Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 7, 2020 Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) – Add Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer 949-644-3329, tbrine@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determinations in CEQA. The State requires all cities to adopt a VMT policy to include transportation impact thresholds. Public Works staff has prepared a framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation improvement projects. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed Amendment to City Council Policy K-3 and to recommend its adoption by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION 1) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and 2) Adopt Resolution No PC2020-017 recommending an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3, Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act, to add Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology. 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Project Description In 2013, the State of California approved Senate Bill 743, which requires a shift in the way cities measure transportation impacts in environmental documents. SB 743 removes automobile delay, typically measured by traffic level-of-service (LOS), as a significant environmental impact. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided guidance for all cities to measure transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to determine significance under CEQA. Staff is recommending an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3, which will outline a framework to complete the transportation analysis for land development and transportation projects. The proposed Policy Amendment includes appropriate thresholds of significance based on OPR guidance. DISCUSSION Analysis VMT as a CEQA impact metric was adopted by the State to address traffic impacts with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to achieve long term climate change goals. For a proposed land development project, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is simply the product of the daily automobile trips generated by the project, multiplied by the estimated number of miles those trips travel to their destination. Typically, development located farther from key destinations, such as job centers, may result in longer driving distance and higher VMT values. Development located close to job centers and transit may result in lower VMT. Prior environmental laws addressed traffic impacts with the goal of reducing automobile delay, measured by level-of-service (LOS). Excessive delay has traditionally been improved by increasing capacity on a roadway with the construction of new lanes, or improving traffic flow with signal timing improvements, etc. The unintended consequence of the LOS methodology is vehicle dependency, large roadway and intersection infrastructure, and increased vehicle emissions. In December 2018, the Office of Administrative Law approved updates to the formal CEQA implementing regulations prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The regulations are generally referred to as the CEQA Guidelines. OPR also released their Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (“Technical Advisory”), which contains recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. It is stated within the document that “OPR provides this Technical Advisory as a resource for the public to use at their discretion.” 3 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 3 For long-range planning purposes, a VMT analysis focuses on residential, office, and retail projects. These projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. No discrete land use types other than residential, office, or retail are identified for analysis. Mixed-use projects can also be analyzed with the assessment for each appropriate land use completed separately. OPR has identified that “home-based trips” are the primary trip-making type in the system. Analyzing these vehicular home-based trips and travel behavior for comprehensive development types such as residential, office and retail is the appropriate manner to assess overall regional VMT. The proposed City methodology outlines a framework for completing the VMT analysis. The framework includes a) screening criteria, b) significance thresholds for land development projects (residential, office, retail, other), c) significance thresholds for transportation projects, and d) mitigation measures for significant impacts. The discussion below summarizes each step. The step-by-step analysis is outlined in detail in the proposed Amendment to City Council Policy K-3 (see Exhibit “A” to Attachment No. PC 1). Transportation project screening criteria are outlined in the Amendment. In the discussion here, the focus will be on land development projects. Screening Criteria Criteria can be used to identify when a project can be expected to cause a less-than- significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The criteria may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip-making potential. The following screening criteria would be established by the proposed policy amendment and used to determine when a detailed VMT study is not required for a land development project. • The project is located in a High Quality Transit area (i.e. within half-mile distance of major transit stop, or along a transit corridor with fixed bus route service intervals of no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute time). There are exceptions for the transit screening criteria including projects with an FAR (floor area ratio) less than 0.75, projects inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, or projects that reduce affordable housing units. • The project is located in an area with low VMT per capita (residential) or low VMT per employee (office). Maps have been prepared using the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) to define specific areas in the city where existing VMT is currently below the defined thresholds of significance, as outlined below. • The project involves local-serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet. 4 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 4 • The project has a high percentage of affordable housing units, as defined by the Community Development Department 1. • The project generates 300 or less net daily trips, utilizing the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to calculate trip generation. Credit is given for existing uses generating traffic on site, as outlined in the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Institutional/Government and public service uses such as police stations, fire stations, community centers, and refuse centers, are screened out and no VMT analysis would be conducted. Significance Thresholds for Land Development For all projects that do not meet the Screening Criteria, a more detailed VMT impact analysis will be required. The typical threshold metrics used in a VMT analysis are VMT per person (capita) for residential projects, VMT per employee for office projects, and total VMT for retail projects. For other land uses not specified in the OPR Technical Advisory, the metric best fitting the predominant trip-making variable for that use shall be used. For example, hospitality and industrial uses would be VMT per employee. When there are uses that have multiple trip purposes, the total service rate (per capita and per employee) may be used. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides regional (County) averages for VMT per capita and VMT per employee. The County average is 17.9 VMT per capita, and 24.1 VMT per employee may be used. The OPR Technical Advisory suggests various thresholds for the significance of VMT impacts but does not prescribe the use of a particular threshold. Cities have the discretion to select their own preferred significance thresholds that would need to be supported by substantial evidence, or the city could use the thresholds suggested in the OPR Technical Advisory. The City has chosen to follow OPR significance thresholds. Most metropolitan planning organizations and transportation planning agencies have agreed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) by approximately 15 percent by 2035. Staff recommends using the OPR guidance and setting the goal of reducing VMT 1 OPR has not provided specific guidance as to what a “high percentage” of affordable housing might be other than to say that evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. City staff is in the process of identifying a specific percentage of affordable housing for infill development based on our local conditions. 5 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 5 per capita for residential projects, and VMT per employee for office projects, by at least 15 percent below that of the existing County VMT averages. Thus, a proposed residential project should have a calculated VMT per capita of 15.2 or less or there will be a significant impact (17.9 VMT per capita minus 15% = 15.2 VMT per capita). Similarly, a proposed office project shall have a calculated VMT per employee of 20.5 or less or there will be a significant impact (24.1 VMT per employee minus 15% = 20.5 VMT per employee). For a retail project, any net increase in total VMT will be considered a significant impact. Land Development Project Review Process A step-by-step process is summarized below for a CEQA-level VMT analysis. • The project application shall provide a full project description with intensity/density, proposed parking supply, number of affordable housing units (if residential), and any other project features that may affect VMT generation, project access, and alternative modes of travel. • Project screening is conducted by staff to determine if the project meets any of the screening criteria outlined above. If any criteria are met, no further VMT analysis is necessary. • If the project does not meet the screening criteria, a detailed VMT analysis is required. VMT rates shall be calculated, including VMT per capita for residential, VMT per employee for office, and total VMT for retail. For mixed-use projects, each land use shall be calculated separately. Credit for internal capture can be applied for mixed-use projects. • For projects with a daily trip generation of between 300 and 1,000 trips per day, or those with one predominant land use, VMT can be calculated manually. The VMT figure would be the product of the daily trip generation and trip length in miles for the specified land use. Trip lengths can be found in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), or can be derived from the City’s model NBTM. • For large or multi-use projects, use of the City’s NBTM traffic forecasting model shall be required. A project generating 1,000 or more daily trips shall use the NBTM model to calculate the project VMT rates. • The project VMT rates of per capita for residential, or per employee for office, or total VMT for retail shall be compared to the established City thresholds. If the calculated VMT metrics exceed the City thresholds, the project has a significant impact and mitigation measures are required. 6 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 6 Mitigation Measures When the VMT analysis indicates a project has a significant impact, the applicant is required to identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact. The City SB 743 Implementation Guide (Attachment No. PC 2) includes possible strategies that can be selected. The City will ultimately decide what is feasible mitigation as that is the role relegated to the lead agency pursuant to CEQA. If the mitigation measures fully mitigate the project impact, the project is presumed to have an impact mitigated to less than significant. No further VMT analysis would be required. If the project cannot reduce the VMT level to below the applicable thresholds, the City may require the project be re- designed, relocated or realigned to reduce the VMT impact, or a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) would need to be prepared if the City chose to approve the project. Transportation Projects Detailed screening criteria for transportation projects are included in the proposed Amendment to City Council Policy K-3. The City shall be required to consider the potential VMT impacts for any type of roadway improvement project. The addition of a new through lane on an existing roadway would be an example of a transportation project. If a proposed transportation project meets the screening criteria outlined in the Amendment, then a detailed VMT analysis would not be required for the project. For projects on the State highway system, Caltrans will use and will require the City to use VMT as the CEQA metric. General Plan SB 743 should not be considered as the end of level-of-service (LOS) analysis. SB 743 explicitly states that it applies only to CEQA, and does not affect the general plans of local agencies. This allows cities and counties to use LOS to set traffic standards for their communities. General Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) establishes LOS standards for City intersections. For all environmental documents, new development will be evaluated under both CEQA VMT requirements and the City’s Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The difference will be that project-related changes to LOS will no longer be considered a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA. Summary To comply with the new CEQA Guidelines, staff has prepared a “Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology”, which would become a part of City Council Policy K-3. The methodology provides for a step-by-step process to complete a VMT analysis for land development and transportation projects subject to CEQA. 7 Amend City Council Policy K-3 (CEQA Procedures) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 7 The screening criteria, significance thresholds, and mitigation measures in the proposed methodology are substantially consistent with the State OPR Technical Advisory. The one exception is in the screening criteria, where the City recommends a criteria of an increase of 300 or less net daily trips as a screening tool. This screening figure of 300 daily trips is consistent with the City’s Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), and modeling has shown that emissions of GHG for projects that increase up to 300 daily trips would be less than significant. OPR recommends 110 daily trips as a project screening tool. Environmental Review This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Public Notice The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the Planning Commission considers the item). Prepared by: Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution including City Council Policy K-3 Amendment PC 2 City SB 743 Implementation Guide 01/12/18 8 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution including City Council Policy K-3 Amendment 9 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE10 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY K-3 (IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT), TO INCORPORATE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. In 2013, the State of California Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg). Senate Bill 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) to produce new California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidance for cities that remove automobile Level-of-Service (“LOS”) from transportation analysis under CEQA and replace it with Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). For land development projects, the VMT is the product of the daily trips generated by a new development and the distance those trips travel to their destinations. 2. OPR prepared a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, dated December 2018. This document states that it is a resource for lead agencies in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. The OPR also states that the choice of methodology to analyze VMT impacts is left to the discretion of lead agencies. 3. The City of Newport Beach (“City”) has developed technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, including screening criteria, thresholds of significance, and potential mitigation for proposed land development and transportation projects to incorporate into City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act) (“K-3 Amendment”). 4. At the May 7, 2020 meeting in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, the Planning Commission considered the K-3 Amendment. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION The K-3 Amendment is not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), because it has no potential for resulting in 11 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 2 of 9 physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Additionally, the K-3 Amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15307 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment). The K-3 Amendment is being initiated pursuant to Senate Bill 743 which is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by mandating transportation analysis under CEQA as analyzed based upon vehicle miles traveled. SECTION 3. FINDINGS 1. Senate Bill 743 mandates that jurisdictions can no longer use automobile delay, commonly measured by LOS when doing transportation analysis under CEQA. 2. The K-3 Amendment would provide a framework for analyzing land development and transportation projects using VMT as the metric for transportation impacts. 3. The K-3 Amendment outlines a step-by-step process for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis including: a) screening criteria under which projects are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis; b) significance thresholds for land development projects (residential, office, retail, other); c) significance thresholds for transportation projects; and d) requirements for projects to mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts. SECTION 4. DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission finds the proposed Amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act) as set for in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. BY: _________________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman BY: _________________________________ Lee Lowrey, Secretary 12 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 3 of 9 EXHIBIT “A” H. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology 1. Senate Bill (SB) 743 Signed in 2013, SB 743 changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determination in CEQA. For land development projects, VMT is the product of the daily trips generated by a new development and the distance those trips travel to their destinations. For transportation projects, impacts are identified as the new VMT attributable to the new transportation improvement project. In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified Senate Bill 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) states that a lead agency (City) has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s impacts within their jurisdiction. The City has prepared a City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide, dated April 6, 2020, which will be used as a reference document for each project during the VMT analysis process. The various terminology used in the Policy are defined in the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide. This subsection of City Council Policy K-3 establishes the framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation projects. A Flow Chart outlining the step process is included in the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide as Figure 4. The framework includes the following: a. Screening Criteria under which projects are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis. b. Significance Thresholds for Land Development projects (Residential, Office, Retail, Other). c. Significance Thresholds for Transportation projects. d. Requirements for projects to mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts. 2. Land Development Project Screening Certain conditions may exist that would presume that a proposed land development project has a less than significant VMT impact. Land development projects that have one or more of the following attributes may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. 13 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 4 of 9 a. The project is located within 0.5 mile of a Transit Priority Area or a High Quality Transit Corridor unless the project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Transportation Communities plan, has a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75, provides parking in excess of the City Municipal Code requirements, or reduces the number of affordable residential units. A “High Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with fixed bus route service with a service frequency of 15 minutes or less during the peak morning and evening peak hours. A “Transit Priority Area” means an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. A “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing a bus transit station, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a service frequency of 15 minutes or less during the peak morning and evening peak hours. Figure 1 in the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide shows Transit Priority Areas in the city. b. The project is located in areas with low VMT per capita when compared to the average regional VMT per capita. Figure 2 in the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide shows VMT per capita, in a map-based format, for all existing residential areas in the city. Proposed residential projects located within the green zones identified on the map that share project attributes with local development patterns (i.e. intensity, density, trip generation) would be deemed to be less than significant. Figure 3 shows the VMT per employee. The employment based VMT within Newport Beach tends to be higher than the Orange County Regional average. c. Locally serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet. d. The project has a high level of affordable housing units, as defined by the Community Development Department. e. The project generates a net increase of 300 or less daily trips, utilizing the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Credit is considered for existing uses generating traffic on the site, as outlined in the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. f. Institutional/Government and public service uses such as police stations, fire stations, community centers, refuse centers, would not require CEQA VMT analysis. 14 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 5 of 9 3. Transportation Project Screening Listed below are a series of transportation projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measureable increase in vehicle travel, and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. a. Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity. b. Roadside safety devices or hardware such as median barriers or guardrails. c. Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space”, dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile travel lanes. d. Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than 1 mile in length designed to improve roadway safety. e. Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left-, right-, and U-turn pockets, two-way left-turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes. f. Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and if applicable, transit. g. Conversion of existing general-purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel. h. Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles. i. Reduction in the number of through lanes. j. Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g. high-occupancy vehicles [HOVs], high-occupancy toll [HOT] lane traffic, or trucks) from general vehicles. 15 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 6 of 9 k. Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority features. l. Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs, and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow. m. Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow. n. Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles. o. Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices. p. Adoption of, or increase in tolls. q. Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase. r. Initiation of a new transit service. s. Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in the number of traffic lanes. t. Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces. u. Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs). v. Addition of traffic wayfinding signage. w. Rehabilitation of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way. x. Addition of Class 1 bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized travel. y. Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure. z. Passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid-transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. 16 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 7 of 9 4. Significance Thresholds for Land Development Projects For all projects that do not meet the Project Screening criteria, a more detailed VMT impact analysis will be required. In outlining the project thresholds, the type of trips used in the VMT calculation are defined as “home-based work trips”. A detailed VMT analysis will cover residential uses, office uses and retail uses. The metric used is the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per person (capita), or per employee per day, or total VMT. For residential projects the metric used is “VMT per capita”. For office projects, the metric used is “VMT per employee”. For retail projects, the metric is “total VMT”. For other land uses not specified in the OPR guidance, the metric best fitting the predominant trip making variable for that use shall be used. For example, hospitality uses would be VMT per employee, industrial uses would also be VMT per employee. Where there are uses that have multiple trip purposes, the total service rate (per capita and per employee) may be used. a. SB 743 covers the State goals for reducing green house gas emissions by 15 percent below existing conditions by 2035. Most regional planning agencies have agreed to these goals through land use and transportation planning. The defined City VMT Thresholds are as follows: i. A proposed residential project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing County average VMT per capita would indicate a significant transportation impact. ii. A similar threshold applies to office projects – exceeding 15 percent below existing County average VMT per employee indicates a significant impact. iii. For retail projects, any net increase in total VMT for the project would indicate a significant impact. iv. For other uses, any net increase in VMT per capita or per employee would indicate a significant impact for uses consistent with the General Plan. For projects seeking a General Plan Amendment, a project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing County average VMT per capita or per employee would indicate a significant transportation impact. b. According to the Orange County Transportation Authority, the average VMT/capita in Orange County is 17.9. The average VMT/employee is 24.1. Based on the goal of 15 percent below County average, the City’s thresholds would be: i. Residential – 15.2 VMT per capita. ii. Office – 20.5 VMT per employee. iii. Retail – No net change in total VMT. iv. Other Land Uses – No net change in VMT per capita or per employee. 17 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 8 of 9 For mixed-use projects, the VMT should be evaluated for each component of the project independently. Should the mixed-use project include 50,000 square feet or less of local serving retail use, then that component can be screened out. 5. Significance Thresholds for Transportation Projects The City shall be required to consider the effects of transportation projects on vehicle travel. Projects that lead to additional vehicle travel are referred to as “induced vehicle travel” and would be required to analyze the growth impacts under CEQA. The addition of new through lanes on an existing roadway would be a typical project that could induce a VMT impact. If a proposed transportation project meets the screening criteria previously outlined, then a detailed analysis will not be required for the project. More detail on transportation project VMT analysis in outlined in the SB 743 Implementation Guide. For projects on the State highway system, Caltrans will use and will require the City to use VMT as the CEQA metric. An assessment of a transportation project’s VMT should disclose the VMT without the project, and the VMT with the project. Any growth in VMT attributable to the transportation project would result in a significant impact. 6. Land Development Project Review Process a. At the beginning of the project development process, the applicant shall submit a full and complete project description including the intensity/density of the project, proposed parking supply, number of affordable housing units (if residential) or any other project features that may affect trip generation, VMT generation, project access, and alternate modes of travel. b. Once the development application has been filed, project screening will be conducted as the first step of analysis. Project screening will be completed by city staff and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. If the project meets any one of the screening criteria outlined previously, the project will be presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further VMT analysis is necessary. The CEQA document shall enumerate the screening criterion, and how the project meets or does not meet the criteria. c. If the project does not meet the screening criteria, a detailed VMT analysis will be required. For residential projects, the VMT per capita rate shall be calculated. For commercial office projects, the VMT per employee rate shall be calculated. For a retail project, the total VMT shall be calculated. For mixed-use projects, the VMT per land use shall be calculated. Credit for internal trip capture can be applied for mixed use projects. d. For projects with a trip generation rate of between 300 and 1,000 net trips per day, or those with one predominant land use, the determination of project VMT may be calculated manually as the product of the daily trip generation (land use density/intensity multiplied by the City-approved trip generation rate) 18 Planning Commission Resolution PC2020-017 Page 9 of 9 and the trip length in miles for the specified land use. Trip lengths can be found in CalEEMod or derived from the City Model NBTM. e. For large or multi-use projects, use of the NBTM traffic forecasting model shall be required. For purposes of City review, a project generating 1,000 ADT or more should use the NBTM model to calculate the project VMT rates. f. The project-generated VMT per capita for residential projects, VMT per employee for office projects, or total VMT for retail projects shall be compared to the City Thresholds outlined previously. If the calculated VMT metrics exceed the City Threshold, the project has a significant impact and mitigation measures are required. If the project VMT metrics are less than the City Thresholds, the project has less than significant impacts. 7. Mitigation Measures When the detailed VMT analysis indicates that a project has a significant impact, the applicant is required to identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact created by the project. The mitigation measures can come from strategies outlined in the SB 743 Implementation Guide, or selected by the applicant. The City will decide what is feasible mitigation for the project, and the related VMT percent reduction. If the mitigation measures fully mitigate the project impact, the project is presumed to have an impact mitigated to a less than significant level. No further analysis is required. If the project’s VMT impact cannot be fully mitigated, the City may (1) request the project be re-designed, relocated or realigned to reduce the VMT impact, or (2) prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for the transportation impacts associated with the project. All feasible mitigation measures must be assigned to and carried out by the project even if a SOC is prepared. 8. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis To establish consistency with the City General Plan and other city requirements, all proposed land use projects generating 300 or more daily trips will continue to be required to prepare a level-of-service (LOS) analysis of transportation impacts consistent with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in addition to the CEQA-level VMT analysis. 19 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20 Attachment No. PC 2 City SB 743 Implementation Guide 21 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22 Photo: D. Ramey Logan April 6, 2020 SB 743 IMPLEMENTATION for the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHDRAFT 23 April 2020              CEQA TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS OF  SIGNIFICANCE GUIDE    CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH           DRAFT24 This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT25 April 2020          CEQA TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS OF  SIGNIFICANCE GUIDE    CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH          Submitted to:    Tony Brine  City Traffic Engineer   100 Civic Center Drive  Newport Beach, California  92660          Prepared by:    LSA  20 Executive Park, Suite 200  Irvine, California  92614  (949) 553‐0666    Project No. CNB1702.02   DRAFT26 This page intentionally left blank       DRAFT27       i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i  FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. v  1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1  2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT .............................. 5  3.0 PROJECT SCREENING ........................................................................................... 7  3.1 Land Development Projects ................................................................................................. 7  3.2 Transportation Projects...................................................................................................... 17  4.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ..................... 21  4.1 Agency Communication ..................................................................................................... 25  4.2 Project Screening ............................................................................................................... 25  4.3 Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ............................................................................. 25  4.3.1 Small Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .................................................................... 25  4.3.2 Large Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .................................................................... 25  4.3.3 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis ..................................................................................... 26  4.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 26  5.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ......................... 27  6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND PLANS ................................................... 29  7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 31  7.1 Definition of Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 31  7.2 Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives .................................................................. 33  7.2.1 Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans ............................................. 33  7.2.2 Transportation Projects ...................................................................................................... 34  7.3 Funding Mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 34    APPENDICES  A: CARB AND LOCAL JURISDICTION VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LAND  DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS  B: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FROM  ACADEMIC RESEARCH  C: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL  PLANS   DRAFT28       ii  This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT29       iii  FIGURES AND TABLES  FIGURES  Figure 1: Newport Beach Transit Priority Areas ..................................................................................... 9  Figure 2: Existing VMT per Population Compared to Regional Average .............................................. 11  Figure 3: Existing VMT per Employee Compared to Regional Average ................................................ 15  Figure 4: Transportation Impacts Flow Chart for Land Development Projects .................................... 23    TABLES  Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod ..................................................... 13     DRAFT30       iv  This page intentionally left blank DRAFT31       v  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS  ADT average daily trips  CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model  Caltrans California Department of Transportation  CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association  CARB California Air Resources Board  CEQA California Environmental Quality Act  City City of Newport Beach  CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent  EIR Environmental Impact Report  EO Executive Order  FAR floor‐to‐area ratio  GHG greenhouse gas  GWP global warming potential  HOT high‐occupancy toll  HOV high‐occupancy vehicle  LOS level of service  LRTP Long‐Range Transportation Plan  mi mile  MT metric ton  MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations  NBTAM Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model  OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT32       vi  OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research  PRC Public Resources Code  RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy  RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency  SB Senate Bill  SCAG Southern California Association of Government  SOC Statement of Overriding Considerations  TA Technical Advisory  TDM transportation demand management  VMT vehicle miles traveled   DRAFT33       1  1.0 INTRODUCTION  Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces  motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. For land  development projects, VMT is simply the product of the daily trips generated by a new development  and the distance those trips travel to their destinations. For capital projects, impacts are identified  as the new VMT attributable to the added capital project, both from the installation of the facility  and the induced growth generated as a result of induced land use.  In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research  (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The  CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) states:  1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may  indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one‐half mile of either an existing major  transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause  a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the  project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant  transportation impact.  2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle  miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For  roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of  transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent  that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a  regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section  15152.  3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle  miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the  project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors  such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a  qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.  4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to  evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute  terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to  estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect  professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle  miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the  environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151  shall apply to the analysis described in this section.  The OPR provides a Technical Advisory (TA) as a guidance document to establish thresholds this new  VMT metric. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (PRC  DRAFT34       2  Section 21000 and following), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,  Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA  procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. Yet,  deviating from the TA is best undertaken with substantial evidence to support the agency action.  The State of California is committed to  reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and  achieving long‐term climate change goals. To  achieve these climate change goals, California  needs to reduce VMT. As the chart shows,  transportation is the single largest sector  contributing to the State’s GHG emissions.  More than 40 percent of the GHG emissions  come from the transportation sector,  primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks.  Removing these vehicle trips and/or reducing  the length of existing trips is expected to  result in reduced VMT and reduced GHG  emissions. As illustrated below, over the last  40 years, VMT has grown faster than  population growth.  The new State CEQA  Guidelines and the establishment of VMT thresholds for CEQA analyses is linked to GHG reduction  strategies and overall statewide climate change goals.                    The State and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the metropolitan  planning organization for Southern California, have provided guidance that the number of vehicle  trips and the length of vehicle trips can be reduced by locating new development near available  transit and a mix of other land uses. This is one example of a strategy to reduce project‐related  Source: California Air Resources Board DRAFT35       3  VMT. SB 743 intends to promote infill development, encourage multimodal transportation  networks, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  In one example, the Draft Regional Transportation  Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)  (SCAG 2019) includes data showing that the  number of walking trips greatly diminishes for  distances longer than 2 miles. If a person’s  destination or a transit station are within 2 miles  of a person’s home, the person may choose a  non‐vehicle travel mode. While many portions of  Newport Beach are automobile dependent, some  neighborhoods, such as Corona del Mar,  demonstrate the tendency of people to walk or  bike from home to services if services are close  and parking supply is constrained.    This document provides a guide and substantial  evidence for the City of Newport Beach (City) in its thresholds of significance for CEQA  transportation studies. It is divided into chapters, including:   Chapter 2 – Definition of Region: Here the document describes what the comparative is for  analysis purposes. Each project will be compared to an existing regional average. The  geographical area that defines the region is defined and described.   Chapter 3 – Project Screening: OPR acknowledges that certain projects are either low VMT  generators, or by virtue of their location would have a less than significant impact. The City will  use these screening criteria and may offer substantial evidence for other circumstances that  would lead to a less than significant impact.   Chapter 4 – Significance Thresholds for Land Development Projects: In this chapter, the  threshold that would define a significant CEQA impact is identified. This threshold is linked to a  specific travel mode and a set of trip purposes. The actual VMT metric (either an efficiency rate  or total VMT) is described.   Chapter 5 – Significant Thresholds for Transportation Projects: This chapter describes the  method to evaluate significant CEQA impacts associated with transportation projects. Many  non‐vehicular capital projects are presumed to have a less than significant impact. Capacity  enhancing projects may have significant impacts and will be subject to a detailed analysis that  will include measuring induced travel.   Chapter 6 – Significance Thresholds for Land Plans: This chapter provides guidance and  substantial evidence to support the City’s treatment of land use plans and their CEQA  transportation analysis.  Source: Southern California Association of Governments DRAFT36       4   Chapter 7 – Mitigation Strategies: Potential mitigation strategies are indicated in this chapter. It  is noted that this discussion is not intended as a full list of measures the City sanctions as  feasible. As in previous CEQA practice, it is generally the practitioner who identifies mitigation  measures to offset the specific project‐related impacts identified in individual environmental  document. The discussion here is intended as a reference and guide for possible strategy  applicants who may wish to investigate to offset their specific project‐related significant  impacts.     DRAFT37       5  2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT  The question of context is the definition of the scope of the VMT analysis. The common term for this  in previous delay‐based LOS analyses is project study area. In the delay‐based LOS analyses, a  project study area is generally determined based on the incremental increase in traffic from the  project and its potential to create a significant LOS impact. This generally includes intersections and  roadway segments where the project would add a prescribed number of peak‐hour trips. Many  times, lead agencies stop study area boundaries at their jurisdictional borders.  Unlike delay‐based LOS analyses, VMT is a regional effect not defined by roadway, intersection, or  pathway. The OPR acknowledges this in its TA (page 6), which states,   Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or  other boundaries….   Furthermore, the recommendations for thresholds for the primary land use types (residential and  office) are based on a comparison to a regional average. Region is not defined further in the TA.  Instead, the OPR offers the following suggestion:  In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most  workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller  geography, such as county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers  would be expected to live (page 16).  LSA surveyed other large or urbanized areas around the State to identify what region has been  established for VMT thresholds. In most cases, the county boundary has been identified as the  region selected for VMT analysis. Data from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM)  indicated that most of the trips to/from Newport Beach are contained within Orange County.  Because the majority of Newport Beach trips are contained within Orange County (approximately 61  percent) and many other large urbanized areas are defining their region as their counties, LSA  recommends the use of county as the definition of region. The other OPR guidance recommends  consistency in approach; once a region is established, that region should be used for all subsequent  traffic analyses.  It should be recognized the use of the county as the region defines the comparative, or the  denominator, in the identification of project‐related impact. The numerator is the project’s VMT  contribution. This project‐related VMT profile may go beyond the county boundary and not be  truncated by a jurisdictional boundary. For example, a new, large employment generating land  development proposed in Newport Beach may include VMT from as far away as Riverside County. In  that case, it would be the responsibility of the applicant and their traffic study preparer to include  the project VMT regardless of geographical limit to the satisfaction of the City staff. This project‐ related VMT profile would be compared against the Orange County regional average.    DRAFT38       6  This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT39       7  3.0 PROJECT SCREENING  The TA does acknowledge that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction in VMT and  GHG emissions and therefore a less‐than‐significant impact to transportation and circulation. A  variety of projects may be screened out of a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption  described in the TA regarding the occurrence of less‐than‐significant impacts.  3.1 Land Development Projects  The TA acknowledges that conditions may exist that would presume that a land development  project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐ making potential. For example, land development projects that have one or more of the following  attributes may be presumed to create a less than significant impact:   The project is within 0.5 mile (mi) of a Transit Priority Area or a High‐Quality Transit Area unless  the project is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, has a floor‐to‐area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75,  provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units.  In accordance with SB 743, “Transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile  of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be  completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. A  Major Transit Stop means: “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal  served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes  with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak  commute periods.” A High‐Quality Transit Area or Corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus  service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.  Figure 1 depicts transit priority areas within Newport Beach including high‐quality transit  corridors served by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with service intervals of 15  minutes or less and major transit stops. OCTA Route 47 and OCTA Route 55 qualify as high‐ quality transit service, and the Newport Transportation Center, which serves OCTA Routes 1, 55,  57, and 79, qualifies as a major transit stop.  While the areas depicted on Figure 1 are transit priority areas, not all projects proposed in these  areas would be presumed to have a less‐than‐significant transportation impact. Projects not  anticipated to take advantage of transit proximity such as projects with an FAR less than 0.75,  projects with an excessive amount of parking, projects inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, or  projects that reduce the number of affordable residential units would still be required to  prepare a VMT analysis, regardless of location.   The project is a residential or office development located in areas with low VMT and have  similar characteristics to the surrounding development (such as density or mix of uses).   Figure 2 presents a map of VMT per capita for all existing Newport Beach residential areas. This  data was obtained from NBTAM. VMT per capita in each area is compared to the regional  average VMT per capita for Orange County to identify VMT efficient areas for future residential  development. Figure 2 shows that Newport Beach has several areas (mostly located near  employment districts) where residential development generates lower VMT than the Orange  County regional average. DRAFT40       8  This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT41 Service Layer Credits: !( SantaAna NewportBeach Costa Mesa HuntingtonBeach Irvine SanMiguelDrJamboree RdSpy Glas s Hill R dBr o o k h u r s t S t VictoriaStNewportBl vdUniversityDrIrvine Ave19th St Ea stbluffDr Atlanta Ave22nd StRedHillAve Dover Dr NewportCoastDr MacarthurBlvd 15th St SanJoaquinHillsRdHa r b o r B l v d Bay s ideD rB alboaBlvdBaker St17th St W a r d S t C liffDrBonitaCanyonDrAdams AveHarvard A veMargueriteAveCam p u sDrTurtleRockDrF o rdRdHamilton AveP arkAvePlacentia A v e Santa Ana AveCul verDrSanti a go D r ÄÆ73 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ55 NewportTransportationCenterRoute :57Route:47§¨¦405 SOURCE: OCTA (11/2019); SCAG (6/2019) I:\CNB1702.02\GIS\MXD\City_NewportBeach.mxd (3/31/2020) FIGURE 1 CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance GuideNewport Beach Transit Priority Areas LEGEND !(Transportation Center High Quality Transit Areas OCTA Major Bus Routes 0 2000 4000 FEET DRAFT42       10  This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT43 I:\CNB1702.02\G\Parts\Arthur 4-3-20\Exist_VMT_Per_Pop.cdr (4/3/2020)FIGURE 2Existing VMT per PopulationCompared to Regional AverageCEQA Transportation Thresholdsof Significance GuideSOURCE Urban Crossroads:NO SCALENDRAFT44       12  This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT45       13  Figure 3 presents a map of VMT per employee throughout Newport Beach (including  employment occurring in primarily residential neighborhoods). Again, this data was obtained  from NBTAM and is compared to the regional average VMT per employee for Orange County to  identify VMT efficient areas for future office development. Figure 3 shows that employment  based VMT within Newport Beach tends to be higher than the Orange County regional average.  This is partially a function of the distance traveled by employees, which is not always under the  control of employers.   The project involves local‐serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet.   The project has a high level of affordable‐housing units.   A project generates a low volume of daily traffic. The TA would recommend a volume of 110  average daily trips (ADT). This recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction,  but was instead based on the potential trip generation of an office project that would be  categorically exempt under CEQA. LSA prepared a deeper analysis and used CalEEMod to  correlate the effect of changes in project‐related ADT to the resulting GHG emissions. This  model was selected because it is provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to be  used statewide for developing project‐level GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used with the built‐in  default trip lengths and types to show the vehicular GHG emissions from incremental amounts  of ADT. Table A shows the resulting annual VMT and GHG emissions from the incremental ADT.  Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod  Average Daily Trips (ADT) Annual Vehicle Miles  Traveled (VMT)  GHG Emissions (Metric Tons  CO2e per year)  200 683,430 258  300 1,021,812 386  400 1,386,416 514  500 1.703,020 643  600 2,043,623 771  Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Example project used: 50 single‐family Homes in Orange County.  CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model  CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent  GHG = Greenhouse Gas    DRAFT46       14  This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT47 I:\CNB1702.02\G\Parts\Arthur 4-3-20\Exist_VMT_Per_Employee.cdr (4/3/2020)FIGURE 3Existing VMT per EmployeeCompared to Regional AverageCEQA Transportation Thresholdsof Significance GuideSOURCE Urban Crossroads:NO SCALENDRAFT48       16  This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT49       17  A common GHG emissions threshold is 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent1  (CO2e) per year. The vehicle emissions are typically more than 50 percent of the total project  GHG emissions. Thus, a project with 500 ADT would generally have total project emissions that  could be less than 1,300 MT CO2e/year (i.e., 50 percent or 643 MT CO2e/year coming from  vehicle emissions and the other 50 percent coming from other project activities). As this level of  GHG emissions would be less than 3,000 MT CO2e/year, the emissions of GHG from a project up  to 500 ADT would typically be less than significant.   The City’s current regulatory precedent for the preparation of traffic impact studies (i.e., Traffic  Phasing Ordinance) establish screening criteria of 300 ADT. As stated above, projects generating  500 ADT or fewer are typically below the GHG emissions threshold. Therefore, the City could  establish screening criteria for small projects of up to 300 ADT. It is also recommended that the  City maintain a database of projects preparing VMT impact analyses and, at regular intervals,  identify the minimum ADT of projects resulting in significant VMT impacts. Once a sufficient  number of data points are available to provide substantial evidence, the City could adjust the  screening criteria in the future.    The development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community  health, safety and welfare are also screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These  facilities (e.g. police stations, fire stations, community centers, refuse stations) are already part  of the community and, as a public service, the VMT in accounted for in the existing regional  average. Many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other than  passenger‐cars or light duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside  of CEQA, such as CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.  3.2 Transportation Projects  The primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle  travel. While the City has discretion to continue to use delay analysis for CEQA disclosure of  transportation projects, changes in vehicle travel must also be quantified. However, the TA listed a  series of projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel  and that, therefore, would generally not require an induced travel analysis. These include the  following:   Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the  condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts;  Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection,  or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and  that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity   Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such median barriers and guardrails  1  Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a concept developed to provide one metric that includes the effects of  numerous GHGs. The global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG characterizes the ability of each GHG  to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG. The GWPs of all GHGs are combined to derive the  CO2e.  DRAFT50       18   Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only  by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not  be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes   Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than 1 mi in length designed to improve roadway safety   Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as  left‐, right‐, and U‐turn pockets, two‐way left‐turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that  are not utilized as through lanes   Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially  improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit   Conversion of existing general‐purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes,  or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel   Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles   Reduction in the number of through lanes   Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a  lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., high‐occupancy vehicles [HOVs], high‐ occupancy toll [HOT] lane traffic, or trucks) from general vehicles   Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal  Priority features   Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs,  and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow   Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow   Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles   Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices   Adoption of or increase in tolls   Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase   Initiation of a new transit service   Conversion of streets from one‐way to two‐way operation with no net increase in the number of  traffic lanes   Removal or relocation of off‐street or on‐street parking spaces   Adoption or modification of on‐street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time  limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs) DRAFT51       19   Addition of traffic wayfinding signage   Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity   Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within  existing public rights‐of‐way   Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi‐use paths, or other off‐road facilities that serve  nonmotorized travel   Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure  Additionally, transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and are, therefore,  presumed to cause a less than significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to  all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid‐transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian  infrastructure projects. The City may use this CEQA presumption of less than significant impact to  aid in the prioritization of capital projects, as the CEQA process for any of these project types would  be more streamlined than other capacity‐enhancing capital projects.   DRAFT52       20  This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT53       21  4.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS  The TA states that SB 743 and all CEQA VMT transportation analyses refer to automobiles. Here, the  term automobile refers to on‐road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light‐duty trucks (page.  4). Heavy‐duty trucks can be addressed in other CEQA sections and are subject to regulation in a  separate collection of rules under CARB jurisdiction. This approach was confirmed by Ellen  Greenberg, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Director for Sustainability, at  the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Association meeting (January 9, 2020).   The OPR has identified the subject of the thresholds as the primary trips in the home‐based  typology: specifically, home‐based work trips. This includes residential uses, office uses, and retail  uses. The home‐based work trip type is the primary tripmaking during the peak hours of commuter  traffic in the morning and evening periods.  The impact of transportation has shifted from congestion to climate change, and the purpose of the  CEQA analysis is to disclose and ultimately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and  length of automobile trips. This change in CEQA analysis does not diminish the City’s ability to  require a level of service analysis to confirm accessibility to a project site, conformance with the  Traffic Phasing Ordinance and General Plan policies, or as a function of their general health, safety  and welfare discretion and authority. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration  process and the GHG goal setting, most metropolitan planning organizations and regional  transportation planning agencies have agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and  transportation planning by approximately 15 percent by 2035. Furthermore, in its 2017 Scoping  Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, the CARB recommends  total VMT per capita rates approximately 15 percent below existing conditions.  The TA therefore recommends:   A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing  regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.   A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional  average VMT per employee).   VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net  increase in total VMT.  While regional planning documents such as the RTP/SCS calculate a single VMT rate by dividing total  VMT for the SCAG region by the total service population, it should be noted that the TA identifies a  different denominator for the residential and office comparison rates. If regional average VMT per  capita and VMT per employee were calculated using the service population (population plus  employment), the denominator would be the same, which would be inconsistent with the TA.  Furthermore, using service population to calculate regional average rates would complicate future  project analyses. The environmental document for a proposed land use project will identify  population for a residential project and employment for an office project. These values should be  used in the transportation analysis to calculate the project’s VMT per capita or VMT per employee. If DRAFT54       22  a project’s VMT per capita (VMT/project population) or VMT per employee (VMT/project  employment) is compared to a regional average based on service rate (VMT/[regional population +  employment]), the comparison is not equivalent.   To avoid this future complication in project‐level analysis, LSA calculated regional average rates  consistent with the descriptions in the TA. LSA separated the data categories of population‐ generated VMT and employment‐generated VMT, separated the data categories of population and  employment, and calculated two rates. According to the OCTA calculations using the Orange County  Transportation Analysis Model, the average VMT/capita in Orange County is 17.9. The average  VMT/employee in Orange County is 24.1.  No discrete land use types other than residential, office, or retail are identified for threshold  development in the TA. Mixed‐use projects should be evaluated for each component of the project  independently, or the lead agency may use the predominant land use type for the analysis. The City  will make this determination and potential credit for internal trip capture based on the land use  balance of each application. The TA suggests that lead agency may, but is not required to, develop  thresholds for any other use.  One approach is to review the City General Plan and/or city‐wide Long‐Range Transportation Plan  (LRTP) and identify whether the implementation of the plan would result in a reduction of VMT and  GHGs. If it does, the City may conclude the implementation of the plan, including all the other land  use types to achieve the regional climate change goals. Therefore, consistency with the plan and no  net change in VMT for the other land use types is a rational threshold. This approach would require  disclosure of substantial evidence, including the General Plan or LRTP findings, and other supporting  traffic and air quality forecasting support.  In summary, the City’s thresholds would be:   Residential – 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita (17.9 X 0.85 = 15.2)   Office – 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee (24.1 X 0.85 = 20.5)   Retail – No net change in total VMT   Other Land Uses – No net change in total VMT if consistent with the General Plan   Figure 4 demonstrates the potential land development entitlement process to comply with the State  CEQA Guidelines related to VMT and transportation impacts. It provides the path from application  filing through determination of impacts. It is presented as the standard process; each development  application is considered unique and may create alternative or modified steps through the process.  Each step that diverges from this standard process should be accompanied with substantial  evidence demonstrating compliance with other climate change and GHG emission reduction laws  and regulations.   DRAFT55 PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT VMT IDENTIFICATION OF VMT THRESHOLD MODELING AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT Less Than Significant Impact. Analysis Complete MITIGATION MEASURES (Existing and Cumulative) Presumed Insignificant Analysis Complete - Transit Priority Area - High Quality Transit Corridor - Local-serving Retail <50TSF - Low Trip Generator <500ADT - Efficiency Rate - Total VMT Proposed Land Development Project Application Received YESNO TOTAL VMT NET INCREASE IN TOTAL VMT VMT PER EMPLOYEE 85% OF EXISTING REGIONAL VMT VMT PER CAPITA 85% OF EXISTING REGIONAL OR CITYWIDE VMT If Consistent with General Plan RetailOfficeResidential LESS THAN OR GREATER THAN THRESHOLD? A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of less than significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. PROJECT SPECIFIC AREAWIDE REGIONAL FEE Analysis CompleteAdditional Analysis or Significant Unmitigatable Impact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - CAPCOA Green Bank - CARB VMT Reduction - Substantial Evidence Do Measures Fully Mitigate Impact and Create No Additional Impact? YESNO Less ThanGreater Than Other TOTAL VMT NET INCREASE IN TOTAL VMT Requires New Nexus Study - Transit District - JPA - MPO I:\CNB1702.02\G\VMT Process\VMT Process_v7.cdr (3/26/2020) FIGURE 4 Transportation Impacts Flow Chart for Land Development Projects CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance GuideDRAFT 56       24  This page intentionally left blank       DRAFT57       25  4.1 Agency Communication  At the outset of the project development process, the applicant should seek a meeting with City  staff to discuss the project description, the transportation study content, and the analysis  methodology. Key elements to address include a description of the project in sufficient detail to  generate trips and identify the potential catchment area (i.e., trip lengths if no modeling is being  undertaken), estimate project VMT, discuss project design features that may reduce the VMT from  the project development, and discuss the project location and associated existing regional VMT  percentages. As a result of the meeting, the applicant or their consultant shall prepare a  transportation analysis scope of work for review and approval by the City. The City will complete the  review within 2 weeks of submittal of the draft scope of work.  4.2 Project Screening  Once a development application is filed and the meeting is held, project screening is conducted as  the initial step. If the project meets any one of the screening criteria, the project may be presumed  to create a less than significant impact. No further analysis is necessary. The CEQA document should  enumerate the screening criterion and how the project meets or exceeds that threshold. If project  screening does not apply, a VMT analysis may be required. The extent of this analysis may be a  simple algebraic demonstration or a more sophisticated traffic modeling exercise. This distinction is  addressed later.   4.3 Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis  The first step is to identify the project land use type and the appropriate efficiency rate to use. If the  project is residential, use the per capita (or residential population) efficiency rate. If the project is  commercial office (or a similar trip generator), use the per employee efficiency rate. For retail  projects, use the total VMT generated by the project. For mixed‐use projects, report each land use  after generating trips, taking credit for internal trip capture and estimating the VMT. As an  alternative, the predominant use may be reported for mixed‐use projects. For all other uses, use the  service population as the efficiency rate.  4.3.1 Small Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis  For smaller projects or those with one predominant use, the determination of project VMT may be  identified manually as the product of the daily trip generation (land use density/intensity multiplied  by agency‐approved trip generation rate) and the trip length in miles for that specific land use. Trip  lengths can be found in other related air quality tools, such as CalEEMod, or may be derived from  NBTAM.   4.3.2 Large Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis  For large or multiuse projects, use of the NBTAM traffic forecasting tool should be required. For  purposes of City review, a project generating 1,000 ADT or more should use the AGENCY traffic  forecasting tool. At this level of trip generating, the probability of trip fulfilment expands to an area  greater than the immediate project location and may include a greater regional attraction. The  NBTAM traffic forecasting tool can more accurately define the select links used and the total VMT  generated by the project. DRAFT58       26  Next, the project generated efficiency rate (or total VMT) is compared to the appropriate  significance threshold. This is either 85 percent of the existing regional average per capita or  employment for specific uses, or no net increase in total VMT for retail or other uses that are  consistent with the General Plan. For those projects that require a General Plan Amendment, 85  percent of existing regional average is appropriate as the project has yet to be evaluated as part of  the City’s ultimate land development vision.  If the project VMT (expressed as an efficiency rate or total number) is less than the significance  threshold, the project is presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further analysis is  required. If the project is greater than the significance threshold, mitigation measures are required.   4.3.3 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis  The City adopted a Traffic Phasing Ordinance to ensure the coordination of land use planning and  transportation planning. In particular, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance states that the capacity of the  roadway system should not be extended beyond levels proposed in the circulation element roadway  in order to accommodate a proposed project. This goal of limiting roadway widening to the system’s  planned capacity aligns with elements of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation  Impacts in CEQA. As such, all land use projects generating 300 or more daily trips will continue to be  required to prepare an analysis of transportation impacts consistent with Chapter 15.40 of the  Newport Beach Municipal Code.  4.4 Mitigation Measures  The applicant is required, per CEQA, to identify feasible offsets to completely mitigate the impact  created by the project. These can come from the mitigation strategies provided by the City  (Appendices A and B), or selected based on the applicant and their CEQA team experience. The City  must approve and accept the ultimate mitigation ascribed to the project and the related VMT  percent reduction.  If the mitigation measures fully mitigate the project impact, the project is presumed to have an  impact mitigated to a less than significant level. No further analysis is required. If the project’s VMT  impact cannot be fully mitigated, the City may (1) request the project be redesigned, relocated or  realigned to reduce the VMT impact, or (2) prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)  for the transportation impacts associated with the project. All feasible mitigation measures must be  assigned to and carried out by the project even if a SOC is prepared.     DRAFT59       27  5.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS  The 2020 CEQA Guidelines include Section 15064.3.b.(2) to address transportation projects. It reads:  For roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the  appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other  applicable requirements.   The City may continue to use delay and LOS for transportation projects as long as impacts related to  “other applicable requirements” are disclosed. This has generally been interpreted as VMT impacts  and other State climate change objectives. These other applicable requirements may be found in  other parts of an environmental document (i.e., air quality, GHG), or may be provided in greater  detail in the transportation section.  For projects on the State highway system, Caltrans will use and will require sponsoring agencies to  use VMT as the CEQA metric, and Caltrans will evaluate the VMT “attributable to the project”  (Caltrans Draft VMT‐Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide 2020). Caltrans’ Intergovernmental  Review will review environmental documents for capacity‐enhancing projects for the agency’s  analysis of VMT change.  The assessment of a transportation project’s VMT should disclose the VMT without the project and  the difference in VMT with the project. Any growth in VMT attributable to the transportation project  would result in a significant impact.   The primary difference in these two scenarios to OPR is related to induced growth. Current traffic  models have limited abilities to forecast induced growth, as their land use or socioeconomic  databases are fixed to a horizon date. OPR refers to a limited set of reports that would indicate  elasticities.   The most recent major study (Duranton & Turner 2011, p. 24), estimates an elasticity of 1.0,  meaning that every 1 percent change in lane miles results in a 1 percent increase in VMT.  The TA presents one method to identify the induced growth, as follows.  To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:  1. Determine the total lane‐miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior  changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects  affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).  2. Determine the percentage change in total lane miles that will result from the  project.  3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.  4. Multiply the percentage increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then  multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature: DRAFT60       28  [% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] =   [VMT resulting from the project]  It should be pointed out that OPR assigns this induced growth to induced land use. That is, land use  not included in any approved general or area plan and not accounted for in any traffic forecasting  tool. Caltrans has identified a computerized tool that estimates VMT generation from transportation  projects. It was developed at University of California, Davis and is based on elasticities and the  relationship of lane mile additions and growth in VMT. It uses Federal Highway Administration  definitions of facility type and ascribes VMT increases to each facility. Output includes increases on  million vehicle miles per year. Caltrans is investigating its use for all its VMT analyses of capital  projects. It may be available for use by local agencies and should be investigated for its value in  Newport Beach.  The TA provides other options to identify induced growth‐ and project‐related VMT. These include:  1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use  development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could  then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel.  Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using  elasticities found in the academic literature.   2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand  model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes  resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward  to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment  should fall within the range found in the academic literature.  3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A  land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway  capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change  can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and  travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.  The TA provides a final warning:  Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any  limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial  errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the  components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and  characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the  analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into  analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air  quality, energy, and noise. DRAFT61       29  6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND PLANS  The OPR guidance has provided guidance on the treatment of CEQA traffic analyses for land use  plans in the TA. The TA reiterates previous direction regarding individual land use assessments:   Analyze the VMT outcomes over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel  patterns (the definition of region).   VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origins and destinations (the full impact  of the project VMT).  The TA provides a single sentence as consideration for land use plans. It states, “A general plan, area  plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new  residential, office or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds  recommended above.” This recommendation refers to 85 percent of the existing city or regional  average, and no net gain for residential, office, and retail land uses.   This recommendation is confusing and contradictory to other OPR TA recommendations. OPR is  recommending a focus on specific trip purposes (i.e., home‐based trips for residential projects and  work‐based trips for office projects). Depending on the modeling platform, at least four other trip  types are recognized as contributors to large‐scale plan‐level analyses. Home‐based origins will have  interactions with other non‐work‐based destinations. Therefore, if home‐based trips are the focus of  a plan‐level assessment, a great deal of VMT would not be accounted for in the estimation of total  VMT.  To assess a land plan, use of a traffic‐forecasting tool is recommended. The total VMT for the plan  should be identified for all trip types and all potential VMT contributors within the plan area. Similar  traffic model runs should be conducted for the existing base year and the horizon year with No  Project.  The SB 375 process and the Regional Targets Advisory Committee GHG goal setting has established a  baseline GHG emissions reduction that local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and  Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) can achieve. These achievements are provided in  the integration of land use planning and transportation, not solely through the imposition of  regulation on passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. The CARB reviews the GHG reduction strategies  and has approved the most recent round of GHG emission reductions for MPOs and RTPAs around  the State.  Other legislative mandates and State policies speak to GHG reduction targets. A sample of these  include:   Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and  continued reductions beyond 2020.   SB 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by  2030. DRAFT62       30   Executive Order (EO) B‐30‐15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below  1990 levels by 2030.   EO S‐3‐05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by  2050.   EO B‐16‐12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels  by 2050 specifically for transportation.  PRC Section 15064.3(b)(4) states (in part) the following:  A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to  evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change  in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.  Therefore, the recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land plans is to  compare the existing VMT per service population for the land plan area with the expected horizon  year VMT per service population. The recommended target is to achieve a lower VMT per service  population in the horizon year with the proposed land plan than occurs for the existing condition.   DRAFT63       31  7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES  When the City identifies a significant CEQA impact according to the thresholds described above, the  City must identify feasible mitigation measures in order to avoid or substantially reduce that impact.  Although previous vehicle level of service impacts could be mitigated with location‐specific vehicle  level of service improvements, VMT impacts will require mitigation of regional impacts through  more behavioral changes. Enforcement of mitigation measures will be still be subject to the  mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the City. These  measures can also be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project designs.  7.1 Definition of Mitigation  Section 15370 of the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines defines mitigations as follows:  “Mitigation” includes:  a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an  action.   b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its  implementation.   c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted  environment.   d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance  operations during the life of the action.   e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or  environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the  form of conservation easements.  Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the public agency shall adopt a program for  monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has  imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.”  VMT mitigations are not physical improvements; rather, they are complex in nature and will  significantly depend on changes in human behavior. Therefore, it will be important that lead  agencies develop a proper monitoring program to ensure the implementation of these mitigation  measures, throughout the life of a project, in compliance with CEQA. Lead agencies must also  coordinate with other responsible agencies as part of this monitoring program to determine the  feasibility of the mitigations and whether they would last in perpetuity.   Historically, mitigation measures for LOS based transportation impacts have addressed either trip  generation reductions or traffic‐flow‐capacity enhancements. LOS mitigation measures include  adding capacity to intersections, roadways, ramps, and freeways. However, transportation demand DRAFT64       32  management (TDM) actions, active transportation amenities, and other measures to reduce the  number of trips creating an impact are also possible mitigation strategies.   LOS based mitigations are mostly physical improvements whose benefits are observable,  measurable, and virtually perpetual. The addition of a turn lane at an intersection will behave  similarly regardless of location and will continue to perform as intended until the lane is removed or  modified. A lane mile of roadway will carry a similar volume of traffic if designed consistently across  most jurisdictions in California, and it will continue to do so as long as the lane exists.  The definition of VMT mitigation measures is somewhat different. Most VMT mitigations may seem  feasible from a theoretical perspective, but practical implementation of these strategies as formal  CEQA mitigation measures in perpetuity is yet to be tested. Several of these mitigations are  contextual and behavioral in nature. Their success will depend on the size and location of the  project as well as expected changes in human behavior. For example, a project providing a bike  share program does not necessarily guarantee a behavioral change within the project’s population;  the level of improvement may be uncertain and subject to the whim of the population affected.   LOS mitigations (such as addition of turn lanes) focus more on rectifying a physical CEQA impact  (strategy “c” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). On the contrary, the majority of VMT  mitigations (such as commute trip‐reduction programs) will aim at reducing or eliminating an impact  over time through preservation and monitoring over the life of the project (strategy “d” of State  CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Additionally, some VMT mitigations (such as those focused on land  use/location‐based policies) will aim at minimizing impacts by reducing the number of trips  generated by the projects (strategy “b” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370).  Furthermore, it may be that identified VMT impacts cannot be mitigated at the project‐specific level.  Most VMT impacts are in the context of the region of analysis. The incremental change in VMT  associated with a project in the particular setting in which it may be located would suggest a greater  VMT deficit than individual strategies can offset. Only a regional solution (e.g., completion of a  transit system, purchase of more transit buses, or gap closure of an entire bicycle master plan  system) may offer the incremental change necessary to reduce the VMT impact to a level of  insignificance. Also, VMT, as a proxy for GHG emissions, may not require locational specificity. A  project does not necessarily need to diminish the VMT at the project site to gain benefit in VMT and  GHG reduction in the State. Offsets in an area where the benefit would be greater will have a more  effective reduction in VMT and GHG and contribute to the State’s ultimate climate goals. This is the  basis for the cap‐and‐trade strategies.  These issues of regional scale, partial participation, and geographic ambiguity confound the  certainty of agency identification of VMT mitigation measures. Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA  Guidelines states, “Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be  discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of  mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time [emphasis added].” Certainty  does not yet exist that partial participation in VMT mitigation measures is permissible. Regional VMT  mitigation is considered the most effective method for large‐scale VMT reduction, yet the cost and  implementation barriers are greater in most cases than one project can undertake. The only DRAFT65       33  exception may be where VMT mitigation strategies are provided at a regional level in the form of  mitigation banks, fees, and exchanges and the projects are subject to contribute to these fee  programs consistent with applicable provision to ensure compliance and consistency with CEQA and  other legal requirements.  Section 21099 (b) (4) of the PRC states, “This subdivision [requiring a new transportation metric  under CEQA] does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes,  conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power  or any other authority.” Hence, despite the fact that automobile delay will no longer be considered  a significant impact under CEQA, the lead agency can still require projects to meet the LOS standards  designated in its zoning code or general plan. Therefore, in that case, the project might still be  required to propose LOS improvements for congestion relief in addition to VMT strategies as CEQA  mitigation measures.  7.2 Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives  7.2.1 Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans  Mitigations and project alternatives for VMT impacts have been suggested by the OPR and are  included in the TA. VMT mitigations can be extremely diverse and can be classified under several  categories such as land use/location, road pricing, transit improvements, commute trip reduction  strategies, and parking pricing/policy. However, the issue with VMT mitigations is the quantitative  measurement of the relief provided by the strategies. How much VMT reduction does a TDM  program, a bike share program, a transit route, or 1 mile of sidewalk provide? Improvements related  to VMT reduction strategies have been quantified in sources such as the California Air Pollution  Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures  (CAPCOA Green Book) and CARB sources, and are generally presented in wide ranges of potential  VMT reduction percentages.   Appendix A provides a summary of the different VMT mitigation measures and project alternatives  stated in the CAPCOA Green Book (only those strategies directly attributed to transportation) and  the OPR TA for land development projects. The table also refers to mitigation measures listed in  other sources such as the VMT Measurement Calculator for the City of Los Angeles, the  transportation analysis guidelines for the City of San Jose and the San Diego Region, and the  memorandum Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743, prepared for the Los  Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.   Appendix B provides a list of mitigations for land development projects based on the research work  performed by Deborah Salon, Marlon G. Boarnet, Susan Handy, Steven Spears, and Gil Tal with the  support of CARB. Unless the project applicant provides substantial evidence identifying a project‐ specific value, the City should apply the midpoint of provided ranges for VMT reduction. Where a  mitigation strategy does not have an identified VMT reduction range, the project applicant would be  required to provide a reduction estimate supported by evidence.  As for land use plans, the potential mitigation measures for community/general plans would be  similar to those for land development projects, with certain modifications. The OPR TA does not DRAFT66       34  specifically state any VMT mitigations for land use plans. However, the transportation impact study  guidelines for the San Diego Region list potential mitigation measures. These measures have been  summarized in Appendix C along with corresponding VMT reduction percentages obtained from  CAPCOA.   It must be noted that Appendices A–C provide only summaries of the mitigations stated in the  sources mentioned above. The reader should refer to the original source for further details and for  subsequent updates to the mitigation measures. Also, Appendices A–C do not provide an exhaustive  list of mitigation measures to offset the CEQA impacts. Other measures can also be accepted by  agencies based on provision of substantial evidence.  As additional mitigation measures are developed to offset VMT impacts in the future for the State  CEQA Guidelines process, linkages between the strategy and the incremental effect and quantified  offset must be made. This can be based on other sources’ observations and measurements or City  experience in these practices. The key to mitigation is to base its efficacy on real and substantial  evidence.  7.2.2 Transportation Projects  Although OPR provides detailed guidance on how to assess induced‐growth impacts associated with  transportation projects, it leaves the subject of mitigation measures vague. Only four strategies are  suggested as mitigation measures:   Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements    Converting existing general‐purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes   Implementing or funding off‐site travel demand management    Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems strategies to improve passenger throughput  on existing lanes   No quantified reduction percentage is allocated to these strategies, and LSA could find no  substantial evidence that would provide guidance to levels of significance after implementation of  these strategies. Review of the four recommended strategies suggests that OPR is directing  strategies away from general‐purpose mixed‐flow lanes on expressways, freeways, and arterial  highways. Inasmuch as these are the project descriptions and Purpose and Need, the project intent  and the project mitigation may be at odds. The lead agency would be subject to an SOC for the  capital project VMT impact.  7.3 Funding Mechanisms  The change in the metric for transportation impacts from LOS to VMT will lead to a shift in impacts  and mitigation measures from being local and project‐specific to being more regional in nature. OPR  acknowledges the regional nature of VMT impacts and states that regional VMT reduction programs  and fee programs (in‐lieu fees and development impact fees) may be appropriate forms of  mitigation. Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. It is very important DRAFT67       35  for the agencies to coordinate with the RTPA or the MPO to develop such mitigation programs that  would fund transit, develop active transportation plans, etc. These programs are regional in nature  and best suited for administration by the regional agency. Regional agencies may also wish to  coordinate with appropriate stakeholders, including participating local jurisdictions, developers, and  other interests while conducting nexus studies and checking for rough proportionality and  compliance with CEQA.   Most of the VMT mitigations included in Appendix A are applicable in urban areas. They are less  effective in suburban and rural contexts, where TDM strategies may become diluted or are not  applicable. Thus, site‐specific strategies are more suitable in urban areas, whereas program‐level  strategies are more suitable for projects in suburban/rural areas. In the latter approach, cumulative  contributions for development mitigations can pay for VMT reduction strategies that would not be  feasible for the individual projects to implement themselves. Apart from fee programs, program‐ based mitigation approaches may include mitigation exchanges and mitigation banks. The mitigation  exchange concept requires a developer to implement a predetermined project that would reduce  VMT in order to propose a new one. On the other hand, the concept of mitigation banks seeks to  establish monetary values for VMT reductions so that developers can purchase VMT reduction  credits.   As previously stated, VMT impacts are more regional in nature. Hence, there might be requirements  for mitigations outside the control of the lead agency, and without consent from the agency  controlling the mitigations, the impacts might remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally,  identification of regional improvements where projects can contribute their fair share to mitigate  impacts might prove to be difficult. Therefore, LSA recommends local agencies working  collaboratively within their regions to ultimately establish fee programs, mitigation banks, and  exchanges as the most efficient way to establish a regional mitigation pathway where the projects  can contribute. Procedural flow charts for VMT banks, exchanges, and impact fees are illustrated at  the end of this chapter.      DRAFT68       36     Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank  Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank DRAFT69       37    Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange DRAFT70       38      Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee DRAFT71         APPENDIX A    CARB AND LOCAL JURISDICTION VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED  MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS   DRAFT72         This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT73 # Mitigation MeasureVMT Reduction1CAPCOA2OPR TA3Los Angeles Metro4City of San Jose5City of Los Angeles6San Diego Region7Notes1 Improve or increase access to transitCAPCOA TST‐2: Not quantified alone, grouped strategy with TST‐3 'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increase transit service frequency/speed'; CAPCOA LUT‐5: 0.50% ‐ 24.60% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TST‐2: Implement Transit Access Improvements (applicable in urban and suburban context, and appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); CAPCOA LUT‐5: Increase Transit Accessibility [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with good connectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]2 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycareSimilar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐ 30.00% VMT reduction and CAPCOA LUT‐4 (Increase Destination Accessibility): 6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT reductionYYYYNYNotes: Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ‐ Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context (unless the project is a master‐planned community; appropriate for mixed‐use projects) and CAPCOA LUT‐4 (Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Access to Neighborhood Schools: Applicable for residential uses only]; City of San Jose [Very similar to measure 'Increase diversity of uses' ‐ Appliable for residential and employment uses]3 Incorporate affordable housing into the project0.04% ‐ 1.20% YYYYNYNotes: Similar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐6 [Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing] ‐ [Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible impact in a rural context unless transit availability and proximity to jobs/services are existing characteristics; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Integrate affordable and market rate housing] ‐ Measure is applicable for residential uses only4 Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network0.50% ‐ 12.70% YYYNNYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐3 [Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) would result in a mode shift and therefore reduce the traditional vehicle VMT and GHG emissions. Range depends on the available NEV network and support facilities, NEV ownership leveles, and the degree of shift from traditional; measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context, for small citywide or large multi‐use developments, and appropriate for mixed‐use projects]5 Orient project towards transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities1) 0.25% ‐ 0.5% (0.25% reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards a planned corridor and 0.5% reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards an existing corridor) (as per the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions), 2) 0.5% reduction in VMT per 1% increase in transit frequency and per 10% increase in transit ridership (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook)YYYNNYNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐7 [Orient project toward non‐auto corridor]; Grouped strategy with LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ; there is no sufficient evidence that the measures results in non‐negotiable trip reduction unless combined with other measures, including neighborhood design, density and diversity of development, transit accessibility and pedestrian and bicyle network improvements; the measute is applicable for urban or suburban context (may be applicable in a master‐planned rural community) and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed use projects6 Provide pedestrian network improvements0.00% ‐ 2.00% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐1 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network improvements on site and connections to the larger off‐site network]. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Provide pedestrian network improvements for active transportation: applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Included (within project and connecting off‐site/within project only)]P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT74 7 Incorporate bike lane street design (on‐site)1% increase in share of workers commuting bybicycle (for each additional mile of bike lanesper square mile) (Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them – Another Look by Dill and Carr (2003)); 258% ‐ 830% increase in bicycle community (Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategiesfor Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Cambridge Systematics); 0.075% increase in bicycle commuting with each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents (If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross‐Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities by Nelson and Allen (1997))YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐5 [Grouped strategy, benfits of Bike Lane Street Design are small and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and enhance multi‐modal environments], the measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Expand the reach of bike access with investment in infrastructure: applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Provide bicycle facility along site (Yes/No)] 8 Expand transit network0.10% – 8.20% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TST‐3; Measure applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]9 Increase transit service frequency/speed0.02% – 2.50% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TST‐4, applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Subsidize public transit service upgrades']; City of LA [Reduction in headways (increase in frequency) (%)]10 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System0.02% – 3.20% YYYNNYNotes: CAPCOA TST‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context; appropriate for specific or general plans). This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.'11 Required project contributions to transportation infrastructure improvement projectsNot Quantified: Grouped strategy (with RPT‐2 and TST‐1 through 7)YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA RPT‐3 (Applicable in urban, suburban and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); measure similar to some of the measures discussed above. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.'12 Increase destination accessibility6.70% – 20.00%YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐4 [Destination accessibility measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be the highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones; the location of the project also increases the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT; applicable for urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in a rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects].  This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit availability to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]13 Provide traffic calming measures0.25% – 1.00% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐2 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Streets with traffic calming improvements (%), intersections with traffic calming improvements (%)]14 Provide bike parking in non‐residential projects0.625% (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook) and 258% ‐ 830% increase in bicycle community (Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Cambridge Systematics)YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐6 [Bike Parking in Non‐Residential projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities]; the measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT75 15 Provide bike parking with multi‐unit residential projectsNot QuantifiedYYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐7 [Grouped Strategy; the benefits of Bike Parking with Multi‐Unit Residential Projects have no quantified impacts and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, or rural contexts. It is appropriate for residential projects.]; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]16 Limit or eliminate parking supply5.00% ‐ 12.50%YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA PDT‐1 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits and on‐street market parking); follow multi‐faceted strategy including 1) elimination/reduction of minimum parking requirements, 2) creation of maximum parking requirements, and 3) provision of shared parking; City of San Jose [Decrease project parking supply at the project site to rates lower than the standard parking minimums where allowable in the San Jose Municipal Code (applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [City code parking provision (spaces), actual parking provision (spaces)]17 Unbundle parking costs from property costs2.60% ‐ 13.00%YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA PDT‐2 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed‐use projects; complimentary strategies include workplace parking pricing); City of San Jose [Unbundle On‐Site Parking Costs: Application for Residential Uses Only]; City of LA [Monthly cost for parking ($)]18 Provide parking cash‐out programs0.60% – 7.70% commute VMT YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐15 [Implement employee parking "cash‐out"; the term “cashout” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. The measure is applicable in urban and suburban context; it is not applicable in rural context; it is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. Restrictions are applied only if complementary strategies are in place: a) Residential parking permits and market rate public on‐street parking to prevent spill over parking; b) Unbundled parking ‐ is not required but provides a market signal to employers to forgo paying for parking spaces and “cash‐out” the employee instead. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing “cash‐out” prices; City of San Jose [Parking cash‐out: Employment uses only]; City of LA [Parking cash‐out: Employees eligible (%)] 19 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program ‐ Voluntary1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐1: Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi‐strategy program that encompasses a  ombination of individual measures described CAPCOA measures TRT‐3 through TRT‐9. It is presented as a means of preventing double‐counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a  maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: A) Monitoring and reporting is not requiredB) No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements). The measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts, negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings. The measure is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]20Implement or provide access to Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required implementation/monitoring4.2% – 21.0% commute VMT YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐2 (Commute Trip Reduction Program is a multi‐strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures from TRT‐3 through TRT‐9. It is presented as a means of preventing double‐counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reduction that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a program that is contractually required of the development sponsors and managers and accompanied by a regular performance monitoring and reporting program. Check examples of Tuscon, Arizona and South San Fransisco, CA from CAPCOA. The measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts; it is negligible in rural context, unless large employes exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings; jurisdiction level only); City of San Jose [Employment uses only]; City of LA [Employees participating (%)]P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT76 21 Provide ride‐sharing program1.00% – 15.00% commute VMT YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐3 [Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs: applicable in urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Ride share for employment uses only]; City of LA [Measured in terms of employees eligible (%)]22 Implement car‐sharing program0.40% – 0.70% YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐9 [urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, and appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Car share project setting (urban, suburban, all other)] 23 Implement bike‐sharing programTaking evidence from the literature, a 135‐300% increase in bicycling (of which roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact (around 0.03% VMT reduction)YYNYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐12 [This measure has minimal impacts when implemented alone. The strategy's effectiveness is heavily dependent on the location and context. Bike‐sharing programs have worked well in densely populated areas (examples in Barcelona, London, Lyon, and Paris) with existing infrastructure for bicycling. Bike sharing programs should be combined with Bike Lane Street Design (SDT‐5) and Improve Design of Development (LUT‐9). The measure is applicable in urban and suburban‐center context only; it is negligible in a rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Bike share for employment and residential uses]; City of LA [bike share ‐ within 600 feet of existing bike share station ‐ OR ‐implementing new bike share station (Y/N)]24 Provide transit passesSimilar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; for TRT‐4, commute VMT reduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00%YYYYYYNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Employees and residents eligible (%), amount of transit subsidy per daily passenger (daily equivalent) ($)]25Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, forexample providing ride‐matching or shuttle services0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle); 7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐10: Implement a School Pool Program)YYYYYYNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide employer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Similar measure is CAPCOA TRT‐10 (Implement a School Pool Program: Applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context and appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high); Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree of implementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium, large)]26 Implement a school pool program7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT reductionYYNYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐10 [This project will create a ridesharing program for school children. Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. SchoolPool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context and is appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects.]; City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]. This measure can be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services.'; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high)27 Operate free direct shuttle serviceCAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles): Not Quantified; 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle)YYNYYYNotes: CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles ‐ grouped strategy with TST‐5 'Provide Bike Parking Near Transit' and TST‐4 'Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed') ‐ Applicable in urban/suburban context; appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects; solves the "first mile/last mile" problem; CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide employer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This measure can be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services.'; City of San Jose [Employment uses only]; City of LA [Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree of implementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium, large)]28 Provide teleworking options0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute VMTYYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐6 [Applicable in urban, rural, and suburban contexts; appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Alternative work schedules and telecommute (employment land uses only)]; City of LA [Alternative work schedules and telecommute (employees participating (%), type of program)]29 Subsidize public transit service upgradesNot QuantifiedYYNYN YNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TST‐2 through TST‐4; City of San Jose [Subsidize transit service through contributions to the transit provider to improve transit service to the project (e.g. frequency and number of routes); applicable for both residential and employment uses]. The measure is included under the Techical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT77 30 Implement subsidized or discounted transit program0.30% – 20.00% commute VMT YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement subsidized or discounted transit program (the measure is applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in a rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); The project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. The measure is included under the Techical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Transit subsidies measured by employees and residents eligible (%), and amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent) ($)]31 Subsidize vanpool 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMTYYNYN YNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects). The measure is included under the Techical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]32Providing on‐site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms22% increase in bicycle mode share (UK National Travel Survey)/2%‐5% reduction in commute vehicle trips (Transportation Demand Management Encyclopedia)/0.625% reduction in VMT (Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Emission Guidebook)YYYYYYNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐5 [Provide End of Trip Facilities]: End‐of‐trip facilities have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends heavily on the suite of other transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and demand management measures offered. End‐of trip facilities should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary through TRT‐2: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs); City of San Jose [Similar measures include 'Provide bike parking/end of trip bike facilities', 'Implement car sharing programs']; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]33 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not QuantifiedYYYN N Y Included as part of CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary)34 Provide a guarenteed ride home service to users of non‐auto modesNot QuantifiedN YYN N Y35 Locate project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT10.00% ‐ 65.00%YYYN N YNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐2 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible in rural contexts; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects)36 Locate project near transit0.50% ‐ 24.60%YYYN N YNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐5 [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with good connectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects] 37 Increase project/development density1.50% ‐ 30.00%YYYYN YNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts only; negligible in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]38 Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project's surroundings9.00% ‐ 30.00%YYYYN YNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐3: Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) [Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, and appropriate for mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]39 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project siteSimilar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐9 [Improve Design of Development]: 3.0% ‐ 21.3% reduction in VMTYYYYNYNotes: Similar measure to CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development); City of San Jose [Build new street connections and/or connect cul‐de‐sacs to provide pedestrian and bicycle access: applicable for both residential and employment uses]40Deploy management strategies (e.g., pricing, vehicle occupancy requirements) on roadways or roadway lanes.CAPCOA RPT‐1: 7.90% ‐ 22.00%YYYN NNNotes: Similar CAPCOA measure is RPT‐1 (Road Pricing/Management: Implement Area or Cordon Pricing)41 Price workplace parking0.10% ‐ 19.70% commute VMTYNNYYNNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐14 [Urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in a rural context; Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place:o Residential parking permits and market rate public on‐street parking ‐ to prevent spill‐over parkingo Unbundled parking ‐ is not required but provides a market signal to employers to transfer over the, now explicit, cost of parking to the employees. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing workplace parking prices; City of San Jose [Price On‐Site Workplace Parking (for employment uses only)]; City of LA [Daily parking charge ($), Employees subject to priced parking (%)]P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT78 42 Require residential area (on‐street) parking permits0.09% ‐ 0.36%Y N N NY NNotes: CAPCOA PDT‐4 (applicable for urban context and appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); the project will require the purchase of residential parking permits (RPPs) for long‐term use of on‐street parking in residential areas; permits reduce the impact of spillover parking in residential areas adjacent to commercial areas, transit stations, or other locations where parking may be limited and/or priced; Grouped strategy (with measures PDT‐1 'Limit parking supply', PDT‐2 'Unbundle parking costs from property cost' and PDT‐3 'Implement market price public parking (on‐street)'); City of LA [Cost of annual permit ($)]43 Locate project near bike path/bike lane0.625%Y NYN N NNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐8 (Grouped strategy with 'Increase Destination Accessibility'; the measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use; strategy should be grouped with 'Increase Destination Accessibility' strategy to increase the opportunities for multi‐modal travel; measure is applicable in urban or suburban context, may be applicable in a rural master planned community; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects44 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMTY NYYN NNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐7 (applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Employment uses only]45 Education and encouragement ‐ Voluntary travel behavior change program 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT YNNYYNNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary); City of San Jose [For both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]46 Education and encouragement ‐ Promotions and marketing0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMTYNNYYNNotes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐7 [Implement Commute Reduction Marketing]; City of San Jose [Similar measure might be 'Implement commute trip reduction marketing/educational campaign' (applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]47 Implement neighborhood shuttleNot QuantifiedY N NYY NNotes: CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles ‐ grouped strategy with TST‐5 'Provide Bike Parking Near Transit' and TST‐4 'Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed') ‐ Applicable in urban/suburban context; appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects; solves the "first mile/last mile" problem; City of San Jose [Similar measure: 'Operate a free direct shuttle service' (applicable for employment uses only)]; City of LA [Degree of Implementation (low/medium/high), employees and residents eligible (%)]48 Trip capNot QuantifiedN N NYN N Notes: City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]49 Implement market price public parking (On‐street)2.80% – 5.50% YNYNNNCAPCOA PDT‐3 (applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context; appropriate for retail, office, and mixed‐use projects; applicable in a specific or general plan context only, reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits); studies conducted in downtown areas, and thus should be applied carefully if project is not in a central business/activity center50 Implement area or cordon pricing7.90%‐ 22.00% Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA RPT‐1; Applicable in Central Business District or urban center only51 Create urban non‐motorized zones0.01% – 0.20% annual VMT reductionY NYN N NNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐4 [The project, if located in a CBD or major activity center, will convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other nonmotorized zones. These features encourage non‐motorized travel and thus a reduction in VMT. This measure is most effective when applied with multiple design elements that encourage this use. The benefits of Urban Non‐Motorized Zones alone have not been shown to be significant. (considered grouped strategy with SDT‐1 (provide pedestrian network improvements); this is applicable in urban context only and appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]52 Install park‐and‐ride lotsTwo sources: 0.1% ‐ 0.5% VMT reduction (as per 2005 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study) and 0.50% VMT reduction per day (as per Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT))YNNNNNNotes: CAPCOA RPT‐4 (Applicable in suburban and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy with RPT‐1, TRT‐11, TRT‐3, and TRT‐1 through 653 Electrify loading docks and/or require idling‐reduction systems26% ‐ 71% reduction in Truck refrigeration units (TRU) idling GHG emissionsY N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐1 (Measure applicability: Truck refrigeration units (TRU))54 Utilize alternative fueled vehiclesReduction in GHG emissions varies depending on vehicle type, year, and associated fuel economyY N NN N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐2 (Measure applicability: vehicles)55 Utilize electric or hybrid vehicles 0.40% ‐ 20.30% reduction in GHG emissionsY N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐3 (Measure applicability: vehicles)56 Provide bike parking near transitNot QuantifiedY N N N N NNotes: CAPCOA TST‐5 (should be implemented with other two measures as mentioned to encourage multi‐modal use in the area and provide ease of access to nearby transit for bicyclists (measure applicable in urban and suburban context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy (with measures TST‐3 'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increase transit service frequency/speed')P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT79 57 Improve design of development3.00% ‐ 21.30% YNNNNNNotes: CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Include design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity; improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood such as street accessibility; design also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrians crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto‐oriented environments); measure is applicable in the urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects58 Provide electric vehicle parkingNot QuantifiedY N N N N NNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐8 [This is a grouped strategy and the benefits of electric vehicle parking may be quantified when grouped with the use of electric vehicles and or SDT‐3 (Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network). This measure is applicable in urban or suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]59 Dedicated land for bike trailsNot QuantifiedY N N N N NNotes: CAPCOA SDT‐9 [Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off‐site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to off‐site bicycle networks. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, or rural contexts and is appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]60 Implement school bus program38.00% ‐ 63.00% school VMT reductionY N N N N NNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐13 [Applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects]61 Implement preferential parking permit programNot QuantifiedY N N N N NNotes: CAPCOA TRT‐8 [The project will provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project will provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. The impact of preferential parking permit programs has not been quantified by the literature and is likely to have negligible impacts when implemented alone. This strategy should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1 and TRT‐2) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs) as a complementary strategy for encouraging non‐single occupant vehicle travel. This measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]Notes:VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association; OPR = Office of Planning and Research; TA = Technical Advisory; HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle; HOT = High Occupancy Toll; ITS = Intelligent Transportation SystemCAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles)1VMT reduction numbers obtained from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010.2Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010.3Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State of California in December 2018.4Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743 prepared by Iteris, Inc. in February 2018.5City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (dated April 2018).6City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator Version 1.2 7Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019.Links:1) VMT Calculator (City of LA): https://ladot.lacity.org/what‐we‐do/planning‐development‐review/transportation‐planning‐policy/modernizing‐transportation‐analysisNotes:1) For City of Los Angeles, TDM strategies for VMT reduction are broadly classified into the following categories: 1) Parking, 2) Transit, 3) Education & Management, 4) Commute Trip Reductions, 5) Shared Mobility, 6) Bicycle Infrastructure, and 7) Neighborhood Enhancement2) For City of San Jose, TDM strategies for VMT reduction are broadly classified into the following tiers: 1) Project Characteristics, 2) Multimodal Network Improvements, 3) Parking, and 4) Programmatic Transporation Demand ManagementP:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (4/3/2020)DRAFT80 This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT81         APPENDIX B    VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LAND  DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FROM ACADEMIC RESEARCH   DRAFT82         This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT83 # Mitigation MeasureVMT Reduction2Notes1 Improve or increase access to transit1.3% ‐ 5.8%Variable: Various factors associated with proximity to transit stop (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)2 Land Use MixElasticity: 0.02 ‐ 0.10 Variable: Entropy ‐ variety and balance of land‐use types within a neighborhood3 Regional AccessibilityElasticity: 0.05 ‐ 0.25Variable: Various factors associated with job accessibility and distance to CBD (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)4 Job‐Housing BalanceElasticity: 0.06 ‐ 0.31 for commute VMTVariable: Various factors associated with job accessibility (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)5 Provide Pedestrian Network ImprovementsElasticity: 0.00 ‐ 0.02 for sidewalk length, 0.19 for Pedestrian Environment Factor6Provide Bicycling Network ImprovementsNo effect on VMT7 Implement Transit ImprovementsNo effect on VMT8 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change (VTBC) Program5% ‐ 12%9 Implement Employer‐Based Trip Reduction (EBTR) Program1.33% ‐ 6% of commute VMT10 Provide telecommuting optionsHome‐based telecommuting: 48.1% for household VMT, 66.5% ‐ 76.6% for all personal VMT, and 90.3% for commute VMT only; Center‐based telecommuting: 53.7% ‐ 64.8% for all personal VMT and 62.0% ‐ 77.2% for commute VMT only11Increase Project/Development DensityElasticity: <=0.07 ‐ 0.19Variable: residential density12 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project siteElasticity: ‐0.46 ‐ 0.59Variable: Various factors associated with intersection or street density (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)13 Implement Road Pricing10% ‐ 14.6% Variable: Different road prices in various parts of the US (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)14 Implement Parking Cash‐out Programs or Workplace Parking Pricing12% of commute VMT (parking cashout); 2.3% ‐ 2.9% for $3 per day workplace parking price; 2.8% for price increase equivalent to 60% hourly value of commuter travel time costNotes:VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled1All mitigation measures have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.).2All VMT reduction numbers have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Emperical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.).P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Boarnet and Handy  (4/3/2020)DRAFT84 This page intentionally left blank     DRAFT85         APPENDIX C    VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR  COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL PLANS     DRAFT86         This page intentionally left blank   DRAFT87 # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction 1 Modify land use plan to increase development in areas with low VMT/capita characteristics and/or decrease  development in areas with high VMT/capita characteristics Not quantified in CAPCOA 2 Provide enhanced bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities 0.00% ‐ 2.00% (for pedestrian network  improvements); Multiple measures for  bike facilities, refer to Table A for VMT  reduction percentages 3 Add roadways to the street network if those roadways would provide shorter travel paths for existing and/or future trips Not quantified in CAPCOA 4 Improve or increase access to transit CAPCOA TST‐2 (Implement transit  access improvements): Not quantified  alone, grouped strategy with TST‐3  (Expand transit network) and TST‐4  (Increase transit service  frequency/speed); CAPCOA LUT‐5  (Increase transit accessibility): 0.50% ‐  24.60%  5 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase  Diversity of Urban and Suburban  Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐  30.00% VMT reduction and CAPCOA LUT‐ 4 (Increase Destination Accessibility):  6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT reduction 6 Incorporate a neighborhood electric vehicle network 0.50% ‐ 12.70%  7 Provide traffic calming 0.25% – 1.00%  8 Limit or eliminate parking supply 5.00% ‐ 12.50% 9 Unbundle parking costs 2.60% ‐ 13.00% 10 Provide parking or roadway pricing or cash‐out programs 0.10% ‐ 19.70% commute VMT (for  pricing workplace parking); 7.90% ‐  22.00% (for CAPCOA RPT‐1 (Road  Pricing/Management: Implement Area  or Cordon Pricing)); 0.60% – 7.70%  commute VMT (for cash‐out programs) 11 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program 4.2% – 21.0% commute VMT % – 3.2%  VMT reduction (for commute reduction  programs with required  implementation/monitoring) 12 Provide car‐sharing, bike sharing, and ride‐sharing programs % ‐ 0.70% ( 0.40% ‐ 0.70% VMT reduction (for car  sharing); 1.00% ‐ 15.00% commute VMT  reduction (for ride‐sharing); a 135% ‐  300% increase in biking (of which  roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle  travel) results in a negligible impact  (around 0.03% VMT reduction) 13 Provide partially or fully subsidized transit passes Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement  Subsidized or Discounted Transit  Program]; for TRT‐4, commute VMT  reduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00% 14 Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling by providing ride‐matching services or shuttle services 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT  reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide  Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));  Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6  (Provide Local Shuttles)) 15 Provide telework options 0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute VMT 16 Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than a single‐occupancy vehicle 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT  reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide  Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));  Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6  (Provide Local Shuttles)); 0.30% ‐  20.00% commute VMT reduction (for  CAPCOA TRT‐4 (Implement Subsidized  or Discounted Transit Program)) 17 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not quantified in CAPCOA 18 Provide a guarenteed ride home sevice to users of non‐auto modes Not quantified in CAPCOA Notes: VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 1 CAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System  Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles) All mitigation measures have been obtained from the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the  San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019. P:\CLB1904.09\Document\Copy of VMT Mitigations.xlsx\Land Use Plans  (3/29/2020)DRAFT88 www.lsa.net DRAFT89 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: VMT Analysis Methodology From:Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:48 PM To:'dave@earsi.com' <dave@earsi.com> Cc:Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>; Westmoreland, Liz <LWestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov>; Tony Petros <Tony.Petros@lsa.net> Subject:RE: VMT Analysis Methodology Hello Mr. Tanner, Answers to your questions are in red below. Thank you. Tony Brine, P.E., T.E. City Traffic Engineer 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 644-3329 e-mail :tbrine@newportbeachca.gov From:dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com> Sent:Friday, May 01, 2020 6:11 PM To:Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> Subject:RE: VMT Analysis Methodology [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Tony & Seimone, Comments Resolution, Statement of Facts 1.I suggest you clarify the term “new development”.Clarify that “new development” includes the General Plan Update and other updates to existing planning documents?This can be clarified. SB 743 did not direct ”the California Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) to produce new California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)guidance for cities that remove automobile Level-of-Service (“LOS”) from transportation analysis under CEQA and replace it with Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”).”This can be clarified. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 2 I suggest you quote language either directly from SB743 or from OPR in the Staf f Report when describing SB743. SB743 “SB 743 requires OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines”.“SB 743 also amended congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within certain infill areas.” Here is what OPR says:http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/ “What is SB 743? Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically,SB 743 requires OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” (Ibid.) Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be co nsidered a significant impact under CEQA. (Id. at subd. (b)(2).) Transportation impacts related to air quality, noise and safety must still be analyzed under CEQA where appropriate. (Id. at subd. (b)(3).)SB 743 also amended congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within certain infill areas . (See Government Code Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4.)” Other Points The use of the State Updated CEQA Guidelines is optional.The staff report makes it sound like this is mandatory.The public, Planning Commission and City Council should be made aware of this option and that they can create a custom set of Implementation Guidelines.Many jurisdictions do this.Staff should provide its recommendations in its staff report. The use of the CEQA Guidelines is not optional. Two statutory documents carry the weight of law with regard to CEQA, the actual statute and the CEQA Guidelines (the interpretation and implementation of the statute and legislative updates to CEQA). Local agencies use the Guidelines to make determinations of proper CEQA documentation, impact evaluation, mitigation strategies and monitoring and reporting. In addition to their role updating the Guidelines, OPR also prepared a Technical Advisory (TA) as a refere nce for agencies to create new thresholds for transportation. The TA is a researched analytical reference that describes how OPR believes SB 743 should be implemented. It is grounded in regulatory precedent.How a local agency uses the TA is optional in the formulation of screening criteria, thresholds for CEQA transportation impacts with one significant caveat. Deviation from the TA should be based on substantial evidence for the difference. Simply deviating from the TA because it is inconvenient or inconsistent with the local agency goals and objectives is not grounds for adopting alternative thresholds for CEQA. Absent substantial evidence the local agency (Newport Beach) greatly risks CEQA litigation. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 3 Very few agencies across the state have deviated from the OPR TA in this initial foray into the new CEQA Guidelines. Those agencies that have also created a body of substantial evidence to support their departure. These deviations are also modest analytical elements (e.g., minimum daily trip thresholds, screened project definitions). Very few agencies have adopted thresholds that differ greatly from the OPR recommended 85% of the existing regional average for many land development projects. The litigation risk is seen as too great to do so. Furthermore, Caltrans through their TAF and TAC are adopting the OPR TA recommendations fully for CEQA analysis of all State Highway projects. And they will be reviewing local agencies CEQA thresholds, General Plans and development review processes for consistency with the OPR TA recommendations. Deviating from the OPR TA without a full body of substantial evidence risks comments from the State Department of Transportation, inviting others to litigate CEQA documents and determinations. Staff has been using the State 2018 Updated CEQA Guidelines without approval (amendment of Policy K-1).The use of VMT and the State 2018 Updated CEQA Guidelines should be combined in this Resolution to reduce the procedural risk from CEQA litigation. Workshops should be held to explore how VMT can benefit the City, as well as detract from the City.This should be explained to the public, Planning Commission and City Council.Unfortunately, we have not been able to hold a public workshop since the March 19 Stay at Home order. Staff and the consultant will answer public questions during the Planning Commission meeting and City Council hearing, and in writing. For example: o If a Project Descriptions can be crafted to circumvent all or a portion of VMT analysis/mitigation?If the project does not meeting the screening criteria, a VMT analysis will be required. If there are project impacts, the City will work with project applicants and developers to re-design their projects to add TDM and active transportat ion and/or other project design features that will reduce or eliminate VMT impacts. The degree to which these are included is at the discretion of the project applicant and the City. o How a Newport Beach project’s VMT mitigation can or cannot be kept insid e the City of Newport Beach?VMT impacts are not path or geographically specific. VMT is simply the product of number of trips generated by a project and the distance they travel. VMT is not described by path, roadway or intersection. o How will Newport Beach secure mitigation from a project in another city whose VMT significantly impacts Newport Beach’s Transportation system?The definition of a VMT impact is not place specific. The geographical definition of Newport Beach and its circulation system will not be directly impacted by VMT. o How will JWA Airport be treated?JWA is under the discretion of the County of Orange. Depending on the project type, the County will conduct a VMT analysis consistent with the OPR TA thresholds. o How will Newport Beach’s tourist industry be treated?The recommended thresholds will be applied to land development projects as indicated in the implementation guide, similar to all land development projects subject to discretionary action and CEQA. Hotel projects would be employee based. o Alternative forms of mitigation.The CAPCOA manual and CARB research papers and other sources researched by the City and its consultants have rendered about 100 possible mitigation Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 4 strategies. These include all forms of alternative mitigation. During the CEQA review process, it is up to the CEQA document preparer to recommend the specific mitigation strategies. Similar to current practice, the city will review the CEQA document and the recommended mitigations for feasibility. o How will VMT impact the CALTRANS ROW designation for PCH along the Mariners Mile.Will CALTRANS agree to decrease the ROW ?The City will follow the Caltrans VMT Policy for transportation projects on State facilities. It is difficult to answer at this time how a VMT analysis for Mariners Mile would be prepared and/or reviewed by the State. Staff should explain what options the City had in the selection of assumptions/data input into the modeling, and how this effects the City VMT impact determination and mitigation. For example; how was average VMT determined for areas close to the coast?The current traffic model was used to calculate the VMT and prepare the VMT maps for the city. I recommend Planning Commission/City Council oversight on key projects/VMT decisions until the City/public get comfortable with how VMT works in a wide range of circumstances. The most important project is the General Plan Update.Key projects will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and possibly the City Council. The General Plan will be presented and discussed at both. Thank You, Dave David J. Tanner 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 646-8958 home 949 233-0895 cell Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof. From:Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:17 PM To:'dave@earsi.com' <dave@earsi.com> Cc:Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com> Subject:RE: VMT Analysis Methodology Hi Dave, Here are my responses in red. If you have any questions, please let me know. Tony Brine, P.E., T.E. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 5 City Traffic Engineer 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 644-3329 e-mail :tbrine@newportbeachca.gov From:dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:35 PM To:Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov> Cc:Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com> Subject:VMT Analysis Methodology [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Tony, I reviewed the methodology and had a couple of questions. Will their be a City Council briefing or a Q&A presentation where the public can ask questions?There will be a Planning Commission meeting on May 7, and the City Council hearing is currently scheduled for June 9. I certainly encourage questions by e-mail or phone as well. What is the significance threshold for the General Plan update?15 percent below the existing County average VMT per capita or per employee?The threshold for the General Plan is VMT per service population (VMT per capita plus VMT per employee). The recommended methodology for conducting a VMT assessment for the General Plan is to compare the existing VMT per service population for the city, with the expected horizon year VMT per service population. The recommended target is to achieve a lower VMT per service population in the horizon year with the proposed land plan than occurs for the existing condition. I forgot, is the .5 mile from a transit center measures as the crow flies, or measured by actual walking distance?As the crow flies. One concern is about omitting parts of a mixed-use project (See text below).CEQA has language that requires analysis of the “whole of the action” (the whole of the project).What if a Project Description for a mixed-use project defines multiple components 50,000 square feet or less of local serving retail use with one anchor tenant? (example a retail center with a Home Depot anchor and all other individual lots/spaces 50,000 square feet or less of local serving retail use). How would total VMT for the total center be calculated? Home Depot only?The Home Depot is retail and would be part of the whole retail portion of the project. I believe the idea is that a retail center with greater than 50,000 SF would now be considered more of a regional draw, and not just local-serving, and would have to be analyzed as a whole. 4.b. Significance Threshold -Mixed-Use “Should the mixed-use project include 50,000 square feet or less of local serving retail use, then that component can be screened out.” Cheers, Dave Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 6 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 646-8958 wk 949 233-0895 cell Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4a Additional Materials Received City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures City Planning Commission May 7, 2020 Tony Brine, PE, TE Tony Petros City Traffic Engineer Principal Transportation Planner, LSA Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Senate Bill 743 History September 2013 -Law Passes. December 2013 -Preliminary CEQA Guidance published –transportation analysis shifts from motorist delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. August 2014 -Office of Planning and Research (OPR)-Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to replace delay or level-of-service (LOS),as metric for transportation impacts. November 2017 -Draft CEQA Guidelines –VMT analysis required after July 1, 2020 December 2018 -Final Guidelines Adopted -OPR uses Technical Advisory (TA)on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Vehicle Miles Traveled = daily trips generated by project multiplied by estimated number of miles those trips travel to destination. Level-of-Service (motorist delay) = traffic volume on roadway divided by capacity (number of lanes). Typically, delay has been improved by adding capacity or lanes. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures OPR Technical Advisory (TA) •Provides recommendations for: •VMT analysis. •Impact significance thresholds. •Mitigation measures. •Agencies may choose to use the OPR recommendations; or agencies may develop local thresholds if supported by substantial evidence. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures City VMT & Traffic Analyses VMT Screening review for all non-CEQA exempt projects VMT Analysis for all projects above screening threshold Screening/VMT analysis provided in CEQA Document (ND, MND or EIR) VMT is not the end of Level of Service (LOS)analysis. Traditional Traffic studies will continue per Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Three primary steps in VMT analysis process: 1.Screening Criteria –Which projects do not require detailed VMT analysis. 2.Significance Thresholds -Compare calculated VMT against thresholds to determine if there is an impact. 3.Mitigation –To reduce or eliminate project impact. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures •“Home-based work trips”is primarily the subject of the thresholds. Trips are associated with residential, office, and retail land uses as they have the greatest influence on VMT. •Residential uses are expressed as VMT per capita (or per person) •Office uses are expressed as VMT per employee •Retail uses are expressed as total VMT attributable to the project •For mixed-use projects, each component is evaluated independently Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 1.High Quality Transit District –projects within ½ mile of major transit stop or along transit corridor with service intervals less than 15 minutes. 2.VMT Maps -Projects located in area with low VMT area. Maps prepared using City traffic model and County average VMT estimates. 3.Local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet. 4.High percentage of affordable housing (TBD). 5.Projects that increase 300 or less net daily trips per ITE Manual. 6.Institutional/government or public serving uses. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures High Quality Transit Areas Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Existing VMT per capita Page 44 in PC Report Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Existing VMT per employee Page 48 in PC Report Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures County Average = 17.9 VMT per capita (residential) –Home based trips 24.1 VMT per employee (office) –Home based and work based trips OPR Technical Advisory provides various thresholds for significance. Most agencies have adopted OPR’s goal of 15 percent reduction from County VMT average for residential and office projects. Staff Recommends OPR 15% reduction goal. Proposed thresholds 15.2 VMT per capita for residential projects 20.5 VMT per employee for office projects Net increase in total VMT for retail projects -OPR Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures 1.Project application submitted. 2.City staff reviews Screening Criteria. 3.If project does not meet screening criteria, a detailed VMT analysis is required. 4.For projects with daily trips of 300 ADT – 1,000 ADT, or with one predominant land use, then the VMT can be calculated manually. 5.For large or mixed-use projects, use of City’s NBTM model is required to calculate VMT. 6.If VMT per capita (residential), or per employee (office), or total VMT (retail) exceed City thresholds, project has significant impact and mitigation required. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Step-by-Step Process Page 56 in PC Report Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures •The City VMT Implementation Guide includes possible measures. (Pages 74 –88 in Planning Commission Report). •Potential measures include improving transit access, bike and pedestrian improvements, ride sharing, telework options, on-site showers and lockers, etc. •Mitigation improvements (reductions to VMT) can be difficult to quantify and assumptions have to be made. •Regional VMT impact fees could be established in future. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures •City transportation CIP projects should be reviewed. Most, if not all, will meet screening criteria for roadway projects. •Most screening criteria is related to maintenance, bike lane improvements, signal timing, safety improvements, etc. •An addition of a through travel lane would require a VMT analysis. •Projects on State roads (Coast Highway) would be analyzed using Caltrans VMT methodology. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures VMT Analysis procedures added to the existing City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It includes a framework for completing necessary VMT transportation analysis. Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC2020-017 recommending an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures Tony Brine, PE, TE City Traffic Engineer Tony Petros Principal Transportation Planner, LSA Associates Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 4b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting City Council Policy K-3 Amendment (CEQA Procedures) Regarding SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy and Procedures