JTAC STAFF REPORT. MEETING DATE: July 7, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 5

Transcription

1 JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: SB 743 Implementation MEETING DATE: July 7, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 5 STAFF CONTACT: Michael Becker, Julio Perucho RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report on the status of SB 743 implementation and preliminary analysis conducted by staff. SUMMARY: Since SB 743 became law in 2013, the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has been working on the technical details of implementing the law. SB 743 fundamentally changes the analysis of transportation impacts in CEQA from a level of service (LOS) based analysis to analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from projects subject to CEQA. With several iterations of OPR s proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines and technical methodology complete, and expected State agency approval later this year, the State is nearing finalization of the CEQA Guidelines update. Upon final approval of the Guidelines by the Office of Administrative Law, lead agencies will have up to two years to implement the changes. In response to member agency requests, SBCAG staff has prepared detailed screening maps using the regional travel demand model (RTDM) to quantify VMT consistent with the method proposed by OPR s Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (January 2016). SBCAG is sharing this information now to assist member agencies in implementing SB 743. Member agencies, at their discretion, may opt to use this information as the basis for local thresholds of significance for the new VMT transportation impact standard. However, the VMT screening maps and other material presented are purely informational and non-binding. Under SB 743, lead agencies have discretion to set their own thresholds of significance. The balance of this staff report provides a background on SB 743, highlights proposed CEQA changes, and presents and discusses SB 743 materials prepared by SBCAG staff to assist member agencies with the implementation of SB 743. DISCUSSION: On January 20, 2016, the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the Revised Proposal on Updates to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (revised proposal) (Attachment 1). Following the release, OPR accepted comments until February 29, 2016, for which SBCAG submitted a comment letter (Attachment 2) seeking revisions addressing the following four items: 1. Define a base year for setting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds.

2 2. Develop an implementation training program to assist in this fundamental shift in CEQA analyses. 3. More clearly define roles of all involved to avoid any potential confusion. 4. Provide guidance on indirect effects to no longer considering congestion an environmental impact, such as emissions increases from idling vehicles. OPR is now considering comments received and may make further revision, but we do not expect a subsequent round of comments and revisions from OPR. OPR will submit the next iteration of the revised proposal to the State s Natural Resources Agency for review, which in turn will submit it to the Office of Administrative Law for final review. There may be opportunity to comment during these final two reviews. Staff does not believe it is likely there will be any fundamental differences between the revised proposal and what is ultimately approved by the Office of Administrative Law. Background Senate Bill 743 was authored by former Senator Darrell Steinberg and signed into law by Governor Brown on September 27, The legislative intent of SB 743 is to ensure that the environmental impacts of traffic, such as noise, air pollution, and safety concerns, continue to be properly addressed and mitigated through CEQA and to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and submit to the Secretary of Natural Resources Agency, and the Secretary to certify and adopt, revisions to the Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. It also requires that OPR circulate a draft revision of the Guidelines prior to submittal to the Secretary for public comment. OPR released the first related document in December 2013, Preliminary Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Transportation Analysis, and after considering comments released the Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743 in August The January 2016 release of the revised proposal is the latest revision to OPR s work on implementing SB 743. Local governments may continue to consider transportation impacts based on level of service (LOS) according to standards set in their general plans. However, when SB 743 changes to CEQA are implemented, the CEQA review of general plan updates will be subject to the updated CEQA guidelines. Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (revised proposal) The revised proposal, released in January 2016, provided additional clarity in regards to implementing SB 743. It includes both the recommended changes to the CEQA Guidelines and a technical advisory. Significant elements include: Changes to the CEQA Guidelines are limited to approximately two pages. However, a 45-page technical advisory supplements the CEQA Guidelines with added depth. This format enables OPR to revise the technical advisory as needed without going through the formal regulatory process of updating the CEQA Guidelines. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) remains the proposed metric for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA for land use projects. Induced demand is the proposed metric for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA for transportation projects. Safety, as related to vehicle 2

3 occupants (not property), pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users is proposed to also be considered, as is emergency vehicle access. Lead agencies are proposed to be responsible for defining measurement techniques and setting thresholds of significance. Land use developments within ½-mile of a major transit stop, as defined, are proposed to be presumed to have no significant transportation impact. Lead agencies have up to two years after the CEQA Guidelines take effect to implement the changes. Qualitative analyses are proposed to be permitted if backed by substantial evidence and a quantitative means of assessment is not available or appropriate for a particular analysis. OPR suggests a holistic assessment of VMT, which is the daily change of VMT based on all trip making. For example, a centralized development may also reduce vehicle-based errand running. OPR s suggested thresholds make clear that it is interpreting SB 743 in such manner as to reduce VMT, rather than merely hold it at current levels. OPR proposes setting thresholds at 15% below the existing average VMT for residential and office projects. Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The term Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) lacks reference to a time period. The FHWA definition of VMT represents it as an annual figure. OPR, in the revised proposal, describes VMT as the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. 1 SBCAG s regional travel demand model (RTDM) estimates and forecasts travel for a typical weekday and therefore a typical weekday is the basis of any estimations or forecasts developed by SBCAG. The SBCAG model is a 4-step travel demand model that performs the following classical modeling steps: trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, time-of-day, and assignment within a fully integrated TransCAD Version 6.0 software platform. TAZs, demographics data, and the estimation of the model parameters were developed based on 2010 Census block geography and data along with ACS block group demographics, 2010 InfoUSA employment data, ACS Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) data, 2009 Longitudinal Employment Dynamics (LEHD) data, and the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). OPR proposes that analysis of VMT be conducted by project type. For example, the VMT estimated to be generated by a proposed residential project is compared to the established VMT of other residential projects within a defined area. Environmental impacts are determined by comparing the VMT generated by the project the lead agency s threshold of significance for that project type in that location. The following hypothetical example illustrates this proposed method: 1. The RTDM develops baseline 2010 average VMT figures for residences on regional and city scales. Each residence is responsible for an average of 20 miles of vehicular travel at both scales. 2. A developer proposes a residential project for a location greater than ½-mile from a qualifying transit stop. 3. The location of this proposed development is analyzed to estimate the average VMT attributable to each residence. The analysis finds each residence, on average, is expected to result in 22 vehicle miles traveled/day. 4. The expected VMT exceeds the CEQA lead agency s adopted threshold of significance, which per OPR s suggestion would be 85% of the 2010 average, or 17 miles per unit, and the 1 Revised OPR Proposal (Attachment 1), p. 7. 3

4 development is found to have a significant transportation impact. (Thresholds are discussed in more detail below.) 5. The lead agency and the developer work to find mitigation measures sufficient to reduce VMT to or below the adopted threshold. OPR has provided guidance on assessing VMT for the land use types presented in the following table. OPR notes that where tour-based tools or data are not available for all components of an analysis, an assessment of trip VMT can serve as a reasonable proxy 2. SBCAG s RTDM has the capability to estimate VMT per corresponding trip types. Land-use Type SBCAG RTDM Equivalence Notes Residential Residential VMT Per Trip Considered the same as office (Residential Average Vehicle Trip Length) Office Office VMT Per Trip Considered the same as residential (Office Average Vehicle Trip Length) Retail Retail VMT Per Trip (Retail Average Vehicle Trip Length) Should consider change in VMT Mixed-Use Should consider each component individually All others Other VMT Per Trip (Other Average Vehicle Trip Length) Consider on a case-by-case basis The SBCAG RTDM equivalences above are based on the vehicle mode choice traffic analysis zone (TAZ) trip matrices multiplied by the TAZ-to-TAZ vehicle skim lengths. These skim lengths are 'skimmed' from the transportation network along the paths accumulating the length for each TAZ-to- TAZ pair. The vehicle mode choice TAZ trip matrices are broken into various trip purposes 3 which are then aggregated to residential, office, retail, and all others trips. This provides total VMT by TAZ by trip purpose which is then divided by the trips and results in VMT per trip (average vehicle trip length) by trip purpose. The land use types above are aggregated from the trip purposes as explained below: Residential VMT per trip (productions of HBWork, HBShop, HBSchool, HBOther) Office VMT per trip (attractions of HBWork and NonHBWork) Retail VMT per trip (attractions of HBShop) All other VMT per trip (productions of NHBWork, NHBOther, IXXI, Visitor, attractions of HBSchool, HBOther, NHBOther, IXXI, Visitor) The SBCAG RTDM forecasts trip productions and attractions, with each trip having one production end and one attraction end. Productions are related to the home end of the trip while attractions are related to the non-home end. OPR proposes to give significant deference to lead agencies in the analysis of transportation impacts. SBCAG RTDM Screening Maps 2 OPR s guidance does not specify modeling tools and in fact leaves the selection of modeling tools wide-open. That may present a consistency issue that should be considered by each lead agency, if a jurisdiction uses the SBCAG RTDM to set its thresholds and developers/consultants use an entirely different tool (e.g., CalEEMod) to assess project VMT. 3 Home-Based Work (HBW), Home-Based Other (HBO), Home-Based School (HBSchool), Home-Based Shopping (HBShop), Non-Home Based Work (NHBWork), Non-Home Based Other (NHBOther), Internal-External (IX), External-Internal (XI), and Visitor. 4

5 For residential and office developments, OPR suggests preparing maps based on modeling analysis that identify areas where developments are not expected to cause significant transportation impacts. In addition to highlighting areas within ½ mile of a qualifying transit corridor, each transportation analysis zone (TAZ) is assessed to determine if new residential or office development would create VMT levels at or below threshold values based on existing averages for each TAZ. Staff employed the regional travel demand model to prepare maps consistent with the guidance provided in the revised proposal (see Attachments 3a and 3b). These TAZ maps provide modeled information relevant to local stakeholders, including: Color theme illustrating average VMT per trip by trip purpose (residential, office, retail) a. Green: 0 to 85 percent (minus 15 percent or more) of existing regional or city average. b. Yellow: 85 to 100 percent (minus 15 to minus zero percent) of existing regional or city average. c. Red: Greater than existing regional or city average. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Significance Thresholds A VMT significance threshold is a value that defines the cutoff between a proposed development causing or not causing a significant transportation impact. OPR has provided deference to lead agencies to set their own VMT thresholds. However, OPR suggests values of 15 percent below existing average VMT for residential, office, and retail developments. The color-coded thematic maps prepared by staff provide both zero percent and minus 15 percent VMT reduction thresholds at both the regional and city levels. Attachment 4 provides both the existing and 15 percent below average VMT per trip by trip purpose for residential, office, and retail. As delineated by the maps, a proposed project within its applicable color-coded TAZ (green for a minus 15% threshold, or green or yellow for a assuming a 0% threshold) will be presumed to have no significant transportation impact at a given threshold level. In a red (or yellow, in the case of a minus 15% threshold) TAZ, the development is presumed to have a significant transportation impact and mitigation is warranted. It should be noted that the revised OPR proposal recommends employing both a regional and city analysis. For instance, for a residential project to be presumed to have a significant transportation impact, it would need not to satisfy both the regional and city average VMTs and associated thresholds. 4 Office projects are proposed to only be subject to regional VMT. However, at both scales vehicle travel is not truncated at political boundaries. In addition to VMT analysis, the revised proposal states development in a location where the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) does not specify any development may indicate a significant impact on transportation. 5 The California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) may also be used to calculate VMT. 6 Land Use Plans As VMT is quantified for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the OPR guidance recommends land use plans be assessed by their consistency with the SCS. However, lead agencies have discretion to set their own thresholds. 4 Revised OPR Proposal (Attachment 1), p Revised OPR Proposal (Attachment 1), p

6 Transportation Projects Transportation projects are recommended to be assessed by quantifying the VMT of induced demand. Most transportation projects would be exempt from analysis, with primary focus on capacity-adding projects. Transit and active transportation projects are proposed to be presumed to create no significant transportation impacts. Mitigation Measures OPR proposes to have mitigation measures lower a project s calculated VMT on percentage bases to achieve threshold values. So far, OPR has referenced the California Air Pollution Control Officer s Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Report (Attachment 4, see Section 3). Fifty different VMT mitigation techniques are discussed, and are categorized into seven themes: Land Use/Location; Neighborhood/Site Enhancements; Parking Policy/Pricing; Commute Trip Reduction Programs; Transit System Improvements; Road Pricing/Management; and Vehicles. The report provides thorough descriptions of each mitigation measure and discusses the requirements to achieve VMT reductions and the associated percent reductions. CONCLUSION: The implementation of SB 743 creates a fundamental shift in the way transportation impacts are assessed for CEQA purposes. Following a lengthy process of determining the appropriate metric for analysis, developing methodology, and considering comments, OPR is nearing finalization of its proposed CEQA Guidelines changes and technical advisory. Staff expects OPR to complete its work and the updated Guidelines to be finalized (following review by two other State agencies) by the end of Lead agencies will then have up to two years to implement the changes, but may choose to do so sooner. SBCAG s regional travel demand model is capable of calculating VMT. The information provided in this report is intended to assist local jurisdictions in setting thresholds of significance, should they wish to follow OPR s proposed approach in setting thresholds. However, lead agencies have discretion to employ their own methodology and set their own significance thresholds. As new information is released, staff will return to the Committee with updates as necessary. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Revised Proposal Web Link Only 2. SBCAG Comment Letter (February 16, 2016) 3. SBCAG VMT Maps: a. Regional b. Jurisdictional 4. Regional and Jurisdictional VMT by Trip Purpose 5. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Web Link Only 6