrency apply to the TCEA

Option 3 OptionResultIf state takes no action If state clarifies SB 360 Amend the infill-oriented guidelines to make them more applicable to the entire USA General guidelines for mobility in the AMAs Concurrency remains in the rest of the County Urban Service Area becomes a TCEA General mobility guidelines apply to the TCEA

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

Summary of options  Option 1: No change  Option 2: Remove policy making mobility strategies applicable to any designated TCEA  Option 3: Amend mobility strategies to be more applicable in the Urban Service Area Summary

With all options  Concurrency remains in place unless the Legislature eliminates the concurrency requirement  Mobility policies are an interim measure  Policies will be superseded by Mobility Plan in 2011 Summary

 Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps  Purpose  Policies  Senate Bill 360  Issues  Options  Summary  Next Steps Presentation Outline

 Concurrency and mobility  2010 Legislative session  Mobility Plan  Comprehensive Plan amendment  LPA in December  Discussion with DCA  BCC transmittal in January Next Steps

Mobility Strategy Update Work Session November 17, 2009 Mobility Strategy Update Work Session November 17, 2009