REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 3, 2020
FROM: Mike Sanchez, Assistant Director
Planning and Development Department
BY: SOPHIA PAGOULATOS, Planning Manager
Long Range Planning Division
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing to consider adoption of Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743, which requires local jurisdictions in California to adopt such thresholds by July 1, 2020:
1. RECOMMEND APPROVAL (to the City Council) of RESOLUTION adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds as described in the “CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” document dated May 12, 2020, prepared pursuant to the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21099, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3(b) and 15064.7.
2. RECOMMEND (to the City Council) that staff be directed to pursue a mitigation program that includes creation of a citywide mitigation bank, exchange, or other mechanism to allow more options for VMT mitigation.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill 743 requires that a new metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), be used to identify transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) starting July 1, 2020. VMT is simply the number of trips generated by a project multiplied by the trip distances in miles. This differs from the previous metric of Level of Service (LOS), which measures traffic congestion. The intent of the new law is to reduce VMT in order to help meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets established by the State of California. This report describes the process for development of the proposed Fresno thresholds and summarizes key components of the thresholds and mitigation strategy. See www.fresno.gov/vmt <http://www.fresno.gov/vmt> for a webinar hosted by the City of Fresno on its proposed VMT thresholds.
BACKGROUND
The City of Fresno hired LSA, Inc., a local full service planning consultant, to help develop VMT thresholds in 2018. Shortly thereafter, the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) hired the same consulting firm to assist member jurisdictions in developing their VMT thresholds. The City’s process was improved by additional input from the FCOGs process, which included exchange of ideas with colleagues throughout the region, and input from a Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of a range of VMT stakeholders. The CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (Guidelines), attached in Exhibit D, is the culmination of several months of dialogue and study between city and FCOG staff, member jurisdictions, and the Technical Advisory Committee. It contains a detailed description of the proposed City of Fresno thresholds and substantial evidence to support them, as well as a comprehensive list of potential mitigation measures. This staff report is a brief summary of what is contained in the Guidelines and is organized into the following key sections:
I. Definition of Region for VMT Analysis
II. VMT Thresholds
• Development Projects
• Transportation Projects
• Land Use Plans
III. Mitigation Strategies
Senate Bill 743 resulted in amendments and additions to the California Public Resources Code, including the addition of Section 21099. PRC Section 21099 requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare revisions to the CEQA Guidelines related to assessing the significance of transportation impacts of projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was prepared by OPR and certified and adopted by the California Natural Resources Agency, consistent with the requirements of PRC Section 21099.
The guidance for development of VMT criteria at the local level was provided by the OPR. Local jurisdictions have the discretion to follow the state guidelines or to propose variations that are justified with substantial evidence. Fresno followed the OPR guidelines in most areas, but is proposing a few variations as described below. Detailed substantial evidence for each of these decisions is included in the Guidelines attached.
I. Definition of Region for VMT Analysis
In order to determine if a project will generate a significant amount of VMT, it must be compared to a regional VMT average. The region has been determined to be Fresno County, since over 90% of vehicle trips made within Fresno County begin and end within its boundaries.
II. Thresholds
OPR has established three types of thresholds, which vary by type of project. They are: Development Projects, Transportation Projects, and Land Use Plans, each described below.
Development Projects-This threshold would apply to development projects such as subdivisions, retail, industrial or office development, typically carried out by the private sector or non-profit entities.
Since the statewide goal for GHG reduction is 15% from existing conditions, OPR has established that figure as the statewide VMT reduction target for development projects. The idea is that the cumulative VMT reductions from jurisdictions across the state would result in at least a 15% reduction in VMT, but each jurisdiction can set its own threshold. Consistent with the FCOG VMT guideline process, Fresno is recommending a 13% VMT reduction as the threshold for development projects, based on the state’s approval of a 13% GHG reduction target for its upcoming Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Screening Criteria - Development Projects that could be “screened out” or considered exempt from VMT analysis because they are assumed to reduce VMT include the following:
• Projects that are within 0.5 mile (mi) of a Transit Priority Area (TPA) or a High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA). In the City of Fresno, TPAs generally include the Courthouse Park Transit Hub, Amtrak station, and future High Speed Rail station in downtown Fresno, and the intersections of Shaw and Blackstone, Shaw and Cedar, and Cedar and Kings Canyon. The HQTC’s generally include the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor along Blackstone and Ventura/Kings Canyon (Route 1), and the FAX 15 corridors along Shaw and Cedar (Routes 9 and 38). See Exhibit A, attached, for map.
• Projects that involve local-serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet (sf).
• Projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT). OPR’s guidelines included this criteria but with fewer than 110 ADT. Additional research conducted (and documented in the Guidelines) shows that projects generating up to 500 ADT would not generate a significant amount of GHGs and therefore could be screened out. Examples of projects generating less than 500 ADT are listed below:
o 53 dwelling units of single family housing
o 68-92 units of low- to mid-rise apartments
o 13,250 square feet of retail use
o 51,330 square feet of office use
o 100,800 square feet of light industrial use
• Projects that reflect and are consistent with a General Plan and/or Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and have a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 or greater and limited parking.
• Projects that have a high level of affordable-housing units.
• Projects proposed in areas with low VMT (see maps in Exhibits B and C-areas in green are areas with low VMT)
Threshold - For development projects that are not screened out, the thresholds below would apply:
For the City of Fresno, this means that the VMT metric will be used for CEQA purposes, but LOS will still be used to determine necessary roadway improvements through conditions of approval.
Transportation Projects - This threshold would mostly apply to capital improvement projects undertaken by public entities, such as roadway widenings, intersection improvements, and the like.
Screening Criteria. Development Projects that could be “screened out” or considered exempt from VMT analysis because they do not add vehicle capacity include the following:
• Maintenance and repair to roadways & roadway elements;
• Addition of Traffic lanes that are not for through-traffic, such as left-, right-, and U-turn pockets or two-way left turn lanes;
• Addition of capacity on local or collector streets, if the project substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and, if applicable, transit;
• Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to transit;
• Traffic control devices, including transit signal priority; and
• Installation of roundabouts or other traffic calming measures.
Threshold - For transportation projects that are not screened out, the threshold below would apply:
Land Use Plans-This threshold applies to General Plans, Community Plans and Specific Plans. There are no screening criteria for this threshold.
III. Mitigation Strategy
VMT mitigation is different from congestion-based LOS mitigation. LOS mitigation aims to alleviate congestion, and prescribes capacity-increasing mitigation measures such as roadway widening and additional lanes. These types of measures may alleviate congestion in the short term, but they encourage more single occupant vehicle use in the long term since they increase vehicle capacity. In contrast, VMT mitigation seeks to increase transportation options and accessibility to more destinations. This is possible with mitigation strategies that include a mixing of land uses to bring housing, schools, shopping and employment in closer proximity, and that improve alternative modes of transportation so that biking, walking and taking transit become realistic options.
Challenges with VMT mitigation include quantifying VMT reductions, applying mitigation at the individual project level, and ensuring that mitigation lasts in perpetuity, as required by CEQA. These issues will all likely get worked out as implementation unfolds and court cases become available.
Staff has been working on developing a multi-faceted mitigation approach for development projects based on the four strategies listed below. For a matrix showing the mitigation measures listed under each strategy, see Exhibit E, VMT Mitigation Strategy Matrix.
• Location, Design, and Form: This strategy focuses on locating more diverse land use types in close proximity, and is considered “on-site” mitigation to be implemented by developers.
• Public Works Improvements: This strategy focuses on enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle networks, either on-site, or in close proximity to the development project, and would be implemented either by developers or by the Public Works Department via mitigation funds paid by developers to the City of Fresno.
• Transit Upgrades: This strategy focuses on improving transit service and accessibility, and would be implemented by FAX via mitigation funds paid by developers to FAX.
• Transportation Demand Management: This strategy focuses on TDM measures that could be implemented on site or via mitigation funds paid by developers to the City of Fresno or to the Fresno COG.
Some types of mitigation measures can be applied directly to a project. Other types will not be effective unless they are applied at a larger scale, such as expanding or enhancing a transit system, or completing a bicycle network, for example. In order to implement mitigation at this larger scale, a programmatic approach would be needed, possibly funded through a mitigation bank or exchange program, or other mechanism. If the City is interested in developing such a program, it needs to decide on program design and scale: citywide or region wide? The FCOG has indicated a willingness to develop a region wide VMT mitigation program. Staff is supportive of this idea, but would like to develop a citywide program in the interim.
General Plan Consistency
The Fresno General Plan includes policies calling for reduced vehicle miles traveled (Mobility and Transportation Element, Policies MT-2-b and MT-2-c). In addition, its overarching vision calls for the actions needed to reduce vehicle miles traveled, as demonstrated by the General Plan goals listed below:
Goal 4: Emphasize achieving healthy air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
Goal 8: Develop complete neighborhoods and districts with a diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability, which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place, and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance;
Goal 10: Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno; and
Goal 11: Emphasize and plan for all modes of travel on local and major streets in Fresno.
Therefore, staff finds that the adoption of VMT thresholds as outlined in the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds is consistent with the Fresno General Plan.
Public Participation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) requires the adoption of thresholds of significance for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review for projects to include a public review process. The City of Fresno participated in the FCOG’s VMT Guideline process, which included the formation of a 40-50 member Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Representation on the TAC included local government staff, developers, consultants, and Caltrans. Six TAC meetings have been held since August of 2019. In addition, the City of Fresno hosted a webinar on the proposed Guidelines on May 12, 2020 and published its proposed VMT thresholds in the Guidelines on the city’s website (www.fresno.gov/vmt <http://www.fresno.gov/vmt>) on May 13, 2020, launching a 21-day comment period. In addition, at its regular monthly meeting with the Building Industry Association on May 13, 2020, city staff updated BIA members on the Guidelines. Lastly, on May 22, 2020, a public hearing notice was published in the Fresno Bee (and a corresponding Spanish version on May 27, 2020 in Vida en el Valle) announcing the upcoming public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council. No comments have been received to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The adoption of thresholds is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
CONCLUSION
The appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with goals and policies of the Fresno General Plan and its compliance with CEQA. These factors have been evaluated as described above. Upon consideration of this evaluation, it can be concluded that adoption of VMT thresholds and directing staff to pursue a citywide mitigation program is appropriate. Action by the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to City Council.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - VMT Transit Map
Exhibit B - VMT per Capita Map
Exhibit C - VMT per Employee Map
Exhibit D - CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Travelled Thresholds (Guidelines)
Exhibit E - VMT Mitigation Strategy Matrix
Exhibit F - Resolution Adopting VMT Thresholds
Exhibit G - VMT Thresholds PPT