Resolution Vehicle Miles Traveled — Barstow City Council, June 17, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution Repealing and
Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 400205.2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ____-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BARSTOW, 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) requires 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" ("LOS"} and other similar metrics, will generally no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 requires agencies to stop treating automobile delay/LOS as an environmental impact effective on July 1, 2020, though public agencies may elect to be governed by this section immediately; and Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 400205.2 2
WHEREAS, the City of Barstow, following a public review process consisting of staff presentations before the Planning Commission on October 12, 2020, adopted the VMT thresholds of significance for determining the significance of transportation impacts that are recommended in an analysis conducted by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority on behalf of its member jurisdictions on November 2, 2020; and WHEREAS, following the adoption of the VMT thresholds, staff has identified a clerical error in the adopted language under the Cumulative Threshold related to “per service population” in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the change proposed would be to add the underlined text: “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”; WHEREAS, this change does not alter the original policy, but ensures the County’s correctly worded policy is properly cited in the City of Barstow’s policy. 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).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Barstow as follows:

Section 1. The City of Barstow hereby adopts the following:

1. Utilizing the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) as its preferred methodology to measure VMT.

2. Utilizing the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) as its preferred method to analyze a project's VMT impact.

3. Utilizing a threshold consistent with Table 1 in Exhibit A.

Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.

Section 3. Resolution No. 5010-2020 shall be repealed and replaced by this resolution.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 400205.2 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ________ day of __________, 2025. ___________________________
Tim R. Silva, Mayor
________________________
Andrea Flores, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
________________________
Matthew Summers, City Attorney
ATTEST:

I, Andrea Flores, City Clerk of the City of Barstow and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ____-2025, was adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the ____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
Andrea Flores, City Clerk
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 400205.2 4
Exhibit A
Table 1
VMT Impact Thresholds
Methods Project Threshold Cumulative Threshold
Land Use Plans (such as General Plans and Specific Plans) • San Bernardino Traffic
Analysis Model (SBTAM)
forecast of total daily VMT/SP
• To capture project effect,
the same cumulative year
population and
employment growth totals
should be used. The
“project” only influences
land use allocation.

A significant impact would occur if
the project VMT/SP (for the land
use plan) exceeds the
[Countywide/Citywide] average
under General Plan Buildout
Conditions.

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.
• Consistency check with

SCAG RTP/SCS
• Is the proposed project
within the growth
projections in the
RTP/SCS?
N/A A significant impact would occur if
the project is determined to be
inconsistent with the RTP/SCS.

Land Use Projects
• Transit Priority Area (TPA)
screening
Presumed less than significant
VMT impact for projects located in
TPAs
Project presumption applies under
cumulative conditions as long as
project is consistent with SCAG
RTP/SCS.
• Low VMT area screening Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located in
low VMT generating model traffic
analysis zones (TAZs). These
TAZs generate total daily VMT/SP
that is 15% less than the baseline
level for the County
Project presumption applies under
cumulative conditions as long as
the project is consistent with
SCAG RTP/SCS.
• Project type screening Local serving retail projects (Per OPR’s Technical Advisory less
than 50,000 square feet) and
neighborhood schools are
presumed to have a less than
significant VMT impact. Projects
that generate less than 110 daily
trips do not require VMT analysis.

Project presumption applies under
cumulative conditions as long as
project is consistent with SCAG
RTP/SCS.
• VMT analysis using SBTAM
forecast of total daily VMT/SP.

A significant impact would occur if
the project VMT/SP exceeds the
[Countywide/Citywide] average
under General Plan Buildout
Conditions.

A significant impact would occur if
the project is determined to be
inconsistent with the RTP/SCS.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 400205.2 5
Table 1
VMT Impact Thresholds
Methods Project Threshold Cumulative Threshold
Transportation Projects (thresholds may apply for SB 743 of GHG purposes) • SBTAM forecast of total
citywide daily VMT1
A significant impact would occur if
the project increased the baseline
VMT within the City.

A significant impact would occur if
the project caused total daily VMT
within the City to be higher than
the no build alternative under
cumulative conditions.
• Consistency check with

SCAG RTP/SCS
N/A A significant impact would occur if
the project is determined to be
inconsistent with the RTP/SCS.
1 It is recommended that SBTAM is used to develop VMT estimates for transportation project impact assessment. However, the analyst must verify the model results for sensitivity to changes in VMT.

Alternatively, if the model is not deemed appropriate, Robert Cervero’s research on lane-mile elasticity and its relationship to VMT can be referenced.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and
Level of Service Assessment
February 2020
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Background Information................................................................................................................................................... 4 Note to SBCTA Member Agencies................................................................................................................................ 5 Guidelines Organization.................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction 6
CEQA Changes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Need for Transportation Impact Analysis 9
TIA REVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................................................10 CEQA Assessment - VMT Analysis 24
Analysis Methodology .....................................................................................................................................................25 CEQA VMT Impact Thresholds .....................................................................................................................................29 VMT Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................................................................30 CEQA Assessment - Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis 31 Transportation Impact Study Format .........................................................................................................................33 Attachments 36
Detailed VMT Forecasting Information .....................................................................................................................37 Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Introduction
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Background Information
SB 743, signed by the Governor in 2013, is changing the way transportation impacts are identified.

Specifically, the legislation has directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to look at different metrics for identifying transportation as a CEQA impact. The Final OPR guidelines were released in December 2018 and identified vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred metric moving forward. The Natural Resources Agency completed the rule making process to modify the CEQA guidelines in December of 2018. The CEQA Guidelines identify that, by July of 2020 all lead agencies must use VMT as the new transportation metric for identifying impacts for land use project.

In anticipation of the change to VMT, SBCTA is currently completing a SB 743 Implementation Study to assist their member organizations with answering important implementation questions about the methodology, thresholds, and mitigation approaches for VMT impact analysis. The SBCTA study includes the following main components.
• Thresholds Evaluation Memorandum – Potential thresholds SBCTA agencies could consider when establishing thresholds of significance for VMT assessment • Sample Projects Memorandum – Types of VMT that could be considered for impact assessment and how project assessment could be performed. • Tools Evaluation Memorandum – Types of tools that could be used to estimate VMT and the pros/cons associated with each tool
• Mitigation Memorandum – Types of mitigation that can be considered for VMT mitigation • VMT Screening Tool – An on-line GIS tool that can be used for VMT screening. This tool is currently under development but will be available for all member agencies to use.

All SBCTA agencies can utilize the information produced through the Implementation Study to adopt their own methodology and significance thresholds for use in CEQA compliance. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) below, lead agencies are encouraged to formally adopt their significance thresholds and this is key part of the SB 743 implementation process. . (b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2).

To complement the previous work, SBCTA has produced these Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to outline the specific steps for complying with the new CEQA expectations for VMT analysis and the applicable general plan consistency requirements, which may still involve performing level of service (LOS) analysis for most agencies. These guidelines are intended to be a discretionary ‘template’ that SBCTA agencies may choose to use or modify.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Is Level of Service Still Important?
Many jurisdictions in the SBCTA region have adopted vehicle LOS policies that set standards for which local agency infrastructure will strive to maintain. These policies are contained in general plans and therefore apply to discretionary approvals of new land use and transportation projects.

Therefore, these guidelines also include instructions for vehicle LOS analysis consistent with general plan requirements. The LOS guidelines are largely based on the SBCTA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines that were updated in 2016 and have been updated to reflect state of the practice.

Note to SBCTA Member Agencies
These guidelines have been developed as a resource to SBCTA member agencies. As such, member agencies should utilize and modify these guidelines at their discretion to assist with traffic impact analysis requirements.

In many cases, these guidelines represent thresholds recommended by SBCTA that are applicable to most SBCTA member agencies; however, lead agencies may wish to modify the identified requirements to reflect appropriate goals and values of the agency.

Finally, it should be noted that CEQA requirements change as the CEQA Guidelines are periodically updated and/or legal opinions are rendered that change how analysis is completed. As such, SBCTA local agencies should continually review their guidelines for applicability and consultants should contact the member agency to ensure that they are applying the most recent guidelines for project impact assessment.

Guidelines Organization
The remainder of this guidelines document is organized as follows. We have attempted to organize this memorandum to provide background information, assessment for congestion management/ General Plan Consistency (e.g. LOS analysis), and CEQA assessment (e.g. VMT analysis).

1. Introduction

2. Need for Transportation Impact Study

3. LOS Assessment for General Plan Consistency

4. CEQA Assessment - VMT Analysis

5. CEQA Assessment - Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis

6. Transportation Impact Analysis Format
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Introduction
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 One of the fundamental roles of government agencies is the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure facilities including roadways, rail and bus facilities, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater treatment facilities, parks, and other public facilities.

When private development occurs, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that there are adequate public facilities to serve increment population and employment growth. For the transportation system, one way to address this issue is the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).

For the past several decades, the preparation of a TIA was integrated into the CEQA process, in which the TIA was used primarily to analyze a project’s impacts under CEQA. However; with the passage of SB 743, changes to the TIA process are necessary. Specifically, a TIA may be need as a stand-alone document which is a requirement of project approval and will include information for the decision makers that is not required as part of the CEQA process.

The purpose of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines is to provide general instructions for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects. These guidelines present the recommended format and methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of TIAs. These recommendations are based on San Bernardino County’s most recent TIA Guidelines with updates to comply with the state of the practice advances and new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) expectations prompted by Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). These recommendations are general guidelines and the local agency has the discretion to modify the TIA requirements based on the unique characteristics of a particular project.

CEQA Changes
Since the last TIA Guidelines update, SB 743 was signed into law. A key element of this law is the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. This change is intended to assist in balancing 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.

SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law that allows cities and counties to effectively opt-out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply in areas where Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) are still used (including San Bernardino County). Further, SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the CEQA Guidelines and establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. In December 2018, OPR released their final recommended guidelines based on feedback with the public, public agencies, and various organizations and individuals. OPR recommended Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts for land use projects and land use plans. For transportation projects, lead agencies may select their own preferred metric Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 but must support their decision with substantial evidence that complies with CEQA expectations.

SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring); but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts.

These updated TIA Guidelines have been designed to comply with the new CEQA Guidelines expectations and build on the information prepared for SBCTA’s Implementation Study. The TIA Guidelines are intended for the sole use of SBCTA member agencies. Each member agency can utilize or modify these guidelines as appropriate.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Need for Transportation Impact
Analysis
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 These guidelines describe the key elements required for preparing Traffic Impact Analysis Reports (TIA Reports) for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in San Bernardino County. The purpose of these guidelines is to achieve a common approach to preparation of TIA Reports by all jurisdictions, thereby reducing inconsistencies and disagreements on how such studies should be performed.

TIA Reports shall be prepared by local jurisdictions when local criteria and thresholds indicate they are necessary. However, TIA Reports must be prepared to satisfy CMP requirements, except as noted below, when a proposed change in land use, development project, or at local discretion, a group of projects are forecast to equal or exceed the CMP threshold of 250 two-way peak hour trips generated, based on trip generation rates published for the applicable use or uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation or other CMA-approved data source. Passby trips shall not be considered in the threshold determination. However, industrial, warehousing and truck projects shall convert trucks to PCE’s (or appropriately adjust the capacity assessment to reflect the increase in heavy vehicles) before applying the threshold.

Jurisdictions that have implemented qualifying development mitigation programs that achieve development contribution requirements established by the SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study are not required to prepare TIA reports for CMA review. However, until these jurisdictions have agreements with Caltrans regarding State highway facilities within the jurisdiction, any project meeting the CMP threshold of 250 two-way peak hour trips that expects to add at least 50 peak hour trips to a State highway facility is required to prepare a TIA report for Caltrans’ review.

If a project is forecast to generate 100 to 250 peak hour trips and expects to add at least 50 peak hour trips to a State highway facility, the jurisdiction should consult with Caltrans to determine the need for a TIA report. Refer to Figure B-1 in the CMP for a flow chart that defines when TIA reports need to be prepared.

Projects shall not be split to avoid the CMP requirements. If an additional phase of a project, when added to the preceding phases, causes the sum of the phases to exceed the threshold, the entire project must be analyzed as a unit. The analysis must be conducted when the phases are anticipated and should not wait for later phases, even if earlier phases alone would not exceed the threshold.

Locally determined criteria may be developed which are more stringent than those identified above.

Individual development projects, parcels, or proposals in the same geographic vicinity that can reasonably be combined into a single project for analysis purposes which meets the threshold requirements for a TIA Report shall be analyzed as a single project.

TIA REVIEW
All TIA Reports shall be copied to the CMA. If a TIA Report is prepared by the local jurisdiction as stated above and if the TIA Report determines that the project would add 50 or more 2-way peakhour trips to a CMP arterial within another jurisdiction or 100 2-way peak hour trips to a freeway, that jurisdiction (and Caltrans, if a state highway) shall be provided a copy of the TIA Report by the Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 permitting jurisdiction. However, these criteria are not intended to determine when a local jurisdiction prepares a TIA Report.

It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to provide review copies of the TIA Report to the CMA and to potentially impacted jurisdictions so that review will occur in concert with the permitting jurisdiction's project review schedule and prior to any approval or permitting activity. (Note: the transmittal letter shall indicate the agencies receiving the TIA report.) The period allotted for review shall be stipulated by the permitting jurisdiction but shall not be less than 15 working days from the date the CMA receives the report. To establish the date of receipt, it is encouraged the report be transmitted by certified mail. Should serious technical flaws be identified in the TIA Report such that the permitting jurisdiction chooses to recirculate the TIA Report, the recirculated document shall be reviewed no later than 10 working days from the date of receipt.

Note: Caltrans’ review period is 30 days, consistent with CEQA. Lack of comment by Caltrans does not imply acceptance. If an encroachment permit will be required for the project, it is recommended that the jurisdiction work with Caltrans to resolve any outstanding comments before proceeding to project approval.

The reports focus on the potential impacts of land use decisions on the CMP system. These reports are used in conjunction with modeling for the CMP system to forecast transportation deficiencies in San Bernardino County. While there are unique aspects to many projects, the approach outlined here can be applied to the vast majority of projects. The preparer of the report is responsible for presenting all the relevant information that would be helpful in making transportation-related decisions. The guidelines presented here should be regarded as typical minimum requirements.

They are not a substitute for exercising good planning and engineering judgment. Local agencies may wish to include additional requirements for traffic analysis beyond those for the CMP. Only the CMP requirements are addressed here; any requirements added by a jurisdiction apply only in that jurisdiction, unless otherwise agreed.

Other information relating to the preparation of a TIA Report may be found in Chapter 4 of the Congestion Management Program for San Bernardino County. Preparers of TIA Reports should consult the CMP for additional detail.

Implications of CMP Review
The authority to make land use decisions rests with local jurisdictions. A Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program consistent with the CMP guidelines has the potential to influence local land use decisions by requiring full evaluation and disclosure of impacts to the regional transportation system, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Local jurisdictions are required to maintain the adopted standards on the CMP system, so it is essential that local jurisdictions consider the necessary actions and costs required to mitigate impacts that result from local land use decisions.

The success of the program relies on consistency with applicable regional plans and the cooperative efforts of local jurisdictions, Caltrans and the CMA. If an integration of land use decisions and the Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 provision of transportation facilities is not accomplished as required by the program, a jurisdiction which fails to mitigate deficiencies on the CMP system caused by its land use decisions will face withholding of its Proposition 111 gas tax increment funds.

TIA Report Content
The TIA Report may be contained within other similar documents (e.g. an EIR prepared under CEQA), or it may be an independent document. The intent is to address all CMP concerns without duplication of other work. In some jurisdictions, the TIA Report may be prepared by the developer or developer's consultant. In other jurisdictions, the TIA Report may be prepared by the jurisdiction or jurisdiction's consultant. In either case, it is in the interest of all parties that the participants fully understand and come to agreement on the assumptions and methodology prior to conducting the actual analysis. This is particularly important when considering using assumptions that vary from the norm. The local jurisdiction may request a meeting with the developer and/or preparer of the TIA Report to discuss the methodology prior to the initiation of work on the analysis. A meeting with the CMA and/or Caltrans, where applicable, is also encouraged to address issues associated with large or extraordinary projects.

The following outline and commentary represent the recommended structure for the TIA Report.

I. Introduction
Set the stage for the analysis, providing background information necessary for the unfamiliar reader to understand the magnitude of the project, location of the project and special characteristics.

Project, general plan, or specific plan description
The description must include project size by land use type, location of project, approximate location of proposed access points to the local and regional roadway system and movements from adjacent streets allowed into and out of the project. This should be shown in a site diagram. Special characteristics of the site, such as unusual daily or seasonal peaking characteristics or heavy involvement of truck traffic, should be mentioned. If the description is included in another part of a more comprehensive document, that is acceptable.

Analysis methodology
Provide a general description (overview) of the process used to analyze the project. Analysis years should be specified and the approach to the modeling/traffic forecasting process should be explained. The sources of information should be identified. The study area and method for LOS analysis for the various roadway types should be identified. At a minimum, the study area must include all freeway links with 100 or more peak-hour project trips (two-way) and other CMP roadways with 50 or more peak-hour project trips (two-way). The study area does not end with a city or county boundary. The study area is defined by the magnitude of project trips alone. In most cases, the analysis need not extend more than five miles beyond the project site, even if there are more than 50 project trips on an arterial and 100 project trips on a freeway. However, analysis of Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 projects in isolated areas with few access routes should be continued until the 100 or 50-trip threshold is met. Within the defined study area, all "key intersections," as listed in the most current CMP, must be analyzed. Key intersections represent intersections of CMP roadways plus those additional intersections recognized by local jurisdictions and/or SANBAG to be important to mobility on CMP roadways. At a minimum, key intersections will include signalized intersections operating at LOS D or below. The distribution of traffic must be shown for all roadways on which project trips occur (except those for internal circulation), whether or not they are on the CMP network.

The analysis of traffic operations and LOS is to be provided for the following conditions and is to include an assessment of traffic mitigation requirements for project opening day and future conditions.

1. Existing conditions – the conditions at the time of TIA preparation without the inclusion of the project generated trips. Existing deficiencies should be identified, but mitigation analysis is not required. The existing conditions analysis must include the full project impact area as defined above.

2. Project opening day conditions - the conditions on the opening day of the project for two scenarios: 1) excluding the project traffic and 2) including the project traffic. Assume full trip generation impact of the site. Full mitigation analysis is to be performed for project opening day conditions. If it is deemed more appropriate because of the nature of the project, another intermediate scenario may be included to focus on the access requirements and/or immediate area surrounding the project, subject to a request by the local jurisdiction. The methodology used for distribution of project traffic at project opening day conditions is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction.

3. Future conditions - the conditions for two model forecast year scenarios: 1) excluding the project traffic and 2) including the project traffic. Full mitigation analysis is to be performed for future conditions. In addition, a staging analysis of mitigations may be required for large projects constructed over a long time period. The need for a staging analysis will be determined by the local jurisdiction.

The analysis of the project opening day and future condition shall be based on, at a minimum, the PM peak-hour of the adjacent street traffic. An analysis of the AM peak-hour of the adjacent street traffic is also required for developments containing residential land uses and may be required for other types of development at local discretion. Analysis may be required for peak-hours other than the AM and PM peak for some land uses. This determination will be made by the local jurisdiction.

The peak traffic generation hour of the development, if different from peak AM and PM hours, must also be identified and the total vehicle trips during the peak-hour of the generator must be estimated. This will facilitate a decision regarding the need to evaluate time periods other than the peak-hours of the adjacent streets.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Note: For State highway facilities, analysis of future conditions for is only required for the following:
1) jurisdictions that have not adopted qualifying development mitigation programs that achieve development contribution requirements established by the SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study and 2) State highway facilities that are not included in the SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study or are not subject to an agreement with Caltrans.

II. Existing conditions
Existing roadway system
Provide a map and brief written description of the roadway network. The number and type of lanes on freeways, principal arterials and other impacted roadways should be identified. Signalized intersections and plans for signalization should be identified. The existing number of lanes at key CMP intersections should be clearly identified on a graphic or in conjunction with the LOS analysis output. Maps of the CMP network are available in the Congestion Management Program documentation, available from the CMA. Also describe the relevant portions of the future network as specified with officially approved funding sources.

Existing volumes
Existing average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) should be identified for the CMP links in the study area. Historic volume growth trends in the study area should be shown. Consult the local jurisdiction, Caltrans and San Bernardino County for additional information.

Existing LOS
A LOS analysis must be conducted on all existing segments and intersections on the CMP network potentially impacted by the project or plan (as defined by the thresholds in Section I. B). Urban segments (i.e., segments on roadways that are generally signalized with spacing less than 2 miles) do not require segment analysis. Segment requirements can normally be determined by the analysis of lane requirements at intersections. Freeway mainline must be analyzed and ramp/weaving analysis may be required at local discretion, if a ramp or weaving problem is anticipated. Several software packages are available for conducting LOS analysis for signalized intersections, freeways and other types of roadways. The software package and version used must be identified. Normally, the existing LOS analysis for intersections will be run using optimized signal timing, since the future analysis will normally need to be run using optimized timing. Signal timing optimization should consider pedestrian safety and signal coordination requirements. Minimum times should be no less than 10 seconds.

Saturation flow rates are considered as average field measured saturation flow rates and in no case shall the adjusted saturation flow rates of the 2000 Highway Capacity Software be allowed to go lower than the specified saturation flow rates listed on page C-13 of the CMP, when field data are not available. However, there shall be no restriction on minimum saturation flow rates if actual saturation flow rates are available.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Default lost time is two seconds per phase and a clearance signal time of three seconds. Without local data to show otherwise, a peak-hour factor of 0.95 may be assumed for existing and full generation scenarios. Variations from these values must be documented and justified. LOS analyses should be field-verified so that the results are reasonably consistent with observation and errors in the analysis are more likely to be caught. A brief commentary on existing problem areas must be included in this section, bringing existing problems to the attention of the readers.

Only project opening day and future scenarios with project require that traffic operational problems be mitigated to provide LOS E or better operation. If the lead agency or an affected adjacent jurisdiction requires mitigation to a higher LOS, this takes precedence over the CMP requirements.

The LOS threshold for State highway facilities will be the same as the jurisdiction where the facility is located but no greater than a 45 second average delay per vehicle in the peak hour (middle of LOS “D”). Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing LOS should be maintained.

Related general plan issues
The relationship to the general plan may be identified. This section should provide general background information from the Traffic Circulation Element of the General Plan, including plans for the ultimate number of lanes, new roadways planned for the future and other information that provides a context for how the proposed project interrelates with the future planned transportation system.

III. Future conditions
Traffic forecasts
One of the primary products of the TIA is the comparison of future traffic conditions with and without the project. The primary forecasts will be for the CMP forecast year (consult the CMA for the most currently applicable forecast years). If a project is phased over a development period past the CMP forecast year, a buildout forecast with forecast background traffic must also be provided.

There are two components of the forecast that need to be considered: background traffic and project traffic. Acceptable methodologies for these forecasts are described below.

Project Traffic Forecasts
Two basic alternatives are available for forecasting project traffic:
• Manual method - Generate project trips using rates from the ITE Trip Generation report.

Distribute and assign the trips based on the location of the project relative to the remainder of the urban area and on the type of land use. Rather than relying on pure judgment to develop the distribution of project traffic, the future year CMP model select zone needs to be obtained from SCAG to determine the distribution pattern. The percentage distribution should be Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 reasonably related to the location of and the number of trips generated by zones surrounding the project. Computer-assisted trip distribution and assignment methods may be used as long as they reasonably represent the travel characteristics of the area in which the project is located.

It should be noted that the model does not forecast project trucks. Therefore distribution needs to be made in a reasonable manner.
• Use of local model - Create a zone or zones that represent the project (if not already contained in the local model). The CMP model may be used if new zones are created to represent the project (it is unlikely that the CMP model will already have zones small enough to represent the project). The zone or zones should include the exact representation of driveway locations with centroid connectors. It is important that the driveway representations be exact to produce acceptable turning movement volumes. Some adjustments to the turning movement volumes may be needed, depending on the adequacy of this representation.

The above methodologies may produce different results, both in the generation of trips and the distribution of trips. However, both methods will have application, depending on the jurisdiction and on the type and size of project. It should be noted that a model select zone run shall be used for distribution and ITE trip generation rates for project trips.

Background Traffic Forecasts
Background traffic refers to all traffic other than the traffic associated with the project itself. The background traffic shall include intersection turning movement and segment truck volumes by classification (converted to PCE's) as shown on page C-12 on arterial streets of the CMP, interchange ramps and mainline freeway lanes. Future scenarios shall use the truck model (converted to PCEs) or 150 percent of the existing truck volume for arterials and freeway ramps and 160 percent for mainline freeway lanes in a special generator area such as found in the City of Fontana (between I15 and Citrus Avenue and between San Bernardino Avenue and Jurupa Avenue).

Several alternatives for forecasting background traffic are:
• For project opening day analysis - Use accepted growth rates provided by the jurisdictions in which the analysis is to take place. Each jurisdiction's growth rates should be used for intersections and segments within that jurisdiction. A table of growth rates may be available from the jurisdictions.
• For horizon year - The traffic passenger vehicle and truck classification (in PCEs) models will provide the needed forecasts and if requested, passenger vehicle background plus project forecasts. Local models may also be used to generate intersection and segment forecasts, if a traffic refinement process is properly applied to maximize the quality and reasonableness of the forecasts. Alternatively, the CMP model may be used to generate growth factors by subarea, which may be applied to existing intersection and segment volumes. The separate forecasting of background traffic by each TIA Report preparer is redundant, will only create conflict among reports and should be avoided by the city/county providing an acceptable background forecast for use by all TIA Report preparers. Ideally, cities and/or the County should establish the background forecasts annually for use by project applicants. Until the city/county is in a position Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 to produce these forecasts on a routine basis, they may wish to use the results of the background forecasts from prior acceptable TIA Reports as the basis for background forecasts for other TIA Reports. The availability of such forecasts should be established before initiating the preparation of a TIA Report. If the CMP model is being used as the basis for the forecast, assume that the project is not included in the CMP model forecast (unless it can be definitively proven otherwise). If a local model is being used, the background traffic will be derived by subtracting the project traffic from the forecast where the project is already represented in the model. Where the project is not represented in the model, the background traffic can be directly derived from the model (with appropriate refinement to maintain quality and reasonableness of the forecasts).

A Note on Methodology for General Plans and Specific Plans:

In the case of analysis of general plan revisions/updates or specific plans, the same approach is applied as above. However, the "project" to be analyzed shall consist of the proposed land use. For threshold determination use the difference between the previously approved general plan and the proposed revision to the general plan. Unless otherwise agreed by the local jurisdiction, the analysis must assume the maximum intensity of land uses allowed (i.e., worst case) on the parcels to which the revision applies. All new specific plans must be analyzed based on worst case assumptions.

Although general plans may not identify specific access locations, the analysis must assume access locations that are reasonable, based on the location and size of the plan.

A. Traffic added by project, general plan revision/update, or specific plan The methods for generating and distributing project trips must be consistent with the appropriate methodology listed above. The total number of trips generated by the project must be specified by land use. The source of the trip generation rates must be documented. Project trips (inbound and outbound) must be identified on a graphic map for both the peak hour or hours being studied.

Any assumed reductions in trip generation rates, such as internal trips and transit/TDM reductions must be documented. Pass-by trips may be allowed only for retail uses and fast-food restaurants.

The pass-by and internal trip percentages and methodology must be consistent with the estimates and methodology contained in the latest ITE Trip Generation handbook. The internal trip percentage must be justified by having a mixed-use development of sufficient size. In special cases, larger reductions may be allowed; but these must be documented and justified. Reductions for transit or TDM must be accompanied by an explanation of how the strategies will actually be implemented and may require a monitoring program.

Industrial and warehouse truck uses must also show the estimated number and distribution of truck trips (in PCE’s) for the same hours. The methodology utilized to obtain trip generation rates and truck percentages applied in traffic impact analyses for industrial and warehouse (including ‘high-cube’) land uses must be clearly defined. Trip rates shall be obtained from the latest edition of ITE’s Trip Generation manual or from current and relevant studies and shall be approved by the local jurisdiction.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 B. Transit and TDM considerations
Transit and travel demand management strategies are a consideration in many development projects. Requirements within each jurisdiction are contained in the local TDM ordinance, to be adopted by each local jurisdiction as part of the CMP requirements. Examples of items to include are location of transit stops in relationship to the proposed project, designation of ridesharing coordinator, posting of information on transit routes and ridesharing information, provision of transit passes, etc.

C. Traffic model forecasts
Provide a map showing link volumes by direction. All CMP arterial links with 50 or more peak-hour project trips (two-way) and freeway links with 100 or more peak-hour project trips (two-way) must be shown. The factor to derive a peak-hour from the three-hour AM peak period is 0.38. The factor to derive a peak-hour from the four-hour PM peak is 0.28. All model forecasts shall be post processed. Appendix E in the CMP documentation contains guidelines for model post processing.

D. Future LOS
Compute levels of service for CMP segments and intersections based on the procedures in the latest Highway Capacity Manual. Refer to the procedures adopted in Chapter 2 of the CMP and the assumptions specified in section II.C of this appendix. Copies of the volumes, intersection geometry, capacity analysis worksheets and all relevant assumptions must be included as appendices to the TIA Report. It should be noted that the v/c ratio and implied LOS that can be output by travel demand models are different from the LOS analysis prescribed in this section. The capacities used in the model are not typically the same capacities as used in the capacity analysis.

Intersections and segments on State highway facilities should be analyzed as a coordinated system.

Left turn, through and right turn lane queuing analysis is highly desirable to validate an intersection's LOS. This more detailed analysis is meant to ensure the various movements do not overflow and impede adjacent movements and is left to the discretion of the local agency.

E. Description of projected LOS problems
Identify resulting levels of service for intersections and segments, as appropriate, on a map for applicable peak-hours. Describe in the text the nature of expected LOS problems. Describe any other impacts that the project may also have on the CMP roadway network, particularly access requirements.

F. Project contribution to total new volumes (forecast minus existing) on analyzed links Compute the ratio of traffic generated by the proposed development to the total new traffic (including project traffic) generated between the existing condition and forecast year for each analyzed link or intersection. The purpose of this calculation is to identify the proportion of volume increase that can be attributed to the proposed project. This will be a necessary component of any deficiency plans prepared under the CMP at a later date. The calculations are to be conducted for Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 all applicable peak hours. The results may be shown on a map or in a table by percentages to the nearest tenth of a percent.

IV. Project mitigation.

The mitigation of project impacts is designed to identify potential LOS problems and to address them before they actually occur. This will also provide a framework for negotiations between the local jurisdiction and the project developer. The CMA will not be involved in these negotiations unless requested by a local jurisdiction. Impacts beyond the boundaries of the jurisdiction must be identified in the same fashion as impacts within the jurisdictional boundary. Impacted local agencies outside the boundary will be provided an opportunity for review of the TIA Report. Negotiations with these outside jurisdictions and with Caltrans are a possible outcome, depending on the magnitude and nature of the impacts.

For the CMP, the mitigations must bring the roadway into conformance with the LOS standards established for the CMP. However, local agencies may require conformance to higher standards, and these must be considered in consultation with the local jurisdiction. Measures to address local needs that are independent from the CMP network should be included in the TIA Report for continuity purposes. Consult the local jurisdiction to determine requirements which may be beyond the requirements of the CMP. The information required in this part of the TIA Report is described below.

Other transportation improvements already programmed and fully funded Only transportation improvements that are fully funded should be assumed in forecast.

Roadway improvements needed to maintain CMP LOS standard These should include an evaluation of intersection turn lanes, signalization, signal coordination and link lane additions, at a minimum. If a freeway is involved, lane requirements and ramp treatments to solve LOS deficiencies must be examined. Prior studies on the same sections may be furnished to the preparer of the TIA and such studies may be referenced if they do, in fact, provide the necessary mitigation for the proposed project. However, the calculation of percentage of contribution of the project to the growth in traffic must still be provided for the appropriate peakhours, as described earlier. If the physical or environmental constraints make mitigation unlikely, then the contribution may be used to improve LOS elsewhere on the system or another location that would relieve the impact. The point of referencing a previously conducted study is to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort on the same sections of roadway. Copies of previously conducted relevant studies in the area may be obtained from the local jurisdictions or the CMA, including any plans resulting from the annual modeling runs for the CMP.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Other improvements needed to maintain the LOS standard
In some cases, additional transit and TDM strategies beyond what was in the original assumptions may be necessary to provide an adequate mitigation. These must be described and the method for implementation must be discussed.

LOS with improvements
The LOS with improvements must be computed and shown on a map or table along with the traffic LOS without improvements. Delay values, freeway volume/capacity ratios, or other measures of LOS must be included in the results (could be in an appendix) along with the letter designation.

Cost estimates
The costs of mitigating deficiencies must be estimated for deficiencies that occur either within or outside the boundaries of the jurisdiction. The costs must be identified separately for each jurisdiction and for Caltrans roadways. Prior studies and cost estimates by SANBAG, Caltrans and other jurisdictions may be referenced. Used together with the analysis conducted in Section III.G, this will provide an approximation of project contribution to the needed improvements. This estimate is prepared for discussion purposes with the local jurisdiction and with neighboring jurisdictions and Caltrans. It does not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions to mitigations. If a mitigation measure is identified as necessary to bring a deficiency into conformance with the LOS standard, but physical or environmental constraints make the improvement impractical, an equivalent contribution should be considered to improve the LOS elsewhere on the system or another location providing direct relief. F. Relationship to other elements While the measures required to address air quality problems are not required for the TIA Report, they may be required as part of a CEQA review. The TIA Report may be integrated with environmental documents prepared for CEQA requirements. This is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction.

V. Conclusions and recommendations
Summary of proposed mitigations and costs
Provide a summary of the impacts, proposed mitigations and the costs of the mitigations. A cost estimate for the proposed mitigations must be included. Generalized unit costs will be available from either Caltrans or the local jurisdiction. The source of the unit cost estimates used must be specified in the TIA Report.

Other recommendations
List any other recommendations that should be brought to the attention of the local jurisdiction, the CMA, or Caltrans. This may include anticipated problems beyond the forecast year or on portions of the network not analyzed.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Summary List of Typical Figures and Tables to Be Included in a TIA Report:
• Project location and 5-mile limit study area (map)
• Project size by land use (table)
• Trips generated by land use for AM and PM weekday peak-hours of adjacent street traffic and for daily traffic inbound and outbound (table) and other applicable peak-hours • List of other planned transportation improvements affecting the project • Existing intersection and link volumes and levels of service (map) • Distribution and assignment of project trips (map)
• Forecast traffic without project and with project for applicable peak-hours (map or table) • LOS without project and with project (map or table) • Improvements required to mitigate project opening day and forecast year scenario impacts (map and/or table) • Ratio of project traffic to new traffic (new traffic means the difference between existing and forecast) on analyzed links or intersections (map or table) • Improvement costs by jurisdiction and for Caltrans roadways
Summary of Analysis Assumptions for the TIA:

LOS Analysis Procedures and Assumptions
Intersections
• Current HCM operational analysis.
• Optimized signal timing/phasing for future signal analysis, unless assumed to be in a coordinated system, in which case estimated actual cycle length is used. The maximum cycle length for a single signalized intersection or system should be 130 seconds. • 10 second minimum phase time, including change interval. • Average arrivals, unless a coordinated signal system dictates otherwise. • Ideal lane width (12 feet).
• "Required" solution if analysis by Webster.
• Exclusive right turn lane is assumed to exist if pavement is wide enough to permit a separate right turn, even if it is not striped. (Minimum 20' from curb line to lane stripe). • 2 second lost time/phase.
• A full saturation flow rate can be assumed for an extra lane provided on the upstream of the intersection only if this lane also extends at least 600 feet downstream of the intersection (or to the next downstream intersection).
• PHF = 0.95 for future analysis.
• The lane utilization factor may also be set at 1.00 when the v/c ratio for the lane group approaches 1.0, as lanes tend to be more equally utilized in such situations. • For light duty trucks (such as service vehicles, buses, RV’s and dual rear wheels) use a PCE of 1.5. For medium duty trucks with 3 axles use a PCE of 2.0. For heavy duty trucks with 4 axles, use a PCE of 3.0.
• Industrial, warehousing and other Projects with high truck percentages should convert to PCE’s before applying thresholds.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 • When field saturation flow rates and any special intersection characteristics are not available, the following field adjusted saturation flow rates are recommended for analysis.

Existing and Opening Day Scenarios
• Exclusive thru: 1,800 vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl) • Exclusive left: 1,700 vphgpl
• Exclusive right: 1,800 vphgpl
• Exclusive double left: 1,600 vphgpl • Exclusive triple left: 1,500 vphgpl or less Future Scenarios
• Exclusive thru: 1,900 vphgpl • Exclusive left: 1,800 vphgpl • Exclusive right: 1,900 vphgpl
• Exclusive double right: 1,800 vphgpl
• Exclusive double left: 1,700 vphgpl
• Exclusive triple left: 1,600 vphgpl or less
• Note: Existing field saturation flow rates should be used if they are available and any special traffic or geometric characteristics should also be taken into account if known to affect traffic flow.

Freeways
• Capacity of 2,200 vehicles/hour/lane (1,600/hr/lane/HOV) • Use Caltrans truck percentages (includes trucks, buses and RV's) • Peak-hour factor of 0.98 for congested areas and 0.95 for less congested areas • Directional distribution of 55% and 45%, if using non-directional volumes from Caltrans volume book
• Design speed of 70 mph
Stop Controlled Intersections
• Current HCM for 2-way and 4-way stops
Project-Related Assumptions
• Use the latest ITE Trip Generation handbook for mixed use internal trip percentages. Higher percentages must be fully justified.
• Pass by trips - Retail uses and fast food restaurants only • Use ITE procedures to estimate percentage
• For analysis at entry points into site, driveway volume is not reduced (i.e., trip generation rate is still the same). Rather, trips are redistributed based on the assumed prevalent directions of pass-by trips (see recommended ITE procedure). • Reductions for transit or TDM are a maximum of 10% unless higher can be justified. Other
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 • If a new traffic generating development project (other than a single family residential unit) within a federally designated urbanized area abuts a state highway or abuts a highway that intersects a State highway within 500 feet of that intersection, the local jurisdiction in which the development occurs must notify Caltrans and the CMA.
• The TIA procedures will be reviewed biannually. Forward comments to the CMA. • Industrial warehouse and truck projects may distribute only truck trips by hand. (Employee trip distribution shall be modeled.)
• Intersections will be considered deficient (LOS “F”) if the critical v/c ratio equals or exceeds 1.0, even if the LOS defined by the delay value is above the defined LOS standard.
• All the computer-generated traffic forecasts need to be refined for use in TIA reports to provide the best estimate of future volumes possible. Traffic forecasts should be post processed by using “B” turns software available through SCAG or another approved methodology. However, the post processing of turning movements is restricted to local models only.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 CEQA Assessment - VMT
Analysis
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 A key element of SB 743, signed in 2013, is the elimination of automobile delay and LOS as the sole basis of determining CEQA impacts. The most recent CEQA guidelines, released in December 2018, recommend VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts. However, SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring.

The following recommendations assist in determining VMT impact thresholds and mitigation requirements for various land use projects’ TIAs.

Analysis Methodology
For purposes of SB 743 compliance, a VMT analysis should be conducted for land use projects as deemed necessary by the Traffic Division and would apply to projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (e.g. population plus employment) compared to the SBCTA region or the lead agency boundary. Normalizing VMT per service population essentially provides a transportation efficiency metric that the analysis is based on. Using this efficiency metric allows the user to compare the project to the remainder of the unincorporated area for purposes of identifying transportation impacts.

These guidelines are based on the SBCTA SB 743 Implementation Study which provides options for both methodologies and VMT screening. The methodologies and significance thresholds presented below are based on SBCTA recommendations from the Implementation Study; lead agencies may wish to modify these thresholds with alternative thresholds of significance and methodologies as appropriate.

Project Screening
There are three types of screening that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment. These screening steps are summarized below:

Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects located within a TPA1 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may NOT be appropriate if the project:
1 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor per the definitions below.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.

For this screening in the SBCTA area, the SBTAM travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population (population plus employment) was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.

To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the analyst may review the SBCTA screening tool and apply the appropriate threshold (identified later in this chapter) within the tool.

Additionally, as noted above, the analyst mush identify if the project is consistent with the existing land use within that TAZ and use professional judgement that there is nothing unique about the project that would otherwise be mis-represented utilizing the data from the travel demand model.

The SBCTA screening tool can be accessed at the following location:
http://gis.fehrandpeers.com/WRCOGVMT/
Step 3: Project Type Screening
Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 In addition to local serving retail, the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local-serving K-12 schools
• Local parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving gas stations
• Local-serving banks
• Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) • Community institutions (Public libraries, fire stations, local government) • Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the

RTP/SCS
• Affordable or supportive housing
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips2 o This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
 11 single family housing units
 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units  10,000 sq. ft. of office
 15,000 sq. ft. of light industrial3
 63,000 sq. ft. of warehousing7
 79,000 sq. ft. of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse7 2 This threshold ties directly to the OPR technical advisory and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact.
3 Threshold may be higher depending on the tenant and the use of the site. This number was estimated using rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development
Projects not screened through the steps above should complete VMT analysis and forecasting through the SBTAM model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. This analysis should include ‘project generated VMT’ and ‘project effect on VMT’ estimates for the project TAZ (or TAZs) under the following scenarios:
• Baseline conditions - This data is already available in the web screening map. • Baseline plus project for the project - The project land use would be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. A full base year model run would be performed and VMT changes would be isolated for the project TAZ and across the full model network. The model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured. If this scenario results in a less-than-significant impact, then additional cumulative scenario analysis may not be required (more information about this outcome can be found in the Thresholds Evaluation discussion later in this chapter). • Cumulative no project - This data is available from SBCTA. • Cumulative plus project - The project land use would either be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. The addition of project land uses should be accompanied by a reallocation of a similar amount of land use from other TAZs; especially if the proposed project is significant in size such that it would change other future developments. Land use projects will generally not change the cumulative no project control totals for population and employment growth. Instead, they will influence the land use supply through changes in general plan land use designations and zoning. If project land uses are simply added to the cumulative no project scenario, then the analysis should reflect this limitation in the methodology and acknowledge that the analysis may overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.

The model output should include total VMT, which includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes, and VMT per service population (population plus employment). Total VMT (by speed bin) is needed as an input for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact analysis while total VMT per service population is recommended for transportation impact analysis4.

Both “plus project” scenarios noted above will summarize two types of VMT: (1) project generated VMT per service population and comparing it back to the appropriate benchmark noted in the 4 This assumes that the lead agency will use VMT per service population for its impact threshold. If a lead agency decides to isolate VMT by trip purpose, then the lead agency would need to update this section of the recommended guidelines.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 thresholds of significance, and (2) the project effect on VMT, comparing how the project changes VMT on the network looking at Citywide VMT per service population or a sub-regional VMT per service population and comparing it to the no project condition.

Project-generated VMT shall be extracted from the travel demand forecasting model using the origin-destination trip matrix and shall multiply that matrix by the final assignment skims. The project-effect on VMT shall be estimated using a sub-regional boundary (such as a City limit or County line) and extracting the total link-level VMT for both the no project and with project condition.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to extract the Project-generated VMT using the productionattraction trip matrix. This may be appropriate when a project is entirely composed of retail or office uses, and there is a need to isolate the home-based-work (HBW) VMT for the purposes of isolating commute VMT. The City should evaluate the appropriate methodology based on the project land use types and context.

A detailed description of this process is attached to these guidelines.

CEQA VMT Impact Thresholds
The SBCTA Implementation Study provided several options related to VMT thresholds of significance and guidance/substantial evidence related to thresholds of significance. Lead agencies should refer to that document for guidance/options.

VMT Impacts
An example of how VMT thresholds would be applied to determine potential VMT impacts is provided below.

A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the lead agency’s baseline VMT per service population (note, for more efficient cities in the SBCTA region, the lead agency could compare itself to the San Bernardino County regional average instead), or

2. The cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the lead agency’s baseline VMT per service population (note, for more efficient cities in the SBCTA region, the lead agency could compare itself to the San Bernardino County regional average instead).

The project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in either of the following conditions to be satisfied:

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020

1. The baseline link-level boundary VMT per service population (City or sub-regional boundary) to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition), or

2. The cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population (City or subregional boundary) to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition).

Please note that the cumulative no project shall reflect the adopted RTP/SCS; as such, if a project is consistent with the regional RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence VMT Mitigation Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following choices are available to the applicant:

1. Modify the project’s built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project

2. Implement transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.

3. Participate in a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if they exist) to reduce VMT from the project or other land uses to achieve acceptable levels As part of the SBCTA Implementation Study, key TDM measures that are appropriate to the region were identified.

Measures appropriate for most of the SBCTA region are summarized in Attachment B of the TDM Strategies Evaluation Memorandum. Evaluation of VMT reductions should be evaluated using stateof-the-practice methodologies recognizing that many of the TDM strategies are dependent on building tenant performance over time. As such, actual VMT reduction cannot be reliably predicted and monitoring may be necessary to gauge performance related to mitigation expectations.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 CEQA Assessment - Active
Transportation and Public
Transit Analysis
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Potential impacts to public transit, pedestrian facilities and travel, and bicycle facilities and travel can be evaluated using the following criteria.
• A significant impact occurs if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities.

Therefore, the TIA should include analysis of a project to examine if it is inconsistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding active transportation or public transit facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities and make a determination as to whether it has the potential to conflict with existing or proposed facilities supporting these travel modes.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Transportation Impact Study
Format
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 The recommended TIA format is as follows:

1. Executive Summary
a. Table summarizing significant impacts and mitigation measures

2. Introduction
a. Purpose of the TIA and study objective
b. Project location and vicinity map (Exhibit)
c. Project size and description
d. Existing and proposed land use and zoning
e. Site plan and proposed project (Exhibit)
f. Proposed project opening year and analysis scenarios

3. Methodology and Impact Thresholds

4. Existing Conditions
a. Existing roadway network
b. Existing traffic control and intersection geometrics (Exhibit) c. Existing traffic volumes – AM and PM peak hour and ADT (Exhibit) d. Existing level of service (LOS) at intersections (Table) e. Existing bicycle facilities (Exhibit)
f. Existing transit facilities (Exhibit)
g. Existing pedestrian facilities

5. Project Traffic
a. Trip generation (Table)
b. Trip distribution and assignment (Exhibit)
c. Project peak hour turning movements and ADT (Exhibit)

6. Background Conditions (Opening Year) Analysis
a. No Project analysis
i. Committed (funded) roadway improvements
ii. Approved project trip generation (Table, if required) iii. Approved project trip assignment and distribution (Exhibit, if required) iv. Peak turning movement and ADT (Exhibit)
v. Intersection level of service (Table)
vi. Roadway segment level of service (Table)
b. Plus Project analysis
i. Plus Project peak turning movement and ADT (Exhibit) ii. Intersection level of service (Table)
iii. Roadway segment level of service (Table)
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 iv. Identification of intersection and roadway segment deficiencies

7. Cumulative Year Analysis
a. No Project analysis
i. Committed (funded) roadway improvements
ii. Pending projects and verification of how they are included in the travel demand forecasting model
iii. Cumulative Year peak turning movement and ADT (Exhibit) iv. Intersection level of service (Table)
v. Roadway segment level of service (Table)
b. Plus Project Analysis
i. Plus Project peak turning movement and ADT (Exhibit) ii. Intersection level of service (Table)
iii. Roadway segment level of service (Table)
iv. Identification of intersection and roadway segment deficiencies

8. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

9. Site Access Analysis

10. Safety and Operation Improvement Analysis

11. Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis

12. Improvements and Recommendations
a. Proposed improvements at intersections
b. Proposed improvements at roadway segments
c. Recommended Improvements categorized by whether they are included in fee plan or not. (Identify if these improvements are included in an adopted fee program)

13. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
a. Project VMT per person/employee for all analysis scenarios b. Project effect on VMT for all analysis scenarios
c. Identification of VMT impacts
d. Proposed VMT Mitigation Measures

14. Appendix
a. Approved scope of work
b. Traffic counts
c. Intersection analysis worksheets
d. VMT and TDM calculations
e. VMT and TDM mitigation calculations
f. Signal warrant worksheets
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Attachments
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 Detailed VMT Forecasting Information
Most trip-based models generate daily person trip-ends for each TAZ across various trip purposes (HBW, HBO, and NHB, for example) based on population, household, and employment variables.

This may create challenges for complying with the VMT guidance because trip generation is not directly tied to specific land use categories. The following methodology addresses this particular challenge among others.

Production and attraction trip-ends are separately calculated for each zone, and generally:
production trip-ends are generated by residential land uses and attraction trip-ends are generated by non-residential land uses. OPR's guidance addresses residential, office, and retail land uses.

Focusing on residential and office land uses, the first step to forecasting VMT requires translating the land use into model terms, the closest approximations are:
• Residential: home-based production trips
• Office: home-based work attraction trips
Note that this excludes all non-home-based trips including work-based other and other-based other trips.

The challenges with computing VMT for these two types of trips in a trip-based model are 1) production and attraction trip-ends are not distinguishable after the PA to OD conversion process and 2) trip purposes are not maintained after the mode choice step. For these reasons, it not possible to use the VMT results from the standard vehicle assignment (even using a select zone reassignment). A separate post-process must be developed to re-estimate VMT for each zone that includes trip-end types and trip purposes. Two potential approaches to tackle this problem are described below.

Simplified
This approach uses standard model output files and requires minimal custom calculations. It is based on a regional MPO trip-based model with peak (PK) and off-peak (OP) skims and person trip production-attraction (PA) matrices.
• Calculate custom vehicle trip PA matrices from PK and OP person trip matrices o Keep trip purposes and modes separate
o Use average vehicle occupancy rates for drive-alone and shared ride trips • Use the final congested drive-alone PK and OP skim matrices to estimate trip length between zones
• Multiply the skim matrices by vehicle trip matrices to estimate VMT • Sum the PK and OP results to estimate daily VMT and aggregate mode trip purpose and mode
Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 • Calculate automobile VMT for individual TAZs using marginal totals:
o Residential (home-based) - row total
o Office (home-based work) - column total
Detailed
The process described above simplifies the approach but does not account for different congestion patterns throughout the day (AM, MD, PM, and NT), the direction of travel (all productions are origins and all attractions are destinations), or the benefits of exclusive lanes (HOV or HOT lanes).

This more detailed approach attempts to address these limitations and better estimate the VMT produced by the vehicle assignment model.
• Re-skim final loaded congested networks for each mode and time period • Run a custom PA to OD process that replicates actual model steps, but:
o Keeps departure and return trips separate
o Keeps trip purpose and mode separate
o Converts person trips to vehicle trips based on auto occupancy rates and isolates automobile trips
o Factors vehicle trips into assignment time periods
• Multiply appropriate distance skim matrices by custom OD matrices to estimate VMT • Sum matrices by time period, mode, and trip purpose to calculate daily automobile VMT • Calculate automobile VMT for individual TAZs using marginal totals:
o Residential (home-based) - row of departure matrix plus column of return matrix o Office (home-based work) - column of departure matrix plus row of return matrix Appropriateness Checks
Regardless of which method is used, the number of vehicle trips from the custom PA to OD process and the total VMT should match as closely as possible with the results from the traditional model process. The estimated results should be checked against the results from a full model run to understand the degree of accuracy. Note that depending on how each model is setup, these custom processes may or may not include IX/XI trips, truck trips, or special generator trips (airport, seaport, stadium, etc.).

When calculating VMT for comparison at the study area, citywide, or regional geography, the same methodology that was used to estimate project-specific VMT should be used. The VMT for these comparisons can be easily calculated by aggregating the row or column totals for all zones that are within the desired geography.

Proposed New Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution No. 5010-2020 ATTACHMENT 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No.
5010-2020
Attachment 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020
400206.1
Table 1
VMT Impact Thresholds
Methods Project Threshold Cumulative Threshold
Land Use Plans (such as General Plans and Specific Plans) • San Bernardino Traffic
Analysis Model (SBTAM)
forecast of total daily VMT/SP
• To capture project effect,
the same cumulative year
population and
employment growth totals
should be used. The
“project” only influences
land use allocation.

A significant impact would occur if
the project VMT/SP (for the land
use plan) exceeds the
[Countywide/Citywide] average
under General Plan Buildout
Conditions.

SCAG RTP/SCS
• Is the proposed project
within the growth
projections in the
RTP/SCS?
N/A A significant impact would occur if
the project is determined to be
inconsistent with the RTP/SCS.

Project presumption applies under
cumulative conditions as long as
project is consistent with SCAG
RTP/SCS.
• VMT analysis using SBTAM
forecast of total daily VMT/SP.

A significant impact would occur if
the project VMT/SP exceeds the
[Countywide/Citywide] average
under General Plan Buildout
Conditions.

A significant impact would occur if
the project is determined to be
inconsistent with the RTP/SCS.

Attachment 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020
400206.1
Table 1
VMT Impact Thresholds
Methods Project Threshold Cumulative Threshold
Transportation Projects (thresholds may apply for SB 743 of GHG purposes) • SBTAM forecast of total
citywide daily VMT1
A significant impact would occur if
the project increased the baseline
VMT within the City.

A significant impact would occur if
the project caused total daily VMT
within the City to be higher than
the no build alternative under
cumulative conditions.
• Consistency check with

Alternatively, iof the model is not deemed appropriate, Robert Cervero’s research on lanme-mile elasticity and its relationship to VMT can be referenced.

Attachment 2
Redline of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 5010-2020
ATTACHMENT 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020
Attachment 3
Original Resolution No. 5010-2020

Barstow City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Barstow City Council
June 17, 2025