Skip to Content
Streetsblog San Francisco home
Streetsblog San Francisco home
Log In

CA Assembly Committee Moves Bill to Delay Level Of Service Phase-Out

Phasing out LOS in favor of VMT is pitting bona fide infill builders against astroturf infill builders. Image of Kings River Village infill development from Council of Infill Builders

The California Assembly Natural Resources Committee voted Tuesday to move legislation that will delay the state's shift away from car-centric planning.

A.B. 779 aims to slow the removal of Level of Service (LOS) from California environmental regulations by delaying implementation of guidelines currently being developed by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

In 2013, California passed S.B. 743 which required the OPR to develop a replacement for LOS that more closely reflects the state's climate change goals. OPR plans to replace the car-centric LOS with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the measurement of environmental impacts required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A switch to measuring VMT will change the goal from moving cars to reducing driving.

The bill's author, Assemblymember Cristina Garcia said “this isn't about getting rid of VMT. VMT is a fine measure. This bill would press 'pause' on the process.”

The bill's sponsors claim that having to analyze VMT would be burdensome and duplicative, since in some cases they would still be required to produce an LOS analysis to meet local planning requirements.

However, that claim looks pretty specious for several reasons.

For one, OPR's guidelines will excuse most infill projects from any transportation analysis under CEQA, so there would be no need for "duplicative analyses." That's because projects within a half-mile of a major transit stop, as defined in the bill, would be exempt. An earlier draft of A.B. 779 would have removed the word "major" in this definition, thus would have exempted pretty much any kind of development near any bus stop anywhere in the state, no matter how sparse the transit service there is.

VMT studies will also be much simpler than current LOS traffic studies. According to Ethan Elkind, a faculty member at the UCLA and UC Berkeley law schools who has written about the bill, OPR's proposed guidelines provide local governments more judicial deference for their VMT analysis than they currently have for LOS, which reduces the risk of being sued under CEQA.

"Infill projects come out way ahead with these proposed guidelines. It's the sprawl projects that will suffer, because they induce so much VMT," adds Elkind.

OPR is scheduled to submit a second draft of its guidelines in the summer, which will be followed by a 45-day public comment period. There could be more drafts, and more public comment periods, if changes are substantial.

The co-chair of the committee, Assemblymember Das Williams, recommended voting yes based on the claims of the bill's sponsors, who call themselves the Infill Builders Federation. However, the members of this group build malls and office parks, not the kind of infill that, in the words of Assemblymember Garcia, result in “fewer cars on the road, less miles traveled, and a better economic life."

Williams and the rest of the committee ignored testimony from Meea Kang, the founder of a group of actual infill developers, the Council of Infill Builders.

Kang showed up at the hearing to officially oppose the bill. Kang had just come from a panel discussion at the TransForm Transportation Choices Summit, where she talked about the obstacles she faced building infill housing. She talked about NIMBYism, fear of density, inappropriate parking requirements, lack of supportive transit, and the process of figuring out how to provide transit passes to residents for thirty years. One thing she didn't mention was having to complete “duplicative analyses.”

“A number of infill builders are already using VMT as a measure,” she said at the hearing. This is because the kind of infill that produces the “fewer cars, less miles traveled” extolled by Assemblymember Garcia would benefit from VMT analysis.

S.B. 743, the CEQA reform bill that calls for replacing LOS, is creating “a sea change in how we analyze travel,” said Kang. “To stop now before the process is complete is short-sighted.”

She urged the state to keep moving towards finding ways of getting rid of greenhouse gas emissions. “This bill would roll that back,” she said. “We need to stay with the process.”

Despite the opposition of this infill builders group [PDF], and from a coalition of groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenbelt Alliance, and TransForm [PDF], the committee voted 7-0 to pass the bill onward. A.B. 779 goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and from there to the floor of the Assembly.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter