The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/16/2020 Item 13, Horn Council Agenda Correspondence City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum DATE:June 16, 2020 TO:Mayor and Council FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director Prepared by:Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager VIA:Derek Johnson, City Manager DJ SUBJECT:Item 13 –CEQA Transportation Impact Thresholds Update: Transition from Auto Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The purpose of this memorandum is to provide supplemental information and initial responses to several questions received from members of the City Council and community regarding Item 13 on your June 16, 2020 agenda (CEQA Transportation Impact Thresholds Update). Questions and staff responses are summarized as follows: 1.It is imperative that Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress remain as a metric for evaluating impacts to bicycle transportation and part of the City’s development and transportation project reviewprocess. Staff Response: Staff is in agreement with this statement. As described within the staff report on pg. 252 of the agenda packet, the updated City Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines will now allow the use of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress as an acceptable methodology for analyzing bicycle transportation conditions along roadway segments. 2.VMT mitigation strategies should improve access to active transportation facilities in proportion to the City’s mode split goals. Staff Response: The Modal Priorities and Mode Split targets established in the General Plan Circulation Element will be key factorsin guiding any VMT mitigation strategies. This is reflected in the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. As summarized within the staff report on pg. 251 of the agenda packet, priority mitigation strategies for mitigating VMT impacts include increasing access to and improving transit service and active transportation infrastructure to reduce motor vehicle travel. 3.VMT mitigation strategies should include requirements to improve facilities identified in the Active Transportation Plan and/or participation in an in-lieu fee program to fund City- wide active transportation improvements. Staff Response: As noted in Response to Item #2 above, improvements to transit and active transportation infrastructure will certainly be prominent strategies within the metaphorical VMT mitigation “toolbox”. This would include any improvements identified within the Item 13 –CEQA Transportation Impact Thresholds UpdatePage 2 forthcoming Active Transportation Plan, scheduled to be presented for Council consideration and adoption in fall of 2020. In addition, the current Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program includes funding for several bicycle facility improvements included in the current City Bicycle Transportation Plan. Following adoption of the Active Transportation Program, the next update to the Citywide TIF Program is planned to incorporate priority projects identified in the upcoming Active Transportation Plan. 4.With the recommendationto use the existing regional (Countywide) average VMT as the baseline for setting the proposedCity VMT thresholds, what happens over time if the Countywide average VMT starts to increase? Do the City thresholds automatically increase in turn, allowing higher and higher VMT generation? Can the City Counciltake action to change the VMT thresholds in the futureif regional trends are not in line with City trends? Staff Response: The quantitative VMT thresholds adopted by the City will be updated over time in conjunction with updates to the City Travel Demand Model and per any revisions included in subsequent update to CEQA technical guidelines for implementing SB 743. As discussed in the resolution approving the formal shift from Level of Service to VMT (Attachment A in the staff report), administerial updates to the City VMT thresholds based on these factors will not require Council action. As projected in the SLOCOG 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as the County continues to build out under currently adopted land use and transportation plans, regional VMT per capita averages are projected to decreaseover time, not increase. With implementation of SB 743 by localities throughout the County, as is required by state mandate, it is unlikely that regional VMT per capita averages will increase over time. That said, if Council desires to revisit the City’s adopted VMT thresholds in the future to modify how the quantitative thresholds are calculated (i.e. base thresholds on baseline City averages instead of County averages), that can certainly within the Council’s purview and perhaps appropriate as part of other future plan/policy updates, such as future updates to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). 5.What is a local example of a “transportation project” as described in the staff report? Staff Response: A transportation project would include any transportation infrastructure or policy changes. Example transportationprojects that would be now exempt from focused VMT analysis under the new CEQA Guidelines include construction of bike lanes, repaving an existing street, construction of new local streets with pedestrian facilities, new sidewalks, vehicle travel lane reductions (i.e. “road diets”) and transit improvements, such new transit stops or dedicated bus lanes. Example transportation projects that would likely require some level of focused VMT analysis include widening of an arterial street for additional motor vehicle lanes, or construction of a new bridge or road extension that adds additional vehicle capacity along collector or arterial streets. 6.What is mean by the term used in the staff report “development of a diversity of land uses”? Staff Response: This term is emphasized in the SB 743 implementation guidance published by the state, and generally refers to encouraging a mix of land uses, which can be in the form of Item 13 –CEQA Transportation Impact Thresholds UpdatePage 3 individual mixed-use development projects, or by simply encouraging development in locations where there is efficient access to housing, jobs, retail and other common destinations. Communities with a diverse mix of land uses generally exhibit lower VMT per capita, as people generally travel shorter distances for their day-to-day activities. The City’s current General Plan already has several policies and zoning strategies that encourage infill and mixed-use development for similar purposes—to encourage use of sustainable transportation options and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 7.The proposed VMT thresholds include exemptions for “transit-oriented development”; however, there are currently no locations within the City that meet the minimum transit frequency levels to qualify for this exemption. Does this mean that even projects near transit would require detailed analysis under CEQA? Staff Response: CEQA guidance allows for project exemption from focused VMT analysis for transit oriented development located within a half-mile of a transit station or corridor with frequencies that are 15 minutes or less during commute periods. Currently, transit service levels within the City to not satisfy these requirements, so no development within the City would qualify for this exemption currently.While this exemption provideslittle value under current circumstances, with future increases in SLO Transit and/or RTA transit service frequencies, this exemption may apply for future development projectsin the city. This does not necessarily mean that development projects located near existing transit services will be penalized, as there are other screening criteria that may be applied for small and medium-sized development projects. Where exemptions are not appropriate and focused VMT analysis is required, projects that are inherently located in areas with good access to transit and active transportation facilities will inherently generate lower VMT rates, which means there will be less potential for project VMT impacts. In addition, the above listed items, it was also brought to our attention that the link to Attachment E within the staff report was not working as intended. The link to this resource is provided herein for reference: California Office of Planning & Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts inCEQA:https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf