HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Amend City Council Policy K-3 to Incorporate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
June 9, 2020
Item No. 13
Subject: FW: Resolution No 2020-57; Amend K-3 Policy
Attachments: SCAG Map of HQTA.pdf
From: Debbie Stevens <dstevens@envaudit.com>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 4:35 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Resolution No 2020-57; Amend K-3 Policy
Mayor O'Neill and City Councilmembers:
First, the city needs to update City Council Policy K-3 and I support some of the proposed changes. However, I would
like to ask that the approval to the amendment to City Council Policy K-3 be delayed for additional public outreach so
that our community is better informed on the reasons that revisions to K-3 are mandated by state law. I know that
public outreach is a little more challenging in the COVID-19 era, but traffic is one of the most debated impacts in our
community. Newport Beach will be considering some very important projects in the near future, such as the Housing
Element Update. Newport Beach has been mandated to include over 4,800 new residential units (which is subject to
change) and this level of development would be expected to trigger the requirements for a vote under Greenlight for
approval of the Housing Element. It seems essential to me to better educate the public on the need for these changes,
before they see it in an EIR for a project they would vote on and potentially reject it because they were uninformed.
The amendments to Policy K-3 would implement SB 743, which was signed into law in September 27, 2013, requires that
CEQA documents consider vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to make significance determinations under CEQA, as opposed to
level of service (LOS) analyses. The Technical Guidance for implementing these requirements were issued in December
2018 by the Office of Planning and Research, so these requirements have been on the books for a number of years. The
requirements to use VMT vs LOS analyses have been used by many jurisdictions for several years, but become
mandatory on July 1, 2020. The City could use OPR guidance on VMT (which is essentially what is being proposed in
Policy K-3) on a case-by-case basis for any CEQA document being prepared until and such time as K-3 is officially adopted
within the next month or so. The City uses a number of CEQA thresholds developed by other agencies without formally
adopting such thresholds, e.g., the SCAQMD significance thresholds for air quality. Policy K-3 does not need to be
approved by July 1, 2020 but should be delayed to provide more public outreach on this very important change in
policy.
Finally, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) identified High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) in the
SCAG Region for the 2045 Plan (see the attached Figure). High density development (projects with more than 0.75 floor
area ratio) within HQTA areas would be assumed to have no significant traffic impacts, regardless of the size of the
development. SCAG did not include Route 55 as a HQTC (Route from 6th/Flower Street in Santa Ana into Newport
Transit Center). Including Route 55 as a HQTA means that most high density development (e.g., one million square feet
of office space, 1,000 residential units, etc.) in Newport Center would have no significant traffic impacts as they would
have access to a bus route and would be assumed to use that bus route for transportation. Based on the information
that I can find it would take 1.5 hours to travel from the Newport Transportation Center to 6th/Flower in Santa Ana by
bus. By vehicle, it would probably be 30-45 mins during rush hour traffic, less than half of the time it would take by
bus. I don't see how that would be called a high quality transit area/corridor or how it would meet the goals of reducing
VMT if the transit time via bus is more than double the transit time by car.
Thank you for your consideration.
Debbie Stevens
N..P." C-%
Big -y-
HIJIti
N..P." C-%
Received After Agenda Printed
June 9, 2020
Item No. 13
Subject: FW: VMT - June 9th City Council Agenda Item 13 Policy K-13 amendment
Attachments: Policy K-3 amendment comments DT.pdf
From: dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 12:50 PM
To:'tbrine@newportbeachca.gov' <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: 'citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov'<citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Seimone Jurjis
(siuriis@newportbeachca.gov) <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: VMT - June 9th City Council Agenda Item 13
Hi Tony,
I reviewed the staff report and attached materials. I called Seimone to congratulate Planning on a job well done, but he
stopped me and said you deserved all the credit. You did a great job.
I participated in several of the OPR SB743 Implementation Webinars and have had a number of follow-up emails with
OPR. Two points OPR stressed: 1) OPR is not providing legal advice, and 2) to base decisions on substantial evidence.
I'd like to recommend the following changes:
• Resolution, #H VMT Analysis Methodology (pg. 13-20)
1 Introduction
"Transportation/49k Impacts". (delete traffic. Traffic is no longer a topic in CEQA)
2 Proiect Screening
(A)(i)
"A Land Use Project and/or Transportation Project that based on substantial evidence meet one or more of the criteria
provided in Subsection (2)(a) and or (2)(b) below are considered to have"
Insert "substantial evidence"
Basis for the requested change - May 26, 2020 email from Chris Ganson, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(email sent separately)
"please see the substantial evidence provided in references on pp. 14-15 of our technical advisory.". This
should not be based on a presumption, the decision should be based on substantial evidence.
am
Please justify why projects in these areas warrant exemption from VMT mitigation. Why do the screening criteria not
apply city-wide?
As written, the Resolution does not require substantial evidence. By approving the Resolution with criteria (i) and (ii)
certain areas of the City will benefit and other areas will suffer. Will this decision place any member of the City Council
in a potential conflict of interest?
How will these screening criteria apply to the General Plan update project CEQA document?
(vi)
Define high level of affordable housing. This should be based on substantial evidence per OPR Technical Advisory, or the
City Council should establish the level of affordability (based on a finding of overriding public benefit from affordable
housing). What happens with a mixed-use project with a high level of affordability?
6. TPO Analysis
Why is this hear? Policy K-3 applies only to CEQA. Is the TPO part of CEQA? Please clarify (I fully support the TPO being
integrated into CEQA).
Attachment C
This is a DRAFT document. This document should be finalized before becoming the adopted City SB 743 Implementation
Plan
What public outreach has occurred?
Staff Presentation to City Council - Recommendations
Provide exhibits depicting areas within the City subject to Screening Criteria (A)(i) and (ii).
Provide substantial evidence that the City's existing VMT is equal to the County average VMT.
Explain how VMT will impact different types of projects, including the General Plan update and local Coastal Plan.
Recommend staff future workshops to educate the decisionmakers and public on VMT and how it will impact the City.
Other
Revise the Resolution to include adoption of the 2018 State updated CEQA Guidelines. Why is a revision to Policy K-3
warranted for VMT and not warranted for the 2018 State updated CEQA Guidelines?
Thank you,
David J. Tanner, President
Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc.
223 62nd Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 646-8958 wk
949 233-0895 cell
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and
permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof.
Mayor O'Neill, Members of the City Council
Subject: June 9, 2020, City Council Agenda Item 13 - Resolution No. 2020-57: Amend City
Council Policy K-3 to Incorporate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology
Mr. Mayor,
You may recall, State housing laws started out innocently enough, then grew teeth. VMT
is on the same path. We need to take this very seriously.
The State Chamber of Commerce, the Building Industry Association and State elected officials are
currently urging the Governor to postpone SB 743's implementation. Why?
VMT is a new tax on all projects subject to CEQA. Despite the State providing a phase-in period
to develop VMT methodologies; the Office of Planning and Research preparing a guidance
document and hosting a series of Webinars, VMT methodology is not well thought out, the
implementing guidance is complicated, confusing, time consuming and costly. Keep in mind the
General Plan Update is a project subject to CEQA.
For example: OPR suggests screening projects to determine if they need to evaluate VMT. OPR
suggests basing the screening criteria on presumptions. While at the same time, OPR affirms
CEQA's underlying principal that findings be based on substantial evidence, not speculation.
These presumptions include people who live in affordable housing projects and people within 1/2
mile of a bus stop will drive at least 15% less. Without substantial evidence this is pure speculation
designed to forward the State's priorities to streamline and reduce the cost of additional affordable
housing units and promote the use of mass transit.
Staff is proposing the City adopt these presumptions and others, including the presumption people
and businesses in Newport Beach drive the same number of miles per day as the County average.
However, there is no evidence for Newport Beach to support these presumptions. If these
presumptions are adopted, affordable housing projects and areas within 1/2 mile of a bus stop will
be exempt from this tax and the rest of the City will have to pay this tax.
I support the proposed amendment to Policy K-3. I also support the ongoing effort to have the
Governor postpone SB 743's implementation.
Therefore, I recommend the Council adopt the proposed amendment to Policy K-3 with the
following provisions:
1. That all decisions be based on substantial evidence, not presumptions and speculation.
2. The City Council not adopt the draft Implementation Plan (Attachment C) until the Plan
has been fully vetted throughout the City.
David Tanner Page 1 of 2 June 9,2020
dave@earsi.com
Few people know the meaning of the letters VMT and only a fraction of those understand
any of the concepts detailed in the draft Implementation Plan, let alone the long-term
implications for the City.
Just as State housing mandates are having a significant impact on land use and quality of life, VMT
mitigation will have a similar if not more significant impact on the City. We need to fully
understand these effects and our options prior to deciding which coarse is best for Newport Beach.
The way the draft Resolution is written creates the potential for conflicts of interest. Some areas
of the City will benefit while other areas will be negatively impacted. The same with businesses.
Please make sure none of the Council members have a conflict of interest. I believe potential
conflicts of interest can be avoided if the amendment to Policy K-3 stipulates all decisions be based
on substantial evidence, not presumptions and speculation.
Thank you.
David Tanner Page 2 of 2 June 9,2020
dave@earsi.com