California Environmental Quality Act: transportation impacts: vehicle miles traveled: mitigation.

Caltrans is now required to develop vehicle-miles-travel mitigation guidance for nonmetropolitan counties on or before December 31, 2030. The previous version had no specific deadline.

A new sunset provision limits the VMT presumption to projects for which the lead agency issues a notice of preparation for the environmental impact report on or before December 31, 2031. After that date, the presumption no longer applies even if guidance has not yet been published.

The threshold for the less-than-significant transportation impact presumption was lowered from 80% to 70% of the project lying within one or more nonmetropolitan counties, making it easier for projects in rural areas to qualify.

Assembly Member Rivas was added as principal coauthor of the bill.

The 5% cap on total VMT mitigation costs relative to estimated total project cost is eliminated. Previously, mitigation measures exceeding 5% of project cost were deemed economically infeasible under CEQA.

Caltrans must develop guidance on VMT mitigation measures for transportation projects in nonmetropolitan counties, including case studies comparing costs, a review of direct and indirect mitigation measures, identification of implementation barriers, process recommendations, and recommended significance thresholds for projects not adding general purpose lanes.

The 80% nonmetropolitan county presumption that a project has less than significant transportation impact is now temporary. It becomes inoperative upon Caltrans' development and publication of the required guidance.

'Demonstrated evacuation need' is narrowed from a broad definition covering capacity increases, fatality reduction, access needs, disaster functionality, and alternative routes to only projects specifically identified in an adopted local hazard mitigation plan, general plan safety element, local emergency operations plan, or other approved evacuation plan.

'Demonstrated safety need' is narrowed to focus on reducing the number and severity of injuries or fatalities (including risks to vulnerable road users), removing the broader language about upgrading infrastructure to meet current design standards or improving safety for all users.

The definition of 'rural county' (population under 200,000) is removed. The bill now relies solely on the 'nonmetropolitan county' designation from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee methodology.

The provision explicitly allowing lead agencies to approve projects with significant and unavoidable impacts by adopting a statement of overriding considerations (under Section 21081 and related regulations) is removed.

A new presumption was added: a transportation project is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under the VMT metric if at least 80 percent of the project lies within one or more nonmetropolitan counties. This effectively exempts most rural projects from VMT mitigation requirements.

The amendment to Section 29000 of the Public Resources Code (a nonsubstantive renaming of the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977) was removed from the bill entirely.

A new definition of 'nonmetropolitan county' was added, tying it to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's Methodology for Determining Rural Status of Project Site for 2025 Applications issued January 1, 2025.

The definition of 'demonstrated evacuation need' was tightened to require that the project be specifically identified as necessary in an adopted local hazard mitigation plan, general plan safety element, local emergency operations plan, or other approved evacuation plan developed through a public process.

The definition of 'demonstrated safety need' was significantly expanded to require the lead agency to demonstrate necessity through documented collision, injury, or fatality data specific to the project location, or through a risk-based or systemic safety analysis consistent with state and federal guidance.

The fiscal committee vote changed from 'no' to 'yes' and the state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' acknowledging the bill imposes new duties on local agencies that trigger reimbursement analysis and fiscal review.

Entirely new Section 21081.4 added to the Public Resources Code establishing a cap on VMT-based transportation mitigation costs for projects in rural counties (population under 200,000).

An exception carves out projects adding general purpose lanes to the state highway system: the cap does not apply unless the project has a demonstrated safety need (reducing collisions, upgrading to safer design standards) or evacuation need (increasing emergency traffic capacity, providing safe evacuation routes, maintaining functionality during disasters).

Mitigation measures addressing significant transportation impacts via the VMT metric that exceed 5% of estimated total project cost are deemed economically infeasible under CEQA, effectively allowing lead agencies to waive them.

The 5% mitigation cap applies only to transportation projects located within rural counties (defined as counties with population under 200,000 per the most recent federal census or Department of Finance estimates).

New definitions added for 'demonstrated evacuation need,' 'demonstrated safety need,' 'estimated total project cost' (total capital construction cost as estimated in the environmental review document), 'rural county,' and 'transportation project.'

Fiscal committee review changed from 'no' to 'yes' and state-mandated local program changed from 'no' to 'yes,' reflecting the new duties imposed on lead agencies. A reimbursement exemption was added stating no state reimbursement is required because local agencies can levy sufficient fees.

Lead agencies retain authority to approve projects with significant and unavoidable impacts using a statement of overriding considerations under Section 21081, even when the mitigation cap applies.