HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - ADDENDUM TO THE CITY GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR (2)Agenda Item: 17
P
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:1
DATE: June 23, 2020
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO THE CITY GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RELATING TO ADOPTING
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS PURSUANT TO
SENATE BILL 743
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
PRESENTER: Jason Smisko
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving an addendum to
guidelines and procedures for implementation of the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act relating to adopting vehicle miles traveled thresholds for determining significant
transportation impacts as required by new state law.
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into California law on September 27, 2013, and incorporated
into the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in 2018. The purpose of SB
743 is to provide a new performance metric, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), for determining
significant transportation impacts under CEQA. After a series of delays, lead agencies are now
mandated to opt in to implement SB 743 by July 1, 2020. When implemented, traffic congestion
will not be considered a significant impact on the environment within the CEQA transportation
analysis. SB 743 aligns with the City of Santa Clarita's (City) General Plan and is consistent with
the City's 2020 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan.
The aim of state adopted SB 743 is to reduce automobile dependency by supporting infill
development, reducing the number and average length of vehicle trips and increasing the use of
more sustainable modes of transportation, including carpooling, cycling, walking, and transit.
The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health through active
transportation.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 156
In response to SB 743 and to meet the requirement of this new state law, the City hired a
transportation consultant firm, Fehr & Peers, to assist in developing new transportation impact
thresholds for City Council adoption that adhere to CEQA requirements and provide guidance on
conducting transportation studies in the City. The State Governor's Office of Planning and
Research guidelines recommend lead agencies strive to reach a goal of a 15 percent reduction of
VMT in comparison to current conditions for all applicable projects. California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) requires significant justification from any agency adopting less than a
15 percent reduction threshold and any projects it reviews from such agencies would receive a
notably higher level of scrutiny.
SB 743 promotes the development of multimodal transportation networks, a diversity of land
uses and ensures the environmental impacts of traffic such as noise, air pollution, and safety
concerns continue to be addressed and mitigated through CEQA. With SB 743, the state is
shifting the focus from measuring a project's impacts to individual drivers, or Level of Service
(LOS), to measuring the overall volume and impact of driving, or Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT). The City currently implements an LOS approach that measures individual driver
experience specifically related to delay and congestion in a particular location.
Transitioning to the VMT approach would mean analyzing the overall impact of driving,
including capturing the number and length of trips on the roadway network and how new
development projects may influence the overall amount of automobile use. The City can still use
LOS for project development review, to inform decision makers on the overall effects of the
local impacts of a project, and to ensure mitigations accordingly, but it can no longer be
considered an impact under CEQA.
Using Southern California Association of Governments Travel Model and Census data, the
attached report from Fehr & Peers establishes a baseline VMT to set the City's VMT screening
and threshold options. SB 743 allows projects to be exempt from VMT impact analysis
requirements based on their size, low trip generation, location in infill or low VMT area, or
proximity to areas of high transit availability.
Upon initial analysis, projects that are unable to meet the City's new VMT 15 percent reduction
thresholds must propose mitigations to reduce the number of trips or the length of those trips.
This can be done by making changes to the projects land use mix, density, parking, operations,
pedestrian network improvements, and transportation demand management. If a project still fails
to meet the VMT 15 percent reduction threshold, it will be noted as an impact in the
environmental documents, and a City Council statement of overriding considerations will be
ultimately required for project approval.
In the event the state delays implementation of this legislation, language is reflected in the
attached resolution, to ensure the City's activation of these proposed modifications to CEQA
guidelines coincides with state law.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
No alternative action identified by staff.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 157
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Hearing Notice
Resolution
Existing Local CEQA Guidelines (available in the City Clerk's reading file)
Fehr & Peers Consultant Report (available in the City Clerk's reading file)
Page 3
Packet Pg. 158
17.a
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing, previously noticed for June 9, 2020, will now be held before the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 23rd day of June, 2020, at or after
6:00 p.m. to consider adoption of addendum to the local guidelines and procedures for
implementation of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act adopting
vehicle miles thresholds for determining significant transportation impacts as required by
Senate Bill 743.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this
matter at that time. A copy of the building codes with local amendments is available for
viewing at the City Clerk's office at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120,
Santa Clarita, California.
If you wish to challenge this action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
For further information regarding this adoption, please visit the City's Permit Center
located at City Hall, Suite 140, or contact John Caprarelli, City Building Official, at (661)
255-4396.
Dated:
Mary Cusick, MMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: June 2, 2020
Packet Pg. 159
17.b
RESOLUTION NO. 20-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE LOCAL GUIDELINES AND
PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ADOPTING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into California law on September 27, 2013
and incorporated into the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in 2018.
After a series of delays, lead agencies are now mandated to opt in implementing SB 743 by
July 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of SB 743 is to provide a new performance metric —vehicle
miles of travel (VMT), for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the state adopted SB 743 with an aim to reduce automobile dependency by
supporting infill development, reducing average length of vehicle trips and increasing use of
more sustainable modes including carpooling, cycling, walking and transit with a goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health through active transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita prepared a Transportation Analysis Update report
establishing a VMT methodology, VMT baseline, VMT thresholds of significance, VMT
screening criteria, and VMT mitigations; and
WHEREAS, SB 743 and this report is consistent with the City's General Plan and the
City's 2020 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also finds the need to modify this local CEQA guideline;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this project is exempt from CEQA per section 15061
(b) (3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action of adoption of
VMT thresholds will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore the activity is
not subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Notice of a Public Hearing to consider this resolution was published as
required by law, and such public hearing was conducted by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That current Section 4. E. (1) (a) and (b) are hereby repealed from the Local
Guidelines.
Page 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 160
17.b
SECTION 2. That Section 4. E. (1) (a) and (b) are replaced with the attached addendum.
SECTION 3. That Section 4. E. (1) (c) through (i) are re -lettered (f) through (1)
SECTION 4. This addendum shall become effective and in full force on July 1, 2020, or
upon the ultimate implementation date determined by the state, whichever is later.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June 2020.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the 0
foregoing Resolution 20- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of June 2020, by the following vote:
a�
AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS:
c�
NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 161
17.b
ADDENDUM
TM
LOCAL GUIDELINES
ADDENDUM TO LOCAL GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION 20-XX ON NNE 23, 2020
SECTION 4. Initial Study Procedure
E. Thresholds of Significance
(1) Thresholds for determining the significance of the environmental effect of a
Project shall be pursuant to §§ 15064, 15064.5, and 15065 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the City's General Plan, applicable specific plans, the Municipal
Code, and any additional information as deemed necessary by the Environmental
Officer. In addition, pursuant to § 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
thresholds include, but are not limited to, the following:
(aa( /\ n�"1s(h",tlp1Jzfl II'l aflic, zlri(l Iq�enll.aga�pa"l;aalq�ptlV �iCnllra��l.w�;";,^� IIizfll, (Io tlm"II Il"C"sik iti GI.
1 % rcaia;�ctioaa jai'Veliicic icc i nivcVcci (VM i.( is coal[, aareci to flic Citywiaie
iaaaceiiaac V i" for Waaac Nisc(fl pacarr caq)im I'Vcic is coaacis ent witli flic
G�Cfl1
ll caaia�aaaiaa i"arraaaacia�rarraaaai�raa iaaap:aaacts iti CL()A Scc i"arraaaacpaoarrti ioaa Auaaaiycic
yliaa�iaaficc iti Aaaaafiaa, Cki rrim report Jmic 2020 for reference i°oarr (aa.( filiroi; glli (c(,.
(( gm zlrii(l IlIzlrl.'!a'p)��u��a'll;'b.��p"u.
aaaaaa.iyscs fAaat clo taut resik iaa aa. 15% rccli�cfiioaa jai' i" aar coaaaiaaarcci to flic
Citywiaie lkaais6tac WTfor IWaacNiscci work V� i" [wr caai'aiaayce,.
(e( I\ n."gir p ,'fl nu'afl.'�mpp�",�:;"If;`.a Iq����nd',zlri(; IIzlris)a q �ala�;rtlV �anll�a. �1.��„^� Il;aral n1stfl I tl zi.
aacfi ivacreaa.ce iti Va:ml V i" iaa coaaq),i rricoaa to flic Ciaywicie i),aaceiiaae VM i,,.
((:1( /\ us. ," gflzl ll�s zlri(lIiziris)a 'ra,, lltl�;ti aaaaaa yser tCaat 4 o tiot a"C"sik Vaq aI
1 % rccli; cfiioaa gad' i, aas comra xircci to Citywiai�e Nasciiaac Wi" d°or fiofiaai
y/ iT [wrrservice iaoiaa;�kitiora,.
(c( /\ '"II; s 11 zi � li c "'WICI IIzlris)a rq �ala��.rtlV �anll�a. �1.��„^� Il;aral n1stfl II qqV aan"II
iaacreaace iti V i." iaa flic swcly aircai iti coaaap:aaarisoti to iaaaceiiaac coticliaia:raas,.
less film 89 iaeree � (0 91:: Level jai" SeFeiee A(,.
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 162
peFeent,igre
poi tit (0: 0
'1 nd "V heFe the A ml I Fiti o i s 90
peFeent (0 � 90 � Lev el ol,
S e Fv i e L, F)
() F gHtltff �
5�
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 163
Exhibit A
LOCAL GUIDELINES
LOCAL GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR IMTLEMENTATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION 05-38 ON APRIL 26, 2005
SECTION 1. Definitions.
A. "Applicant" - The person, entity, City department, or agency which has
made application to the City for review or approval of any activity which
is deemed a Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines or these Local
Guidelines.
B. "CEOA" — Shall refer to the California Environmental Quality Act,
commencing with § 21000 et. al. of the State of California Public
Resources Code.
C. "CAA Guidelines" — Shall refer to the Guidelines for California
Environmental Quality Act, commencing with § 15000 et al. of the
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
D. "City" -- The City of Santa.Clarita, California.
E. "Decision -making body" - The person, commission or council which has
authority by law or ordinance to make a final decision to approve or
disapprove the Project at issue.
F. "Discretion" or "Discretionary" - The Decision -making body's exercise of
judgment or deliberation regarding a decision to approve or disapprove an
action or Project, as distinguished from situations in which the Decision -
making body merely has to determine whether there has been
conformance with applicable statutes, ordinances or regulations.
G. "Environmental Officer" - The Director of Planning and Economic
Development, or his designee (who may include a consultant hired by the
City or Project proponent), who shall have overall responsibility for City
CEQA functions. As used in these Local Guidelines, CEQA functions
include CEQA review of all City Projects and Projects submitted to the
City for approval or review pursuant to State and Federal law.
H. "Lead department" - The Department of Planning and Economic
Development, which shall serve as clearinghouse for the purposes of
processing and coordinating environmental review for the City.
1
I. "Ministerial' - MinimaI or no exercise of personal judgment by the
Decision -making body or a public official as to the wisdom or manner of
carrying out an action or Project. The agency or official merely applies
the particular law or regulation to the facts.
J. "Project" - Any activity which creates, or has potential to create, physical
change to the City's environment as guided by § 15378 of the CEQA
Guidelines or as further defined in these Local Guidelines.
K. "Project manager" -- The officer who shall take direction from the
Environmental Officer and be responsible for carrying out a City Project
or reviewing a Project submitted to the City for processing.
SECTION 2. Delegation of Responsibility.
A. Responsibilities of the Environmental Officer.
Responsibilities of the Environmental Officer shall include, but not be
limited to, the responsibilities listed throughout these Local Guidelines, as
well as the following activities:
(1) Ensuring that the Local Guidelines set forth in this document are
strictly adhered to;
(2) Conducting environmental review of all City Projects and Projects
submitted to the City for review and approval;
(3) Conducting preliminary review to determine if an application is a
Project under CEQA;
(4) Reviewing the application and Project for completeness;
(5) Determining the level of environmental review of the Project in
accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, City Council
policy and as defined in these Local Guidelines;
(6) Preparing, processing and filing all environmental documents and
notices as required;
(7) Adopting, preparing and updating City procedures, policies,
thresholds, guidelines and criteria as needed to forward the intent
of these Local Guidelines;
(8) Ensuring that all CEQA processing time limits are met;
(9) Determining the adequacy of an EIR or Negative Declaration; and
2
(10) Reviewing CEQA documents prepared for other agencies,
providing adequate comments and complying with the
requirements for a Responsible Agency under § 15096 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
B. Responsibilities of the Project Managers.
The Project Manager shall assist the Environmental Officer in carrying out
the activities required by these Local Guidelines, as well as to ensure
timely submission of all Project information needed by the Environmental
Officer to conduct the responsibilities denoted in SECTION 2.A.
SECTION 3. Exemptions From Environmental Review.
A. Review for Exemption.
The City may exempt from CEQA review the statutory exemptions
commencing with § 15260 of the CEQA Guidelines, the categorical
exemptions commencing with § 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
general rule exemptions pursuant to § 15061(b) of the CEQA Guidelines,
and the Ministerial Projects listed below in SECTION 3.B. Any Project
not specifically meeting one of these exemptions is subject to the
provisions of CEQA at the determination of the Environmental Officer.
B. Ministerial Projects .
Activities over which the City has Ministerial authority and that are
exempt from environmental review under § 21080(b)(1) of CEQA include,
but are not limited to, those Ministerial Projects as defined by § 15268 of
the CEQA Guidelines as well as the following Ministerial Projects:
(1) Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, issued in accordance with
allowed land -use regulations for the zone and conditions of the
Project.
(2) Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, issued in accordance with
allowed land -use regulations of the zone and conditions of the
Project.
(3) Approval of Construction Fencing.
(4) Approval of Curb, Gutter or Sidewalk Construction or
Reconstruction.
(5) Issuance of a Demolition Permit for removal of structures with no
archaeological or historical significance (in the General Plan as
established by the Applicant).
3
(6) Approval of Driveway Construction or Reconstruction.
(7) Issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
(8) Issuance of an Electrical Permit.
(9) Approval of a Fire Extinguisher System and/or Alarm.
(10) Approval of a Fire Hydrant Installation.
(11) Approval of a Heating, Air Conditioning and/or Refrigeration
Installation.
(12) Approval of a House Move.
(13) Approval of an Individual Water Service Installation.
(14) Approval of an Internal Tenant Improvement which does not result
in, or perpetuate, a change in land use or an unmet parking need,
nor exceed the thresholds for exemption stated in SECTION
6.B.(1) above.
(15) Issuance of a Plumbing Permit.
(16) Approval of a Soil Boring.
(17) Approval of Street Lights.
(18) Issuance of a Temporary Permit of less than thirty (30) days for the
purpose of tree sales, pumpkin sales, garage sales and similar
temporary uses of a localized nature.
C. Notice of Exemption.
(1) Decision to File Notice. Except as provided in § 21152.1(a) of the
Public Resource Code, the preparation and filing of a Notice of
Exemption is not mandatory under CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines. However, a Notice of Exemption may be prepared and
filed at the Discretion of the Environmental Officer, and shall
follow the form and manner required by § 15062 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
(2) Request for Notice. A copy of the Notice of Exemption shall be
mailed to any person who has filed a written request for such
notice with the Environmental Officer. Requests to receive
Notices of Exemption shall be renewed annually by the requester.
n
(3) Fees. Requests for a Notice of Exemption are subject to a fee
which is reasonably related to the costs of providing this service.
SECTION 4. Initial Study Procedure.
A. Initial Study Purpose.
Pursuant to § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study shall be
used to provide a written determination of whether a Project may have a
significant effect on the environment and whether a Negative Declaration
of environmental impact or an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") shall
be prepared.
B. Initial Study Preparation.
(1) If a Project is not exempt from the provisions of CEQA, an Initial
Study shall be prepared for that Project by a designee as
determined by the Environmental Officer pursuant to § 15063 of
the CEQA Guidelines and will be circulated pursuant to
§ 15063(g) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(2) If the Environmental Officer determines that an EIR will be
required, the Initial Study should be prepared for purposes of
scoping the areas of environmental impact or potential impact to be
studied by the EIR.
(3) The Initial Study may be prepared in consultation with other
departments. Project information may be circulated to other
departments for review and comment, and written comments or
recommendations received may be used by the Environmental
Officer to assist in determining whether a Project may have an
adverse effect on the environment.
(4) If a state or federal responsible or trustee agency requests that the
City prepare an Initial Study for a Project not normally requiring
environmental review by the City, the Initial Study may be
prepared at the Environmental Officer's discretion.
C. Initial Study Determination_ and Findings.
(1) If the Initial Study determines that there is no substantial evidence
that any aspect(s) of a Project, individually or cumulatively, with
or without revision or mitigation, may cause or result in a
significant effect on the environment, a Negative Declaration shall
be prepared pursuant to SECTION 5 of these Local Guidelines.
E
(2) If the Initial Study determines that there is substantial evidence that
any aspect(s) of a Project, individually or cumulatively, may cause
or result in a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be
prepared, pursuant to SECTION 6 of these Local Guidelines.
(3) The Initial Study shall, in making either of the above
determinations, make appropriate mandatory findings pursuant to
§ 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
D. Determining Significant Effect.
Determination of significant effect on the environment shall be made by
the Environmental Officer pursuant to § 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines,
and as set forth in SECTION 4.E. of these Local Guidelines.
E. Thresholds of Significance.
(1) Thresholds for determining the significance of the environmental
effect of a Project shall be pursuant to §§ 15064, 15064.5, and
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City's General Plan,
applicable specific plans, the Municipal Code, and any additional
information as deemed necessary by the Environmental Officer. In
addition, pursuant to § 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines, specific
thresholds include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Traffic increases at any location where the volume -to -
capacity (V/C) ratio increases more than two percentage
points (0.02) and where the final ratio is less than 89
percent (0.89; Level of Service E).
(b) Traffic increases at any location where the VIC ratio
increases more than one percentage point (0.01) and where
the final ratio is 90 percent (0.90; Level of Service F) or
greater.
(c) Removal of any heritage oak tree, as defined in Unified
Development Code § 17.17.090, removal of more than five
(5) oak trees for a project on a site that has an existing
single-family residence, or the removal of more than three
(3) oak trees, proposed as part of any other project.
(d) Disturbance of, or encroachment into, any river, river
tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway
identified on a United States Geologic Survey map as a
"blue -line" watercourse, or any waterway otherwise
identified as a significant resource by the City of Santa
Clarita.
C.
(e) Disturbance of any habitat known or suspected to contain a
plant or animal species listed as endangered on such
Federal and/or State Iists.
(f) Movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic
yards.
(g) Disturbance to any Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as
identified by the City of Santa Clarita.
(h) Changes to the topography of a Primary or Secondary
Ridgeline.
(i) The most recent air quality thresholds as determined by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, as published
in its "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook."
(2) If it is identified that approval of a Project would cause one or
more minimum thresholds of significance to be exceeded, the
Project shall be determined to have a significant effect on the
environment. In such cases, the Applicant shall be required to
mitigate the significant effect(s) of the Project in one or more of
the following ways:
(a) Project modification or revision.
(b) Identification and incorporation of mitigation measures.
(c) Additional environmental analysis.
D. Consultation.
Pursuant to §§ 15063(g) and 15022(5) of the CEQA Guidelines,
the lead agency, as soon as an initial study is determined to be
required, shall initiate informal consultation with known
responsible and trustee agencies to obtain the recommendation of
those agencies as to whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or
Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared.
SECTION 5. Negative Declaration Procedure / Mitigated Negative _ Declaration
Procedure.
A. Negative Declaration / Mitigated Negative Declaration Type.
(1) A proposed Negative Declaration ("ND") or Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("MND"} for a Project shall be prepared pursuant to
§ 15070(a) or § 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
7
(2) If a Negative Declaration is prepared pursuant to § 15070(b),
revisions in the Project plans made by or agreed to by the
Applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental
Officer. If mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential
environmental effects, such measures shall be incorporated into the
Project's conditions of approval, shall be made part of a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, or shall otherwise be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer.
B. Notice of_Intent .to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Public Review.
(1) A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration shall be
prepared, and the public shall be notified, pursuant to § 15072 of
the CEQA Guidelines, and shall include any additional information
as may be required by the Environmental Officer.
(2) The public review period of the Negative Declaration shall be
pursuant to §§ 15073 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. Consideration and Approval of the Negative Declaration.
(1) Upon completion, the Negative Declaration shall be forwarded to
the Decision -making body for consideration and action pursuant to
§ 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(2) If a public hearing is required for a Project action other than the
Negative Declaration, said hearing shall be conducted in
accordance with current Municipal Code procedures and include
mention of the proposed Negative Declaration. The Negative
Declaration shall be considered concurrently with the Project
application.
(3) If no public hearing is required for Project action, the
Environmental Officer shall, after public circulation, consider the
Negative Declaration as part of the overall Project approval.
(4) During its consideration of a Negative Declaration, the Planning
Commission, when reviewing a Project in an advisory capacity,
may at its Discretion, recommend to the Environmental Officer
that an EIR be prepared for the Project.
(5) After a Negative Declaration has been approved, the
Environmental Officer shall file a Notice of Determination
pursuant to § 21152 of CEQA and § 15075 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 6. Environmental Impact Report Procedure.
The decision to prepare an EIR shall be made either during preliminary review under
§ 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines or at the conclusion of an initial study after applying
the standards described in § 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A. Notice of Preparation.
(1) After determining that an EIR is required, a Notice of Preparation
("NOP") for an EIR shall be prepared, filed and distributed
pursuant to § 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines and § 21080.4 of
CEQA, and shall include any additional information as may be
required by the Environmental Officer.
(2) After the determination to prepare an EIR has been made, but prior
to the circulation of the NOP, the Environmental Officer shall
require submittal by the Project proponent of all fees needed to
adequately prepare and administer the EIR. The Project proponent
shall be notified as soon as possible if the Project will require fees
in excess of the amount originally estimated by the Environmental
Officer. The Environmental Officer reserves the right to require
submittal of the excess fees, prior to or at the conclusion of the
CEQA process.
(3) If the City is a responsible agency under CEQA, within 30 days
after receiving a NOP from a lead agency, it shall provide the Iead
agency with the information required by § 15082(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines, and whatever other information the Environmental
Officer deems appropriate.
(4) One or more scoping meetings may be required or requested
pursuant to § 15082(c).
B. Preparation of the Draft. EIR.
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Environmental Officer to
prepare the draft EIR in accordance with § 15084 of the CEQA
Guidelines. One or more of the following methods shall be used
for preparing the draft EIR, at the Discretion of the Environmental
Officer:
(a) Direct preparation, with Lead department and City staff, at
the Project Applicant's expense.
(b) Contractual agreement with another entity, public or
private, to prepare the draft EIR at the Project Applicant's
expense.
7
(c) Incorporation of a final EIR previously prepared and
certified by the City into the Project's environmental
review if, in the determination of the Environmental
Officer, the previously certified EIR adequately addresses
the effects of the Project.
(2) If the draft EIR is to be prepared under contract pursuant to
SECTION 63.(10) of these Local Guidelines, such contract shall
be the result of a standardized competitive bid process (Request
For Proposal or Qualifications, for example) as established by City
procedures or by the Environmental Officer for this purpose.
(3) The Environmental Officer shall require the Applicant to submit
all funds required to prepare the EIR, pursuant to SECTION
6.A.(2) and SECTION 8.D. of these Local Guidelines. Failure to
submit required funds will result in processing time line
suspension until such funds are submitted, and may be cause for
Project denial.
(4) The Environmental Officer may require the Applicant to supply
information to assist in the preparation of the draft EIR. Failure to
�- submit requested information will result in processing time line
suspension until such information is submitted, and may be cause
for Project denial.
(5) The Environmental Officer shall consider all information or
comments submitted pursuant to § 10584 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Information may be submitted in any form and may be referenced,
paraphrased or included in whole or in part in the draft EIR.
C. Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR.
(1) Upon completion of the draft EIR, the Environmental Officer shall
file a Notice of Completion ("NOC") pursuant to § 15085 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
(2) In addition to the noticing requirements of § 15085 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the Environmental Officer shall provide public notice
of the availability of the draft EIR at the same time the NOC is
filed in a manner pursuant to § 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Notice may be mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the
Project area and shall be mailed to the last known name and
address of all organizations and individuals who, in writing, have
previously requested such notice. Additional notification may also
be given in any manner at the Discretion of the Environmental
Officer.
10
D. Consultation.
The Environmental Officer shall identify, consult with, and request
comments from all agencies and individuals as required under
§ 15086 of the CEQA Guidelines.
E. Public Review of the Draft EIR.
(1) At the time the NOC is prepared and filed, the Environmental
Officer shall provide public notice of the availability of the draft
EIR pursuant to §§ 15087 and 15105 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The public review period shall generally be for a
period of forty-five (45) days from the date of the NOC.
(2) If an Applicant can provide sufficient information to show that a
shortened public review period is of benefit to the City and the
Project, the Environmental Officer shall have the Discretion to
make such request to the State Clearinghouse, pursuant to § 15105
of the CEQA Guidelines, for a shortened review period of not less
than thirty (30) days.
F. Public Hearing.
(1) Upon completion of the public review period, the draft EIR shall
be forwarded to the Decision -making body for review and a
determination of whether a public hearing is warranted. If
warranted, a public hearing shall be conducted by the Decision -
making body. The time, date, and location of the public hearing
shall be noticed with sufficient time preceding the hearing. After
all individuals and agencies present at the hearing have had an
opportunity to provide oral comments, the public hearing on the
draft EIR shall be closed. The lead agency shall refer all comments
to the Environmental Officer to be combined with all written
comments received during the draft EIR comment period for the
preparation of responses.
(2) If a public hearing is required for a Project action other than the
EIR, said hearing shall be conducted in accordance with current
Municipal Code procedures and include mention of the proposed
EIR. The EIR shall be considered concurrently with the Project
application. At the City's Environmental Officer discretion, the
EIR may be brought for certification prior to project approval.
G. Evaluation and Response to Comments.
(1) Transmittal of Comments. After the review period for the draft
EIR closes, all comments submitted in writing (on paper or
through e-mail) and minutes summarizing oral comments made at
11
the public hearing shall be transmitted to the Environmental
Officer and the Project manager or consultant responsible for
preparation of the Project's environmental documents, for
preparation of preliminary draft responses.
(2) Preparation of Revised Draft EIR. After reviewing preliminary
draft responses to the comments received, the Environmental
Officer shall determine if there are sufficient changes to the Draft
EIR to warrant the preparation of a Revised Draft EIR that
incorporates all the changes. At this time, it shall also be
determined whether any significant new information will be added
to the EIR warranting recirculation of all or a portion of the EIR
pursuant to § 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(3) Transmittal of Draft Responses to Commentators. At least ten (10)
days prior to consideration of certification of the Final EIR, the
Environmental Officer shall cause to be sent to each agency that
has commented on the EIR the draft responses to that agency's
comments.
H. Preparation of the Final EIR.
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Environmental Officer to
prepare the final EIR pursuant to § 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The final EIR shall include all information specified in § 15132, et
seq., of the CEQA Guidelines, and any other information required
by the Environmental Officer.
(2) Review of the final EIR by the public and/or by commenting
agencies before the Project is approved may be provided at the
Environmental Officer's Discretion.
I. Certification of the Final EIR.
(1) Upon its completion, the final EIR shall be presented to the
Decision -making body and that body shall certify the final EIR
pursuant to § 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(2) If a Project is composed of more than one entitlement, and more
than one Decision -making body is involved in approving such
entitlements, each body shall be responsible for recommending
certification of the final EIR for those entitlements over which it
has advisory responsibility, if any, and for certifying the final EIR
for those entitlements over which it has final approval authority.
(3) If a final EIR is certified, such certification shall be in the form of
a resolution of the Decision -making body.
12
J. Findings
(1) Preparation of Draft Findings for Project Approval. When a
Decision -making body is recommending approval of a Project, the
Environmental Officer shall cause to be prepared draft written
findings pursuant to § 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for any
Project for which the EIR identifies one or more significant
environmental effects. A statement made pursuant to this section
does not substitute for the requirements set forth in § 15093 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
(2) Consideration of Findings and Project. The Decision -making body
shall not approve a project unless written findings are made for
each of the significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. After considering the Final EIR
and in conjunction with making findings, the Decision -making
body may decide whether or how to carry out the Project. The
Project for which the EIR was prepared shall not be approved
unless either:
(a) The Project as approved will not have a significant effect
on the environment; or
(b) The City has eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible as
shown in the findings and any remaining significant effects
on the environment have been determined to be
unavoidable under § 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and
acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in
§ 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(3) Mitigation Monitoringand nd Reporting Program ("NEMP"). When
making the findings, the Decision -making body shall adopt a
MMRP for the changes to the Project, which it has adopted or
made a condition of Project approval in order to substantially
lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMRP
shall be designed to ensure compliance during Project
implementation. In preparing the MMRP, the City may use the
information contained in the draft MMRP that it receives from
trustee agencies. The MMRP is pursuant to SECTION 7 of these
Local Guidelines and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(4) Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the benefits of a
proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, such
effects may be considered "acceptable." If the City approves a
Project that allows the occurrence of significant effects, it shall
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to
§ 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, that states specific reasons to
13
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information
in the record. Preparation of a statement of overriding
considerations does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to,
findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091.
(5) Preparation of Draft Findings _ for Project Denial. When a
Decision -making body is recommending denial of a Project, the
Environmental Officer shall cause to be prepared one or more
written findings discussing the rationale for Project denial.
K. Notice of Determination.
(1) Upon certification of the final EIR, and approval of the Project for
which the EIR was prepared, the Environmental Officer shall file a
Notice of Determination ("NOD") pursuant to § 15094 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
(2) The Environmental Officer may provide public notice of the
availability of the final EIR at the same time the NOD is filed.
Notice may be mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the
Project area and to all organizations and individuals who have
previously requested such notice. Notice may also be given in any
additional manner at the Discretion of the Environmental Officer.
SECTION 7. Mitigation Monitoringaporting Program ("MMRP").
A. If a MMRP is required by the Negative Declaration or EIR prepared for a
Project, it shall be made pursuant to § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.
B. The MMRP shall be, at the Discretion of the Environmental Officer, made
a part of the certified final EIR or Negative Declaration prior to Project
approval, or shall be made part of a binding agreement which shall be
recorded, or shall otherwise be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Officer.
C. If the required MMRP has not been prepared as part of the preparation of
the Negative Declaration or EIR, the Environmental Officer shall cause
the MNW to be prepared at the expense of the Applicant, prior to Project
approval.
D. At the discretion of the Environmental Officer, standardized policies and
requirements to guide monitoring or reporting programs may be adopted
pursuant to 15097(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 8. Administration.
A. Environmental Proce
ssing Time Periods.
14
Preparation, review and filing of environmental documents and notices
shall be consistent with the time periods provided by § 21151.5 of CEQA,
§ 15109 of the CEQA Guidelines, the State Clearinghouse, these Local
Guidelines, and other applicable statutes.
B. Suspension of Time Periods.
(1) Pursuant to § 15109 of the CEQA Guidelines, any delay by a
Applicant in meeting requests by the Environmental Officer
necessary for the preparation of a Notice of Exemption, Initial
Study, Negative Declaration or an EIR shall suspend the running
of the time periods for Project processing for the period of the
delay, at the Discretion of the Environmental Officer.
Unreasonable or repeated delays may be cause for Project denial.
(2) Notification that a time period has been suspended shall be
provided in writing by the Environmental Officer.
(3) The notification of time period suspension shall contain, at a
minimum, the specific reason(s) for the suspension, the effective
date of the suspension, and the action(s) needed from the Applicant
to reinstate the running of the time period.
(4) Time periods shall automatically be deemed suspended upon the
filing of any appeal of any decision of a Decision -making body to
prepare or certify, if applicable, a Notice of Exemption, Initial
Study, Negative Declaration or EIR, and shall remain suspended
until the body hearing the appeal renders a decision.
C. Proiects With Short Time Periods For Approval.
If a statute or ordinance requires the City to make decisions on permits
within time limits that are so short that review of the Project under CEQA
would be difficult, the Environmental Officer shall deem an application
for a Project not received for filing, under the permit statute or ordinance,
until such time as progress toward completing the environmental
documentation required by CEQA is sufficient to enable the City to finish
the CEQA process within the short permit time limit. This Section will
apply to situations in which all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The enabling legislation for a program, other than Chapter 4.5
(commencing with § 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code, requires the City to take action on an
application within a specified period of time that is six (6) months
or less; and
15
(2) The enabling legislation provides that the Project will become
approved by operation of law if the City fails to take action within
such specified time period; and
(3) The Project involves the issuance of a lease, permit, license,
certificate or other entitlement for use.
In any case subject to this Section, the environmental document shall be
completed or certified and the decision on the application shall be made
within one (1) year from the date on which an application requesting
approval of such Project has been received and accepted as complete for
CEQA processing by the City. This one (1) year time limit may be
extended once for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days upon consent of
the City and the Applicant. If a legislative act is associated with the
project then the one year time line is not applicable per PRC 21151.5. and
21065 subdivision (c).
D. Fees.
If a Project is to be carried out by any person or entity other than the City,
the Environmental Officer shall assess, and such person or entity shall
pay, a reasonable fee to the City to cover the costs of City CEQA
processing. Such fees shall include, but are not limited to: administrative
costs to review the Project pursuant to CEQA; costs to prepare any
document determined by the Environmental Officer to be necessary for the
preparation of the Initial Study; and costs to prepare a subsequent
Negative Declaration, EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
or similar document. Such fees shall be assessed as set forth by resolution
of the City Council and, in the case of preparation of environmental
information under contract by City staff or a third party, by the Director of
Planning and Economic Development.
E. Avl2eals.
The decision of the Environmental Officer, with respect to the Categorical
Exemption, Initial Study determination, approval of a Negative
Declaration, or decision to require an EIR or the level of analysis of an
EIR, may be appealed to the Planning Commission in the same manner
that the decision to approve or disapprove the proposed Project may be
appealed pursuant to the Municipal Code. The final decision on an appeal
relating to the CEQA determination on a Project rests with the Decision -
making body which has final authority for approval or denial of that
Project.
4P
Transportation Analysis Updates
in Santa Claris
Prepared for:
City of Santa Clarita
May 19, 2020
"ioJectIINLanbejr11.A20-31
FEHR�'PEERS
Table of Contents
Chapter 2—Transportation Analysis Implications for SB 743.................................................. 3
WhatisSB743?............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Whydid the State adopt SB743?.......................................................................................................................................... 3
How does SB743align with the City ufSanta [|ahtaGeneral Plan? ...................................................................... 4
Howdoes LDScompare tuVIVIT?......................................................................................................................................... 8
Can Santa [|ahtastill consider LDS?.................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter3—Baseline VMT........................................................................................................... 10
Local Transportation Characteristics .................................................................................................................................. 10
SCAGTravel Model Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 2
VIVITMethodology for Land Use Projects and Plans ................................................................................................... 15
VIVITMethodology for Transportation Projects and Plans ........................................................................................ 16
BaselineVK4T............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter4—VMT Screening ........................................................................................................ 18
VIVITScnening[hteha—LandUseP ject --------------------------------------18
VIVITScnening[hteha—TranspurtatunProjects ........................................................................................................ 24
VIVITScreening Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 5—VMT Thresholds and Mitigation ........................................................................... 28
Dvemiew-------------------------------------------------------------28
VIVITAnalysis Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 8
VIVITImpact Thresholds ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
VIVITMitigations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
StudyArea .....................................................................................................................................................................................
36
StudyScenarios ...........................................................................................................................................................................
37
ProjectTrip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................
37
VolumeForecasts .......................................................................................................................................................................
7
VehicleOperations ....................................................................................................................................................................
7
ActiveTransportation ...............................................................................................................................................................
39
Documentation...........................................................................................................................................................................
39
list Of 'Tables
Table 1
— Commute Distance for People Who Live in Santa Clarita.............................................................................
11
Table 2
— Commute Distance for People Who Work in Santa Clarita..........................................................................11
Table 3
— Means of Transportation to Work for People Who Live in Santa Clarita................................................12
Table 4
— VMT Metrics in Santa Clarita.....................................................................................................................................
17
Table 5
— City of Santa Clarita Residential VMT (Home -Based VMT) per Capita.....................................................19
Table 6
— City of Santa Clarita Employment VMT (Home -Based Work VMT) per Employee ..............................
21
Table7
— VMT Screening Criteria................................................................................................................................................
26
Table 8
— VMT Thresholds of Significance...............................................................................................................................
30
st Of Figures
Figure 1
- Daily Commute Inflow and Outflow.....................................................................................................................10
Figure 2
- SCAG Model TAZs in Santa Clarita........................................................................................................................
14
Figure3
- Home -Based VMT........................................................................................................................................................
15
Figure4
- Home -Based Work VMT............................................................................................................................................
16
Figure 5
- Low VMT Area Screening — Residential...............................................................................................................20
Figure 6
- Low VMT Area Screening — Office.........................................................................................................................
22
Figure7
- Transit Priority Areas...................................................................................................................................................27
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law and started a process
intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. In
summary, SB 743 eliminates level of service (LOS) as a basis for determining significant transportation
impacts under CEQA and provides a new performance metric — vehicle miles of travel (VMT). With this
change, the State is shifting the focus from measuring a project's impact to drivers (LOS) to measuring the
impact of driving (VMT) to achieve their goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encouraging
infill development, and improving public health through active transportation.
In response to SB 743, the City of Santa Clarita is adopting new transportation impact thresholds to
adhere to CEQA requirements and providing guidance on conducting transportation studies in the City.
The City began the process of implementing SB 743 earlier this year. The process began by collecting
Baseline VMT data for the City, and then using the VMT data to consider options for the preferred VMT
methodology, thresholds, and potential mitigation strategies. The City has also prepared Local
Transportation Assessment Guidelines to inform the scope and analysis methodologies for future studies
in the City.
The remaining chapters of this report describe the City's implementation of SB 743 and the corresponding
updates to transportation analysis requirements as follows:
• Chapter 2: Transportation Analysis Implications for SB 743 — This chapter provides an
overview of SB 743 and what it means for transportation impact analysis in the City of Santa
Clarita. This chapter is structured as a series of frequently asked questions about the implications
of this change for the City.
Chapter 3: Baseline V T — This chapter describes the process for determining the City's Baseline
VMT and describes the analysis methodology and VMT metrics.
• Chapter 4: CIECIA V T Screening — This chapter discusses screening criteria that exempt certain
projects from a full VMT analysis. There are screening criteria for land use projects based on
projects size and location. Transportation projects can be screened from analysis based on the
type of infrastructure change being proposed.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
Chapter 5: CEQA Methodology, Thresholds, and Mitigation — This chapter outlines the
methodology for calculating VMT for projects and plans in the City of Santa Clarita, provides the
threshold of significance, and discusses mitigation options for projects that are found to have a
VMT impact.
• Chapter 6: Leal Transportation Assessment Guidelines — This chapter outlines the City's
guidelines for studying a project's effects on the transportation system. While CEQA requirements
have changed, the City can continue to dictate the types of analysis to be conducted for land use
and transportation projects, such as continuing to include LOS. While LOS would no longer
constitute a CEQA impact, it can still be used to inform decision makers on the overall effects of a
project.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Chapter 2 - Transportation
Analysis Implications for
ft.�
In 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743 into law. The primary purpose of SB 743 was eliminating
measures of roadway vehicular capacity and traffic congestion, most commonly LOS, as the basis for
determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The law directed the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to update the CEQA Guidelines
to include new performance criteria for determining the
significance of transportation impacts.
In response to SB 743, OPR recommended VMT as the new
transportation impact metric. OPR then submitted updates to
the CEQA Guidelines, and these updates were certified by the
Natural Resources Agency in December 2018. Lead agencies
have been granted a grace period until July 1, 2020 to opt -in
to implementing a VMT analysis as part of their environmental
review process.
To help aid lead agencies with SB 743 implementation, OPR produced a Technical Advisory'. The
Technical Advisory helps lead agencies think about the variety of implementation questions they face with
respect to shifting to a VMT metric. However, lead agencies must still make their own specific decisions
about VMT methodology, impact thresholds, and mitigation approaches. These decisions should be
consistent with the City's goals as expressed in their General Plan.
The intent of SB 743 is to better support the following State goals:
■ Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
■ Encouraging infill development
■ Improving public health through active transportation
' Technical Advisory on Evoluatin_ Tg ronsportotion Impacts in CEQA, OPR, December 2018
http://ol2r.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory_pdf
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
While changes to driving conditions that increase travel times are an important consideration for traffic
operations and management, these changes do not fully describe environmental effects associated with
fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. VMT based impact criteria will help to incorporate these
environmental effects and move toward achieving the State goals listed above.
Reducing VMT is not the only way that the transportation sector can reduce GHG emissions, increasing
vehicle efficiency and reducing fuel carbon content are also important parts of moving toward the State's
GHG emissions targets. However, as reported in OPR's Technical Advisory, California Air Resources Board
(CARB) projects that changes to vehicle efficiency and fuel will not be enough to reach the State's GHG
emissions reduction targets.' Therefore, reductions in VMT are an important part of the path to reducing
GHG emissions.
� J r
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan' includes goals related to vehicle trip reduction and promoting
alternative modes of travel. The General Plan identifies goals and objectives which align with the
anticipated outcomes of SB 743. The comprehensive list of goals and objectives below shows that the
overall goals of implementing SB 743 — reducing GHG emissions, promoting infill development, and
improving active transportation, through limiting VMT growth — are well aligned with the City's General
Plan.
The relevant goals and objectives are listed, along with some supporting policies; there are other policies
that support these goals which are not enumerated here. In addition, the City has a variety of goals and
objectives aimed at reducing vehicle trips and emissions through effective management of travel demand,
transportation systems, and parking supply that are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 as VMT
mitigation strategies.
• Goal C 1: An inter -connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes,
provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans.
o Objective C 1.1: Provide multi -modal circulation systems that move people and goods
efficiently while protecting environmental resources and quality of life.
■ Policy C 1.1.1: Reduce dependence on the automobile, particularly single -
occupancy vehicle use, by providing safe and convenient access to transit,
bikeways, and walkways.
� ur „c Surtburr Ac,t(pp. 4 `) a dflh[orrdi ] Air
' �"��;�,,�� t'ruyrr„;,�cc iti'�'�S,;art urA � ��tr urrArrarar„rAraiat�� rrrrrurA�„te��r rarArf, � trrrrrat��;� Protection
Resource's IkNl rd, V ovurr,.�her 2018, Irtt�,.//'�itr /�,���II/,lr /@
I...I..I.Nii,irp,�,ll.�':��.:1.�,Rejpnrt M Q `k`k��.EM 02 �ZP:anrt.xjf
Qty uJ` SrrrA,,t,,,rr � trrrtt„fir CerAcrat r trrrA.... Drcutra tion P ta;owt2t a:ity ut darrl,i a . rit,. Jura 20 f f,
as: ,� c �9 :a lkalliislrniiirn� .� c inr7 Q:: t �irn �Q::ll �irii � Irn inr7ll �!D1gQ_.,J. �t..aGP. 4"/"20."/"20C: iir� u�latiioirn"/"20E�E inr7eirnrt.:a�9f
...................................................................................................................................../................/...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
■ Policy C 1.1.2: Promote expansion of alternative transportation options to
increase accessibility to all demographic and economic groups throughout the
community, including mobility -impaired persons, senior citizens, low-income
persons, and youth.
■ Policy C 1.1.3: Work with local and regional agencies and employers to promote
an integrated, seamless transportation system that meets access needs, including
local and regional bus service, dial -a -ride, taxis, rail, van pools, car pools, bus
pools, bicycling, walking, and automobiles.
■ Policy C 1.1.4: Promote public health through provision of safe, pleasant, and
accessible walkways, bikeways, and multi -purpose trail systems for residents.
■ Policy C 1.1.5: Plan for efficient links between circulation systems at appropriate
locations, including but not limited to bus -rail connections and pedestrian -bus
connections.
■ Policy C 1.1.6: Provide adequate facilities for multi -modal travel, including but not
limited to bicycle parking and storage, expanded park -and -ride lots, and
adequate station and transfer facilities in appropriate locations.
■ Policy C 1.1.7: Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public,
including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all
transportation systems.
■ Policy C 1.1.8: Acquire and/or reserve adequate right-of-way in transportation
corridors to accommodate multiple travel modes, including bus turnouts, bus
rapid transit (BRT), bikeways, walkways, and linkages to trail systems.
■ Policy C 1.1.9: Incorporate funding for all modes of transportation in the capital
improvement program, and seek funding from all available sources for multi -
modal system development.
■ Policy C 1.1.10: Provide for flexibility in the transportation system to
accommodate new technology as it becomes available, in order to reduce trips
by vehicles using fossil fuels where feasible and appropriate.
■ Policy C 1.1.11: Promote use of multi -modal facilities by providing adequate and
attractive way -finding programs directing users to transit stations, park -and- ride
lots, bicycle storage, and other facilities.
■ Policy C 1.1.12: Implement recommendations of the City's Non -Motorized
Transportation Plan to expand opportunities for alternative travel modes.
■ Policy C 1.1.13: Design new activity centers and improve existing activity centers
to prioritize walking, bicycling and circulator transit for internal circulation of
person -travel.
o Objective C 1.2: Coordinate land use and circulation planning to achieve greater
accessibility and mobility for users of all travel modes.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
■ Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit to
promote transit -oriented development that concentrates higher density housing,
employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit corridors.
■ Policy C 1.2.2: Create walkable communities, with paseos and walkways
connecting residential neighborhoods to multi -modal transportation services
such as bus stops and rail stations.
■ Policy C 1.2.3: Require that new commercial and industrial development provide
walkway connections to public sidewalks and transit stops, where available.
■ Policy C 1.2.4: Consider location, availability, and accessibility of transit in
evaluating new development plans.
■ Policy C 1.2.5: In mixed use projects, require compact development and a mix of
land uses to locate housing, workplaces, and services within walking or bicycling
distance of each other.
■ Policy C 1.2.6: Provide flexible standards for parking and roadway design in
transit -oriented development areas to promote transit use, where appropriate.
■ Policy C 1.2.7: In pedestrian -oriented areas, provide a highly connected
circulation grid with relatively small blocks to encourage walking.
■ Policy C 1.2.8: Provide safe pedestrian connections across barriers, which may
include but are not limited to major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control
facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls.
■ Policy C 1.2.9: Emphasize providing right-of-way for non -vehicular transportation
modes so that walking and bicycling are the easiest, most convenient modes of
transportation available for short trips.
■ Policy C 1.2.10: Protect communities by discouraging the construction of facilities
that sever residential neighborhoods.
■ Policy C 1.2.11: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart
growth concepts.
■ Policy C 1.2.12: Balance the anticipated volume of people and goods movement
with the need to maintain a walkable and bicycle friendly environment.
o Objective C 1.3: Ensure conformance of the Circulation Plan with regional transportation
plans.
■ Policy C 1.3.3: Through trip reduction strategies and emphasis on multi -modal
transportation options, contribute to achieving the air quality goals of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan.
■ Policy C 1.3.9: Support the expansion of Palmdale Regional Airport and the
extension of multi -modal travel choices between the airport and the Santa Clarita
Valley, in conformance with regional planning efforts.
■ Policy C 1.3.10: Apply for regional, State, and federal grants for bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure projects.
I
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
• Goal C 2: A unified and well -maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and
efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers,
while maintaining community character.
o Objective C 2.2: Adopt and apply consistent standards throughout the Santa Clarita Valley
for street design and service levels, which promote safety, convenience, and efficiency of
travel.
■ Policy C 2.2.5: Adopt common standards for pavement width in consideration of
capacity needs to serve projected travel demand, provided that a reduction in
pavement width may be allowed in order to reduce traffic speeds, protect
resources, enhance pedestrian mobility, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by
the reviewing authority.
■ Policy C 2.2.6: Within residential neighborhoods, promote the design of "healthy
streets" which may include reduced pavement width, shorter block length,
provision of on -street parking, traffic -calming devices, bike routes and pedestrian
connectivity, landscaped parkways, and canopy street trees.
■ Policy C 2.2.7: Where practical, encourage the use of grid or modified grid street
systems to increase connectivity and walkability; where cul-de-sacs are provided,
promote the use of walkways connecting cul-de-sac bulbs to adjacent streets
and/or facilities to facilitate pedestrian access; where street connectivity is limited
and pedestrian routes are spaced over 500 feet apart, promote the use of
intermediate pedestrian connections through or between blocks.
• Goal C 4: Rail service to meet regional and inter -regional needs for convenient, cost-effective
travel alternatives, which are fully integrated into the Valley's circulation systems and land use
patterns.
o Objective C 4.1: Maximize the effectiveness of Metrolink's commuter rail service through
provision of support facilities and land planning.
o Objective C 4.2: Access to a high-speed rail system connecting the Santa Clarita Valley
with other regions, and other regional rail service connections.
• Goal C 5: Bus transit service as a viable choice for all residents, easily accessible and serving
destinations throughout the Valley.
o Objective C 5.1: Ensure that street patterns and design standards accommodate transit
needs.
o Objective C 5.2: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit
stops.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
o Objective C 5.3: Explore opportunities to improve and expand bus transit service.
o Objective C 5.4: Provide adequate funding to expand transit services to meet the needs of
new development in the Valley.
• Goal C 6: A unified and well -maintained bikeway system with safe and convenient routes for
commuting, recreational use and utilitarian travel, connecting communities and the region.
o Objective C 6.1: Adopt and implement a coordinated master plan for bikeways for the
Valley, including both City and County areas, to make bicycling an attractive and feasible
mode of transportation.
o Objective C 6.2: Encourage provision of equipment and facilities to support the use of
bicycles as an alternative means of travel.
• Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable
and viable alternative to driving for local destinations.
o Objective C 7.1: A continuous, integrated system of safe and attractive pedestrian
walkways, paseos and trails linking residents to parks, open space, schools, services, and
transit.
Conventional approaches to transportation impact analysis tend to focus on vehicle LOS related to driver
delay and roadway congestion. SB 743 changes the focus of
transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring
impacts to drivers (LOS), to measuring the impact of driving
(VMT).
While LOS measures the drivers experience traveling through a
specific point on the roadway system (e.g., through an
intersection), VMT captures both the number of trips and the
length of those trips on the roadway network. For example, a
proposed retail development intended to serve nearby
residents can result in an LOS impact because it adds vehicle
trips to an already congested intersection, whereas it may not
result in the VMT impact because it adds a shopping option
closer to where people live, allowing them to drive shorter
distances. In comparison, a proposed office building in an
industrial area may not result in any LOS impacts because it is
surrounded by multi -lane roadways with plenty of vehicle capacity, but it may result in a VMT impact
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
because it attracts trips from many miles away and results in a larger burden on the transportation
network and the environment.
SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze LOS as part of development review, area plans,
or on -going network monitoring, but LOS will no longer constitute the basis for CEQA impacts. Cities can
still use vehicle LOS outside of the CEQA process if they determine it is an important part of their
transportation analysis process. This is addressed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Two types of projects, land use development projects and transportation infrastructure projects, are
affected by SB 743.
• Land Use — Development projects and area plans (e.g., General Plan or Housing Element) will
continue to require a transportation impact analysis. However, transportation impact studies
conducted as part of the CEQA process will now be required to base project impacts on VMT.
• Transportation Infrastructure — Prior to SB 743, transportation projects that had the potential to
worsen vehicle delay, such as narrowing a roadway to provide bicycle lanes, may have resulted in
an environmental impact under CEQA. With SB 743 in place, transportation projects that promote
travel by non -auto modes are no longer considered to result in an environmental impact.
Conversely, roadway widening projects need to consider potential impacts from inducing more
travel and therefore increasing VMT.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
Aa Baseline VA/f�
pter
3
This chapter summarizes local transportation characteristics, Baseline VMT, and the VMT methodology for
the City of Santa Clarita. The purpose of this chapter is to provide context for understanding the City's
VMT trends and describe the process of establishing the City's Baseline VMT. This Baseline VMT data is
used to inform the City's VMT screening and thresholds options as part of the SB 743 implementation
process, presented in Chapters 4 and 5.
Local Transportation Characteristics
As shown in Figure 1, approximately 78 percent of Santa Clarita residents work outside the City, and
approximately 68 percent of people who work in Santa Clarita live outside the City according to data
provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. About 21,300 Santa Clarita residents are employed within the City,
accounting for a about 22 percent of Santa Clarita residents.
I City of Santa Clarita
44,100 -Employed in Santa Clarita, Live Outside
73,000 -Live in Santa Clarita, Employed Outside
21,M0 -Employed and Llve in Santa Clarita
N, tmmt • t
Daily commute inflow and outflow
Snurrc. U1 (:areas Bu wu, 7fi17
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
These commute characteristics have implications for the City's VMT metrics because they affect the
distance that commuters need to travel to reach theirjobs, a large component of a City's VMT. As shown
in the tables below, people who live in Santa Clarita typically have a longer commute than people who
work in Santa Clarita, which suggests that many people who work in Santa Clarita but do not live there
reside close by, while many people who live in Santa Clarita travel great distances for work. Table 1
summarizes commute distance for people who live in Santa Clarita, whether they work in the City or
elsewhere, and Table 2 summarizes commute distance for people who work in Santa Clarita, whether they
live in the City or elsewhere. Just over 40 percent of people who work in Santa Clarita commute less than
10 miles, whereas only 28 percent of people who live in Santa Clarita commute less than 10 miles.
Total Primary Jobs I 94,307 I 100.09%.
Source: 2017 US Census Center for Economic Studies Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, onthemap.ces.census.gov
Less than 10 miles
26,866
41.1%
10 to 24 miles
14,380
22.0%
25 to 50 miles
13,863
21.2%
Greater than 50 miles
10,296
1 S.7%
Total Primary Jobs I 6S,40S I 100.0%
Source: 2017 US Census Center for Economic Studies Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, onthemap.ces.census.gov
According to the U.S. Census Bureau and presented in
Table 3, nearly 77 percent of workers who live in Santa Clarita typically drive alone to work, while
approximately 11 percent carpool, 7 percent work at home, and 3 percent commute using public transit.
Transit service available in Santa Clarita includes service provided by Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) which
provides circulation within the City, along with connections south into Los Angeles. The City also has three
Metrolink stations on the Antelope Valley Line which connects Downtown Los Angeles with the Antelope
Valley.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Drive Alone 1 76.6%
Carpool 2 people 1 8.1%
Carpool 3 people 1 1.7%
Carpool 4 or more people I 1.5%
Public Transportation 1 3.0%
Walk 1 1.2%
Bike I 0.5%
Other 1 0.8%
Worked at home 1 6.6%
Source: 2017 US Census 5-Year Estimates,
httPs:Hfactfinder.census.gov
Santa Clarita residents commute an average of 34.9 minutes, which is longer than the average U.S.
worker's commute of 25.1 minutes. Approximately 6 percent of Santa Clarita residents have a 'super
commute,' which is a commute longer than 90 minutes. Similar to national trends, approximately 40
percent of Santa Clarita households have two cars, but diverging from national trends, 43 percent of
households in Santa Clarita have three or more cars compared to the national statistic of 34 percent.
The City of Santa Clarita maintains a local travel demand model, the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated
Traffic Model (SCVCTM), that contains a detailed roadway network and land use database for the City. The
City's model is the best tool available when forecasting vehicle volumes for local roadways and
intersections in Santa Clarita. The SCVCTM roadway network covers only the Santa Clarita Valley;
therefore, the length of trips extending outside the model boundaries are truncated, meaning that the full
distance of these trips cannot be captured using the City's model. When forecasting VMT, it is important
to capture the full distance vehicles are traveling both within the City and when they leave the City
boundaries.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) model covers the entire SCAG region, and
therefore, captures a more complete assessment of trip length and VMT. In addition, comparing the VMT
trends in the City to the broader region is helpful in establishing the appropriate Baseline VMT metrics.
Using the SCAG model also allows the City to follow established methods for calculating the particular
types of VMT used for SB 743 analysis. Therefore, the SCAG model was selected as the most appropriate
tool for the SB 743 implementation process to ensure that the VMT generated by Santa Clarita that occurs
outside the City limits is captured and to allow for comparison between the City's VMT data and regional
VMT data.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
The most recent version of the SCAG Model has a base year of 2012 and future year of 2040 and was
developed for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Figure 2 displays
the SCAG Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs)4, used as the unit of analysis in the SCAG model, for the
City of Santa Clarita. The boundaries of these TAZs do not align exactly with the City boundaries, but for
the metrics used in this process, they are sufficient to estimate VMT for Santa Clarita. The parts of the City
that are not covered by any TAZs in Figure 2 are generally undeveloped. Where the selected TAZs extend
beyond the City boundaries, the VMT metrics for these TAZs used for this process (VMT per capita and
per employee), would adequately represent the VMT metric for the area within Santa Clarita because the
character of development is the same as it is in the area outside of Santa Clarita.
AZs. ]re AecrArd]phic perlyAons ski ' groups Used Io represent: �]rr",ic;r I �rcrrr�crAr�rrcrus P:rdivel
�i dir Icr a;urr�.u� :r:rc
heh�.Ivioir in fie SCAG Moded.
l:]
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
An origin -destination (OD) VMT methodology was determined to be the appropriate methodology for
estimating the VMT of land use projects and plans as guided by SB 743 legislation. The OD VMT method
estimates the VMT generated by land uses in a specific geographic area, such as the City or a larger
geographic area such as Los Angeles County. All vehicles traveling to/from the defined geographic area
are tracked within the SCAG model and the number of trips and length of trips are used to calculate the
OD VMT.
For the City of Santa Clarita, the VMT methodology includes all trips within the SCAG model for each of
the following variable formats:
• Teal VIVIT per Service Population (all vehicles and all trip purposes): The total VMT to and
from all zones in Santa Clarita is divided by the total service population (employees and residents)
in Santa Clarita to get the efficiency metric of VMT per service population.
• Home -Based VIVIT per Capita (automobile only): Includes all VMT for home -based auto vehicle
trips that are traced back to the residence of the trip -maker (non -home -based trips are excluded).
This VMT is then divided by the population within Santa Clarita to get the efficiency metric of
Home -Based VMT per Capita. The diagram below illustrates the home -based trips that are
included in this VMT metric.
11P1YIIN�IttMIIIIIA{61601111�Y �
�n£ viz 111
VU,nrk
This figure shows a representative day for one person. Of all their daily trips, Home -Based VMT includes
trips with an origin or destination at their home. These trips are categorized as home -based work (HW), or
home -based other (HO), trips between their home and any location other than their workplace. While the
person produces 29 miles of VMT, 16 of those miles are considered Home -Based VMT.
11)
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
• Home -Based Work VMT per Employee (automobile only): Includes all VMT for auto vehicle
trips between home and work. This VMT is then divided by the number of employees within Santa
Clarita to get the efficiency metric of Home -Based Work VMT per Employee. The diagram below
illustrates the home -based work trip that is included in this VMT metric.
4�nA 1 Phu 04 #4 to Oy
to rv,
Figure 4 - Home -Based Work VMT
() ic)
a°uiiille. uiri7iullr�;,�
„,m ��mm��mounuumoinwmoun��oi'inuummno �u�;u�;u R�m� ,�••��„
I.Is s I -I IVY
rin..im.
noe n�tia�
m�� SUMm
Wollll k
This figure shows the same representative day as the previous figure. Of all their daily trips, Home -Based
Work VMT includes only trips the individual makes between their home and their workplace. While the
person produces 29 miles of VMT, ii of those miles are considered Home -Based VMT.
The VMT methodology for transportation projects is based on the net change in total VMT. The SCAG
model is used to estimate the Baseline VMT within the City and then forecast the change in VMT with the
project in operation. The VMT will be calculated based on the boundary method which considers all travel
on roadways in the study area, including vehicles that are traveling on the roadways but don't have an
origin or destination in the area (i.e., pass -through or external trips). The VMT for transportation projects
is calculated as defined below.
• Total Roadway VMT (all vehicles): The total daily VMT can be measured using the SCAG model
by multiplying the daily volume on every roadway segment by the length of every roadway
segment in Santa Clarita.
In addition to VMT changes forecasted by the SCAG model, induced travel demand resulting from
increasing the number of lane -miles should be considered.
0
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
To understand the VMT trends for the City of Santa Clarita, the SCAG model was used to estimate the
Baseline VMT metrics. The VMT data is based on the TAZs in the City during the Base Year 2012, the
Future Year 2040 conditions, and interpolated conditions to estimate the 2020 Baseline. Table 4 presents
VMT estimates for Santa Clarita and the SCAG region. As shown, the average VMT for the entire SCAG
region is generally lower than the City's VMT. Of the three types of VMT shown in the table, Home -Based
Work VMT per Employee for the City is the closest to the SCAG average, showing that the commute
distances for those working in Santa Clarita generally follow the patterns across the region. For those
living in Santa Clarita, the VMT trends are higher than the regional average due to longer commute
distances.
Total VMT SCAG Region 32.3 31.1 28.6
per Service Population Santa Clarita 40.8 37.5 31.1
Home -Based VMT SCAG Region 15.0 14.4 13.0
per Capita Santa Clarita 24.4 22.7 19.5
Home -Based Work VMT SCAG Region 19.0 17.2 13.9
per Employee Santa Clarita 21.0 18.4 13.5
OPR recommends that projects are compared to a Baseline VMT to determine if a project would perform
better, or worse, than current VMT levels. Lead agencies have the jurisdiction to select how they define
their Baseline VMT which can range from the broader regional average to a smaller defined area. The City
of Santa Clarita is defining their Baseline VMT as the average VMT for the City. This ensures that projects
are considered in relation to the current built environment, transportation network, and travel options in
Santa Clarita.
i/
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
reening
pter 4 VMT S--
The first step in a VMT CEQA evaluation is to determine when a VMT analysis is required. This chapter
provides an overview of the VMT screening criteria used to determine if a detailed VMT analysis is
required for land use and transportation projects. OPR recommends that projects be screened from a
VMT analysis based on their size, location, or accessibility to transit. In addition, transportation projects
that do not add new travel lanes or vehicle capacity may be screened from further VMT analysis.
71 W, I 11, grJ
VMT is heavily dependent on land use and location. For example, a development site located in an urban
area will have lower VMT because people have more options to walk, bike and take transit or drive short
distances to nearby destinations in comparison to a suburban development where most people drive
longer distances for their everyday work and household needs. Therefore, OPR has provided guidance
related to several opportunities for screening projects from requiring a detailed VMT analysis.
Screening opportunities in the City of Santa Clarita are described below. A project only needs to satisfy
one of the screening criteria to be exempt from requiring further VMT analysis. If a project is mixed -use
and satisfies one of the screening criteria that applies to a specific land use, only that component of the
project is exempt from requiring further VMT analysis.
Project Size Screening
Projects that generate less than 110 daily trips may be screened from conducting a VMT analysis. Local
serving retail projects with less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant
VMT impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This is because local serving retail generally
improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.
Screen the following project types from VMT analysis:
Projects that generate less than 110 daily trips
Local serving retail uses (<50 ksf)
The City is following OPR guidance which means that projects that generate less than 110 daily
trips and local serving retail uses less than 50 ksf would not need to complete a VMT analysis.
0
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Low i/ TArea Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less
than significant impact, as long as the new development in the TAZ is similar to the development already
in the TAZ and absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment -related
projects may qualify for screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT that is
similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.
Low VMT areas for residential projects are defined as TAZs that generate VMT per capita that is at least 15
percent lower than the Baseline VMT. The VMT metrics for the City of Santa Clarita and the 15 percent
below threshold are shown in Table 5.
* u. 2 r r rE , rI,
Figure 5 illustrates the Home -Based VMT per Capita in the City of Santa Clarita by TAZ in comparison to
the citywide average. TAZs with Home -Based VMT per Capita at least 15 percent lower than the Baseline
VMT are concentrated in the western half of the City where there is higher population density and more
frequent transit service.
The VMT metrics illustrated in Figure 5 can be used to screen residential projects in low VMT areas.
Specifically, if a residential project is proposed in a TAZ that has VMT at least 15 percent lower than the
citywide average, the project would also be expected to generate VMT at least 15 percent lower than the
citywide average.
M
0
F()Oto\\O
I
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
Low VMT areas for office projects are defined as TAZs that generate VMT on a per employee basis that is
at least 15 percent lower than the citywide average. The VMT metrics for the City of Santa Clarita and the
15 percent below threshold are presented in Table 6.
Figure 6 shows Home -Based Work VMT per Employee for TAZs in the City of Santa Clarita in comparison
to the citywide average. TAZs with Home -Based Work VMT per Employee lower than the citywide average
are concentrated around the Via Princessa Metrolink station and along the Railroad Avenue Corridor.
Additionally, several TAZs have no or few employees (less than 50 employees), and thus the Home -Based
Work VMT per Employee metric is not displayed in the map.
OPR's guidance for residential and office project screening and the implications of this guidance for the
City of Santa Clarita are presented below.
Screen the following project type from VMT analysis:
- Residential and Office projects located in low VMT generating TAZs, defined as VMT per capita or
VMT per employee that is at least 15% lower than the Baseline VMT.
The City is following OPR guidance which means that residential and office projects located in low VMT
areas, defined as 15% below the Baseline VMT for the City, would not need to complete a VMT analysis.
9
Peoa uo/fuco olinb3lau.-Y
a
CY
PLOn LioAue-) was
21
CL
peold PIO oqj
coo
vm
pLojj uoAuLD o:[!nbiqD
m
LJ
m
m
U
0
30
0>'
E
m
c
co
cm)
U')
m
c
u
m
U
>
m
0
aj
m
aj
aj
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) may also be exempt from VMT analysis. TPAs are
defined in the OPR Technical Advisory as a'/z mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop
or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor (HQTC). HQTCs are defined in the Technical
Advisory as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours. Figure 7 shows the TPAs within the City of Santa Clarita. Transit service may change
over time; Figure 7 represents the TPAs in Santa Clarita in the Spring of 2020. As project applicants seek to
use this screening criteria, they are responsible for reviewing the current transit service and demonstrating
how their project qualifies for this screening criteria.
The Metrolink stations in Santa Clarita meet the definition of a major transit stop referenced in the OPR
Technical Advisory. The TPA map includes the three existing and one planned Metrolink stations. Once the
Vista Canyon station opens and the Via Princessa station is removed, the area around Via Princessa will no
longer qualify as a TPA.
Two bus routes provided by Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) meet the definition of a HQTC presented above:
routes 799 and 797. Based on the OPR Technical Advisory, the area around all stops on a HQTC qualify as
a TPA. For Santa Clarita these stops include the McBean Regional Transit Center, Newhall Ave/Sierra
Highway Park & Ride, and other stops along McBean parkway and Orchard Village Road. With these
transit stations and stops, approximately 15 percent of the City is within a TPA.
Based on OPR guidance, projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant
impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, this presumption may not be appropriate if
the project:
■ Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75
■ Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the City
■ Is inconsistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the City)
■ Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income
residential units
OPR's guidance for TPA project screening and the implications of this guidance for the City of Santa
Clarita are presented below.
0
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Screen the following project types from VMT analysis:
Project is located in TPA and does NOT have the following characteristics:
o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) < US
o More parking than required by City
o Inconsistent with the applicable RTP/SCS (as determined by the City)
o Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income residential
units
The City is following OPR guidance which means that projects located within a'/z mile from the
Metrolink stations and SCT routes 799 and 797 would not need to complete a VMT analysis. The project
should also not have the following characteristics:
o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) < US
o More parking than required by City
o Inconsistent with the applicable RTP/SCS (as determined by the City)
o Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income residential
units
Affordable Housing Screening
Affordable housing is known to generate lower VMT than market -rate housing. In addition, affordable
housing in infill areas can shorten commutes by providing housing closer to where people work, thereby
reducing VMT. Affordable housing units can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT,
absent substantial evidence to the contrary, and can be screened from requiring further VMT analysis. The
screening can be applied to projects containing all affordable housing units or to only those units that
meet affordable housing requirements within a larger development.
Transportation projects that promote active transportation, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, are presumed to generally reduce VMT and can be screened from further analysis. In addition,
projects that improve safety or improve traffic operations at current bottlenecks, such as intersection
traffic control (e.g., traffic signals or roundabouts), or widening at intersections to provide new turn lanes
are not expected to increase VMT. The following types of transportation projects can be screened from
further VMT analysis.
■ Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the
condition of existing transportation facilities and do not add additional motor vehicle capacity
■ Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left,
right, and U-turn pockets, or two-way left turn lanes
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
■ Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially
improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit
■ Reduction in number of travel lanes
■ Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices
■ Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow
■ Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
■ Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices
SummaryVW Screening
Table 7 provides a summary of VMT screening criteria for projects in the City of Santa Clarita based on the
screening options described above. A project only needs to satisfy one of the screening criteria to be
exempt from requiring further VMT analysis. For mixed -use projects where only one land use component
meets the screening criteria (e.g., locally serving retail or affordable housing), only those components of
the project are screened from VMT analysis and the other components of the project must be analyzed.
For land use projects, screening criteria numbers one and four in Table 7 apply to the entire project,
whereas numbers two, three, and five apply only to the relevant land use component.
W
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
m Fize
1. Project
A project that generates 110 or fewer daily trips.
A project that has locally serving retail uses that are S0,000 square feet or less,
2. Locally Serving
including specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy, financial
Retail
services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and cafe. If the project
contains other land uses, those uses need to be considered under other applicable
screening criteria.
3. Project Located in a
A residential or office project that is located in an area that is already 1 S% below the
Low VMT Area
Baseline VMT.
A project that is located within a'/z mile of the Metrolink station or within a'/z mile
of a bus stop with service frequency of 1S minutes or less during commute periods.
In addition, the project should have the following characteristics:
4. Transit Proximity
A floor Area Ratio (FAR) of US or greater
Is consistent with the applicable SCAG SCS (as determined by the City)
Does not provide more parking than required by the City
Does not replacing affordable housing units
A residential project that provides affordable housing units; if part of a larger
5. Affordable Housing
development, only those units that meet the definition of affordable housing satisfy
the screening criteria.
Transportation projects that promote non -auto travel, improve safety, or improve
6. Transportation traffic operations at current bottlenecks, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian
Facilities facilities, intersection traffic control (e.g., traffic signals or roundabouts), or widening
at intersections to provide new turn lanes.
0
PeO8 uoAueD a:)Iria er'SV
0
I
JCI ")/JeA
commoc,
peon uoAue-.) ol!nbiqD
m
-FDo
o
L!
V)
(U
V)
0-
0
(U
(U
Lt
(U
(Ut
(u
C:
4
(A
C:
(A
(U
"
u
:t
"
u
(A
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Chapter 5 - VMT Thresholds and
Mitigation
This chapter presents the thresholds of significance and discusses mitigation options for projects that are
found to have a VMT impact.
The implementation of new CEQA guidance in the City of Santa Clarita includes the following:
V T Analysis Methodology: If the project is not screened from needing a VMT analysis, the City
can use the SCAG regional travel demand model to estimate a project's VMT as described in
Chapter 3. OPR recommends that VMT be reported as Home -Based VMT per Capita for
residential projects and Home -Based Work VMT per Employee for office projects. Total VMT or
VMT per Service Population can be reported for area plans, large-scale retail projects, or other
project types, such as special event venues.
2. V T Impact Thresholds: The City has discretion to develop and adopt their own impact
thresholds, or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies, provided the decision of the
lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. OPR recommends
that projects exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita or per employee
when compared to the citywide average may indicate an impact.
3. V TMitigation: The types of mitigation that effect VMT are those that reduce the number of
single -occupant vehicle trips generated by the site and their trip lengths. This can be
accomplished by changing the land uses being proposed or by implementing transportation
demand management (TDM) measures.
Each of these topics are discussed in further detail below.
VW Analysis Methodology
For projects that do not meet any of the screening criteria above, a VMT analysis would be required. The
VMT analysis would rely on the best available data to inform trip generation and trip length estimate for
the project uses. The VMT analysis should also be done using the same tools used to set the thresholds,
for an appropriate comparison. For land use plans (e.g., Specific Plan or General Plan) and projects
consisting of residential, office, and retail land uses, the VMT analysis can be conducted using the SCAG
model. For other project types, such as a performing arts center or special event venue, the VMT analysis
0
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
should be customized to determine the unique trip generation and trip length characteristics of the
proposed uses.
As required under current practice, the VMT analysis should consider the potential impacts of the project
under both existing and future/cumulative conditions as follows:
• Existing/BaselineConditions: Project -generated VMT should be estimated for the proposed
land uses under existing/Baseline conditions. VMT can be estimated using the SCAG regional
travel demand model and should be reported as VMT per capita (residential projects), VMT per
employee (office or employment -generating projects), or VMT per service population (all other
land uses). For land use plans and regional retail projects, VMT per service population or Total
VMT can be used to determine potential impacts.
•Cumulative Conditions: A less than significant impact under Existing/Baseline conditions would
also result in a less than significant cumulative impact as long as the project is consistent with the
SCAG RTP/SCS.
In some cases, the Project -effect on VMT should be estimated under cumulative conditions to determine
if VMT in the study area would be higher/lower in the future with the project in place. This analysis would
be applicable to large planning efforts that may result in changes to regional travel patterns. To evaluate
the project's effect on VMT, the future year travel demand model should be updated to reflect the project
and determine whether the Citywide VMT increases with the project. The user may elect to complete a
redistribution of land use to ensure that the "no project" assessment and the "with project" assessment
contain the same land use control totals for the City, especially if the project is large enough that it would
affect land use absorption elsewhere.
VW Impact Tbresholds
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, Thresholds of Significance, encourages lead agencies to develop and
publish thresholds of significance. Pursuant to Section 15064.7(b), the City can adopt thresholds of
significance for VMT by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation through a public review process
supported by substantial evidence. OPR's Technical Advisory has identified 15 percent below the Baseline
average as the threshold for identifying a significant VMT impact for land use projects and plans. This
threshold is based on research conducted to determine the VMT reduction needed in order to help the
State achieve its climate goals. CARB has quantified the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the
State's long-term climate goals and OPR sees reducing VMT to 15 percent below existing conditions as a
reasonable threshold for new development projects.
OPR guidance is also provided for transportation projects. For roadway widening projects, a significant
impact would occur if the project increased the Baseline VMT in the study area.
The VMT thresholds for projects and plans in the City of Santa Clarita are summarized below in Table 8.
0
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
Ill! III mmm=
+ .
Emm
Residential Project
Project exceeds 15% below citywide Baseline VMT for Home -Based VMT
per Capita
Employment
Project exceeds 15% below citywide Baseline VMT for Home -Based Work
(Commercial or
VMT per Employee
Industrial) Project
Regional Retail Project
Project results in a net increase in total VMT in comparison to the citywide
Baseline VMT
Mixed -Use Projects
Evaluate each project land use component separately using the criteria
above
Land Use Plans
Plan exceeds 15% below citywide Baseline VMT for Total VMT per service
population
Other land use types
Project exceeds 15% below citywide Baseline VMT.
For land use types not listed above, the City can determine the appropriate
VMT metric depending on the project characteristics. For projects that are
generally producingjob-relatedtravel, the employment generating VMT
(Home -Based Work VMT per Employee) can be compared to the Baseline.
For other projects, the total VMT per service population can be compared
to the citywide Baseline, or the net change in Total VMT can be estimated.
Transportation Projects Project results in an increase in VMT in the study area in comparison to
Baseline conditions
III Allitigations
For projects with VMT impacts, it is important to have mitigation options available for implementation to
try to remove or lower the impact. The types of mitigation that affect VMT are those that reduce the
number of single -occupant vehicles generated by the site. This can be accomplished by changing the land
uses being proposed or by implementing TDM strategies. TDM strategies are reductions to a project's trip
generation based on certain types of project site modifications, programming, and operational changes.
The goals of TDM align with goals laid out in the City's Non -Motorized Transportation Plan and General
Plan. The Non -Motorized Transportation Plans outlines strategies to improve and promote walking and
bicycling in Santa Clarita. A subset of the recommendations in the plan focus on TDM, including TDM
incentive programs for employers, parking pricing and management, and telecommuting, In addition to
Qmy gf SarA,t,,,ra trarnt„u Not? -(,�oturnzn�d Tr9n:5 ortratton Non,City of Saral�a a I,arit,i uqusiI� 2014 Ibt..t.a1__//www.sairnrta
Q;II, i.r t......Q ,inr7/Irma,inr7acz.I.. Ihowdocu,irr7,eir.t;?ii,d.::::::.`?3.0
MIS
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
the General Plan goals and policies listed in Chapter 2, there is a goal specifically about Vehicle Trip
reduction with two corresponding objectives:
• General Plan Goal C 3: Reduction of vehicle trips and emissions through effective management of
travel demand, transportation systems, and parking.
o Objective C 3.1: Promote the use of travel demand management strategies to reduce
vehicle trips.
o Objective C 3.3: Make more efficient use of parking and maximize economic use of land,
while decreasing impervious surfaces in urban areas, through parking management
strategies.
The effectiveness of TDM strategies, when applied to a project, should be based on the best and most
recent available research.
Research documented in the 2010 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
publication, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA, 2010). CAPCOA offers
methodology based on preferred literature, along with methodology based on alternative literature, to
estimate the effectiveness of each strategy.
Specific mitigation strategies need to be tailored to the project characteristics and their effectiveness
needs to be analyzed and documented as part of the environmental review process to determine if
impacts could be mitigated or if they would remain significant and unavoidable. Given that research on
the effectiveness of TDM strategies is continuing to evolve, feasible mitigation measures should be
considered based on the best data available at the time a project is being considered by the City.
The strategies described below are a sample of the options most effective in areas like Santa Clarita, many
of which correspond to objectives and policies in the General Plan.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Land Use & Location
Increase Density
Designing a Project with increased densities,
Minimizes number and
C 1.2.1
where allowed by the General Plan and/or
length of vehicle trips and
Zoning Ordinance reduces GHG emissions
provides greater options
associated with traffic in several ways.
for use of alternative
modes.
Increase Diversity of
Includes mixed uses within Projects or in
Minimizes number and
C 1.2.S
Urban and Suburban
consideration of surrounding area.
length of vehicle trips.
Developments (Mixed
Use)
Increase Destination
Destination accessibility is measured in terms of
Minimizes number and
C 1.2.S
Accessibility
the number of jobs or other attractions
length of vehicle trips.
reachable within a given travel time, which
tends to be highest at central locations and
lowest at peripheral ones.
Increase Transit
Locating a project with high density near transit
Encourages transit use to
C 4.1,
Accessibility
will facilitate the use of transit by people
replace vehicle trips.
C S.3,
traveling to or from the Project site. The use of
C SA
transit results in a mode shift and therefore
reduced VMT.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Neighborhood/ Site Enhancement
Provide Pedestrian
Network
Improvements
Providing a pedestrian access network to link
areas of the Project site encourages people to
walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in
people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT.
Encourages people to walk
within and to a Project
C 7.2
Implement a
NEVs offer an alternative to traditional vehicle
Minimizes length of vehicle
C 3.2
Neighborhood Electric
trips and can legally be used on roadways with
trips; electrification reduces
Vehicle (NEV) Network
speed limits of 35 MPH or less. They are ideal
GHG emissions.
for short trips up to 30 miles in length.
Provide Traffic
Providing traffic calming measures encourages
Encourages people to walk
C 1.1.7
Calming Measures
people to walk or bike instead of using a
or bicycle, especially for
vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease
shorter trips.
in VMT. Project design will include
pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming
measures in excess of jurisdiction requirements.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
...........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................i���������������������������������������i,:.III;;;;, , ,,,,,,,,1i*MM111%6=1iiW1=
0000in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. ..
Commute Trip Reduction
Implement Car-
Sharing Program
Projects can implement a car -sharing program
to allow people to have on -demand access to a
shared fleet of vehicles on an as -needed basis.
Car -sharing programs may be grouped into
three general categories: residential- or
citywide -based, employer -based, and transit
station -based.
Reduces need to own a
vehicle or the number of
household vehicles.
NA
Encourage
Encouraging telecommuting and alternative
Reduces the number of
C 3.1.3
telecommuting and
work schedules reduces the number of
days employees need to
Alternative Work
commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by
work and/or shifts
Schedules
employees. Alternative work schedules could
commute time outside of
take the form of staggered start times, flexible
peak periods to avoid
schedules, or compressed work weeks.
adding congestion.
Commute Trip
Projects can implement a voluntary Commute
Encourages alternatives to
C 3.1.1,
Reduction Programs
Trip Reduction program with employers to
commuting in single-
C 3.1.4,
discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and
occupancy vehicles.
C 3.1.5,
encourage alternative modes of transportation.
C 3.1.6
Alternatively, ajurisdiction can implement a
Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance with the
intent of reducing drive -alone travel mode
share.
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
Parking Policy/Pricing
Limit Parking Supply
Projects can change parking requirements and
types of supply within the Project site to
encourage "smart growth" development and
alternative transportation choices by project
residents and employees.
Encourages alternatives to
the use of single-
occupancy vehicles.
C 3.3.1,
C 3.3.4
Unbundle Parking Costs
Unbundling separates parking from property
Encourages alternatives to
NA
from Property Cost
costs, requiring those who wish to purchase
the use of single -
parking spaces to do so at an additional cost
occupancy vehicles.
from the property cost.
Implement Market-
Price all central business district/employment
Encourages people to park
C 3.3.8
Price Public Parking
center/retail center on -street parking to
once and walk between
encourage "park once" behavior. This deters
destinations instead of
parking spillover from project -supplied parking
driving.
to other public parking nearby to avoid
undermining the VMT benefits of pricing
project -supplied parking.
M
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
chapter 6 - Local Transportation
Assessment Guidelines
This section outlines the City's guidelines for studying a project's effects on the transportation system.
While CEQA requirements have changed, the City can continue to dictate the types of analysis to be
conducted for land use and transportation projects, such as continuing to include LOS. While LOS would
no longer constitute a CEQA impact, it can still be used to inform decision makers on the overall effects of
a project.
Upon adoption of the new transportation impact thresholds to comply with CEQA under SB 743, the City
would implement the following process for conducting transportation studies.
1. Transportation Impact Analysis for CEQA: Projects would first be reviewed to determine if there
is a potential for significant environmental impacts. If the project does not meet the VMT
screening criteria, a VMT analysis would be required to determine if the project exceeds the
thresholds adopted by the City of Santa Clarita. Following the VMT screening process and/or
analysis, the City would make the determination on the appropriate environmental
documentation needed based on all potential environmental impacts. If an EIR is required, the
VMT impact analysis and findings of significance would be included in the Transportation section.
2. Leal Transportation Assessment: The purpose of the Local Transportation Assessment is to
provide the in-depth project review that the City has historically undertaken to determine if
operational improvements are needed to accommodate a project. However, this report would be
prepared separately from the documentation required under CEQA. Similar to current practice,
the City's Traffic Engineer defines the requirements for the Local Transportation Assessment.
The guidelines below generally maintain the current process and stipulate that current thresholds of
significance can be applied to determine if improvements are needed to accommodate a proposed
project as part of the Local Transportation Assessment but cannot be used to evaluate impacts under
CEQA. The previous requirements of the County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) no longer
apply.
Study Area
The study area shall be determined by the City's Traffic Engineer based on the project's vehicle -trip
generation and distribution. Analyzed locations should primarily consist of major signalized and
unsignalized intersections that are likely to be affected by the project. Intersections where the proposed
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita
project would add 50 or more net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours should be included in the
study. Projects generating less than 50 peak hour trips are not required to complete a Local
Transportation Assessment. However, the City may require a site access evaluation.
Study Scenarios
Project's should continue to consider traffic operational effects under both existing and future (project
opening year, also called cumulative year) conditions. The following scenarios should be included:
I. Existing
II. Existing Plus Project
III. Cumulative
IV. Cumulative Plus Project
The following additional scenarios may be required for larger multi -phased projects, Specific Plans, and
General Plan updates:
Long-term Buildout
II. Long-term Buildout Plus Project
Trip generation estimates should be based on the best available data. In most cases, data published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers provides reasonable trip generation estimates for land uses in
the City. However, where available, trip generation should be based on local data.
ForecastsVolume
The Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) should be used to forecast traffic volumes.
The model is regularly updated as development projects in the City open, and is the best available tool to
projecting intersection volumes. The future scenario of the model is based on the City's and County's
General Plans.
The latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method of intersection capacity calculation is
the preferred methodology to analyze signalized intersections within the City of Santa Clarita. The table
below lists the recommended delay methodology for signalized, stop -controlled, and roundabout
intersections.
]7
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
Level of service based on "average vehicle delay' calculated as follows:
- Synchro/HCM delay based intersection methodology for traffic signals
- HCM 2010 delay based intersection methodology for stop sign control
- Sidra delay based intersection methodology for roundabouts
The LOS definitions for roadway segments and signalized, stop -controlled, and roundabout intersections
are as follows:
A 1 0.00-0.60 1 < 10.0 1 < 10.0
B 1 0.61-0.70 1 > 10.0 to 20.0 1 > 10.0 to 1 S.0
C 1 0.71-0.80 1 > 20.0 to 3S.0 I > 1 S.0 to 2S.0
D 1 0.81-0.90 1 > 3S.0 to SS.0 I > 2S.0 to 3S.0
E 1 0.91-1.00 1 > SS.0 to 80.0 1 > 3S.0 to S0.0
F Above 1 > 80.0 > S0.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manua(, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
Under current practice, a significant impact is triggered when the level of service is degraded by Project -
added trips from LOS D to LOS E or F, or if an intersection is already operating at LOS D or worse, an
impact is triggered by increases in delay, as described in the table below. These criteria would continue to
be applied to determine if intersection improvements are needed to accommodate the proposed
development.
An intersection is considered to be affected if the Project would:
- Worsen an intersection maintained by the City of Santa Clarita from LOS D or better to LOS E or F
- Cause the following increase in delay at an intersection maintained by the City of Santa Clarita
that operated (with the project) at LOS D or worse
- LOS D with the project: more than 4-second increase in delay is significant
- LOS E or F with the project: more than 2-second increase in delay is significant
Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Ciorito
One of the improvements the City may consider for unsignalized intersections is installation of a traffic
signal. The City of Santa Clarita uses a combination of warrants to see if a signal is justified. Traffic signal
warrants are defined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The
MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration and then adapted by Caltrans to provide
uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. The signal warrant
analysis is intended to examine the general correlation between the planned level of future development
and the need to install new traffic signals and should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and
when to install a signal. The City's traffic engineer should make the ultimate determination on the
appropriate types of improvements to implement (if any) for unsignalized intersections.
Projects should also be reviewed for potential conflicts with adopted plans and policies related to active
transportation, such as the City's Non -Motorized Transportation Plan and General Plan. Any planned
improvements in the immediate vicinity of the project site should be noted and incorporated into the
project site plan, as necessary.
Documentation
The methodology and analysis results based on the requirements above should be documented in a Local
Transportation Assessment Report, which would remain separate from the CEQA report. The Local
Transportation Assessment Report includes vehicle operations analysis (intersection and segment LOS)
and identifies any local transportation improvements that may be required to accommodate the
development site. This report will be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and submitted to Planning
Commission and City Council as part of the decision -making process.