HomeMy Public PortalAbout10) 8A - Adoption of Amended Traffic ThresholdsCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
June 16, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Scott Reimers, Interim Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
FOR REVIEWING PROJECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 20-5477 (Attachment "A"),
which adopts thresholds of significance for reviewing traffic impacts of projects in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), directs staff to
retain level of service analysis in project analysis to ensure consistency with the
General Plan, and finds that the adoption of new CEQA thresholds of significance are
exempt from CEQA.
BACKGROUND:
1.On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed by the Governor. The
law precluded the use of level of service to determine automobile delay f rom being
used in CEQA analysis.
2.In December of 2018, after five years of public consultation the California Natural
Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package,
which included the Guidelines section implementing Senate Bill 743. In addition, the
State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed a Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which contains OPR’s
technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of
significance, and mitigation measures.
3.On May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt the proposed thresholds of significance.
AGENDA
ITEM 8.A.
City Council
June 16, 2020
Page 2 of 6
SUMMARY:
Changes in state law require the City to adopt new CEQA thresholds of significance for
transportation impacts. For the purposes of CEQA these changes will modify how the City
evaluates projects for transportation impacts. Specifically, the City must use Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS) as the metric to evaluate
transportation impacts in CEQA documents such as Environmental Impact
Reports. Staff is recommending that automobile delay and level of service still be
studied as part of a project’s review, but outside of the CEQA analysis. Based on
guidance provided through an implementation process led by the San Gabriel
Council of Governments, City staff have prepared new CEQA transportation impact
thresholds for consideration by City Council. This report summarizes the state
mandate that requires modifying the CEQA thresholds, discusses the City staff
recommendations, and includes a draft Resolution to adopt the new CEQA transportation
thresholds and move the existing metrics to project review outside of CEQA.
ANALYSIS:
CEQA and Thresholds of Significance
CEQA, the State’s preeminent environmental law that sets standards and practices for
reviewing a project’s impact on the environment, requires jurisdictions to review and
disclose the impact a project would have on the environment to the public and decision
makers and as a result reduce those impacts. CEQA establishes four categories of
environmental impacts:
1.No impact
2.Less than significant impact
3.Less than significant impact with the adoption of mitigation measures (a way of
reducing an impact’s effect)
4.Significant unavoidable impacts
A threshold of significance is the point at which an impact moves from less than significant
to significant. CEQA defines a significant impact as “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment .” Agencies adopt defined thresholds of
significance for each of the 18 areas studied under CEQA. In relation to traffic, the City
in 2017 adopted differing thresholds of significance for streets and intersections
depending on the street’s function and the street’s context (for example commercial
corridor or single-family residential collector). In response to Senate Bill 743, staff
recommends a new set of thresholds of significance based on vehicle miles travelled.
Traffic Analysis & Level of Service
The focus of most traffic analysis is on a project’s impact on nearby intersections and
roadway segments. This analysis compares how the existing intersection or roadway
segment functions in comparison to how it will function when the project is complete.
At the heart of this analysis, is how an intersection or street segment should function.
To analyze this, engineers look at the intersections’ and roadway segments’ LOS. LOS,
in its simplest form, is a ratio of an intersection’s or roadway segment’s volume to it s
City Council
June 16, 2020
Page 3 of 6
capacity. If the volume of traffic exceeds the intersection’s capacity, one would expect
to find traffic delays. If the capacity exceeds volume, one expects to find an absence of
congestion.
Existing Thresholds of Significance
The City’s existing thresholds of significance rely on LOS and are adjusted to the unique
character of Temple City and the street’s context within the network. The existing
thresholds develop a more sensitive approach to traffic planning so that streets with
different purposes, functions, and in different neighborhoods have different thresholds.
For more information see Attachment A, Exhibit B. Staff still believes that this approach
is valid. While it cannot be used for CEQA anymore, staff recommends continuing to use
these thresholds outside of CEQA. Therefore, staff is recommending that these
thresholds be adopted as an official policy by the City Council.
The Movement Toward VMT
SB 743 set the State down a course of measuring a project’s environmental impact not
by its creation of congestion, but by whether and how much it increases total vehicle
miles traveled. Vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is the number of miles all vehicles travel,
and it is the State’s goal to reduce VMT and thereby reduce air pollution and greenhou se
gas emissions. The City’s consultant, Fehr and Peers, has created this video
(https://youtu.be/UE4TJItVdJ8) to help explain VMT.
While SB 743 changes the focus of traffic analysis to reducing VMT, it also does not
prohibit cities from setting LOS standards for infrastructure planning purposes. SB 743
reorients CEQA away from traffic congestion and toward the negative environmental
effects of automobile trips (air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) thus refocusing
CEQA on the environment.
VMT Discussion Points
While State law now requires cities to adopt VMT thresholds there are still some points
on which the City has some discretion. The bullets below highlight these points and
provide staff’s recommendation. In each of these decision points staff looked for options
that would limit the City’s future litigation risk and reduce the expensive and onerous
CEQA process on projects that comply with the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan.
•Screening Out Projects – The State allows cities to filter or “screen out” local
serving projects so that they do not even require a traffic study for CEQA
purposes. The idea behind this is that since they serve the local population, they
are likely reducing the need for people to drive further away and thus are reducing
VMT. City staff is recommending adopting a list of local serving project types
that are consistent with the state’s Offi ce of Planning and Research’s (OPR)
guidance. This list includes new retail buildings that are less than 50,000 square
feet in floor area, local parks, K-12 schools, day care centers, churches and such.
The list also includes p rojects generating less tha n 110 daily trips, such as 11
single-family units, 16 multi-family units, 10,000 square feet of office space, and
15,000 square feet of industrial space. For a full list see Attachment B. The City
City Council
June 16, 2020
Page 4 of 6
can adopt a lower number of daily trips or projects of a small size, but higher
thresholds are not allowed.
•Screening Out Projects in Low VMT Areas – The State allows cities to filter out
regions of the City that are already considered “low VMT” traffic analysis zones
(TAZs). The rationale is that the area likely already has a good mix of uses and
adding additional uses in this area provides for less and/or shorter trips and
bundling of trips. Staff is recommending that to be consistent with OPR guidance
by screening out residential and office projects located in low VMT areas. Low
VMT is defined as areas of the City where the VMT falls below the City’s adopted
threshold of significance (see Attachment C).
•Screening Out Projects in Transit Priority Areas (TPA) - The City staff
recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance by screening out projects
in Transit Priority Areas be defined as locations within half-a-mile of a transit stop
or station with a minimum of 15-minute headways during peak commute hours.
Currently there are no TPAs in Temple City. Over time as transit service changes
or increases, portions of the City may fall into a TPA (see Attachment D).
•Screening Out Affordable Housing – The City staff recommendation is to be
consistent with OPR guidance to screen out affordable housing developments or
affordable housing units within mixed -use developments.
•Setting a Baseline VMT – The baseline VMT is defined as the average VMT for
t he area represented by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
(SGVCOG), as measured by VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per
service population. A project’s VMT will be compared to the baseline VMT when
determining potential significant impacts. The City can choose different
baselines including the City’s existing VMT, a subarea of the SGVCOG, the
SGVCOG or the SCAG region. Staff recommends choosing the SGVCOG as the
baseline.
•When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Land Use Plans) – The City staff
recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance , significant impacts will
occur if the VMT per service population for the land use plan exceeds 15 percent
below the baseline VMT.
•When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Projects) – The City staff
recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance , significant impacts will
occur if a project generates VMT (per capita, per employee, or per service
population) higher than 15 percent below the baseline VMT.
•When a VMT Impact Becomes Significant (Transportation Projects) – The City
staff recommendation is to be consistent with OPR guidance , significant impacts
will occur if the projects result in a net increase in VMT.
City Council
June 16, 2020
Page 5 of 6
Result of Proposed Thresholds of Significance:
The recent Mid-Century General Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan set a vision for city
in which growth would be focused away from single-family neighborhoods and toward
mixed-use zones and multi-family areas. This plan coincides with the idea behind SB
743 and the use of VMT. Cities can keep VMT low by adding destinations to areas where
destinations already exist, instead of areas where the density of destinations is low. This
creates efficiency so people can combine trips or reduce the distance between trips. By
adopting these thresholds projects consistent with the Mid-Century General Plan and the
Crossroads Specific Plan, such as mixed-use buildings, will not require intense traffic
studies.
Building Industry Association Request:
The City has received a request from the Building Industry Association (Attachment F)
requesting the City Council to pass a resolution requesting the Governor to delay the
deadline for implementing this rule change. Delaying the deadline for Temple City is
unnecessary. The reason for this requested delay is that other cities were caught
unprepared and have projects with CEQA documents already under preparation that did
not consider this rule change. However, Temple City is prepared and has readied itself
for this rule change even considering it when the City’s General Plan and Crossroads
Specific Plan were reviewed in 2017. Even at that time the City’s traffic study included a
VMT analysis. Additionally, the City does not have any projects undergoing a traffic study
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission reviewed the recommended traffic thresholds of significance
on May 26. The Commission had a healthy discussion and expressed some concern
over the loss of automobile delay and level of service as a metric. Staff acknowledges
that concern and is recommending continuing moving forward with the level of service
standards set by the City Council in 2017, but outside of CEQA. The Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt staff’s recommendation.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
The City Council is requested to adopt traffic thresholds of significance for reviewing
projects in compliance with CEQA furthering the City’s Strategic Goal of Quality of Life,
Sustainable Infrastructure, and Economic Developme nt.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adopting thresholds of significance for traffic would have no impact on the City Budget.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A.City Council Resolution 20-5477
City Council
June 16, 2020
Page 6 of 6
B.List of Projects that Can Be Screened Out Based on Type
C.Low VMT Areas
D.Transit Priority Areas (TPAs)
E.Correspondence from the Building Industry Association
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION 20-5477
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEMPLE CITY
ADOPTING “VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED” THRESHOLDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(a) defines a threshold 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 be less than significant”; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(b) require s 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
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
Resolution No. 20-5477
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City’s project review process will retain “level of service”
analysis to ensure consistency with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temple City, following a public review
process consisting of a staff presentation before the Planning Commission
resulting in a recommendation from the Planning Commission that the City
Council adopt the proposed VMT thresholds of significance for determining
the significance of transportation impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temple City, wishes to adopt the VMT thresholds
of significance for determining the significance of transportation impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Temple City as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the adoption of new local CEQA thresholds
of significance for transportation impacts and the adoption of new Local Transportation
Assessment Guidelines will not have a significant environmental impact and
are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations because the two actions are undertaken by the City for the
protection of the environment. The revised CEQA thresholds will be compliant
with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process (CEQA
process) that involves procedures for the protection of the environment.
Accordingly, the City Council will consider the recommendation to find the
Resolution exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant
to Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 2. The City Council adopts the VMT thresholds of significance attached as
Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The City Council directs staff retain “level of service” analysis, as
described in Exhibit B, to ensure consistency with the General Plan.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 16th day of June, 2020.
Tom Chavez, Mayor
Resolution No. 20-5477
Page 3 of 3
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peggy Kuo, City Clerk Gregory Murphy, City Attorney
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temple City at a meeting held on the 16th of June, 2020, by the following
vote:
YES: Councilmember-
NO: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
ATTEST:
Peggy Kuo, City Clerk
City of Temple City
VMT Baselines and Thresholds of Significance
Exhibit A of Resolution 20-5477
Citywide
Consistent with State CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, the City of City of Temple City has
adopted the project baselines and thresholds of significance set forth in Table 1 to guide in
determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact.
TABLE 1:
PROJECT TYPE BASELINE AND METHODOLOGY
Land Use Plan 1)Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT
rate for the plan would exceed a level of 15% below the
applicable baseline VMT rate.
2)Project Effect: A significant impact will occur if the project
increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no
project conditions.
Land Use Project 1)Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT
rate for the project would exceed a level of 15% below the
applicable baseline VMT rate.
2)Project Effect: A significant impact will occur if the project
increases total regional VMT compared to baseline
conditions.
A significant impact will occur if the project increases total
regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions.
Retail Project 1)Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT
rate for the project would exceed a level of 15% below the
applicable baseline VMT.
2)Project Effect: A significant impact will occur if the project
increases total VMT in the study area compared to baseline
conditions.
Transportation Project A significant impact will occur if the project causes a net increase
in total regional VMT compared to baseline conditions, opening
year no project conditions, or cumulative no project conditions.
All land use and
transportation projects
A significant impact would occur if the project is inconsistent
with the RTP/SCS.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 18, 2017
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
Via: Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director
By: Scott Reimers, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR
REVIEWING PROJECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 17-5247 (Attachment A) adopting
thresholds of significance for reviewing traffic impacts of projects in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND:
1.On August 18, 2015, the City Council reviewed recommendations from the General
Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission regarding the General Plan
Land Use Diagram and the associated growth projections. The City Council directed
staff to move forward with preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as
required by CEQA.
2.On February 13, 2017, the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended
approval of the proposed thresholds of significance.
3.On February 22, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed threshol ds of significance
(Attachment B).
ANALYSIS:
CEQA and Thresholds of Significance
CEQA, the State’s preeminent environmental law that sets standards and practices for
reviewing a project’s impact on the environment, requires jurisdictions to review and
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 2 of 7
disclose the impact a project would have on the environment to the public and decision
makers and as a result reduce those impacts. CEQA establishes four categories of
environmental impacts:
1.No impact
2.Less than significant impact
3.Less than significant impact with the adoption of mitigation measures (a way of
reducing an impact’s effect)
4.Significant unavoidable impacts
A threshold of significance is the point at which an impact moves from less than significant
to significant. CEQA defines a significant impact as “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment .” Agencies adopt defined thresholds of
significance for each of the 18 areas studied under CEQA. In relation to traffic, the City
for many years has followed a common practice of using the County of Los Angeles’ traffic
thresholds of significance. Staff is recommending that the City change its current practice
and set its own thresholds of significance.
Context Sensitive Approach to Traffic Analysis
The recommended thresholds of significance are adjusted to the unique character of
Temple City. It is currently the City’s practice t o use thresholds of significance created
for and by the County of Los Angeles for its vast street network and oriented to the
County’s goals. Almost every street, no matter its size or designation, has the same
threshold of significance. The recommended thresholds seek to develop a more sensitive
approach to traffic planning so that streets with different purposes, functions, and in
different neighborhoods have different thresholds.
The foundation of this approach is based on the idea that people do not expect all streets
to function in the same manner. As the number of vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and
other uses increase or decrease, drivers typically respond by speeding up or slowing
down. Similarly, when a street adjoins schools, residences, or mixed use areas drivers
adjust their expectations. Even the proximity or setback from a building (house, shop, or
shopping center) to a street changes a driver’s expectations. Each situation calls for a
different and refined expected roadway performance and threshold of significance.
Staff’s recommended approach looks at three aspects of a street that set a user’s
expectations:
•The adjacent land use proposed by the General Plan
•Whether the street carries mostly regional or local traffic
•Whether the street design is oriented to automobile traffic or multiple modes of
transportation
From these three aspects the City’s street system is placed into three categories, see
Table 1.
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 3 of 7
Table 1 – Categories of Streets Adjacent Uses Roadway Use Roadway Design
Category 1 Mix of commercial,
mixed use, &
multi-family
housing
Regionally
oriented
Designed to make alternatives to driving
attractive (e.g. wide sidewalks, covered and
lit bus stops, street furniture, a full canopy of
street trees, and Bike Lanes)
Category 2 Multi-family &
Single-family
Regionally &
Locally oriented
Safe and comfortable streets (e.g. Bike
Routes and Bike Boulevards, consistent
system of sidewalks, and consistent street
canopy)
Category 3 Single-family Locally oriented Safe and comfortable streets (e.g. Bicycle
Routes, consistent system of sidewalks, and
consistent street tree canopy)
These categories were then applied to the intersections and street segments being
studied in the General Plan and Specific Plan Traffic Study, see Attachments C and D.
When future traffic studies or traffic impact analyses review intersections or street
segments not shown on Attachments C and D, the Community Development Director
would determine the appropriate category based on the criteria found in Table 1.
Setting Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service & Thresholds of Significance
Once street segments and intersections were identified, then a minimum acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) and threshold of significance was set for each. Table 2 provides
the recommended performance standard for each category of intersection or street
segment. These performance standards use a six point scale ranging from A to F. A
LOS of A represents streets with excessive capacity in compared to the street’s volume.
A LOS of F represents streets where capacity exceeds volume.
It is important to note that unlike grades in school, an LOS of A does not necessarily mean
excellent and an F does not necessarily mean failure. While a LOS of A sounds like the
goal all jurisdictions should strive for, it likely means the intersection’s capacity is so much
greater than its volume that the jurisdiction is maintaining more infrastructure than is
necessary. While a LOS of F sounds like failure it is important to take into account two
important factors.
• Traffic analysis focuses on the worst case scenario, which is typically a two hour
window in the day when traffic is at its peak. An intersection functioning at a LOS of
F on a Friday at 6:00 p.m., is likely functioning at an improved LOS earlier and later
that same day.
• It is not unusual for jurisdictions to decide, that traffic is not the most important goal,
but that it must be balanced with other goals. In the end, most jurisdictions aim for
a LOS of D or E but are willing to accept a lower level if the project meets the
jurisdiction’s goals and provides community benefits such as jobs, affordable
housing, and a stronger tax base.
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 4 of 7
Table 2 – Minimum Acceptable Level of Service Intersections Roadway Segments
Category 1 F F
Category 2 E D
Category 3 D C
The acceptable level of service for each category of roadway segment and intersection,
noted in Table 2, was determined based on the draft General Plan’s vision. For example,
category 3 roadway segments and intersections are auto-centric and serve single family
areas. It is expected that they should not experience a great deal of change and
therefore, they should have a minimum acceptable LOS of D at intersections and C for
roadway segments. Category 1 streets are areas that the General Plan expects to see a
great deal of change. These areas are where the General Plan and Crossroads Specific
Plan expect to see pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile movement; a vibrant economy;
and more people travelling from the region to visit. Since the street will be serving multiple
users, the areas are expected to see more economic activity, and the street will be
designed in a sustainable manner, these intersections and roadway segments should
have a minimum acceptable LOS of F.
Table 3 represents the conversion of the performance standards in Table 2 into the
recommended thresholds of significance. For Category 2 and 3 intersections and
roadway segments that are already functioning at the acceptable level of service, a two
percent reduction in level of service is allowed without considering the impact significant.
Table 3 – Thresholds of Significance
Intersections Roadway Segments
Category 1
F F
Category 2
If existing LOS is A to E If existing LOS is A to D
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to F
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Table 3 - Thresholds of Significance (Continued)
Intersections Roadway Segments
If existing LOS is F
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
Category 3
If existing LOS is A to D If existing LOS is A to C
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to D, E, or F
If existing LOS is E or F
If existing LOS is D, E, or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
Result of Proposed Thresholds of Significance
The recommended thresholds of significance will not increase traffic in the city; instead
they modify how traffic will be studied in the future. Under the existing CEQA thresholds,
if a project were to create a significant impact, mitigation measures would be needed to
reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Typically, this would be
accomplished through widening streets. However, it is unlikely that those mitigation
measures would be acceptable, feasible, or comply with the City’s goals. For instance
widening Rosemead Boulevard north of Las Tunas Drive would require the removal of a
bicycle lane and median which would be inconsistent with goals regarding improving
community health and sustainability by providing alternate forms of transportation. The
proposed thresholds of significance seek to align the goals in the General Plan and the
Crossroad Specific Plan with traffic analysis from the start.
Alignment with Best Practices and State Legislation
The proposed change in method is the result of two major shifts – the Complete Streets
movement and Senate Bill (SB) 743. The City Council adopted a Complete Streets policy
on December 6, 2017 (see Attachment E). A complete street is one that is planned,
operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, comfortable travel for all users.
State law requires that General Plan to include complete streets policies. SB 743
reorients CEQA away from traffic congestion and toward the negative environmental
effects of automobile trips (air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) thus refocusing
CEQA on the environment. It accomplishes this by directing CEQ A documents to study
a project’s ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled, not the amount of congestion a project
would create.
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Conclusion:
The recommended thresholds of significance seek to amend the City’s current practice
so that it aligns with recent State legislation (SB 743) and current best practices.
Furthermore, they reflect that one threshold of significance does not work for all streets,
across the County; a more nuanced approach to traffic analysis is needed. This nuanced
approach is based on adjusting traffic analysis to match the use of roadways, the design
of roadways, the future uses adjacent to the roadway, and General Plan goals. Adoption
of thresholds of significance requires the jurisdiction to determine that the threshold s are
based on substantial evidence. The attached resolution includes substantial evidence for
the record.
Commission & Committee Recommendations:
The Planning Commission and General Plan Advisory Committee reviewed the
recommended traffic thresholds of significance on February 13 and February 28,
respectively. Both bodies supported staff’s recommendation acknowledging that the
existing standards should be refined to Temple City’s context and General Plan goals.
Staff responded to concerns from the Committee about traffic safety by noting that CEQA
includes a separate question related to a project creating a potential hazardous traffic
condition.
Next Steps:
Once the City Council takes action on the thresholds of significance, the traffic study for
the General Plan and Specific Plan EIR will be completed. After the EIR is complete, the
City will host community meetings in the summer to discuss the Draft General Plan and
Specific Plan and their environmental impact. Based on feedback from the public, the
Plans and EIR will be revised and presented to the General Plan Advisory Committee,
the Planning Commission, and City Council in the autumn of 2017.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
The City Council is requested to adopt traffic thresholds of significance for reviewing
projects in compliance with CEQA furthering the City’s Strategic Goal of Quality of Life,
Sustainable Infrastructure, and Economic Development.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adopting thresholds of significance for traffic would have no impact on the Fiscal Year
2016-17 City Budget.
City Council
April 18, 2017
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. City Council Resolution 17-5247
B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution (February 28, 2017)
C. Map of Category 1, 2, and 3 Street Segments
D. Map of Category 1, 2, and 3 Street Intersections
E. Temple City Complete Streets Policy
TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A D O PTE D BY TH E CI TY CO U N CI L O N APR I L 18 , 2 01 7
Intersections Roadway Segments
Category 1
F F
Category 2
If existing LOS is A to E If existing LOS is A to D
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to F
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
Intersections Roadway Segments
If existing LOS is F
If existing LOS is E or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
Category 3
If existing LOS is A to D If existing LOS is A to C
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to E or F
significant impact is created if LOS
degrades to D, E, or F
If existing LOS is E or F
If existing LOS is D, E, or F
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
significant impact is created if volume to
capacity ratio increases by .02 or more
* In instance where traffic studies or traffic impact analyses review intersections or street segments that
have not been designated with a specific category, the Community Development Director shall determine
the appropriate category based on the criteria established by the Table 1 in the related staff report to City
Council dated April 18, 2017.
EXHIBIT A
City of Temple City
Screening Out Projects by Type
Attachment B
PL 20-2389
OPR identified local serving project types that may be presumed to have a less than
significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail projects
(less than 50,000 square feet) generally improve the convenience of shopping close to home
and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. Temple City will screen out the following
projects.
The following uses are presumed to have a less than significant impact (absent substantial
evidence to the contrary) as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local serving retail (retail establishments less than 50,000 square feet in size)
• Local-serving K-12 schools
• Local parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including:
o Gas stations
o Banks
o Restaurants
o Shopping Center
• Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus
• Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations)
• Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government)
• Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
• Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in
the RTP/SCS
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. This generally corresponds to
the following “typical” development potentials:
o 11 single family housing units
o 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units
o 10,000 sq. ft. of office
o 15,000 sq. ft. of light industrial
o 63,000 sq. ft. of warehousing
o 79,000 sq. ft. of high-cube transload and short-term storage warehouse
Peck Road WaterConservation Park
San Gabriel BoulevardD u a r t e R o a d
MyrtleAvenueBal
dwi
n AvLower Azusa Road
L o w e r A z u s a R o a d
Tyler AvenueLas Tun as Dr
Rosemead BoulevardPeckRoadSanta Anita AvenueLas Tunas Dr
L iv e O a k A v
SantaAnitaAvTempl
e Ci
ty Boul
evardWalnutGroveAvenueMissionRoad San Gabriel BoulevardMission Drive Baldwin AvVa l le y B o ul e va rd Temple City BoulevardH untington D rSierra Madre Bl·164
Daily Residential Hom e-Based VM T pe r C ap ita for Tem ple City (20 12 )
Home-Based VMT per Capita Comparison
15% or more below SGVCOG Average
0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average
Higher than SGVCOG Average
Transit Priority Area (TPA)City Boundar y
Peck Road WaterConservation Park
San Gabriel BoulevardD u a r t e R o a d
Bal
dwi
n AvLower Azusa Road
L o w e r A z u s a R o a d
Tyler AvenueLas Tun as Dr MyrtleAvenueRosemead BoulevardPeckRoadSanta Anita AvenueLas Tunas Dr
L iv e O a k A v
SantaAnitaAvTempl
e Ci
ty Boul
evardWalnutGroveAvenueMissionRoad San Gabriel BoulevardMission Drive BaldwinAvVa l le y B o ul e va rd Temple City BoulevardH untington D rSierra Madre Bl·164
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Comparison
15% or more below SGVCOG Average
0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average
Higher than SGVCOG Average
Transit Priority Area (TPA)City Boundar y
Daily Ho m e-Based Work VM T p er Em p loye e for Tem ple City (20 12 )
Peck Road WaterConservation Park
San Gabriel BoulevardD u a r t e R o a d
Bal
dwi
n AvLower Azusa Road
L o w e r A z u s a R o a d
Tyler AvenueLa s Tu n a s D r
Rosemead BoulevardPeckRoadSanta Anita AvenueLas Tun as Dr
L iv e O a k A v
SantaAnitaAvTempl
e Ci
ty Boul
evardMissionRoad WalnutGroveAvenueSan Gabriel BoulevardMission Drive Baldwin AvMyrtleAvenueV a l l e y B o u l e v a r d Temple City BoulevardHuntington Dr·164
Daily VMT per Ser vice Population for Temple City (2012)
VMT per Ser vice Population Comparison
15% or more below SGVCOG Average
0 to 15% below SGVCOG Average
Higher than SGVCOG Average
Transit Priority Area (TPA)City Boundar y
Peck Road WaterConservation Park
Va l l e y B o u l e v a r d
L a s T u n a s D r iv e
L a s T u n a s D r iv e Rosemead BoulevardSa
n
t
a
A
n
i
t
aAvL iv e O a k A vHuntington DrTemple City
1782704 9 2
76176266264/267487/4897
8/7
9268
!Transit Stop with Fre quent Ser vice
Transit Priority Area
L A Metro Bus (Simplifie d)
L A Metro Rail
Metrolink
Foothill Transit
City Boundar y
SGVCOG SB 743:Transit Priority Areas - Temple City
May 27, 2020
Re: VMT Resolution
Dear Public Official Bryan Cook,
The Los Angeles/Ventura Chapter of the Building Industry Association of
Southern California, Inc. (BIA-LAV), is a leading advocate for thousands of
building industry leaders who are committed to a better future for
California by building communities, creating jobs and ensuring housing
opportunities for everyone. We respectfully request that you consider
agendizing this linked resolution for an upcoming City Council meeting.
Specifically, the resolution requests that Governor Newsom extend the
implementation date of Senate Bill (SB) 743 for 1-year until July 1, 2021.
As you are aware, SB 743 creates a process to change the way that
transportation impacts are analyzed under California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). This new law eliminates vehicular congestion,
traditionally expressed as Level of Service (LOS), as the operative metric
for identifying transportation impacts. In its place, SB 743 identifies
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the key impact criterion under CEQA.
The adoption of the VMT threshold by cities is a very complex matter and
requires the services of expensive expert traffic engineers, tremendous
staff time and resources, and multiple public meetings to ensure public
input on the adoption of the threshold. As noted in the resolution, a 1-
year extension on the July 1, 2020, implementation date is prudent
considering:
The COVID-19 pandemic is resulting in dramatic changes in transportation
patterns such as the expansion of working from home, learning from
home, and even receiving medical care from home via remote
communication technologies, as well as 90% decreases in public transit
ridership based on social distancing and related health priorities, the
requested extension will allow for the informed consideration of VMT and
other potential changes to CEQA.
For these reasons, we would request that the City urge the Governor to
delay adoption of the VMT. Thank you for your consideration; should
you have any questions, please contact BIA-LAV Vice President, Diana
Coronado, at dcoronado@bialav.org.
Sincerely,
Diana Victoria Coronado
Vice President
BIA-Los Angeles/Ventura
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Dave Little, Pardee Homes.
President
Neils Cotter, Carmel Partners
Vice President
Derek Fraychineaud, CIM Group
Vice President
Kevin Harbison, New Urban West
Vice President
Larry Hoffman, Fassberg Contracting Corporation
Vice President
John Hrovat, Equity Residential
Vice President
Greg McWilliams, FivePoint
Vice President
Monica Mejia, LINC Housing
Vice President
Jeremy Parness, Lennar
Vice President
Frank Su, Toll Brothers
Vice President
Henrik Nazarian, D & D Engineering, Inc.
Secretary, Treasurer
Derek Leavitt, Modative, Inc.
Immediate Past-President
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Tyler Bargiel, Wells Fargo
Rocco Cordola, Gothic Landscape
Lauren Cross, City Ventures
Donna Deutchman, Homes 4 Families
George Dickerson, All Promotions Etc.
Richard Dunbar, Oakridge Landscape, Inc.
Ryan Flautz, KTGY Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Mike Frasco, Bio Clean Environmental Services
Amy Freilich, Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP
David Grunwald, National CORE
Peter Gutierrez, Latham & Watkins
Andy Henderson, The Henderson Law Firm
Marc Huffman, Brookfield Residential
Krysti Irving, Landscape Development, Inc.
Karl Mallick, David Evans & Associates,
Bill McReynolds, Warmington Group
Greg Medeiros, Tejon Ranch Company
Brian Murtaugh, Loan Depot
John Musella, The Musella Group
Scott Ouellette, Williams Homes
Erik Pfahler, Borstein Enterprises
Harriet Rapista, Comstock Homes
Darrell Simien, Habitat for Humanity of Greater LA
Alyssa Trebil, DuctTesters, Inc.
Brett Trebil, Watt Communities
Christine Villegas, Chelsea Investment Corp
Rick White, Larrabure Framing
ATTACHMENT E