VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines_Final_04-23-24 — Visalia City Council, February 3, 2025

Updated April 23, 2024
FINAL
CITY OF VISALIA VMT THRESHOLDS AND
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

This page intentionally left blank
Updated April 23, 2024
FINAL
CITY OF VISALIA VMT THRESHOLDS AND
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

Prepared for:

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 553‐0666
Project No. 20241466

This page intentionally left blank

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. As a result of the final rulemaking surrounding SB 743 and the implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, the City of Visalia is adopting the new VMT thresholds and guidelines to address the shift from delay‐based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses.

This document discusses in further detail the following:
 Definition of Region for VMT Analysis: Tulare County has been recommended as the region for VMT analyses purposes.
 Standardized Screening Methods for Project VMT analysis: Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area, locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet, residential, office, or mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas, 100 percent affordable housing projects and projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 1,000 daily trips are considered to have no significant VMT impacts. Therefore, such projects have been recommended to be screened out from further analysis.  Recommendations for Appropriate VMT Significance Thresholds for Development Projects, Transportation Projects, and Plans: For residential and non‐retail non‐residential projects, 84 percent of the existing County average have been recommended as the VMT significance threshold. For retail projects, no net increase in regional VMT have been recommended as the VMT significance threshold. For mixed use projects, individual land use components should be evaluated separately, with 84 percent of the existing County average being the recommended threshold. For transportation projects, net increase in induced VMT has been recommended as the significant threshold. For land use plans, the existing County average VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per service population has been recommended as the significant threshold for individual land uses.
 Feasible Mitigation Strategies: VMT mitigation measures applicable for development projects, transportation projects, and plans in the context of the City have been recommended.

Additionally, use of a VMT Bank, VMT Exchange, and/or VMT Impact Fee have been discussed as potential future funding mechanisms.

For purposes of this analysis, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2022 RTP Travel Demand Model (TCAG Model) was used to develop screening maps. TCAG Model has been updated, for TCAG’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update, since the development of the Visalia SB 743 guidelines document. Therefore, all the VMT metrics in this document have been updated using updated TCAG 2022 RTP model. The appropriate use of the TCAG Model for VMT calculations has been further elaborated in subsequent chapters of this document.

This document will serve as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analysis consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Project applicants will be required to follow the guidance provided in this document for preparation of CEQA VMT analysis.

ii
This page intentionally left blank

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iii FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT .............................. 5

3.0 PROJECT SCREENING ........................................................................................... 7

3.1 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ................................................................................... 7

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 20

4.0 THRESHOLD AND VMT ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ....... 24

4.1 THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PROJECTS ............................................................................. 24

4.2 LAND USE PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS/MITIGATION PROCEDURE ......................................... 26

4.2.1 Agency Communication ....................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Project Screening ................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.3 Development Project VMT Analysis .................................................................................... 31

4.2.4 Large Project VMT Analysis ................................................................................................. 31

4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 31

5.0 THRESHOLDS AND INDUCED VMT ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... 33

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PLANS ............................................ 37

7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 39

7.1 DEFINITION OF MITIGATION .............................................................................................. 39

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 41

7.2.1 Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans .............................................. 41

7.2.2 Transportation Projects ....................................................................................................... 42

7.3 FUNDING MECHANISMS .................................................................................................... 43

8.0 VISALIA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ............................................... 47

8.1 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: LAND USE ............................................................................... 47

8.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 47

8.1.2 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 47

8.2 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: CIRCULATION ......................................................................... 50

8.2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 50

8.2.2 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 51

8.3 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES ................................ 54

8.3.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 54

8.3.2 Policies ................................................................................................................................. 54

APPENDICES
A: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CAPCOA) B: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CARB

PAPERS)
C: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL PLANS

v
FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: VMT per Capita Compared to Population in California ........................................................... 2 Figure 2: 2017 GHG Emissions in California by Scoping Plan Sector and Sub‐Sector Category ............. 3 Figure 3: Percentage of Total Trips Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Visalia and Terminating within the City of Visalia, within Tulare County, or outside the County .................. 6 Figure 4: High‐Quality Transit Area within City of Visalia ...................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Average VMT per Capita (Population), VMT per Employee, and VMT per Service Population for City of Visalia and Tulare County ........................................................................ 13 Figure 6: City of Visalia Existing VMT per Capita .................................................................................. 14 Figure 7: City of Visalia Existing VMT per Employee ............................................................................ 16 Figure 8: City of Visalia Existing VMT per Service Population .............................................................. 18 Figure 9: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs ....................................... 25 Figure 10: VMT Screening Methodology for Development Projects ................................................... 27 Figure 11‐A: VMT Analysis Methodology for Residential Projects ....................................................... 28 Figure 11‐B: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Retail Non‐Residential Projects ............................. 29 Figure 11‐C: VMT Analysis Methodology for Retail Projects ................................................................ 30 Figure 12: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project .................................................................... 34 Figure 13: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 14: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank ..................................................................................... 44 Figure 15: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange ............................................................................. 45 Figure 16: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee ........................................................................... 46

TABLE
Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod ..................................................... 11

vi
This page intentionally left blank

vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADT Average Daily Trips
AHO Affordable Housing Overlay
BMP Best Management Practice
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Visalia
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
County County of Tulare
COZ Change of Zone
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
FAR Floor‐to‐Area Ratio
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP Global Warming Potential
HOT High‐Occupancy Toll
HOV High‐Occupancy Vehicle
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

viii
LOS Level of Service
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MT Metric Ton
ND Negative Declaration
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PRC Public Resources Code
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square foot/Feet
SOC Statement of Overriding Considerations
TA Technical Advisory
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TSM Transportation System Management
UDB Urban Development Boundary
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. For development projects, VMT is simply the product of the daily trips generated by a new development and the distance those trips travel to their destinations. For capital projects, impacts are identified as the new VMT attributable to the added capital project, both from the installation of the facility and the induced growth—a new term in the CEQA lexicon—generated as a result of induced land use.

In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) states:

1. Land Use Projects. VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one‐half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The OPR provided a Technical Advisory (TA) as a guidance document to establish thresholds for this new VMT metric. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (PRC Section 21000 and following), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law.

2 Yet, deviating from the TA is best undertaken with substantial evidence to support the agency action.

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long‐term climate change goals. To achieve these climate change goals, California needs to reduce VMT. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the last 40 years, with increase in statewide population, the overall VMT has also increased. As illustrated in Figure 2, transportation is the single largest sector contributing to the State’s GHG emissions. More than 40 percent of the GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. Reducing the number of vehicle trips and reducing the length of trips are expected to result in reduced VMT and reduced GHG emissions. The new State CEQA Guidelines and the establishment of VMT thresholds for CEQA analyses is linked to GHG reduction strategies and overall statewide climate change goals.

Source: https://ca50million.ca.gov/transportation/
Figure 1: VMT per Capita Compared to Population in California

3 Source: California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators (California Air Resources Board Report) Figure 2: 2017 GHG Emissions in California by Scoping Plan Sector and Sub‐Sector Category This document establishes the City of Visalia’s (City) threshold of significance for CEQA transportation studies and provides substantial evidence as appropriate. It is divided into chapters, including:
 Chapter 2 – Definition of Region: The document describes what the comparative is for analysis purposes. Each project will be compared to an existing regional average. The geographical area that defines the region is defined and described.
 Chapter 3 – Project Screening: OPR acknowledges that certain projects are either low VMT generators, or, by virtue of their location, would have a less than significant impact. The City should use these screening criteria and should offer substantial evidence for other circumstances that would lead to a less than significant impact.  Chapter 4 – Significance Threshold and VMT Analysis for Land Use Development Projects: In this chapter, the threshold that would define a significant CEQA impact is identified. This threshold is linked to a specific land development project that is being analyzed under CEQA.

4 The actual VMT metric (either an efficiency rate or total VMT) is described. The process of VMT analysis is also described in this chapter.
 Chapter 5 –Thresholds and Induced VMT Analysis for Transportation Projects: This chapter describes the method to evaluate significant CEQA impacts associated with transportation projects. Many non‐vehicular capital projects are presumed to have a less than significant impact. Capacity‐enhancing projects may have significant impacts and may be subject to a detailed analysis that will include measuring induced travel.  Chapter 6 – Significance Thresholds for Land Use Plans: This chapter provides guidance and substantial evidence to support the City’s treatment of land use plans and their CEQA transportation analyses.
 Chapter 7 – Mitigation Strategies: Potential mitigation strategies are indicated in this chapter. It is noted that this discussion is not intended as a full list of measures the City sanctions as feasible. As in previous CEQA practice, it is generally the practitioner who identifies mitigation measures to offset the specific project‐related impacts identified in individual environmental document. The discussion here is intended as a reference and guide for possible strategy for applicants who may wish to investigate to offset their specific project‐related significant impacts.
 Chapter 8 – Visalia General Plan Consistency Analysis: This chapter summarizes the objectives and policies from the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Element that could be better achieved with implementation of VMT metrics and analysis procedures.

5 2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT The question of context is the definition of the scope of the VMT analysis. The common term for this in previous delay‐based LOS analyses is project study area. In the delay‐based LOS analyses, a project study area is generally determined based on the incremental increase in traffic from the project and its potential to create a significant LOS impact. This generally includes intersections and roadway segments where the project would add a prescribed number of peak‐hour trips. Many times, lead agencies stop study area boundaries at their jurisdictional borders.

Unlike delay‐based LOS analyses, VMT is a regional effect not defined by roadway, intersection, or pathway. The OPR acknowledges this in its TA (page 6), which states, Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries. …
On a daily basis, majority of trips are generated by the residents of the community or by residential land uses. Commute and school trips are typically considered mandatory trips for the residents.

Also, based on 2010 – 2012 California Household Travel Surveys (CHTS), commute trips are the longest among trips by residents. Additionally based on CHTS, the majority of trips are commute and shopping trips occurring between residential, office, and retail uses. Therefore, pursuant to the OPR TA, the recommendations for thresholds for the primary land use types (residential and office) are based on a comparison to a regional average. Region is not defined further in the TA. Instead, the OPR TA offers the following suggestions:

1. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live (page 16).

2. For residential projects in unincorporated county areas, the local agency can compare a residential project’s VMT to (1) the region’s VMT per capita, or (2) the aggregate population weighted VMT per capita of all cities in the region (page 15).

LSA surveyed other large urbanized areas around the state to identify what region has been established for VMT thresholds. In most cases, the county boundary has been identified as the region selected for VMT analysis. Mobility can be studied using a trip‐based approach or a tour‐based approach. The OPR TA states that “where available, tour‐based assessment is ideal because it captures travel behavior more comprehensively. But where tour‐based tools or data are not available for all components of an analysis, a trip‐based assessment of VMT serves as a reasonable proxy.” Since the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Model is a trip‐based model, a trip‐ based approach has been followed. LSA used the TCAG 2022 RTP Model to examine the trips into and out of Visalia. As such, consistent with the OPR TA, only trips having origins or destinations or both within the City were considered. External pass‐through trips were not considered. As illustrated in Figure 3, out of the total trips, about 66 percent trips are contained within the City and its sphere of influence. Another 29 percent of trips originate or are destined within other

6 jurisdictions in Tulare County (County). The remaining 5 percent trips either originate or are destined outside Tulare County. Because the majority of the trips (95 percent) are contained within Tulare County, the County will be used to define the region.

The OPR guidance recommends consistency in approach; once a region is established, that region should be used for all subsequent traffic analyses.

Source: TCAG 2022 RTP Model
Figure 3: Percentage of Total Trips Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Visalia and Terminating within the City of Visalia, within Tulare County, or outside the County It should be recognized the use of the County as the region defines the comparative, or the denominator, in the identification of project‐related impact. The numerator is the project’s VMT contribution. This project‐related VMT profile may go beyond the County boundary and not be truncated by a jurisdictional boundary. For example, if a large employment generating development is proposed near the City’s western boundary, it may generate VMT from as far away as Fresno or other communities in the San Joaquin Valley. In that case, it would be the responsibility of the applicant and traffic study preparer to include the project VMT regardless of geographical limit to the satisfaction of City staff. This project‐related VMT profile would be compared against the Tulare County regional average.
66%
29%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Total Trips
Within City Sphere of Influence
Within Tulare County, Outside of City SOI
Outside Tulare County

7 3.0 PROJECT SCREENING
The TA acknowledges that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions and, therefore, a less than significant impact to transportation and circulation. A variety of projects may be screened out of a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption described in the TA regarding the occurrence of less than significant impacts.

3.1 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The TA acknowledges that conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential. For example, development projects that have one or more of the following attributes may be presumed to create a less than significant impact:
 The project is within 0.5 mile of a Transit Priority Area or a High‐Quality Transit Area unless the project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), has a floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units. In accordance with SB 743, “Transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. A 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 of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A High‐Quality Transit Area or Corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

Figure 4 depicts transit priority areas within Visalia including high‐quality transit areas (within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop) served by the Visalia Transit with service intervals of 15 minutes or less.

Projects proposed in these areas may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact unless the project is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, has an FAR less than 0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units.  The project involves local‐serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet (sf).  The project is 100 percent deed‐restricted affordable housing units.  For the City of Visalia, projects consistent with the City’s General Plan can be screened if the project would generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT), and projects not consistent with the City’s General Plan can be screened if the project would generate fewer than 500 ADT.

The TA recommends a volume of 110 ADT. This recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction but, rather, on a CEQA categorical exemption. This exemption criterion states that for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 sf, the project is exempted from CEQA as long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, subdivision (e)(2).

8 This page intentionally left blank

ÄÆ99
ÄÆ198
ÄÆ216
ROUTE 1

ALTA AVE

E NOBLE AVE

W MINERAL KING AVE W NOBLE AVE

S DEMAREE RD

S SHIRK RD

ALTA AVE

N SHIRK RD

S COURT ST
AVENUE 280
AVENUE 296

W HOUSTON AVE

W WALNUT AVE

E CALDWELL AVE

E WALNUT AVE

W CALDWELL AVE W VISALIA RD

N DEMAREE RD

N FARMERSVILLE BLVD

PLAZA DR

W CALDWELL AVE

E VISALIA RD

E MINERAL KING AVE

S FARMERSVILLE BLVD

N AKERS ST

N LOVERS LN

E HOUSTON AVE
CR-J32

CAMP DR
ROAD 160

E MAIN ST

HOUSTON ST

W MAIN ST

N BEN MADDOX WAY

FARMERSVILLE BLVD

S BEN MADDOX WAY
AVENUE 328

W CENTER ST
AVENUE 312

BEN MADDOX WAY

N MOONEY BLVD

S AKERS ST

W GOSHEN AVE

S LOVERS LN

W RIGGIN AVEW RIGGIN AVE

E HOUSTON AVE

IVANHOE DR
AVENUE 280
ROAD 158
ROAD 80
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community LEGEND
City of Visalia Sphere of Influence
Visalia Transit Route 1
Half Mile Buffer
SOURCE: TCAG Model; City of Visalia;Tulare County (11/20) R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\GIS\fig_4_HQ Transit.mxd (1/19/2021) FIGURE 4
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines High Quality Transit Area within City of Visalia
S!!N
0 2500 5000
FEET

10 This page intentionally left blank

11 As stated in the OPR TA, for projects that have a linear increase in trip generation with respect to the building footprint, the daily trip generation is anticipated to be between 110 and 124 trips per 10,000 sf. Therefore, based on this assumption, the OPR recommends 110 ADT as the screening threshold. However, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to characterize the effect of changes in project‐related ADT to the resulting GHG emissions. This model was selected because it is provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to be used statewide for developing project‐level GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used with the built‐in default trip lengths and types to show the vehicular GHG emissions from incremental amounts of ADT. Table A shows the resulting annual VMT and GHG emissions from the incremental ADT.

Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod Average Daily Trips (ADT)
Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e per year)
200 683,430 258
300 1,021,812 386
400 1,386,416 514
500 1.703,020 643
600 2,043,623 771
750 2,562,862 967
1,000 3,417,150 1,290
1,500 5,125,725 1,935
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.

CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG = Greenhouse Gas
A common GHG emissions threshold is 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent1 (CO2e) per year.2 The vehicle emissions are typically more than 50 percent of the total project GHG emissions. Thus, a project with 1,000 ADT would generally have total project emissions that could be less than 2,600 MT CO2e/year (i.e., 50 percent or 1,290 MT CO2e/year coming from vehicle emissions and the other 50 percent coming from other project activities). As this level of GHG emissions would be less than 3,000 MT CO2e/year, the emissions of GHG from a project up to 1,000 ADT would typically be less than significant. The City of Visalia Implementation Guidelines document recommends that a more conservative daily trip threshold be applied to projects that are not consistent with the City’s General Plan. This is because a project that is not consistent with the General Plan also conflicts with the RTP/SCS. Therefore, for projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, the City will allow screening of these projects if they would generate fewer than 1,000 ADT. For projects that are not consistent with the City’s General Plan, a screening threshold of 500 ADT will be applied.  The development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may also be screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These facilities (e.g., police stations, fire stations, community centers, and refuse stations) are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional

1 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a concept developed to provide one metric that includes the effects of numerous GHGs. The global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG characterizes the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG. The GWPs of all GHGs are combined to derive the CO2e. 2 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules‐compliance/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/ghg‐significance‐ thresholds.

12 average. Many of these facilities generate fewer than 1,000 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger‐cars or light duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside of CEQA, such as the CARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.  Local parks, daycare centers, student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus, local‐ serving gas stations, banks, and K–12 public schools.
 Redevelopment projects that result in an equal or net reduction in VMT can be considered to have less than significant VMT impact. A net reduction in VMT would occur if the land use proposed by the project would generate less VMT than the existing land use.  Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and located within green‐colored VMT zones, as shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively, are presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from further VMT analysis.

The TA states “Residential and office projects that are located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps may be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.”
LSA calculated VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and VMT per service population for the City of Visalia, as well as for the entire Tulare County. Figure 5 illustrates the comparison of these VMTs. LSA also created screening maps that residential and non‐residential projects within the City can use to screen projects, provided they are consistent with the City’s General Plan. As described earlier, the City will use Tulare County as the region. Therefore, the screening maps have been created using the County as the region. Figure 6 illustrates City of Visalia’s VMT per capita screening map. Figure 7 illustrates the City’s VMT per employee screening map, and Figure 8 illustrates the City’s VMT per service population screening map.

13 Source: TCAG2022 RTP Model
Figure 5: Average VMT per Capita (Population), VMT per Employee, and VMT per Service Population for City of Visalia and Tulare County

10.1 5.6

26.8 13.2

8.8 31.0

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0
Average VMT per Capita Average VMT per Employee Average VMT per Service Population
City of Visalia
Tulare County
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ198
ÄÆ216
ALTA AVE
E NOBLE AVE
W
M
INERAL KING AVE
W
NOBLE AVE
S DEMAREE RD
S SHIRK RD
ALTA AVE
N SHIRK RD
S COURT ST
AVENUE 280
AVENUE 296
W
HOUSTON AVE
W
W
ALNUT AVE
E CALDW
ELL AVE
E W
ALNUT AVE
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
W
VISALIA RD
N DEMAREE RD
N FARMERSVILLE BLVD
PLAZA DR
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
E VISALIA RD
E M
INERAL KING AVE
S FARMERSVILLE BLVD
N AKERS ST
N LOVERS LN
E HOUSTON AVE
CR‐J32
CAMP DR
ROAD 160
E MAIN ST
HOUSTON ST
W
M
AIN ST
N BEN MADDOX WAY
FARMERSVILLE BLVD
S BEN MADDOX WAY
AVENUE 328
W CENTER ST
AVENUE 312
BEN MADDOX WAY
N MOONEY BLVD
S AKERS ST
W
GOSHEN AVE
S LOVERS LN
W
RIGGIN AVE
W
RIGGIN AVE
E HOUSTON AVE
IVANHOE DR
AVENUE 280
ROAD 158
ROAD 80
LEGEND
City of Visalia Sphere of Influence
SOURCE: TCAG Model; City of Visalia;Tulare County (06/22) C:\T emp\VSL\refresh_2024\GIS\VMT_Maps_02‐19‐2024\fig6_VMT_CAP .mxd (2/19/2024) FIGURE 6
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines City of Visalia ‐ Existing VMT per Capita
S!!N
0 2500 5000
FEET
VMT per Capita
No Population

11.1 or Less
More than 11.1, up to 13.2
Greater than 13.2
City of Visalia Average VMT per Capita: 10.1
Tulare County Average VMT per Capita: 13.2
Threshold: 16%
Map created using Tulare County as the region.

15 This page intentionally left blank
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ198
ÄÆ216
ALTA AVE
E NOBLE AVE
W
M
INERAL KING AVE
W
NOBLE AVE
S DEMAREE RD
S SHIRK RD
ALTA AVE
N SHIRK RD
S COURT ST
AVENUE 280
AVENUE 296
W
HOUSTON AVE
W
W
ALNUT AVE
E CALDW
ELL AVE
E W
ALNUT AVE
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
W
VISALIA RD
N DEMAREE RD
N FARMERSVILLE BLVD
PLAZA DR
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
E VISALIA RD
E M
INERAL KING AVE
S FARMERSVILLE BLVD
N AKERS ST
N LOVERS LN
E HOUSTON AVE
CR‐J32
CAMP DR
ROAD 160
E MAIN ST
HOUSTON ST
W
M
AIN ST
N BEN MADDOX WAY
FARMERSVILLE BLVD
S BEN MADDOX WAY
AVENUE 328
W CENTER ST
AVENUE 312
BEN MADDOX WAY
N MOONEY BLVD
S AKERS ST
W
GOSHEN AVE
S LOVERS LN
W
RIGGIN AVE
W
RIGGIN AVE
E HOUSTON AVE
IVANHOE DR
AVENUE 280
ROAD 158
ROAD 80
LEGEND
City of Visalia Sphere of Influence
SOURCE: TCAG Model; City of Visalia;Tulare County (06/22) C:\T emp\VSL\refresh_2024\GIS\VMT_Maps_02‐19‐2024\fig7_VMT_EMP .mxd (2/19/2024) FIGURE 7
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines City of Visalia ‐ Existing VMT per Employee
S!!N
0 2500 5000
FEET
VMT per Employee
No Employment

7.4 or Less
More than 7.4, up to 8.8
Greater than 8.8
City of Visalia Average VMT per Employee: 5.6
Tulare County Average VMT per Employee: 8.8
Threshold: 16%
Map created using Tulare County as the region.

17 This page intentionally left blank
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ198
ÄÆ216
ALTA AVE
E NOBLE AVE
W
M
INERAL KING AVE
W
NOBLE AVE
S DEMAREE RD
S SHIRK RD
ALTA AVE
N SHIRK RD
S COURT ST
AVENUE 280
AVENUE 296
W
HOUSTON AVE
W
W
ALNUT AVE
E CALDW
ELL AVE
E W
ALNUT AVE
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
W
VISALIA RD
N DEMAREE RD
N FARMERSVILLE BLVD
PLAZA DR
W
CALDW
ELL AVE
E VISALIA RD
E M
INERAL KING AVE
S FARMERSVILLE BLVD
N AKERS ST
N LOVERS LN
E HOUSTON AVE
CR‐J32
CAMP DR
ROAD 160
E MAIN ST
HOUSTON ST
W
M
AIN ST
N BEN MADDOX WAY
FARMERSVILLE BLVD
S BEN MADDOX WAY
AVENUE 328
W CENTER ST
AVENUE 312
BEN MADDOX WAY
N MOONEY BLVD
S AKERS ST
W
GOSHEN AVE
S LOVERS LN
W
RIGGIN AVE
W
RIGGIN AVE
E HOUSTON AVE
IVANHOE DR
AVENUE 280
ROAD 158
ROAD 80
LEGEND
City of Visalia Sphere of Influence
SOURCE: TCAG Model; City of Visalia;Tulare County (06/22) C:\T emp\VSL\refresh_2024\GIS\VMT_Maps_02‐19‐2024\fig8_VMT_SPOP .mxd (2/29/2024) FIGURE 8
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines City of Visalia ‐ Existing VMT per Service Population
S!!N
0 2500 5000
FEET
VMT per Service Population
No service population

26.4 or Less
More than 26.4, up to 31.0
Greater than 31.0
City of Visalia Average VMT per Service Population: 26.8 Tulare County Average VMT per Service Population: 31.0
Threshold: 16%
Map created using Tulare County as the region.

19 This page intentionally left blank

20 The City of Visalia VMT Screening Tool3 can be used to determine whether a land use development project may be screened from a detailed VMT analysis. It should be noted that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or a Change of Zone (COZ), the City will evaluate such projects on a case‐by‐case basis to determine whether a VMT analysis would be required and the above‐listed screening criteria could be applied.

Additionally, the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 (c) states that “if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” Therefore, if a land use development/ transportation project is already cleared by a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or an adopted Negative Declaration (ND)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), then subsequent projects that are consistent with the approved project will not require a new VMT analysis.

Projects that show a less than significant impact upon detailed analysis, as described in Chapter 4, will not require any additional VMT analysis under CEQA.

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
The primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.” Based on the OPR TA, while the City has discretion to continue to use a delay‐based LOS analysis for CEQA disclosure of transportation projects, changes in vehicle travel must also be quantified. The City of Visalia will solely use VMT analysis for CEQA disclosure of transportation projects, but will also require a LOS analysis for design, traffic operations, and safety purposes. The TA lists a series of projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel and which would, therefore, not require an induced travel analysis. These include the following:
 Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity.
 Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such median barriers and guardrails.  Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes.
 Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than 1 mile in length designed to improve roadway safety.  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left‐turn, right‐turn, and U‐turn pockets, two‐way left‐turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes.

3 City of Visalia Online Screening Tool: City of Visalia ‐ VMT Screening Application (lsa.net)

21  Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit.  Conversion of existing general‐purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel.
 Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles.  Reduction in the number of through lanes.
 Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., high‐occupancy vehicles [HOV], high‐ occupancy toll [HOT] lane traffic, or trucks) from general vehicles.  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority features.
 Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs, and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow.  Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow.  Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles.
 Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices.  Adoption of or increase in tolls.
 Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase.  Initiation of a new transit service.
 Conversion of streets from one‐way to two‐way operation with no net increase in the number of traffic lanes.
 Removal or relocation of off‐street or on‐street parking spaces.  Adoption or modification of on‐street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs).  Addition of traffic wayfinding signage.
 Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity.  Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights‐of‐way.
 Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi‐use paths, or other off‐road facilities that serve non‐ motorized travel.
 Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure.  Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake‐check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor.

22 Additionally, transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and, therefore, may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid‐transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. The City may use this CEQA presumption of less than significant impact to aid in the prioritization of capital projects, as the CEQA process for any of these project types would be more streamlined than other capacity‐enhancing capital projects.

23 This page intentionally left blank

24 4.0 THRESHOLD AND VMT ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

4.1 THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PROJECTS
The TA states that SB 743 and all CEQA VMT transportation analyses refer to automobiles. Here, the term automobile refers to on‐road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light duty trucks (page. 4). Heavy‐duty trucks can be addressed in other CEQA sections (air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and health risk assessment analysis) and are subject to regulation in a separate collection of rules under CARB jurisdiction. This approach was amplified by Chris Ganson, Senior Advisor for Transportation at OPR, in a presentation to the Fresno Council of Governments (October 23, 2019) and by Ellen Greenberg, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Director for Sustainability, at the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee meeting (January 9, 2020).

The OPR has identified the subject of the thresholds as the primary trips in the home‐based typology: specifically, home‐based work trips. This includes residential uses, office uses, and retail uses. The home‐based work trip type is the primary trip type during the peak hours of commuter traffic in the morning and evening periods.

The impact of transportation has shifted from congestion to climate change, and the purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and ultimately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of automobile trips. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration process and the GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and transportation planning by a statewide average of approximately 15 percent by 2035. Figure 9 illustrates the SB 375 regional GHG emission reduction targets for all 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California that were established by the CARB in 2018. Furthermore, in its 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, the CARB recommends total VMT per capita rates approximately 15 percent below existing conditions.

The TA therefore recommends:

A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.

A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).

VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.

25 Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐ targets
Figure 9: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs CARB establishes GHG targets for each of the 18 MPOs in the State, reviews the SCSs, and makes a determination of whether the SCSs would achieve GHG reduction targets if implemented. In the spring of 2018, CARB adopted new GHG targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State based on the 2017 Scoping Plan and other new data as illustrated in Figure 9. CARB established a 16 percent GHG reduction target for 2035 for the Tulare region. The State recognizes that Tulare County’s contribution to the aggregate 15 percent statewide GHG emission reduction is 16 percent. Other regions may achieve lower reductions to achieve the aggregate statewide goal.4 As such, reduction in GHG directly corresponds to reduction in VMT. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent, the Tulare region must reduce GHG by 16 percent. The method of reducing GHG by 16 percent is to reduce VMT by 16 percent as well.

Therefore, the City has established a threshold for land use developments, specifically residential and office, of 84 percent of the existing regional VMT per capita or VMT per employee as indicative of a significant transportation impact.

For retail projects, increase in total regional roadway VMT with the implementation of the project would indicate a significant transportation impact. In general, addition of new retail rediverts majority of trips from existing retail locations located further away. Given the potential redistribution of majority of trips rather than addition of trips, a comparison of total regional

4 The latest GHG targets by region can be found at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/ sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐targets.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%GHG Emission Reduction Target
2020
2035

26 roadway VMT is appropriate to determine whether the retail project would benefit in overall reduction of regional VMT. Therefore, a net reduction in total VMT would be the appropriate metric to determine VMT impacts for such projects. Total roadway VMT needs to be calculated using the final roadway assignment outputs from the TCAG model.

No other discrete land use types are identified for threshold development. For other non‐residential projects, a significance threshold of 84 percent of existing regional average VMT per employee has been established. The only exceptions would be hotels, hospitals, medical offices, and related projects. These land uses are non‐retail lodging or medical facilities which includes both visitors/patients and employees. Therefore, for such projects, Origin‐Destination (O‐D) VMT per service population (population/users + employment) has been established as the VMT metric. Any other similar use could be evaluated using the same metric subject to approval of the methodology by the City on a case‐by‐case basis. As such, a significance threshold of 84 percent of the existing regional average VMT per service population will be applied for these projects. Additionally, for industrial land uses, including High‐Cube warehouse, warehouse, light industrial, manufacturing, and similar truck intensive uses, the VMT per service population needs to be applied as the appropriate metric that takes into account both passenger vehicle and truck VMT. A significance threshold of 84 percent of existing regional VMT per service population will also be applied as a threshold for such projects.

Mixed‐use projects should be evaluated for each land use component of the project using the most appropriate VMT metric. in their entirety or the City may use the predominant land use type for the analysis. The City will make a determination of the predominant land use type on a case‐by‐case basis based on the project description. Credit for internal trip capture should be made. Internal trip capture may be calculated using the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (for smaller projects), the TCAG 2022 RTP Model (for larger projects), or other applicable sources approved by the City.

4.2 LAND USE PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS/MITIGATION PROCEDURE
Figure 10 illustrates the VMT screening methodology for development entitlement projects.

Additionally, Figures 11‐A through 11‐C illustrate the VMT analysis methodology for non‐screened projects. Every development application is unique and may create alternative or modified steps through the process described in the aforementioned figures. Each step that diverges from this standard process should be accompanied with substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with other climate change and GHG emission reduction laws and regulations.

4.2.1 Agency Communication
After the Site Plan Review process, the applicant should seek a meeting with City staff to discuss the project description, potential resident/employee numbers, and the analysis methodology. Key elements to address include a description of the project in sufficient detail to generate trips and identify the potential catchment area (i.e., trip lengths if no modeling is undertaken), estimate project VMT, discuss project design features that may reduce VMT from the project development, and discuss the project location and associated existing regional VMT percentages. As a result of the

27 meeting, the applicant or their consultant shall prepare a transportation analysis scope of work for review and approval by the City.

Projects that will influence Caltrans facilities may be subject to the Caltrans Local Development‐ Intergovernmental Review program. As part of the program, Caltrans may review the VMT analysis methodology, findings, and mitigation measures, with an eye toward statewide consistency.

Figure 10: VMT Screening Methodology for Development Projects

28 Figure 11‐A: VMT Analysis Methodology for Residential Projects

29 Figure 11‐B: VMT Analysis Methodology for Non‐Retail Non‐Residential Projects

30 Figure 11‐C: VMT Analysis Methodology for Retail Projects

31 4.2.2 Project Screening
Once a development application is filed and the meeting is held, project screening is conducted as the initial step. If the project meets any one of the screening criteria, the project may be presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further VMT analysis would be necessary. The CEQA document should enumerate the screening criteria and how the project meets or exceeds that threshold. If project screening does not apply, a VMT analysis would be required. The extent of this analysis may be a simple algebraic demonstration or a more sophisticated traffic modeling exercise.

This distinction is addressed later.

4.2.3 Development Project VMT Analysis
The first step is to identify the project land use type and the appropriate metric to use, i.e., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, VMT per service population, or total regional VMT. The metric should be VMT per capita for residential projects, VMT per employee for office, VMT per service population for lodging, and medical land uses, including hotels, hospitals, medical office projects, and total VMT for retail or retail service oriented projects. For mixed‐use projects, respective VMT metrics for its different land use components should be used. Additionally, the City may allow use of the predominant land use and corresponding metric in a case‐by‐case basis for mixed‐use projects.

For all other uses, the metric used should be VMT per employee with the exception of industrial land uses. For industrial land uses, the Origin‐Destination (O‐D) VMT per service population needs to be applied as the appropriate metric that takes into account both passenger vehicle and truck VMT.

4.2.4 Large Project VMT Analysis
For large or multi‐use projects, use of the TCAG 2022 RTP Model is required. For purposes of City review, all projects should use the TCAG 2022 RTP Model. At this level of trip generation, the probability of trip fulfilment expands to an area greater than the immediate project location and may include a greater regional attraction. The TCAG 2022 RTP Model can more accurately define the select links used and the total VMT generated by the project.

Next, the project‐generated VMT (per capita, per employee, per service population, or total) is compared to the appropriate significance threshold as described in Section 4.1. If the project VMT metric is less than the significance threshold, the project is presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further VMT analysis is required. If the project VMT metric is greater than the significance threshold, mitigation measures are required.

4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
The applicant is required, per CEQA, to identify feasible offsets to completely mitigate the impact created by the project. These can come from the mitigation strategies provided by the City (Appendices A and B) or selected based on the applicant and their CEQA team experience. The City must approve and accept the ultimate mitigation ascribed to the project and the related VMT percentage reduction. A detailed discussion about project specific mitigations is included in Section

7.2.1. 32
If the mitigation measures mitigate the project impact to less than the jurisdictional threshold, the project is presumed to have an impact mitigated to a less than significant level. No further VMT analysis is required. If the project’s VMT impact cannot be mitigated, the City may 1) request the project be redesigned, relocated, or realigned to reduce the VMT impact, or 2) require the preparation of an EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for the transportation impacts associated with the project. All feasible mitigation measures must be assigned to and carried out by the project even if an EIR/SOC is prepared.

33 5.0 THRESHOLDS AND INDUCED VMT ANALYSIS FOR TRANSPORTATION

PROJECTS
The 2020 CEQA Guidelines include Section 15064.3.b.(2) to address transportation projects. It reads:

For roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements.

The City may continue to use delay and LOS for transportation projects for design and traffic operation purposes as long as impacts related to “other applicable requirements” are disclosed. This has generally been interpreted as VMT impacts and other State climate change objectives. These other applicable requirements may be found in other parts of an environmental document (i.e., air quality, GHG), or may be provided in greater detail in the transportation section.

For projects on the State highway system, Caltrans will use and will require sponsoring agencies to use VMT as the CEQA metric, and Caltrans and will evaluate the VMT “attributable to the project” (January 9, 2020, conference). Caltrans’ Intergovernmental Review will review environmental documents for capacity‐enhancing projects for their analysis of VMT change.

The assessment of a transportation project’s VMT should disclose the VMT without the project and the difference in VMT with the project. Any growth in VMT attributable to the transportation project would result in a significant impact. A significant transportation project impact is presumed when the VMT increases over the No Project condition.

Capacity improvement projects have the potential of producing significant transportation impacts because they are likely to induce travel. According to the OPR TA, induced travel is the additional vehicle travel that is caused by the new capacity on the roadway. The induced travel could include route switching, time‐of‐day change, model shift, longer trips, new trips to existing destinations, and additional travel due to new development. Current traffic models have limited abilities to forecast new trips and new developments associated with the capacity improvements, as their land use or socioeconomic databases are fixed to a horizon date. OPR refers to a limited set of reports that would indicate elasticities.

The most recent major study (Duranton & Turner 2011, p. 24), estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every 1 percent change in lane miles results in a 1 percent increase in VMT.

The TA presents one method to identify the induced growth, as follows.

To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:

1. Determine the total lane‐miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).

2. Determine the percentage change in total lane miles that will result from the project.

3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area. 34 4. Multiply the percentage increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] × [existing VMT] × [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project] OPR assigns this induced growth to induced land use; that is, land use not included in any approved general or area plan and not accounted for in any traffic‐forecasting tool.

Figure 12 provides a representative illustration of induced VMT attributable to a project.

Source: Presentation: Caltrans Transportation Analysis under CEQA or TAC: Significance Determinations for Induced Travel Analysis (SHCC Pre‐Release Session 2 Jeremy Ketchum, Division of Environmental Analysis, Caltrans; March 2, 2020)
Figure 12: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project Caltrans has identified a computerized tool that estimates VMT generation from transportation projects. It was developed at University of California, Davis and is based on elasticities and the relationship of lane mile additions and growth in VMT. It uses Federal Highway Administration definitions of facility type and ascribes VMT increases to each facility. Output includes increases in million miles of VMT per year. Caltrans is investigating its use for all its VMT analyses of capital projects on the State Highway System. Figure 13 provides an illustration of that tool.

35 Source: https://blinktag.com/induced‐travel‐calculator/index.html Figure 13: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator

36 The TA provides other options to identify induced growth‐ and project‐related VMT. These include:

1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel. Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature.

2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature.

3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.

The TA provides a final warning:

Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise.

37 6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PLANS
The OPR TA has provided guidance on the treatment of CEQA traffic analyses for land use plans in the TA. The TA reiterates previous direction regarding individual land use assessments:
 Analyze the VMT outcomes over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns (the definition of region).
 VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origins and destinations (the full impact of the project VMT).

The TA provides a single sentence as consideration for land use plans. It states, “A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended above.” This recommendation refers to a threshold of 84 percent or lower than the existing regional average for residential and office uses and no net gain for retail land uses.

To assess a land use plan, use of a traffic‐forecasting tool is recommended. The total VMT for the plan should be identified for all trips and all potential VMT contributors within the plan area. Model runs should be conducted for the existing base year and the horizon year (the future year scenario analyzed in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan) with project (plan).

The SB 375 process establishes ambitious and achievable GHG reduction targets for the 18 MPOs in the State. The achievements of the targets are provided through the integration of land use planning and transportation planning; not solely through the imposition of regulation on passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. CARB reviews the SCS that is produced as part of the RTP produced by each of the State’s MPOs. The SCS details the strategies and programs the regional agencies are planning to implement to achieve its designated GHG emission reduction targets. CARB approved the new GHG reduction targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State in the spring of 2018. The 2018 targets are applicable to the third SCSs for the MPOs.

Other legislative mandates and State policies speak to GHG reduction targets. A sample of these include:
 Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020.
 SB 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
 Executive Order (EO) B‐30‐15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
 EO S‐3‐05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
 EO B‐16‐12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation.

38 California PRC Section 15064.3(b)(4) states (in part) the following:

A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.

Since VMT is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, a land use plan consistent with regional RTP/ SCS GHG reductions target does not constitute a significant VMT impact. Therefore, the recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans shall be the comparison of existing VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per service population for the region with the respective expected horizon year VMT metrics for the different land use components (VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per service population) of the land use plan (project). If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact.

39 7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
When a lead agency identifies a significant CEQA impact according to the thresholds described above, the agency must identify feasible mitigation measures in order to avoid or substantially reduce that impact. Although previous LOS impacts could be mitigated with location‐specific LOS improvements, VMT impacts will require mitigation of regional impacts through other means, including, but not limited to, behavioral changes. Enforcement of mitigation measures will still be subject to the mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the agency. These measures can also be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project designs.

7.1 DEFINITION OF MITIGATION
Section 15370 of the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines defines mitigations as follows:
“Mitigation” includes:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.” “Reporting” includes writing a compliance review to be presented to the decision making body or an authorized person. It is suitable for projects where the mitigation measures are readily measured or quantified, or which already involve regular review. On the other hand, “monitoring” is a periodic or ongoing process of project oversight and is suited for projects with complex mitigation measures, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee and are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance.

VMT mitigations may not be physical improvements. Such improvements are complex in nature and will significantly depend on changes in human behavior. Therefore, it will be important that lead

40 agencies develop a proper monitoring program to ensure the implementation of these mitigation measures throughout the life of a project, in compliance with CEQA. The City must also coordinate with other responsible agencies as part of this monitoring program to determine the feasibility of the mitigations and whether they will last in perpetuity.

Historically, mitigation measures for LOS‐based transportation impacts have addressed either trip generation reductions or traffic‐flow‐capacity enhancements. LOS mitigation measures include adding capacity to intersections, roadways, ramps, and freeways. However, transportation demand management (TDM) actions, active transportation amenities, and other measures to reduce the number of trips creating an impact are also possible mitigation strategies.

LOS‐based mitigations are mostly physical improvements whose benefits are observable, measurable, and virtually perpetual. The addition of a left‐turn lane at an intersection will behave similarly regardless of location and will continue to perform as intended until the lane is removed or modified. A lane mile of roadway will carry a similar volume of traffic if designed consistently across most jurisdictions in California, and it will continue to do so as long as the lane exists.

The definition of VMT mitigation measures is somewhat different. Most VMT mitigations may seem feasible from a theoretical perspective, but practical implementation of these strategies as formal CEQA mitigation measures in perpetuity is yet to be tested. Several of these mitigations are contextual and behavioral in nature. Their success will depend on the size and location of the project as well as expected changes in human behavior. For example, a project providing a bike share program does not necessarily guarantee a behavioral change within the project’s population; the level of improvement may be uncertain and subject to the whim of the population affected.

LOS mitigations (such as addition of turn lanes) focus more on rectifying a physical CEQA impact (strategy “c” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). On the contrary, the majority of VMT mitigations (such as commute trip‐reduction programs) will aim at reducing or eliminating an impact over time through preservation and monitoring over the life of the project (strategy “d” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Additionally, some VMT mitigations (such as those focused on land use/location‐based policies) will aim at minimizing impacts by reducing the number of trips generated by the projects (strategy “b” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370).

Furthermore, it may be that identified VMT impacts cannot be mitigated at the project‐specific level.

Most VMT impacts are in the context of the region of analysis. The incremental change in VMT associated with a project in the particular setting in which it may be located would suggest a greater VMT deficit than individual strategies can offset. Only a regional solution (e.g., completion of a transit system, purchase of more transit buses, or gap closure of an entire bicycle master plan system) may offer the incremental change necessary to reduce the VMT impact to a level of insignificance. Also, VMT, as a proxy for GHG emissions, may not require locational specificity. A project does not necessarily need to diminish the VMT at the project site to gain benefit in VMT and GHG reduction in the State. Offsets in an area where the benefit would be greater will have a more effective reduction in VMT and GHG and contribute to the State’s ultimate climate goals. This is the basis for the cap‐and‐trade strategies.

41 These issues of regional scale, partial participation, and geographic ambiguity confound the certainty of the City’s identification of VMT mitigation measures. Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, “Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time [emphasis added].” Certainty does not yet exist that partial participation in VMT mitigation measures is permissible. Regional VMT mitigation is considered the most effective method for large‐scale VMT reduction, yet the cost and implementation barriers are greater in most cases than one project can undertake. The only exception may be where VMT mitigation strategies are provided at a regional level in the form of mitigation banks, fees, and exchanges and the projects are subject to contribute to these fee programs consistent with applicable provision to ensure compliance and consistency with CEQA and other legal requirements.

Section 21099 (b) (4) of the PRC states, “This subdivision [requiring a new transportation metric under CEQA] does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.” Hence, despite the fact that automobile delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA, the City can still require projects to meet the LOS standards designated in its zoning code or general plan. Therefore, in that case, the project might still be required to propose LOS improvements for congestion relief in addition to VMT strategies as CEQA mitigation measures.

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

7.2.1 Land Development Projects and Community/General Plans Mitigations and project alternatives for VMT impacts
have been suggested by the OPR and are included in
the TA. VMT mitigations can be extremely diverse and
can be classified under several categories such as land use/location, road pricing, transit improvements,
commute trip reduction strategies, and parking
pricing/policy. However, the issue with VMT
mitigations is the quantitative measurement of the
relief provided by the strategies. How much VMT
reduction does a TDM program, a bike share
program, a transit route, or 1 mile of sidewalk
provide? Improvements related to VMT reduction strategies have been quantified in sources such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA Green Book) and CARB sources, and are generally presented in wide ranges of potential VMT reduction percentages.

Appendix A is a summary of the different VMT mitigation measures and project alternatives stated in the CAPCOA Green Book (only those strategies directly attributed to transportation) and the OPR TA for development projects. It also refers to mitigation measures listed in other sources such as the VMT Measurement Calculator for the City of Los Angeles, the transportation analysis guidelines for

Transit System in the City of Visalia
Source:https://thesungazette.com/article/visalia/2016/08/17/visalia‐ transit‐makes‐changes‐to‐routes‐fares/

42 the City of San Jose and the San Diego Region, and the Memorandum Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743, prepared by Iteris, Inc., for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Appendix B provides a list of mitigations for
development projects based on the research work
performed by Deborah Salon, Marlon G. Boarnet,
Susan Handy, Steven Spears, and Gil Tal with the
support of the CARB. For one mitigation measure
(Vanpools), LSA and the City conducted additional
research as applicable to Visalia using locally available empirical data. Based on that analysis, specific VMT
reduction percentage has been developed for this
mitigation measure. For all other mitigation
measures, the project applicant will be required to
provide substantial evidence while identifying a
project‐specific value. In case that information is not available, the project should apply the low point of provided ranges for VMT reduction. Where a mitigation strategy does not have an identified VMT reduction range, the project applicant would be required to provide a reduction estimate supported by evidence.

As for land use plans, the potential mitigation measures for community/general plans would be similar to those for development projects, with certain modifications. The OPR TA does not specifically state any VMT mitigations for land use plans. However, these measures have been summarized in Appendix C along with corresponding VMT reduction percentages obtained from CAPCOA.

It must be noted that Appendices A through C provide only summaries of the mitigations stated in the sources mentioned above. The reader should refer to the original source for further details and for subsequent updates to the mitigation measures. Also, Appendices A through C do not provide an exhaustive list of mitigation measures to offset the CEQA impacts. Other measures can also be accepted by the City based on provision of substantial evidence.

As additional mitigation measures are developed to offset VMT impacts in the future for the State CEQA Guidelines process, linkages between the strategy and the incremental effect and quantified offset must be made. This can be based on other sources’ observations and measurements or the City’s experience in these practices. The key to mitigation is to base its efficacy on real and substantial evidence.

7.2.2 Transportation Projects
Although OPR provides detailed guidance on how to assess induced‐growth impacts associated with transportation projects, it leaves the subject of mitigation measures vague. Only four strategies are suggested as mitigation measures:
 Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements;

Bike Trail in the City of Visalia
Source: http://papertrailpod.com/visalia‐completes‐nearly‐40‐mil‐in‐ projects‐in‐2017/

43  Converting existing general‐purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes;  Implementing or funding off‐site travel demand management; and  Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems strategies to improve passenger throughput on existing lanes.

No quantified reduction percentage is allocated to these strategies and LSA could find no substantial evidence that would provide guidance to levels of significance after implementation of these strategies. Review of the four recommended strategies suggests that OPR is directing strategies away from general‐purpose mixed‐flow lanes on expressways, freeways, and arterial highways. It should be noted, that the first two mitigation strategies will not be applicable to the City. Additionally, in as much as these are the project descriptions and Purpose and Need, the project intent and the project mitigation may be at odds. The City would be subject to an SOC for the capital project VMT impact.

7.3 FUNDING MECHANISMS
The change in the metric for transportation impacts from LOS to VMT will lead to a shift in impacts and mitigation measures from being local and project‐specific to being more regional in nature. OPR acknowledges the regional nature of VMT impacts and states that regional VMT reduction programs and fee programs (in‐lieu fees and development impact fees) may be appropriate forms of mitigation. Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. It is very important for the City to coordinate with TCAG to develop such mitigation programs that would fund transit, develop active transportation plans, etc. These programs are regional in nature and best suited for administration by the regional agency. Regional agencies may also wish to coordinate with appropriate stakeholders, including participating local jurisdictions, developers, and other interests while conducting nexus studies and checking for rough proportionality and compliance with CEQA.

Most of the VMT mitigations included in Appendix A are applicable in urban areas. They are less effective in suburban and rural contexts, where TDM strategies may become diluted or are not applicable. Thus, site‐specific strategies are more suitable in urban areas, whereas program‐level strategies are more suitable for projects in suburban/rural areas. In the latter approach, cumulative contributions for development mitigations can pay for VMT reduction strategies that would not be feasible for the individual projects to implement themselves. Apart from fee programs, program‐based mitigation approaches may include mitigation exchanges and mitigation banks. The mitigation exchange concept requires a developer to implement a predetermined project that would reduce VMT in order to propose a new one. On the other hand, the concept of mitigation banks seeks to establish monetary values for VMT reductions so that developers can purchase VMT reduction credits.

As previously stated, VMT impacts are more regional in nature. Hence, there might be requirements for mitigations outside the control of the City, and without consent from the agency controlling the mitigations, the impacts might remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, identification of regional improvements where projects can contribute their fair share to mitigate impacts might prove to be difficult. Therefore, the City may work collaboratively within its regions to ultimately establish fee programs, mitigation banks, and exchanges as the most efficient way to establish a regional mitigation pathway where the projects can contribute. Procedural flow charts for VMT banks, exchanges, and impact fees are illustrated in Figures 14, 15 and 16, respectively.

44 Figure 14: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank
Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

45 Figure 15: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange
Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

46 Figure 16: Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee
Source: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

47 8.0 VISALIA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
While the City has yet to incorporate specific VMT‐based objectives and policies into its General Plan, several objectives and policies approved in the current General Plan Update (adopted October 14, 2014) address VMT and GHG reduction pertaining to SB 743 requirements. These objectives and policies are mostly included in three chapters of the General Plan, Chapter 2 (Land Use), Chapter 4 (Circulation) and Chapter 7 (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases).

8.1 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: LAND USE

8.1.1 Objectives
Following is a list of objectives included in the Land Use chapter of the City’s current General Plan:
 LU‐O‐9: Implement and periodically update a growth management system that will guide the timing, type, and location of growth; preserve resource lands, natural features, and open space; and promote infill and redevelopment.
 LU‐O‐13: Minimize urban sprawl and leap‐frog development by encouraging compact, concentric, and contiguous growth.
 LU‐O‐14: Create an overall urban form centered on a vital downtown and a higher‐density core, surrounded by viable residential neighborhoods with walkable, mixed‐use neighborhood centers.
 LU‐O‐16: Create a safe, walkable, and attractive urban environment for current and future generations of residents.
 LU‐O‐18: Implement and periodically update an infill development incentive program to achieve the objectives of compact development established by this General Plan.  LU‐O‐22: Create inclusive, compact neighborhoods with well‐integrated single‐family and multifamily residential development and activity nodes featuring schools, neighborhood parks, and neighborhood commercial areas.
 LU‐O‐24: Enable multifamily developments that are accessible to major transportation and transit routes.
 LU‐O‐28: Promote pedestrian‐oriented retail and mixed‐use development along transit corridors, in neighborhood nodes, and in Downtown and East Downtown.  LU‐O‐35: Plan for the integration of public facilities with surrounding districts, so that hospitals, schools, and libraries act as hubs for mixed‐use activity centers and are easily accessible to the majority of residents in Visalia.

8.1.2 Policies
Following is a list of policies included in the Land Use chapter of the City’s current General Plan:

48  LU‐P‐13: Provide incentives for new and existing business and industry to adopt local‐hire policies, and give preferential credit to contractors on public projects that employ Visalia residents.
 LU‐P‐19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
o The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 City limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.  LU‐P‐45: Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and/or redevelopable land within the City limits where urban services are available and adopt a bonus/incentive program to promote and facilitate infill development in order to reduce the need for annexation and conversion of prime agricultural land and achieve the objectives of compact development established in this General Plan.
o Techniques to be used include designation of infill opportunity zones as part of the implementation process and provision of incentives, such as reduced parking and streamlined review, residential density bonuses, and floor area bonuses for mixed‐use and/ or higher‐density development, subject to design criteria and findings of community benefit.  LU‐P‐46: Adopt and implement an incentive program for residential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City limits as a strategy to help to meet the future growth needs of the community.
o Infill will be supported by increasing allowable density or decreasing minimum lot size under zoning to the maximum limits set by the General Plan, by reducing off‐street parking requirements, by creating an Infill Incentive Zone where reduced fees and other incentives may apply because infrastructure is in place, and by providing incentives that respond to different challenges (for example in Downtown or in historically underutilized areas). Infill development also is supported by growth management policies; see Policy LU‐P‐21 for details.
 LU‐P‐47: Ensure that new neighborhoods meet land use mix standards established in Table 2‐7 of the General Plan. The ranges indicated—the minimum and maximum levels of development for each type of land use—are intended to allow for flexibility in master planning in response to market conditions, infrastructure costs, and site planning policies.  LU‐P‐48: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and nonresidential development. o These will be in the updated zoning ordinance and the updated subdivision ordinance.

49  LU‐P‐53: Integrate multifamily development with commercial, office, and public uses in neighborhood nodes, Downtown, and with Commercial Mixed‐Use areas in East Downtown, along the Mooney corridor and elsewhere.
o Multifamily housing should be accessible on foot to public parks and gathering places, commercial areas, and transit.
 LU‐P‐58: Establish an Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District (AHO) to promote the development of affordable housing on infill land within the existing City limits in areas designated by the General Plan for multifamily residential development. Participation by affordable housing developers in the AHO program would be voluntary, with the incentives offered intended to make development of affordable housing feasible. o The City will continue to work with affordable housing developers to provide housing development opportunities that are geographically accessible to services, retail clusters, transportation corridors, and key nodes. The AHO Zoning District would be an alternative to the State‐mandated Residential Density Bonus Program and could be applied for qualifying projects as a “floating zone” and not require a General Plan Amendment. It should be noted that in some cases rezoning would be required to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. Such rezoning would be done concurrently with adoption of the AHO Zoning District for the site. Application requirements would be the same as those for the State‐ Mandated Residential Density Bonus Program, modified, as appropriate for the purposes of this district.

The City will initiate a work program to analyze the various options for an AHO Zoning District including the consideration of, at a minimum, the following development incentives:
 Residential density increase beyond those provided by State Density Bonus Law;  Flexible zoning standards, including reduced development and parking standards, coupled with Form‐Based Code standards for infill sites to ensure land use compatibility;  Priority permit processing, including any applicable CEQA exemptions;  Design Review requirements; and
 Deferral or reduction of City permit and development impact fees based on the Priority Zone designation for the site, as defined by the Infill Development Incentive Program.  LU‐P‐75: Provide incentives for infill development of opportunity sites and adaptive reuse and restoration of existing buildings in Downtown and East Downtown. o New development in Downtown and East Downtown will realize the inherent potential for higher intensity use of this district, and should include offices, mixed‐use and live‐work buildings, storefront commercial buildings, apartments, condominiums and townhouses, and small‐lot single‐family houses. See also policies in Section 2.8.  LU‐P‐84: Plan for new neighborhoods in East Downtown to provide high‐quality living environments in a variety of settings, as follows:
o Santa Fe is to become a mixed‐use address providing an opportunity to expand downtown’s commercial activities, with residential use complementing offices in mixed‐use projects.

50 o East Main has a large number of existing buildings that can be adaptively reused for commercial and residential uses. On the south side of the proposed Civic Center Park are sites that can take advantage of overlooking Mill Creek and the Civic Center. On blocks contiguous to East Main Street are sites that can accommodate a mix of commercial and residential uses. South of Acequia are larger sites that can become a townhouse neighborhood.
o The Central Park Neighborhood would face the proposed new Central Park and the Jennings Ditch water feature, and would include townhouses, stacked flats, and apartments with ground floor commercial or live‐work uses.
o The Civic Center creates a place that is central to the region as part of a transit hub, integrated into a vibrant urban center, and a catalyst for commercial and cultural investment.
 LU‐P‐101: As part of industrial developments, allow secondary uses such as restaurants, cafes, small convenience stores and daycare facilities, to serve area employees.

8.2 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: CIRCULATION

8.2.1 Objectives
Following is a list of objectives included in the Circulation chapter of the City’s current General Plan:
 T‐O‐3: Promote ways to reduce the number of peak hour trips and vehicle‐miles traveled in the Planning Area.
 T‐O‐5: Plan and develop a transportation system for Visalia that contributes to community livability, recognizes and respects community characteristics, and minimizes negative impacts on adjacent land uses.
 T‐O‐6: Work with other agencies and jurisdictions that provide regional public transportation to provide connectivity between Visalia and adjacent jurisdictions.  T‐O‐7: Develop and maintain a coordinated mass transportation system that will encourage increased transit use through convenient, safe, efficient, and cost‐effective services.  T‐O‐8: Encourage walking and bicycling in Visalia for commuting and recreational purposes, and for improvement of public and environmental health.
 T‐O‐9: Promote non‐motorized accessibility through development of a connected, convenient pedestrian and bikeway network.
 T‐O‐10: Create a safe and feasible pedestrian, trail and bikeway system (on‐ and off‐street) for commuting, recreation and other trips, serving pedestrians and cyclists of all levels.  T‐O‐12: Provide adequate parking to accommodate demand while avoiding excessive amounts of surface parking that disrupts the urban fabric of the City.  T‐O‐15: Develop and maintain a coordinated mass transportation system that will encourage increased transit and rail use through convenient, safe, efficient, and cost‐effective services.

51 8.2.2 Policies
Following is a list of policies included in the Circulation chapter of the City’s current General Plan:
 T‐P‐1: Provide transportation facilities based on a “Complete Streets” concept that facilitate the balanced use of all travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes.
 T‐P‐11: Update the City of Visalia Engineering and Street Design Standards to ensure that roadway and streetscape design specifications are in accordance with the “Complete Streets” concept and other policies in this General Plan.
o Updated design standards must allow flexibility to accommodate retrofitting streets with limited right‐of‐way. In order to accommodate all travel modes, adjustments may be made to median, travel lane, and bike lane widths; alternate bikeway routes on parallel facilities may also be considered.
 T‐P‐19: Pursue Transportation System Management (TSM) for the mitigation of traffic and parking congestion.
o Public transit, traffic management, ride sharing, and parking management can be used to implement TSM strategies.
 T‐P‐20: Work with major employers and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips and provide better utilization of the transportation system through development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that are tailored to the needs of geographic areas within the City and the time period of traffic congestion. o These may include the implementation staggered work hours, utilization of telecommuting, increased use of ridesharing in the public and private sectors, and provision for bicyclists.  T‐P‐21: Coordinate with the College of the Sequoias to develop a transportation plan that ensures that the College provides adequate parking areas for students and faculty; improves circulation issues on and adjacent to campus; integrates transit; and incorporates Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as incentives for ridesharing and facilities for bicyclists.
o The plan should minimize negative impacts on surrounding residential areas and on the transportation system.
 T‐P‐30: Give high priority to public transportation systems that are responsive to the needs of commuters, the elderly, persons with disabilities, the youth, and low‐income citizens. Continue to work with transit providers to expand services to these populations and to underserved areas of the City.
 T‐P‐31: Seek cooperation with Tulare County Association of Governments and Visalia City Coach to attain a balance of public transportation opportunities. Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.

52  T‐P‐32: Work with transit operators to ensure that adequate transit service facilities are provided, including bus turnouts along arterials when needed, and bus stop amenities including, but not limited to, lighted shelters, benches, and route information signs.  T‐P‐33: Work with transit operators to establish transit stops adjacent to community and regional parks, senior housing facilities, areas with a high concentration of medical facilities, major employment centers, and major retail and commercial centers.  T‐P‐34: Develop design and development standards to improve transit service in the community.

Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.  T‐P‐35: Schedule public transportation improvement projects in the Capital Improvements Program.
 T‐P‐36: Participate in the planning process for a potential Cross Valley Rail Line, which could provide east‐west light rail service from Visalia to Huron and potentially connect to a future High Speed Rail system.
 T‐P‐37: Evaluate the feasibility of a future local light rail system or bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Visalia, which could connect to Tulare to the south and points east and west. o The City should preserve right‐of‐way to support the preliminary light rail corridor or BRT system along Goshen Avenue, K Street, Santa Fe Avenue, and other roadways, if either system is judged financially feasible.
 T‐P‐38: Support regional high‐speed inter‐city rail development and service. Should California High Speed Rail develop a station in Hanford (or elsewhere in Kings or Tulare Counties), work with the California High Speed Rail Authority to develop local connections coordinated with the train schedule.
 T‐P‐39: Develop bikeways consistent with the Visalia Bikeway Plan and the General Plan’s Circulation Element.
 T‐P‐40: Develop a communitywide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams. Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.
 T‐P‐41: Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short‐term bicycle parking and long‐term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers.  T‐P‐42: Periodically update the City of Visalia Bikeway Plan, as needed.  T‐P‐43: Develop and maintain an educational program to promote bicycle use and safety.  T‐P‐44: Increase the safety of those traveling by bicycle. Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.
 T‐P‐45: Require that collector streets that are identified to function as links for the bicycle transportation system be provided with Class II bikeways (bike lanes) or signed as Class III bike route facilities.

53 o In such cases, the City may accommodate cyclists on these identified streets by widening the street or eliminating on‐street parking if this will not significantly affect parking opportunities for local shoppers or by clearly indicating that bicycles may share travel lanes with automobiles.
 T‐P‐46: Cooperate with other agencies to provide connection and continuation of bicycle corridors between Visalia and surrounding areas.
 T‐P‐47: Seek funding at the private, local, State, and federal levels for the expansion of the bicycle transportation system.
 T‐P‐48: Require construction of minimum sidewalk widths and pedestrian “clear zones” consistent with the Complete Streets cross‐sections in this General Plan and with the City’s Engineering and Street Design Standards for each designated street type.  T‐P‐51: Locate sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and appropriate crosswalks to facilitate access to all schools and other areas with significant pedestrian traffic. Whenever feasible, pedestrian paths shall be developed to allow for unobstructed pedestrian flow from within a neighborhood.  T‐P‐53: Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand. o These could include projects that integrate transit facilities, incorporate a mix of uses with differing peak parking demand periods (e.g., residential and office), incorporate shared parking or common area parking, or incorporate other TDM strategies for residents or tenants (car‐sharing, requiring paid parking, etc.).
 T‐P‐54: Discourage non‐residential parking on residential streets by enforcing parking regulations and ensuring that businesses near residential areas are providing adequate on‐site parking for their employees and customers.
 T‐P‐57: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include updated off‐street parking and loading area design standards that have multiple benefits and reduce environmental impacts. Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.
 T‐P‐67: Participate in the planning process for a potential Cross Valley Rail Line, which could provide east‐west light rail service from Visalia to Huron and potentially connect to a future High Speed Rail system.
 T‐P‐68: Evaluate the feasibility of a future local light rail system or bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Visalia, which could connect to Tulare to the south and points east and west. o The City should preserve right‐of‐way to support the preliminary light rail corridor or BRT system along Goshen Avenue, K Street, Santa Fe Street, and other roadways, as depicted on the Land Use diagram if either light rail or BRT is judged financially feasible.  T‐P‐69: Support regional high‐speed inter‐city rail development and service. Should California High Speed Rail develop a station in Hanford (or elsewhere in Kings or Tulare County), work with the California High Speed Rail Authority to develop local connections coordinated with the train schedule.

54  T‐P‐71: Continue to participate in and advocate for collaborative efforts to improve railroad transportation facilities and reduce conflicts with the street system.  T‐P‐77: Work with TCAG to ensure that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy are consistent with Visalia’s Land Use and Transportation policies.  T‐P‐78: Work with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and TCAG to implement Transportation Control Measures identified in the RTP and air quality implementation plans.

8.3 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES

8.3.1 Objectives
Following is a list of objectives included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases chapter of the City’s current General Plan:
 AQ‐O‐1: Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.  AQ‐O‐2: Strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction‐related sources.  AQ‐O‐3: Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.

8.3.2 Policies
Following is a list of policies included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases chapter of the City’s current General Plan:
 AQ‐P‐8: Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly limit the development of drive‐through facilities, only allowing them in auto‐oriented areas and prohibiting them in Downtown and East Downtown.
o Drive‐through businesses result in the idling of car engines and the concentrated emission of carbon monoxide and other tailpipe air pollutants.
 AQ‐P‐9: Continue to mitigate short‐term construction impacts and long‐term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case‐by‐case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects. BMPs include transportation demand management strategies for large development projects. Additional details are provided in the City’s General Plan.  AQ‐P‐11: Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.  AQ‐P‐13: Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low‐emission technology.  AQ‐P‐14: Promote and expand the trip‐reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas.

55 o The program may include carpooling and ridesharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing.  AQ‐P‐16: Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.
o By proposing compact development, mixed use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs‐housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan.

56 This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CAPCOA)
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
1I m p r o v e or increase access to transit
CAPCOA TST‐2: Not quantified alone, grouped strategy
with TST‐3 'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increase transit service frequency/speed'; CAPCOA LUT‐5: 0.50% ‐

24.60%
YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TST‐2: Implement Transit Access Improvements (applicable in urban and suburban context, and appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); CAPCOA LUT‐5: Increase Transit Accessibility [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with good connectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)] 2 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐ 30.00%
VMT reduction and CAPCOA LUT‐4 (Increase Destination
Accessibility): 6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT reduction

YYYY N Y
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ‐ Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context (unless the project is a master‐planned community; appropriate for mixed‐use projects) and CAPCOA LUT‐ 4 (Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Access to Neighborhood Schools: Applicable for residential uses only]; City of San Jose [Very similar to measure 'Increase diversity of uses' ‐ Applicable for residential and employment uses] 3 Incorporate affordable housing into the project 0.04% ‐ 1.20% YYYY N Y Notes: Similar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐6 [Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing] ‐ [Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible impact in a rural context unless transit availability and proximity to jobs/services are existing characteristics; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Integrate affordable and market rate housing] ‐ Measure is applicable for residential uses only 4O r i e n t project towards transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities 1) 0.25% ‐ 0.5% (0.25% reduction is attributed for a
project oriented towards a planned corridor and 0.5%
reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards an existing corridor) (as per the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)
Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission
Reductions ), 2) 0.5% reduction in VMT per 1% increase in transit frequency and per 10% increase in transit
ridership (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook )

YYYN NY
Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐7 [Orient project toward non‐auto corridor]; Grouped strategy with LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ; there is no sufficient evidence that the measures results in non‐negotiable trip reduction unless combined with other measures, including neighborhood design, density and diversity of development, transit accessibility and pedestrian and bicycle network improvements; the measure is applicable for urban or suburban context (may be applicable in a master‐planned rural community) and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed use projects 5P r o v i d e pedestrian network improvements 0.00% ‐ 2.00% YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐1 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network improvements on site and connections to the larger off‐site network]. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Provide pedestrian network improvements for active transportation: applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Included (within project and connecting off‐site/within project only)]
6 Incorporate bike lane street design (on‐site)
1% increase in share of workers commuting by
bicycle (for each additional mile of bike lanes
per square mile) (Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in
Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them – Another Look by Dill and Carr (2003)); 258% ‐
830% increase in bicycle community (Moving Cooler: An
Analysis of Transportation Strategies
for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Cambridge
Systematics); 0.075% increase in bicycle commuting with each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents (If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross‐Sectional
Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities by Nelson and Allen (1997))
YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐5 [Grouped strategy, benefits of Bike Lane Street Design are small and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and enhance multi‐modal environments], the measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Expand the reach of bike access with investment in infrastructure: applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Provide bicycle facility along site (Yes/No)] Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 7E x p a n d transit network 0.10% – 8.20% YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TST‐3; Measure applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]
8 Increase transit service frequency/speed 0.02% – 2.50% YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TST‐4, applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans.

This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Subsidize public transit service upgrades']; City of LA [Reduction in headways (increase in frequency) (%)] 9 Required project contributions to transportation infrastructure improvement projects Not Quantified: Grouped strategy (with RPT‐2 and TST‐1 through 7) YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA RPT‐3 (Applicable in urban, suburban and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); measure similar to some of the measures discussed above. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.' 10 Increase destination accessibility 6.70% – 20.00% Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐4 [Destination accessibility measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be the highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones; the location of the project also increases the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT; applicable for urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in a rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects].  This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit availability to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]
11 Provide traffic calming measures 0.25% – 1.00% YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐2 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Streets with traffic calming improvements (%), intersections with traffic calming improvements (%)] 12 Provide bike parking in non‐residential projects 0.625% (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook ) YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐6 [Bike Parking in Non‐Residential projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities]; the measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]
13 Provide bike parking with multi‐unit residential projects Not Quantified Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐7 [Grouped Strategy; the benefits of Bike Parking with Multi‐Unit Residential Projects have no quantified impacts and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, or rural contexts. It is appropriate for residential projects.]; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]
R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 14 Limit or eliminate parking supply 5.00% ‐ 12.50% Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA PDT‐1 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits and on‐street market parking); follow multi‐faceted strategy including 1) elimination/reduction of minimum parking requirements, 2) creation of maximum parking requirements, and 3) provision of shared parking; City of San Jose [Decrease project parking supply at the project site to rates lower than the standard parking minimums where allowable in the San Jose Municipal Code (applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [City code parking provision (spaces), actual parking provision (spaces)]
15 Unbundle parking costs from property costs 2.60% ‐ 13.00% Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA PDT‐2 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed‐use projects; complimentary strategies include workplace parking pricing); City of San Jose [Unbundle On‐Site Parking Costs: Application for Residential Uses Only]; City of LA [Monthly cost for parking ($)] 16 Provide parking cash‐out programs 0.60% – 7.70% commute VMT YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐15 [Implement employee parking "cash‐out"; the term “cash out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. The measure is applicable in urban and suburban context; it is not applicable in rural context; it is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. Restrictions are applied only if complementary strategies are in place: a) Residential parking permits and market rate public on‐street parking to prevent spill over parking; b) Unbundled parking ‐ is not required but provides a market signal to employers to forgo paying for parking spaces and “cash‐out” the employee instead. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing “cash‐out” prices; City of San Jose [Parking cash‐out: Employment uses only]; City of LA [Parking cash‐out: Employees eligible (%)] 17 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program ‐ Voluntary 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐1: Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi‐strategy program that encompasses a  combination of individual measures described CAPCOA measures TRT‐3 through TRT‐9. It is presented as a means of preventing double‐counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: A) Monitoring and reporting is not required
B) No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements). The measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts, negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings. The measure is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)] 18 Implement or provide access to Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required implementation/monitoring 4.2% – 21.0% commute VMT YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐2 (Commute Trip Reduction Program is a multi‐strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures from TRT‐3 through TRT‐9. It is presented as a means of preventing double‐counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reduction that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a program that is contractually required of the development sponsors and managers and accompanied by a regular performance monitoring and reporting program. Check examples of Tucson, Arizona and South San Francisco, CA from CAPCOA. The measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts; it is negligible in rural context, unless large employees exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings; jurisdiction level only); City of San Jose [Employment uses only]; City of LA [Employees participating (%)]
R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj  (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 19 Provide ride‐sharing program 1.00% – 15.00% commute VMT YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐3 [Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs: applicable in urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Ride share for employment uses only]; City of LA [Measured in terms of employees eligible (%)] 20 Implement bike‐sharing program
Taking evidence from the literature, a 135‐300% increase in bicycling (of which roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact (around 0.03% VMT reduction)
YYNYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐12 [This measure has minimal impacts when implemented alone. The strategy's effectiveness is heavily dependent on the location and context. Bike‐sharing programs have worked well in densely populated areas (examples in Barcelona, London, Lyon, and Paris) with existing infrastructure for bicycling. Bike sharing programs should be combined with Bike Lane Street Design (SDT‐5) and Improve Design of Development (LUT‐9). The measure is applicable in urban and suburban‐center context only; it is negligible in a rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Bike share for employment and residential uses]; City of LA [bike share ‐ within 600 feet of existing bike share station ‐ OR ‐implementing new bike share station (Y/N)] 21 Provide transit passes
Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or
Discounted Transit Program]; for TRT‐4, commute VMT
reduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00%
YYYYYY
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Employees and residents eligible (%), amount of transit subsidy per daily passenger (daily equivalent) ($)] 22 Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride‐matching or shuttle services

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOA
TRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle);

7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐
10: Implement a School Pool Program)
YYYYYY
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide employer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Similar measure is CAPCOA TRT‐10 (Implement a School Pool Program: Applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context and appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high); Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree of implementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium, large)] 23 Implement a school pool program 7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT r e d u c t i o n YYNYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐10 [This project will create a ridesharing program for school children.

Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. School Pool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context and is appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects.]; City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]. This measure can be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride matching services.'; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high)
24 Operate free direct shuttle service
CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles): Not Quantified;

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOA
TRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle)
YYNYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles ‐ grouped strategy with TST‐5 'Provide Bike Parking Near Transit' and TST‐4 'Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed') ‐ Applicable in urban/suburban context; appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects; solves the "first mile/last mile" problem; CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide employer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This measure can be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride matching services.'; City of San Jose [Employment uses only]; City of LA [Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree of implementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium, large)]
25 Provide teleworking options 0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute V M T YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐6 [Applicable in urban, rural, and suburban contexts; appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Alternative work schedules and telecommute (employment land uses only)]; City of LA [Alternative work schedules and telecommute (employees participating (%), type of program)] 26 Subsidize public transit service upgrades Not Quantified Y Y N Y N Y Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TST‐2 through TST‐4; City of San Jose [Subsidize transit service through contributions to the transit provider to improve transit service to the project (e.g. frequency and number of routes); applicable for both residential and employment uses]. The measure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.' R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 27 Implement subsidized or discounted transit program 0.30% – 20.00% commute VMT YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement subsidized or discounted transit program (the measure is applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in a rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); The project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. The measure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Transit subsidies measured by employees and residents eligible (%), and amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent) ($)] 28 Subsidize vanpool 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT Y Y N Y N Y Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects).

The measure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]
29 Providing on‐site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms
22% increase in bicycle mode share (UK National Travel
Survey)/2%‐5% reduction in commute vehicle trips
(Transportation Demand Management
Encyclopedia )/0.625% reduction in VMT (Center for
Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Emission Guidebook )
YYYYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐5 [Provide End of Trip Facilities]: End‐of‐trip facilities have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends heavily on the suite of other transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and demand management measures offered. End‐of trip facilities should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary through TRT‐2: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs); City of San Jose [Similar measures include 'Provide bike parking/end of trip bike facilities', 'Implement car sharing programs']; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)] 30 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not Quantified Y Y Y N N Y Included as part of CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary) 31 Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non‐auto modes Not Quantified N Y Y N N Y 32 Locate project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT 10.00% ‐ 65.00% Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐2 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible in rural contexts; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects) 33 Locate project near transit 0.50% ‐ 24.60% Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐5 [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with good connectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]
34 Increase project/development density 1.50% ‐ 30.00% Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts only; negligible in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses] 35 Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project's surroundings 9.00% ‐ 30.00% Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐3: Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) [Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, and appropriate for mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses] 36 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project site Similar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐9 [Improve Design of Development]: 3.0% ‐ 21.3% reduction in VMT YYYY N Y
Notes: Similar measure to CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development); City of San Jose [Build new street connections and/or connect cul‐de‐sacs to provide pedestrian and bicycle access: applicable for both residential and employment uses] 37 Price workplace parking 0.10% ‐ 19.70% commute VMT Y N N Y Y N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐14 [Urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in a rural context; Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place:
o Residential parking permits and market rate public on‐street parking ‐ to prevent spill‐over parking
o Unbundled parking ‐ is not required but provides a market signal to employers to transfer over the, now explicit, cost of parking
to the employees. In addition, unbundling parking
provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing workplace parking prices; City of San Jose [Price On‐Site Workplace Parking (for employment uses only)]; City of LA [Daily parking charge ($), Employees subject to priced parking (%)] R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 38 Locate project near bike path/bike lane 0.625% Y N Y N N N Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐8 (Grouped strategy with 'Increase Destination Accessibility'; the measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use; strategy should be grouped with 'Increase Destination Accessibility' strategy to increase the opportunities for multi‐modal travel; measure is applicable in urban or suburban context, may be applicable in a rural master planned community; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects
39 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMT Y N Y Y N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐7 (applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Employment uses only]
40 Education and encouragement ‐ Voluntary travel behavior change program 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT YNNYYN Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary); City of San Jose [For both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]
41 Education and encouragement ‐ Promotions and marketing 0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMT Y N N Y Y N Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐7 [Implement Commute Reduction Marketing]; City of San Jose [Similar measure might be 'Implement commute trip reduction marketing/educational campaign' (applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]
42 Implement market price public parking (On‐street) 2.80% – 5.50% YN Y NNN CAPCOA PDT‐3 (applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context; appropriate for retail, office, and mixed‐use projects; applicable in a specific or general plan context only, reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits); studies conducted in downtown areas, and thus should be applied carefully if project is not in a central business/activity center
43 Create urban non‐motorized zones 0.01% – 0.20% annual VMT reduction Y N Y N N N Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐4 [The project, if located in a CBD or major activity center, will convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other nonmotorized zones.

These features encourage non‐motorized travel and thus a reduction in VMT. This measure is most effective when applied with multiple design elements that encourage this use. The benefits of Urban Non‐Motorized Zones alone have not been shown to be significant. (considered grouped strategy with SDT‐1 (provide pedestrian network improvements); this is applicable in urban context only and appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]
44 Install park‐and‐ride lots
Two sources: 0.1% ‐ 0.5% VMT reduction (as per 2005
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study) and

0.50% VMT reduction per day (as per Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT))
YNNNNN
Notes: CAPCOA RPT‐4 (Applicable in suburban and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy with RPT‐1, TRT‐11, TRT‐3, and TRT‐1 through 6
45 Electrify loading docks and/or require idling‐reduction systems 26% ‐ 71% reduction in Truck refrigeration units (TRU) idling GHG emissions YNNNNN N o t e s : CAPCOA VT‐1 (Measure applicability: Truck refrigeration units (TRU)) 46 Utilize alternative fueled vehicles Reduction in GHG emissions varies depending on vehicle type, year, and associated fuel economy YNNNNN N o t e s : CAPCOA VT‐2 (Measure applicability: vehicles) 47 Utilize electric or hybrid vehicles 0.40% ‐ 20.30% reduction in GHG emissions Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐3 (Measure applicability: vehicles) 48 Provide bike parking near transit Not Quantified Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TST‐5 (should be implemented with other two measures as mentioned to encourage multi‐modal use in the area and provide ease of access to nearby transit for bicyclists (measure applicable in urban and suburban context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy (with measures TST‐3 'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increase transit service frequency/speed') 49 Improve design of development 3.00% ‐ 21.30% YNNNNN Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Include design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity; improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood such as street accessibility; design also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrians crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto‐oriented environments); measure is applicable in the urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (1/21/2021) # Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 CAPCOA2 OPR TA3 Los Angeles Metro4
City of San
Jose5
City of Los
Angeles6
San Diego
Region7 Notes
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Land Development Projects 50 Provide electric vehicle parking Not Quantified Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐8 [This is a grouped strategy and the benefits of electric vehicle parking may be quantified when grouped with the use of electric vehicles and or SDT‐3 (Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network). This measure is applicable in urban or suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]
51 Dedicated land for bike trails Not Quantified Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐9 [Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off‐site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to off‐site bicycle networks. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, or rural contexts and is appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]
52 Implement school bus program 38.00% ‐ 63.00% school VMT reduction Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐13 [Applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects]
53 Implement preferential parking permit program Not Quantified Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐8 [The project will provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project will provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. The impact of preferential parking permit programs has not been quantified by the literature and is likely to have negligible impacts when implemented alone. This strategy should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1 and TRT‐2) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs) as a complementary strategy for encouraging non‐single occupant vehicle travel. This measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]
Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association; OPR = Office of Planning and Research; TA = Technical Advisory; HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle; HOT = High Occupancy Toll; ITS = Intelligent Transportation System CAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles) 1 VMT reduction numbers obtained from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010. 2 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010. 3 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State of California in December 2018. 4 Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743 prepared by Iteris, Inc. in February 2018. 5 City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (dated April 2018). 6 City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator Version 1.2
7 Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019.

R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (1/21/2021)

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX B

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CARB PAPERS)
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction2 Notes
1 Improve or increase access to transit 1.3% ‐ 5.8%
Variable: Various factors associated with proximity to transit stop (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
2 Land Use Mix Elasticity: 0.02 ‐ 0.10 Variable: Entropy ‐ variety and balance of land‐use types within a neighborhood 3 Regional Accessibility Elasticity: 0.05 ‐ 0.25
Variable: Various factors associated with job accessibility and distance to CBD (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
4 Job ‐Housing Balance Elasticity: 0.06 ‐ 0.31 for commute VMT Variable: Various factors associated with job accessibility (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
5 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements Elasticity: 0.00 ‐ 0.02 for sidewalk length, 0.19 for Pedestrian Environment Factor
6 Provide Bicycling Network Improvements No effect on VMT 7 Implement Transit Improvements No effect on VMT
8 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change (VTBC) Program 5% ‐ 12% 9 Implement Employer‐Based Trip Reduction (EBTR) Program 1.33% ‐ 6% of commute VMT 10 Provide telecommuting options
Home‐based telecommuting: 48.1% for household VMT,

66.5% ‐ 76.6% for all personal VMT, and 90.3% for
commute VMT only; Center‐based telecommuting:

53.7% ‐ 64.8% for all personal VMT and 62.0% ‐ 77.2%
for commute VMT only
11 Increase Project/Development Density Elasticity: <=0.07 ‐ 0.19 Variable: residential density 12 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project site Elasticity: ‐0.46 ‐ 0.59 Variable: Various factors associated with intersection or street density (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
13 Implement Road Pricing 10% ‐ 14.6%
Variable: Different road prices in various parts of the US (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
14 Implement Parking Cash‐out Programs or Workplace Parking Pricing 12% of commute VMT (parking cash out); 2.3% ‐ 2.9%
for $3 per day workplace parking price; 2.8% for price
increase equivalent to 60% hourly value of commuter
travel time cost
Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 All mitigation measures have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.). 2 All VMT reduction numbers have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.).

Table B ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures1
R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Boarnet and Handy (1/21/2021)

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX C

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL PLANS
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction
1 Modify land use plan to increase development in areas with low VMT/capita characteristics and/or decrease development in areas with high VMT/capita characteristics Not quantified in CAPCOA 2 Provide enhanced bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities

0.00% ‐ 2.00% (for pedestrian network
improvements); Multiple measures for
bike facilities, refer to Table A for VMT
reduction percentages
3 Add roadways to the street network if those roadways would provide shorter travel paths for existing and/or future trips Not quantified in CAPCOA 4 Improve or increase access to transit
CAPCOA TST‐2 (Implement transit
access improvements): Not quantified
alone, grouped strategy with TST‐3
(Expand transit network) and TST‐4
(Increase transit service
frequency/speed); CAPCOA LUT‐5
(Increase transit accessibility): 0.50% ‐

24.60%
5 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase
Diversity of Urban and Suburban
Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐

30.00% VMT reduction and CAPCOA
LUT‐4 (Increase Destination
Accessibility): 6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT
reduction
6 Incorporate a neighborhood electric vehicle network 0.50% ‐ 12.70% 7 Provide traffic calming 0.25% – 1.00%
8 Limit or eliminate parking supply 5.00% ‐ 12.50%
9 Unbundle parking costs 2.60% ‐ 13.00%
10 Provide parking or roadway pricing or cash‐out programs

0.10% ‐ 19.70% commute VMT (for
pricing workplace parking); 7.90% ‐

22.00% (for CAPCOA RPT‐1 (Road
Pricing/Management: Implement Area
or Cordon Pricing)); 0.60% – 7.70%
commute VMT (for cash‐out programs)
11 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program

1.0% – 6.2% commute VMT % (for
voluntary programs); 4.2% – 21.0%
commute VMT reduction (for programs
with required
implementation/monitoring)
12 Provide car‐sharing, bike sharing, and ride‐sharing programs % ‐ 0.70% (

0.40% ‐ 0.70% VMT reduction (for car
sharing); 1.00% ‐ 15.00% commute VMT
reduction (for ride‐sharing); a 135% ‐
300% increase in biking (of which
roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle
travel) results in a negligible impact
(around 0.03% VMT reduction)
13 Provide partially or fully subsidized transit passes Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement
Subsidized or Discounted Transit
Program]; for TRT‐4, commute VMT
reduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00%
14 Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling by providing ride‐matching services or shuttle services

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT
reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide
Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));
Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6
(Provide Local Shuttles))
15 Provide telework options 0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute VMT
16 Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than a single‐occupancy vehicle

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT
reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide
Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));
Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6
(Provide Local Shuttles)); 0.30% ‐

20.00% commute VMT reduction (for
CAPCOA TRT‐4 (Implement Subsidized
or Discounted Transit Program))
17 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not quantified in CAPCOA 18 Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non‐auto modes Not quantified in CAPCOA Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 1 Table C ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Community Plans and General Plans1 CAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles) All mitigation measures have been obtained from the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019.

R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\Documents\VMT Mitigations_Master List_Reduced.xlsx\Land Use Plans (1/21/2021)

This page intentionally left blank

Visalia City CouncilFebruary 3, 2025

Visalia City Council
February 3, 2025