This document discusses proposed updates to CEQA guidelines regarding transportation impact analysis. Current guidelines focus on vehicle delay and level of service, but the proposed updates emphasize alternative metrics like vehicle miles traveled to be more consistent with laws like SB 375 that aim to reduce greenhouse gases. The updates propose analyzing VMT instead of delay within transit priority areas and high quality transit corridors. Implementation challenges include determining new thresholds and methodologies, applying the guidelines appropriately within and outside transit areas, and gaining acceptance from the public and decision makers.

1. Dan Gira, CEQA Program Manager
Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure
daniel.gira@amecfw.com

2.  AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act
 Reduce GHGs
 SB375 – Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act
 Link land use & transportation planning
 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
 Reduce GHGs
 AB 1358 – Complete Streets Act
 Local government must provide multimodal
transportation network

3.  Current CEQA Guidelines
 Vehicle delay/level of service (LOS) is a
measurement of transportation impact
 EIR identifies impact of project on traffic flow
 EIR mitigates impact with roadway improvements
 Wider roads/ more turn lanes
 More signalized intersections
 Impacts to other transportation modes
 Impacts to community character
 Financial consequences

4.  Propose Updated CEQA Guidelines
 Alternative transportation impact methodology
 Vehicle miles traveled
 Vehicle miles traveled per capita
 Automobile trip generation rates
 Automobile trips generated
 Other locally significant metrics or criteria
 Upon new Guidelines adoption
 Vehicle delay no longer an impact within TPAs or
HQTAs.
 Vehicle delay may be impact outside of TPA or
HQTA

5. Impact analysis with SB 743

6.  Guidelines Implementation Issues
 Effective date of CEQA Guidelines (2015?)
 Required application limited to TPAs
 TPAs vary widely by jurisdiction
 Focused on more highly urbanized areas
 Limited or not mandated non-TPA areas
 Discretionary for these agencies
 Balancing act for agency staff/ consultants
 Citizen concerns/ acceptance
 Decision-maker understanding/ acceptance

11.  Challenges
 Adds potential additional EIR complexities
 Optional/ inapplicable in growing urban edge
 Potential need for use of dual standards in EIRs
 LOS/ roadway ADT analysis may still be required
 Hot Spots, Noise, TAC
 Early ID of new thresholds/ methodologies
 Coordination with regional planning agency
 Projects in pipeline

12.  Determine if agency has goals or thresholds
 Adopted vs. case-by-case
 Options for scope of study (VMT and/or LOS)
 Confirm methodology
 Determine applicability
 Project within ½ mile of major transit stop or
high quality transit corridor
 Other factors
 Decision-maker and citizen awareness/concerns

13.  Regional VMTs
 Availability of Travel Demand Model
 Regional planning framework
 Adopted sustainable communities plan
 Local VMTs
 Updated jurisdiction-wide model available?
 CalEEMod & Assumptions
 Establish threshold
 VMTs greater than regional average
 General Plan standards

14.  Different standards within a jurisdiction
 New CEQA Guidelines within TPA
 New Guidelines and/or LOS outside of TPA
 Local and Regional Model Consistency
 Technical Specialist Coordination
 Project timing
 EIR underway
 New projects

15.  New CEQA Guidelines/possible metrics
 VMTs exceed regional average by land use
 Less than significant in TPA
 Less than significant if project reduces VMTs
 Local discretion to determine significance
 Sustainable Communities Strategy consistency
 Adequacy of bike-pedestrian-transit linkages
 Corridor travel times

16.  Downtown major mixed use project
 Transit priority project
 In well-served TPA (bus + pending rail)
 Adjacent to new LRT
 Existing Agency Thresholds & Methodology
 Thresholds - LOS, CMP, Bike/Ped./ Transit conflicts
 Travel Demand Model- AVR, transit, bike assumptions
 Detailed travel demand model
 Programmatic SB 743 Analysis
 Model and evaluate project VMTs

17.  Urban Downtown Specific Plan EIR
 Focus on Transit Priority Projects
 Encompasses Transit Rich TPA (bus/ pending rail)
 Thresholds/ Methodology
 Existing strict LOS standards
 Access to transit, bike, pedestrian facilities
 No net new trips metric
 Key transportation corridor changes in travel times
 Programmatic discussion of SB 743
 Changes in citywide wide VMTs

18.  Coastal Resort Hotels
 In mapped TPA
 Difficult transit access
 Bike or pedestrian facilities lacking
 Headways greater than 20 minutes
 Dual Methodology Approach
 Address LOS standards
 Programmatic discussion of SB 743

19.  Transit and Commuting
 Transit system improvement (headways)
 Subsidized transit passes
 Carpooling, telecommuting, flex-schedules
 Parking
 Reduce parking requirements, unbundled or shared
parking programs
 Public parking pricing, cash-out programs
 Bicycling and Walking
 Bike system improvements (bike parking, lockers,
showers)
 Pedestrian system improvements (Safe Routes to
School, wayfinding, ped-only connections)

20.  Embrace and utilize new CEQA Guidelines
 Adopt tailored thresholds
 Address all modes of transportation
 Promote Transit Priority Projects
 Balance new Guidelines with LOS Standards
 Use Guideline based thresholds
 Multi-modal General Plan standards (LOS+)
 Retain LOS Based Approach
 Outside of TPAs
 Include discussion of SB 743 or dual analysis

21.  Review of applicability within community
 ID TPA and Non-TPA areas
 Implications of single vs. dual approach
 Real world quality of transit, bike-ped facilities
 Outreach and education
 Workshops- community groups/ developers
 Decision-maker briefings
 Adoption of revised methodologies/ thresholds
 Long Term
 Review regional plans, general plan, CIP, fee
programs and coordination with transit providers

22. Dan Gira, CEQA Program Manager
daniel.gira@amecfw.com
805-962-0992