Joint Special Council/BFPD
06/17/25 05:30 PM
City Manager Department
Matthew Summers
Resolution
Doc ID: 6024
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
AGENDA MATTER:
ADOPT RESOLUTION XX-2025 TO REPEAL AND REPLACE RESOLUTION NO. 5010-2020
REGARDING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR ANALYZING
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO
CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. XX-2025 to repeal and replace Resolution No. 5010-2020
in order to correct a clerical error in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold language. This correction ensures consistency with the County’s adopted thresholds and the original intent of Resolution No. 5010- 2020.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to evaluate and, where feasible, avoid or reduce significant environmental effects before approving projects. In December 2018, the Office of Administrative Law adopted a comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines, which included the shift from using Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts.
As part of this statewide transition, all cities were required to adopt VMT thresholds no later than July 1, 2020. To support this effort, the City of Barstow collaborated with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and retained Fehr & Peers, a leading transportation planning firm, to develop City-specific thresholds aligned with state law and regional methodologies. Multiple workshops were conducted to guide this development, and a joint Planning Commission-City Council public process culminated in the adoption of Resolution No. 5010-2020 on November 2, 2020.
These VMT thresholds were incorporated into the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, replacing LOS for determining the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA. However, use of LOS may still apply in other contexts such as Congestion Management Plans.
Proposed Changes
Following the adoption of the VMT thresholds, staff has identified a typographical omission in the adopted language under the Cumulative Threshold. The phrase “per service population” was omitted from the cumulative and project thresholds, which is essential for correctly applying VMT analysis under CEQA and the adopted SBCTA Thresholds.
Current (incorrect) language:
“A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions.” Joint Special Council/BFPD
06/17/25 05:30 PM
City Manager Department
Matthew Summers
Resolution
Doc ID: 6024
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
Proposed correction (with underlined addition):
“A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT per service population within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions.” These corrections, which occur in both the land use plans and land use projects sections of the thresholds, ensures consistency with the County-adopted thresholds and the City’s intended methodology. The correct metric evaluates VMT per service population (i.e., residents plus employees), not just total VMT, for proposed new development and land use projects. Without this correction, any project that adds vehicle trips-such as a greenfield development or a project on land that has never been developed before-could incorrectly be interpreted as creating a significant environmental impact, even when the increase in VMT is proportionate to population growth an the project’s net effect is to reduce vehicles miles travelled per person by building jobs near residences.
The revised language ensures that significance is only triggered when a project results in a net increase in VMT per service population-which might occur if a project generates excessive commute distances or pulls in non-local traffic, such as a commuter-heavy development.
This amendment does not change policy, thresholds, or methodologies, but simply corrects the wording to reflect what was already intended, consistent with the County and SBCTA standards. The County language cited in the original resolution includes “per service population” for projects, confirming this as a clerical error.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Amending and restating the resolution to correct a clerical error in a City policy does not constitute a project under CEQA, as it involves general policy clarifications and does not result in a direct physical change to the environment. This administrative action is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution No XX-2025 to repeal and replace Resolution No. 5010-2020 to correct a clerical error in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold language to determine the significance of a project’s environmental effects, consistent with adopted County thresholds and intent of the Resolution No. 5010- 2020.
Attachment 1 - Proposed Resolution No XX- 2025 Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Attachment 2 - Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020 Attachment 3 - Original Resolution No. 5010-2020