HomeMy WebLinkAbout04232020 PTS AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC / TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 23, 2020 - 6:00 PM
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING MEETING
This meeting is being conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of
California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. In
accordance with this order, the public may view/listen to the meeting online at https://temeculaca.gov/tv
and not in person at City Hall.
Submission of Public Comments: For those wishing to make public comments at this meeting, please
submit your comments by email to the Secretary at anissa.sharp@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on
matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the Public Comments item being called. Email
comments on an agenda item must be submitted prior to the close of public comments on that agenda
item. All email comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker
comments at noticed meetings. Electronic comments may only be submitted via email and comments
via text and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted .
Reading of Public Comments: Email comments will be read into the record, provided that the reading
shall not exceed three (3) minutes, or such other time as the Public / Traffic Safety Commission may
provide, consistent with the time limit for speakers at noticed meetings .
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sullivan
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Moses
ROLL CALL: Carter, Hagel, Moses, Richardson, Sullivan
PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that are
listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. For submission and reading of public
comments into the record see above-referenced notice.
Page 1
Public / Traffic Safety Commission Agenda April 23, 2020
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one
roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public Traffic Safety
Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action .
1.Approve Action Minutes of February 27, 2020
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approve the action minutes of
February 27, 2020.
Recommendation:
Action MinutesAttachments:
BUSINESS
2.Receive and File presentation report of SB 743 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT): CEQA Traffic
Impact Analysis Guidelines Update to VMT Thresholds and Guidelines
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the
presentation report of SB 743 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT): CEQA
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Update to VMT Thresholds and
Guidelines.
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Guidelines
PC Resolution
CC Resolution
Notice of Public Hearing
Attachments:
DIRECTOR REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Public Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, May 28,
2020, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Due to the closure of City Hall, the library and other city facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the full
agenda packet (Including staff reports and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the
agenda), will only be available for viewing on the City’s website at
https://temeculaca.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx at least 72 hours prior to meeting. If you have questions regarding
an item on the agenda, please contact the Public Works Department at (951) 694-6444.
Page 2
1
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA PUBLIC / TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 27, 2020 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Chairperson Sullivan
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Hagel
ROLL CALL: Carter (absent), Hagel, Moses, Richardson, Sullivan
PRESENTATIONS - None
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following individual addressed the Commission on a non-agendized item:
Deputy Jose
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve the Action Minutes of December 12, 2019
Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of December 12, 2019.
Approved staff recommendation (4-0, Carter absent): Motion by Hagel, Second by Sullivan.
The vote reflected unanimous approval with Carter absent.
BUSINESS
2. Roripaugh Road Traffic Conditions
Recommendation: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend the use of
VCalm Speed Advisory signs on Roripaugh Road at Sanderling Way.
Approved staff recommendation (4-0, Carter absent): Motion by Hagel, Second by Sullivan.
The vote reflected unanimous approval with Carter absent.
3. Review of the Draft Old Town Parking Management Plan Update and Other Old Town
Topics
Recommendation: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report.
Receive and file only.
2
4. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Recommendation: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission elect a Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson to preside through the 2020 Calendar Year.
Approved staff recommendation (4-0, Carter absent): Motion by Hagel, Second by Moses.
The vote reflected unanimous approval with Carter absent. For the 2020 calendar year,
Commissioner Sullivan was selected as Chairperson and Commissioner Hagel was selected
as Vice-Chairperson.
DIVISION REPORTS
Traffic Engineer's Report – Receive and file only
Fire Chief's Report – Receive and file only
Police Chief's Report – Receive and file only
DIRECTOR REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:27 PM, the Community Services Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday,
March 26, 2020, at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Bradley Sullivan, Chairperson
Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
1
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSSION
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: April 23, 2020
SUBJECT SB 743 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT): CEQA Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Update to VMT Thresholds and Guidelines
PREPARED BY: Sara Toma, Assistant Planner – Long-Range Planning
RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file report
BACKGROUND
In September 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 743 (Steinberg). This legislation
provided a shift in the focus of transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) from Level of Service (“LOS”), which measures roadway capacity and automobile
delay, to Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”), which is an estimate of the amount and distance people
drive by automobile to reach a destination. The desired outcomes from this change are a reduction
in auto emissions, the creation of inter-connected transportation networks with a variety of travel
modes, and the development of land uses designed to support those networks.
As part of a combined effort, staff worked closely with Western Riverside Council of Governments
(“WRCOG”) to stay updated on current VMT guidelines and potential grant opportunities. In
2018, staff applied for and was awarded a Sustainable Communities Program grant through the
Southern California Association of Government (“SCAG”) under the Sustainable Communities
Program Grant. In 2019, the City was selected and awarded by SCAG to assist in updating the
City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) Guidelines to facilitate compliance with SB 743. The
City’s current TIA Guidelines provide a standard format and methodology for assessing potential
traffic and circulation impacts of proposed development projects, General Plan Amendments,
Specific Plans, and changes in land use zoning. The City’s TIA Guidelines use LOS based on
intersection delay as the basis to analyze impacts to intersections and roadway segments within a
specified area. The City entered into an agreement with Fehr & Peers to update the City’s TIA
Guidelines to replace LOS based measurements with VMT for CEQA analysis concerning
transportation impacts. While LOS will not be used under CEQA, a project applicant will still be
required to analyze traffic impacts under the General Plan’s Circulation Element as it relates to
infrastructure requirements.
The key differences between LOS and VMT are outlined below.
2
Transportation “Level of Service” (LOS) Measurement
LOS measures vehicle delay (i.e., congestion at intersections and on roadways) and is represented
as a letter grade A through F, where LOS A represents completely free flowing traffic, while LOS
F represents highly congested conditions. To calculate LOS for a project, a multi-step process is
required to identify, estimate, or obtain the following information: study intersections that may be
affected, existing traffic count and current delay data, and trips projected from a project, along
with travel mode (e.g., vehicle, transit, walking or bicycling) and direction of vehicle trip travel.
Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
VMT measures the amount and distance people drive by vehicle. Typically, development at a
greater distance from other land uses and in areas without transit generate more driving than
development near other land uses with more robust transportation options. Currently, VMT is used
to help measure other CEQA impacts within the City, including air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions at a project level, and in General Plan or program-level analysis, to identify long-range
transportation impacts.
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR)
In December 2018, the governor’s office of planning and research (“opr”) provided a technical
advisory evaluating transportation impacts under ceqa, as a service to professional planners, land
use officials, and ceqa practitioners. the purpose of the opr document is to provide advice and
recommendations, which agencies use at their discretion in preparing environmental documents
subject to ceqa.
opr assisted in the determination of significance, as many lead agencies rely on “thresholds of
significance.” the ceqa guidelines define a “threshold of significance” to mean “an identifiable
quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance
with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and
compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.”
(ceqa guidelines, section 15064.7, subd. (a).) lead agencies have discretion to develop and adopt
their own thresholds, or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies, provided that the
decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.
DISCUSSION
Implementing the Requirements of SB 743 Legislation
To implement the legislation, the lead agency (the City) needs to determine an appropriate VMT
methodology, thresholds, and feasible mitigation measures. Since VMT is a new methodology to
analyze transportation impacts, and OPR’s Technical Advisory recommended that the lead agency
have discretion to develop and adopt its own thresholds, there is a need to develop appropriate
guidance for projects subject to environmental review. Furthermore, to assist lead agencies in
western Riverside County with SB 743 implementation, WRCOG, with support from SCAG,
developed implementation guidance and a VMT impact screening tool with the WRCOG SB 743
Implementation Pathway Study. The guidance is to ensure that all projects reviewed by the City
use the same data, approaches, and analytical tools.
3
Since SB 743 represents a significant departure from the City’s current practice of using LOS, the
City must address the following questions below, prior to taking any action:
1. Methodology – what methodology should be used to forecast projected-generated VMT
and the project’s effect on VMT under baseline and cumulative conditions, and how does
the selection of a threshold influence the methodology decision?
2. Thresholds – what threshold options are available to each jurisdiction and what substantial
evidence exists to support selecting a specific VMT threshold?
3. Mitigation – what would constitute feasible mitigation measures for a VMT impact given
the land use and transportation context of the WRCOG region?
The following is a description of the methodologies analyzed to forecast “project-generated
VMT,” criteria used to establish VMT thresholds of significance, and the identification of potential
mitigation measures that can be used to address CEQA.
1. Methodology
Baseline VMT Methodology and Data: Base Year (2012) total VMT per service population
(i.e., population plus employment), home-based VMT per capita, and home-based work VMT per
worker were calculated using outputs from SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan travel
forecasting model and the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (“RIVTAM”). In
addition, data from the California Household Travel Survey was used to compare model derived
estimates of home-based VMT with those based on survey observations. VMT results and
comparisons of results from different data sources were displayed graphically to aid in determining
the appropriate VMT metric and data source for calculating VMT for use in the WRCOG sub-
region.
Based on the different options analyzed, it is recommended to utilize the RIVTAM and the VMT
per service population data, as noted in the WRCOG analyses. Jurisdictions and technical experts
have been utilizing RIVTAM since 2009; there is a familiarity with the model. Furthermore, a
new version of the Riverside County Travel Demand Model (RIVTAM/RIVCOM) is being
developed and will be called Riverside County Modal (“RIVCOM”) by WRCOG and will be ready
for use by Fall 2020. The new version of the model will be updated and refined to include full
external trip lengths.
Tools Assessment: The capabilities of travel forecasting models, along with eleven sketch model
tools were reviewed to determine their strengths and weaknesses in generating appropriate VMT
results for SB 743 analysis and testing VMT mitigation strategies. Based on the travel forecasting
model review, it is recommended that the RIVTAM be utilized for VMT impact analysis.
2. Thresholds
Potential VMT thresholds were assessed within the context of the objectives of SB 743, legal
opinions related to the legislation, proposed CEQA Guidelines updates, and the Technical
Advisory produced by OPR. The project team, led by Fehr & Peers, identified four threshold
options for consideration by lead agency (the City).
4
a) Thresholds consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory, recommending that proposed
developments generate VMT per person that is 15% below existing VMT per capita;
b) Thresholds consistent with Lead Agency air quality, greenhouse gas emissions reduction,
and energy conservation goals;
c) Thresholds consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities
Strategy future year VMT projects by jurisdiction or sub-region; and
d) Thresholds based on baseline VMT performance by jurisdiction or sub-region.
3. Mitigation
Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) strategies and its effectiveness for reducing VMT
were reviewed and assessed for relevancy. Given the City’s suburban land use context, the
following key strategies were identified as the most appropriate.
Diversifying land use
Improving pedestrian networks
Implementing traffic calming infrastructure
Building off-street bicycle network improvements
Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules
Providing ride-share programs
Due to limitations of project-by-project approaches to reducing VMT, an evaluation of larger
mitigation programs was conducted by WRCOG. The evaluation considered existing programs
such as the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) Program and new
mitigation program concepts. While the TUMF Program funds a variety of projects including
those that would contribute to VMT reduction, the overall effect of the Program results in an
increase in VMT due to substantial roadway capacity expansion. The TUMF Program could be
modified to separate the VMT, reducing projects into a separate impact fee program based on a
VMT reduction nexus, but it could not be relied upon for VMT mitigation in its current form. New
program concepts included VMT mitigation banks and exchanges. These are innovative concepts
that have not yet been developed and tested but are being considered in areas where limited
mitigation options would otherwise exist. WRCOG is undertaking a study to look into the
feasibility of a VMT mitigation bank or exchange in order to further assist lead agencies in
implementing SB 743.
CEQA TRANSPORTATION VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Taking the above factors into consideration staff worked with Fehr & Peers to revise the City’s
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines and include a VMT Section (CEQA Transportation
VMT Analysis Guidelines) to ensure consistency with SB 743. The draft VMT Section is consistent with
OPR's Technical Advisory Guidelines and WRCOG's SB 743 Implementation Pathway Study.
The VMT Analysis Guideline document is organized as follows:
1. Metric and Methodology for Calculating VMT
2. VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
3. VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects
4. VMT Reduction and Mitigation Measures
5. Cumulative VMT Impacts
5
The following is a short description of established VMT thresholds of significance, VMT analysis
for land use and transportation projects, mitigation, and cumulative VMT impacts. For full details,
see Attachment 1: (CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines).
1. Metric and Methodology for Calculating VMT
Transportation VMT analysis for CEQA should be conducted using the Riverside County
Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). The Model outputs can be used to produce Total VMT
per Service Population and Total VMT. VMT per Service Population is established by dividing
the total VMT with at least one trip end in the City by the population plus employment of the City.
2. VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
Screening Criteria for CEQA VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
The requirements to prepare a detailed VMT analysis applies to all Projects except the following
types of Projects, as they will not result in significant transportation impacts:
1. Small Residential and Employment projects
2. Projects Located Near a Major Transit Stop/High Quality Transit Corridor
3. Projects Located in a VMT Efficient Area
4. Locally Serving Retail Projects
5. Locally Serving Public Facilities
6. Redevelopment Projects with Greater VMT Efficiency
7. Affordable Housing
VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects
Projects that do not meet the above screening criteria must include a detailed evaluation of the
VMT produced by the project. Any project with a VMT/Service Population 15% below the
WRCOG baseline average VMT/Service Population can be presumed to have a less than
significant impacts.
3. VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects
For transportation projects, any project that results in an increase in additional motor vehicle
capacity (such as constructing a new roadway or adding additional vehicle travel lands on an
existing roadway) has the potential to increase vehicle travel, referred to as “induced vehicle
travel”. Appendix C of the VMT Analysis Guidelines contains a list of transportation projects
that, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, do not require an induced travel/VMT analysis
since they typically do not cause substantial or measurable increases in VMT.
4. VMT Reduction and Mitigation Measures
Consistent with general CEQA principles, if a project is found to have a significant impact on
VMT, the impact must be reduced by modifying the project so that the VMT is reduced to an
acceptable level (below the established thresholds of significance) and/or by imposing all feasible
mitigation measures to mitigate the VMT impact to a less than significant level. If, after imposing
all feasible mitigation measures, the project VMT levels are still above the established thresholds
of significance, the City will consider adoption of a statement of overriding considerations in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and 15093, as already occurs when impacts in
any area remain significant after adoption of all feasible mitigation.
6
5. Cumulative VMT Impacts
Since VMT is a composite metric that will continue to be generated over time, a ke y consideration
for cumulative scenarios is whether the rate of VMT generation gets better or worse in the long-
term. If the rate is trending down over time consistent with expectations for air pollutant and
GHGs, then the project level analysis may suffice. However, the trend direction must be supported
with substantial evidence. A project would result in a significant project -generated VMT impact
under cumulative conditions if the cumulative project-generated VMT per service population
exceeds the WRCOG baseline VMT per service population.
Measuring the “project’s effect on VMT” is necessary especially under cumulative conditions to
fully explain the project’s impact. A project effect on VMT under cumulative conditions would be
considered significant if the cumulative total VMT/service population increases under the plus
project condition compared to the no project condition.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing published in the SD Union Tribune on April 9, 2020.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that
the adoption of the CEQA Traffic Analysis Update VMT Thresholds and Guidelines, which is an
action consistent with Senate Bill (“SB”) 743, will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment, and thus the Thresholds and Guidelines are not
subject to CEQA (14 CCR § 15378(a)). In addition, the Thresholds and Guidelines are not a
“project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR § 15378(b)(5) and constitute an action
involving procedures for the protection of the environment, which is exempt from CEQA pursuant
to 14 CCR § 15308. Finally, if the Thresholds and Guidelines are determined to be subject to
CEQA, they are exempt therefrom because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that these amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).)
ATTACHMENTS: 1. CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
2. PC Resolution
3. CC Resolution Draft
4. Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH)
CEQA Transportation
VMT Analysis
Guidelines
City of Temecula
April 3, 2020
Table of Contents
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Metrics and Methodology for Calculating VMT ........................................................................ 3
VMT per Service Population .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Total VMT (Boundary Method) ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Trip Length Adjustments ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects ............................................................................................ 6
Screening Criteria for CEQA VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects ............................................................................ 6
1. Small Residential and Employment Projects ........................................................................................................ 6
2. Projects Located Near a Major Transit Stop/High Quality Transit Corridor ............................................ 6
3. Projects Located in a VMT Efficient Area ............................................................................................................... 6
4. Locally Serving Retail Projects ................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Locally Serving Public Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 7
6. Redevelopment Projects with Greater VMT Efficiency ..................................................................................... 7
7. Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects ................................................................................................. 7
VMT Analysis Procedures for Land Use Projects ............................................................................................................. 7
VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 9
Screening Criteria for CEQA VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects ................................................................. 9
VMT Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Projects ..................................................................................... 9
VMT Analysis Procedures for Transportation Projects .................................................................................................. 9
VMT Reduction and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 10
Cumulative VMT Impacts ........................................................................................................... 11
Appendices
Appendix A: Model Gateway Distances
Appendix B: VMT Screening Maps
Appendix C: Transportation Projects That Do Not Require VMT Analysis
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
1
Overview
SB 743, signed by the Governor in 2013, changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from
measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. The change is being made by replacing
LOS with VMT and providing streamlined review of land use and transportation projects that will help
reduce future VMT growth. This shift in transportation impact focus is expected to better align
transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active
transportation.
In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines including the
incorporation of SB 743 modifications. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published its latest
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA to the California Natural Resources
Agency in December 2018. This Technical Advisory provides recommendations on how to evaluate
transportation impacts under SB 743. These changes include elimination of auto delay, LOS, and other
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant CEQA
transportation impacts. The OPR guidance recommends the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled, or VMT, as the
preferred CEQA transportation metric. To comply with the new legislation the City of Temecula has
established a VMT analysis methodology, established VMT thresholds for CEQA transportation impacts,
and identified of possible mitigation strategies. SB 743 includes the following two legislative intent
statements:
1. Ensure that the environmental impacts of traffic, such as noise, air pollution, and safety concerns,
continue to be properly addressed and mitigated through the California Environmental Quality
Act.
2. More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to
infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of
GHG emissions.
Since CEQA transportation analysis now requires an evaluation of a project’s potential impacts related to
VMT significance criteria, the VMT analysis will:
• Enable proposed development projects to comply with current CEQA requirements as a result of
the implementation of SB 743.
• Outline the County’s CEQA significance thresholds, screening criteria, and methodology for
conducting the transportation VMT analysis.
• Help determine if mitigation is required to offset a project’s significant VMT impacts.
• Identify VMT reduction measures and strategies to mitigate potential impacts below a level of
CEQA significance.
• Reduce the need to widen or build roads through effective use of the existing transportation
network and maximizing the use of alternative modes of travel throughout the County.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
2
VMT is a metric that accounts for the number of vehicle trips generated and the length or distance of
those trips. VMT does not directly measure traffic operations but instead is a measure of network use or
efficiency, especially if expressed as a function of population or employment (i.e. VMT per resident). VMT
tends to increase as land use density decreases and travel becomes more reliant on the use of the
automobile due to the long distances between origins and destinations. VMT can also serve as a proxy for
impacts related to energy use, air pollution emissions, GHG emissions, safety, and roadway maintenance.
The relationship between VMT and energy or emissions is based on fuel consumption. The traditional use
of VMT in environmental impact analysis is to estimate mobile air pollution emissions, GHGs, and energy
consumption.
This guidelines document is organized as follows:
1. Metrics and Methodology for Calculating VMT
2. VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
3. VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects
4. VMT Reduction and Mitigation Measures
5. Cumulative VMT Impacts
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
3
Metrics and Methodology for
Calculating VMT
Transportation VMT analysis for CEQA should be conducted using the Riverside County Transportation
Analysis Model (RIVTAM) 1. The model outputs can be used to produce Total VMT/Service Population and
Total VMT.
VMT per Service Population
VMT/Service Population is established by dividing the total VMT with at least one trip end in the City of
Temecula by the population plus employment of the City. The total VMT includes all internal VMT, internal
to external, and external to internal VMT (in other words all VMT regardless of geographic boundaries).
Since this metric combines VMT for residents and employees and reflects how accessible all land uses are
(for example, geographies with higher density, more shopping, and more jobs will have lower
VMT/Service Population) it can be used to evaluate multiple types of projects. To analyze the VMT/Service
Population for a proposed project, the project’s total VMT is divided by the project population plus
employment.
The total VMT (origin-destination method) within the City can be calculated directly from model outputs
by multiplying the origin-destination (O-D) trip matrix by the final assignment skims (O-D Method VMT).
The total VMT value should be appended to include VMT from all trips that enter or exit the San Diego
County, as explained in the Trip Length Adjustment section.
Total VMT (Boundary Method)
Total daily VMT within a given area can be measured by multiplying the daily volume on every roadway
segment by the length of every roadway segment within a given area. This is called Boundary Method
VMT. Examples of total VMT (Boundary Method) are VMT within the WRCOG region, VMT within the City
of Temecula, or VMT within the vicinity of a transportation project.
Trip Length Adjustments
Trip length adjustments for trips leaving the RIVTAM Model Area can be made by using the California
Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM).
1 RIVCOM is currently under development with an anticipated completion date in the Spring/Summer of 2020. Once
finalized, RIVCOM should be utilized for all forecasting activity.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
4
Adjusting the length of trips leaving a model boundary requires appending extra distance at the model
gateway zone (or external centroid) connectors. This process results in new gateway distances that are
weighted based on the amount and location of external travel origins and destinations.
The first step of this process is to determine trip volume leaving or entering the model boundary. These
are referred to as internal-to-external (IX) and external-to-internal (XI) trips. This data can be generated
either from O-D trip matrices or by conducting a select zone analysis to track trips to the model gateways.
The volume at the gateways for this purpose should not include external-to-external (XX) through trips.
Determining the full length of trips leaving or entering a model boundary requires an OD dataset that
includes flows between the model area and the area external to the model. The California Statewide Travel
Demand Model (CSTDM) should be used to develop the OD dataset.
The next step requires determining the gateway(s) based on the RIVTAM model which trips from the OD
data source would travel through. The trip length adjustment process ultimately requires calculating the
weighted average distance beyond each model gateway. The process of calculating trip lengths external
to the RIVTAM model region for trips entering or exiting the RIVTAM model area using the CSTDM is
described below:
• Create correspondence between Study Area TAZs within RIVTAM model to the Statewide Model
TAZs.
• Add “Gate” attribute to CSTDM roadway network links and set “Gate” equal to gateway id only for
those links identified as the locations corresponding to the RIVTAM model gateways.
• Add “Gate_Dist” attribute to CSTDM roadway network links and set “Gate_Dist” equal to the link
distance for those links outside the RIVTAM model boundary. All the CSTDM roadway links inside
the RIVTAM model boundary will have a “Gate_Dist” attribute of 0.
• Run a highway skim on the CSTDM roadway network to skim the shortest travel time between
each OD pair, tracking the gateway and distance outside the RIVTAM model boundary.
• For each gateway, summarize the average distance beyond the RIVTAM model boundary
weighted by volume at each gateway.
• Tag the gateway distance from the above step using CSTDM to the gateways in the RIVTAM
model and multiply to the gateway volume from the RIVTAM model to determine the gateway
external VMT to the RIVTAM model. Make sure not to double-count any overlap distance that’s
already accounted for in the VMT calculation from the RIVTAM model.
Table 1 shows the base year (2012) weighted average distance beyond the RIVTAM model boundary for
trips passing through the San Diego County model gateway, as calculated using the methodology above.
A full list of distances for model gateway distances for the RIVTAM model can be found in Appendix A.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
5
Table 1: Average Trip Distances South of San Diego County Line
Gateway Distance Outside San Diego County (miles)
Route County IX Trips XI Trips
SR-79 San Diego 40.9 41.7
Pala Rd San Diego 19.3 20.4
I-15 San Diego 23.8 23.1
Sandia Creek Rd San Diego 6.7 6.7
De Luz Rd San Diego 4.4 4.4
Tenaja Rd San Diego 6.5 6.5
Source: Fehr & Peers.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
6
VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
Screening Criteria for CEQA VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects
The requirements to prepare a detailed transportation VMT analysis apply to all land development
projects, except those that meet at least one of the screening criteria. A project that meets at least one of
the screening criteria below would have a less than significant VMT impact due to project characteristics
and/or location.
1. Small Residential and Employment Projects
Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips (trips are based on the number of vehicle trips after
any alternative modes/location-based adjustments are applied) may be presumed to have a less than
significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
2. Projects Located Near a Major Transit Stop/High Quality Transit Corridor
Projects located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality
transit corridor2 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to
the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio of less than 0.75
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required
by the City
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units
3. Projects Located in a VMT Efficient Area
A VMT efficient area is any area with an average VMT per service population 15% below the baseline
average for the WRCOG region. Land use projects may qualify for the use of VMT efficient area screening
if the project can be reasonably expected to generate VMT per service population that is similar to the
existing land uses in the VMT efficient area. Projects located within a VMT efficient area may be presumed
to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Screening maps for
each metric and subregion can be found in Appendix B.
2 Major transit stop: 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 interval of 15 minutes
or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. High quality transit corridor: a corridor with fixed
route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute periods.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
7
4. Locally Serving Retail Projects
Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant
impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail generally improves the
convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.
5. Locally Serving Public Facilities
Public facilities that serve the surrounding community or public facilities that are passive use may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
6. Redevelopment Projects with Greater VMT Efficiency
A redevelopment project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the proposed project’s
total project VMT is less than the existing land use’s total VMT.
7. Affordable Housing
An affordable housing project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary.
VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects
Projects that do not meet the above screening criteria must include a detailed evaluation of the VMT
produced by the project. Any project with a VMT/Service Population 15% below the WRCOG baseline
average VMT/Service Population can be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
VMT Analysis Procedures for Land Use Projects
For projects which meet one of the screening criteria for CEQA VMT analysis, no additional analysis is
necessary. For projects which are not screened, an evaluation of the VMT produced by the project is
necessary. To complete the analysis, the project should be evaluated using the RIVTAM Model (or
RIVCOM model once available) to evaluate the VMT/Service population using the methodology described
in the Methodology section.
If the project includes transportation demand management (TDM) measures, the reduction in VMT due to
each measure shall be calculated and can be applied to the project analysis. There are several resources
for determining the reduction in VMT due to TDM measures, such as the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (2010) (Quantification
Report).
The VMT reductions associated with project TDM should be applied to the project VMT estimate (nsuring
that the VMT reduction is applied to the appropriate project VMT. For example, if a commute trip
reduction program is proposed for a multi-family residential project, the VMT reduction should only be
applied to the work related VMT associated with the project. If the project does not include any TDM,
then no reduction would be taken.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
8
The resulting VMT values should be compared to the significance threshold determine whether the
project results in a significant CEQA transportation impact due to VMT.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
9
VMT Analysis for Transportation
Projects
For transportation projects, any project that results in an increase in additional motor vehicle capacity
(such as constructing a new roadway or adding additional vehicle travel lanes on an existing roadway) has
the potential to increase vehicle travel, referred to as “induced vehicle travel.”
Screening Criteria for CEQA VMT Analysis for Transportation
Projects
Appendix C contains a list of transportation projects that, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, do
not require an induced travel/VMT analysis since they typically do not cause substantial or measurable
increases in VMT.
VMT Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Projects
A net increase in area total VMT indicates that the project has a significant impact
VMT Analysis Procedures for Transportation Projects
To calculate the change in area (boundary method) total VMT, the transportation project should be input
into the travel demand model. The “with project” area total VMT produced by the model run is compared
to the “no project” area total VMT. A net increase in area VMT indicates that the project has a significant
impact
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
10
VMT Reduction and Mitigation
Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the project applicant must reduce VMT, which can be done by either reducing
the number of automobile trips generated by the project or by reducing the distance that people drive.
The following strategies are available to achieve this:
1. Modify the project’s built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project.
2. Implement TDM measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.
Strategies that reduce single occupant automobile trips or reduce travel distances are called TDM
strategies. There are several resources for determining the reduction in VMT due to TDM measures such
as the CAPCOA Quantification Report.
City of Temecula CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
4/3/2020
11
Cumulative VMT Impacts
Since VMT is a composite metric that will continue to be generated over time, a key consideration for
cumulative scenarios is whether the rate of VMT generation gets better or worse in the long-term. If the
rate is trending down over time consistent with expectations for air pollutant and GHGs, then the project
level analysis may suffice. However, the trend direction must be supported with substantial evidence. A
project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact under cumulative conditions if the
cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the WRCOG baseline VMT per service
population.
Measuring the ‘project’s effect on VMT’ is necessary especially under cumulative conditions to fully
explain the project’s impact. A project effect on VMT under cumulative conditions would be considered
significant if the cumulative total VMT/service population increases under the plus project condition
compared to the no project condition.
Please note that the cumulative no project shall reflect the adopted RTP/SCS; as such, if a project is
consistent with the regional RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than
significant.
Appendix A: Model Gateway Distances
Gateway Distance Outside San Diego County (miles)
Route County IX Trips XI Trips
US-101 Santa Barbara 24.4 26.4
SR-150 Santa Barbara 1.9 1.4
SR-33 Santa Barbara 162.9 184.7
Lockwood Valley Rd Kern County 1.8 1.9
I-5 Kern County 224.2 224.8
90th Street W Kern County 26.9 19.8
60th Street W Kern County 0.0 6.1
SR-14 Kern County 30.3 29.0
Sierra Hwy Kern County 0.0 0.0
120th Street E Kern County 13.0 13.1
Mercury Blvd.
(200th St) Kern County 0.0 0.0
SR-58 Kern County 102.8 92.7
SR-395 Kern County 134.8 122.1
SR-178 Kern County 2.9 3.6
Trona Rd Inyo County 0.0 0.0
SR-127 Inyo County 38.9 37.9
Mesquite Valley Rd Inyo County 0.0 0.0
Kingston Rd Arizona 0.0 0.0
SR-15 Arizona 0.0 0.0
Nipton Rd Arizona 0.0 0.0
SR-95 Arizona 0.0 0.0
Needle Hwy Arizona 0.0 0.0
I-40 Arizona 0.0 0.0
Parker Dam Rd Arizona 0.0 0.0
SR-62 Arizona 0.0 0.0
I-10 Arizona 0.0 0.0
I-8 Mexico 0.0 0.0
SR-186 Mexico 0.0 0.0
SR-7 Mexico 0.0 0.0
SR-111 Mexico 0.0 0.0
I-8 Imperial County 67.2 63.8
SR-78 Imperial County 48.6 43.4
SR-22 Imperial County 28.1 26.1
SR-79 San Diego 40.9 41.7
Pala Rd San Diego 19.3 20.4
I-15 San Diego 23.8 23.1
Sandia Creek Rd San Diego 6.7 6.7
De Luz Rd San Diego 4.4 4.4
Tenaja Rd. San Diego 6.5 6.5
I-5 San Diego 40.2 40.3
Appendix B: VMT Screening Maps
TEMECULA
MURRIETA
W:\San Diego N Drive\Projects\2019_Projects\0333_Temecula SB 743 VMT Thresholds and Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Temecula_SB743_VMT.mxdRIVTAM Model (2012)Daily Total VMT per Service PopulationComparison to WRCOG Regional Average
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
|}þ79
|}þ79
§¨¦15
County Boundary
Riverside County
San Diego County
< -15% below WRCOG Regional Average (Screened)
0 to -15% below WRCOG Regional Average (Mitigatable)
Higher than WRCOG Regional Average (Challenge to Mitigate)! ! ! !!! !
!! ! !!!!!!City Limits
Appendix C: Transportation Projects
That Do Not Require VMT Analysis
The following complete list is provided in the OPR Technical Advisory (December 2018, Pages 20-21) for
transportation projects that “would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel,
and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis:”
• 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 as median barriers and guardrails
• 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 one mile 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 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., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles
• Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority
(TSP) 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 new transit service
• Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in 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)
• 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 non-
motorized travel
• Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure
• Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake-check lanes in rural areas that do
not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
CEQA TRANSPORTATION VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”), AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA (LONG RANGE PLANNING
PROJECT NO. LR18-1506)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”)
encourage public agencies to develop and publish generally applicable “thresholds of significance”
to be used in determining the significance of a project’s environmental effects; and
B. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (a) defines a threshold of significance as “an
identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-
compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the
agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to less than
significant”; and
C. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (b) requires that thresholds of significance must
be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulations, developed through a public review
process, and be supported by substantial evidence; and
D. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (c), when adopting thresholds of
significance, a public agency may consider thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by
other public agencies provided that the decision of the agency is supported by substantial evidence;
and
E. Senate Bill 743, enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section
21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the
significance of transportation impacts of projects; and
F. In 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed, and
the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) – meaning the amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a project – as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s
transportation impacts; and
G. As a result, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar
metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA; and
H. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 goes into effect on July 1, 2020, though public
agencies may elect to be governed by this section immediately; and
I. Staff worked with Fehr & Peers to revise the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis
(“TIA”) Guidelines and include a VMT Section (CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
(“VMT Analysis Guidelines”)) to ensure consistency with SB 743; and
J. On April 22, 2020, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission,
considered staff’s presentation and reviewed the recommended thresholds of significance and the
VMT Analysis Guidelines.
Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the
following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the adoption of this
resolution:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Planning
Commission has been determined that the adoption of the VMT Thresholds and CEQA
Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines, which is an action consistent with Senate Bill (“SB”)
743, will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, and thus the Thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are not subject to CEQA (14
CCR § 15378(a)). In addition, the Thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are not a “project”
within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR § 15378(b)(5) and constitute an action involving
procedures for the protection of the environment, which is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14
CCR § 15308. Finally, if the Thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are determined to be
subject to CEQA, they are exempt therefrom because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that these amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. (14 CCR §
15061(b)(3).)
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council of Temecula adopt the Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit “A” adopting the CEQA
Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines (which is included as Attachment A to the City Council
resolution) as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines thereby establishing the VMT
thresholds of significance for transportation impact analysis under CEQA.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 22nd day of April, 2020.
Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Luke Watson
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2020- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of April,
2020, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Luke Watson
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE CEQA
TRANSPORTATION VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR
PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA (LONG RANGE PLANNING
PROJECT NO. (LR18-1506).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of City of Temecula does hereby
find, determine and declare that:
A. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”)
encourage public agencies to develop and publish generally applicable “thresholds of significance”
to be used in determining the significance of a project’s environmental effects; and
B. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (a) defines a thresholds of significance as “an
identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect,
noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the
agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to less than
significant”; and
C. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (b) requires that thresholds of significance must
be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulations, developed through a public review
process, and be supported by substantial evidence; and
D. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7 (c), when adopting thresholds of
significance, a public agency may consider thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by
other public agencies provided that the decision of the agency is supported by substantial evidence;
and
E. Senate Bill 743, enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section
21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the
significance of transportation impacts of projects; and
F. In 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) proposed, and
the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) – meaning the amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a project – as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s
transportation impacts; and
G. As a result, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar
metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA; and
H. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 goes into effect on July 1, 2020, though pub lic
agencies may elect to be governed by this section immediately; and
I. Staff worked with Fehr & Peers to revise the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis
(“TIA”) Guidelines and include a VMT Section (CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines
(“VMT Analysis Guidelines”)) to ensure consistency with SB 743; and
J. On April 22, 2020, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission,
considered staff’s presentation and reviewed the recommended thresholds of significance and the
VMT Analysis Guidelines and recommended that the City Council adopt the VMT Analysis
Guidelines; and
K. On April 23, 2020, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Public Traffic Safety
Commission considered staff’s presentation and reviewed the recommended thresholds of
significance and the VMT Analysis Guidelines and recommended that the City Council adopt the
VMT Analysis Guidelines.
Section 2. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following
environmental findings and determinations in connection with the adoption of this resolution:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City Council has
been determined that the adoption of the VMT Thresholds and CEQA Transportation VMT
Analysis Guidelines, which is an action consistent with Senate Bill (“SB”) 743, will not result in
a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and thus the
thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are not subject to CEQA (14 CCR § 15378(a)). In
addition, the thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are not a “project” within the meaning of
CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR § 15378(b)(5) and constitute an action involving procedures for the
protection of the environment, which is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR § 15308. Finally,
if the thresholds and VMT Analysis Guidelines are determined to be subject to CEQA, they are
exempt therefrom because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that these
amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).)
Section 3. Further Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds
the thresholds of significance identified in the VMT Analysis Guidelines have been developed
through a public review process and are supported by substantial evidence, as required by CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.7.
Section 4. Approval of VMT Analysis Guidelines. The City Council of the City of
Temecula hereby adopts the CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines thereby establishing the VMT
thresholds of significance for transportation impact analysis under CEQA.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
day of May 2020.
James “Stew” Stewart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2020- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of May, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
C:\USERS\LEGISTAR\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\BCL TECHNOLOGIES\EASYPDF 8\@BCL@D00DA7FD\@BCL@D00DA7FD.DOCX
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION to consider the matter
described below:
CASE NO: LR18-1506 APPLICANT: City of Temecula
LOCATION: Citywide
PROPOSAL: Long Range Project Number LR18-1506 to conform with State Law Senate Bill
(“SB”) 743 by replacing vehicular Level of Service (LOS) with Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) transportation analysis metric under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file
ENVIRONMENTAL: The City has the adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” for purposes of
CEQA, as that term is defined by Guidelines Section 15378. Specifically, this
Resolution constitutes organizational or administrative activities of City
government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
environment. (Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5)). Therefore, because it is not a
“project,” this Resolution is not subject to CEQA’s requirements. Further, even
if this Resolution were deemed a “project” and therefore subject to CEQA, the
Resolution would be covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to
projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.
(Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3)). As an organizational or administrative
activity which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may
result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, this
Resolution does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment and is therefore exempt under this general rule. Further, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may
have a significant effect on the environment, and thus this Resolution is not
subject to CEQA. (Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3)).
CASE PLANNER: Sara Toma, (951) 506-5185
DATE OF HEARING: April 23, 2020 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 p.m.
PLACE OF HEARING: This meeting is being conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means
consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19
pandemic. The live stream of the meeting may be viewed on television and/or online. Details can be found at
temeculaca.gov/tv. In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20, the public may only view the meeting on
television and/or online and not in the Council Chamber.
The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing on the City’s
website – TemeculaCA.gov after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
Due to the closure of the Library and other City Buildings and Facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
complete agenda is only viewable on the City website at https://temeculaca.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. For more
information or have questions regarding this project, please contact Sara Toma (951) 506-5185.
Submission of Public Comments: For those wishing to make public comments at the April 23, 2020 Public
Traffic Safety Commission meeting, please submit your comments by email to be read aloud at the meeting by
C:\USERS\LEGISTAR\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\BCL TECHNOLOGIES\EASYPDF 8\@BCL@D00DA7FD\@BCL@D00DA7FD.DOCX
the Office Specialist II. Email comments must be submitted to Anissa Sharp at anissa.sharp@temeculaca.gov.
Electronic comments on agenda items for the April 23, 2020 Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting may only
be submitted via email and comments via text and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.
Reading of Public Comments: The Office Specialist II shall read all email comments, provided that the reading
shall not exceed three (3) minutes, or such other time as the Public Traffic Safety Commission may provide,
consistent with the time limit for speakers at a Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting. The email comments
submitted shall become part of the record of the Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
Questions? Please call the Case Planner Sara Toma at (951) 506-5185 or the Community Development
Department at (951) 694-6400.