CEQA Reform Update: Is This the End for LOS?

Finally, some sanity may be coming to California’s most important environmental protection law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under current law, all projects, be they rail lines, bike plans, or new buildings would have to prove that it would not impact local driving times or it would have to complete a costly mitigation plan.

LOS, simplified. Image: ##http://saferoutescalifornia.org/category/city-of-los-angeles-news/##Safe Routes California##

Traffic plans and projections are routinely challenged by NIMBYs, which sometimes lead to delay of a project, such as the implementation of San Francisco’s bike plan, and other times just lead to local annoyance, as the recently concluded lawsuit against Los Angeles’ Expo Line.

However, a series of amendments to SB 731 written by Senator Darrell Steinberg changes that standard. Instead of looking at Level of Service, (LOS) the barometer of how quickly cars can move through the street, projects will be evaluated on how they impact air quality, noise, safety and overall mobility. For years, CEQA studies have led to more fast moving traffic, more sprawl and more dangerous communities.

An early version of the amendments only applied the LOS change to transit districts, but that was amended to include the entire state in yesterday’s committee hearings.

In the Sacramento Bee, Curt Johanson of the California Infill Builder’s Association notes that these changes will finally have CEQA working as it’s supposed to. By measuring whether or not a project increases traffic instead of congestion, air pollution instead of drive time, and public safety instead of speed, Steinberg is putting the E back in CEQA:

“By moving toward these real environmental measures, Steinberg’s bill makes good projects in the right locations easier and ensures more thorough environmental review of all projects. Projects would get rewarded for reducing overall driving and burdened if they contribute to more, resulting in a solution that both business advocates and environmentalists can agree is healthy in the long term for all Californians.”

Autumn Bernstein, the director of Climate Plan, concurs. She writes of the updated SB 731, “Its a game-changer for bike lanes, BRT projects, and infill developments have been stymied by CEQA’s outdated fixation on Level of Service.”

Odds of 731 passing have increased since Streetsblog discussed the legislation last week. Steinberg shelved popular legislation such as SB 1, which would have funded portions of other smart growth legislation, to focus on CEQA reform. SB 731 cleared the Assembly Natural Resources Committee yesterday and is expected to be heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee today. That leaves two days for a vote of the full Assembly and a hastily assembled conference committee between the Assembly and Senate, before heading to the Governor’s desk. SB 731 passed in the Senate earlier this year.

While Bernstein praised the changes to LOS that now appear in the legislation, she is even more enthused by changes  that will help prevent physical or economic displacement, commonly thought of as gentrification.

These measures could include rent stabilization ordinances, inclusionary zoning, housing impact fees, and condominium conversion restrictions. SB 731 is now one of the few pieces of legislation to recognize that there is an environmental and societal harm to policies and projects that displace residents and uproot communities. The California Planning and Development Report explains that the politics of this proposed change aren’t cut and dry:

In the past, the state has explicitly rejected moves toward assessing the socioeconomic impact of development via CEQA – in contrast to New York, whose CEQA equivalent moved in that direction a long time ago (but is not as frequently used on private development). These amendments reveal the tension among liberal Democrats in reforming CEQA. On the one hand, they want more infill development. But on the other hand, they can’t let go of the idea that infill development will be bad for people who currently live in urban neighborhoods.

Of course, nothing is certain in the California legislature, and a powerful collection of business and oil interests are trying to gut CEQA. Streetsblog discussed earlier today how some of the arguments put forward by these interests are, to put it kindly, less than true.

While it is certainly frustrating for transportation reform advocates to see frivolous lawsuits or delays to projects, removing a broad portion of the state’s environmental protections, as opposed to the technical changes proposed by Steinberg, would undermine legislation credited with halting off-shore dumping, electrifying the port of Los Angeles and saving California’s redwood forests.

Streetsblog will continue to follow SB 731 as it advances this week.

  • brianmojo

    This is a great move, and by all indication really focuses on what the bill was supposed to be in the first place.

  • Jamison Wieser

    Totally! LOS was a huge step from nothing but dates back to different era and before there was computer software to model traffic (and desktop computers to run it on)

  • Sam M.

    Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that CEQA itself never mandated using LOS to measure transportation impacts. It has always been my understanding that CEQA simply requires transportation impacts to be evaluated, and many local jurisdictions adopted LOS standards as their measures of effectiveness for those impacts.

  • BikeHair

    Not sure if the reporting accurately reflects the recent Bill’s changes.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB731

    The intent of the bill still seems to be regulatory relief in ‘Transit Priority Areas’. Removal of LOS altogether would likely not benefit infill relative to ex-urban development. It would be better to apply LOS exemption in infill areas, and perhaps make contingent on criteria that requires inclusionary housing.

  • This was amended last night so that the TPA portion was removed. I got confirmation this morning that the TPA provision is not in the most recent copy of the legislation.

  • GC

    A, B, and C look like they’re speeding. D should be the goal.

  • Anonymous

    I believe that the CEQA legislation never mandated using LOS, but the administrative guidelines included the effect on parking and on LOS as impacts that had to be evaluated under CEQA.

    A couple of years ago, the administrative guidelines changed (without new legislation), so parking was no longer considered an impact and cities had the option of choosing alternative measures to replace LOS. I heard news that San Jose and San Francisco were coming up with alternative measures based on trip generation to replace LOS, but they apparently never finalized them.

    Now, I guess those efforts in San Jose and San Francisco are moot because of this new legislation. For a report on San Francisco’s efforts, see http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/02/09/sf-agencies-take-aim-at-bureaucratic-obstacles-to-a-transit-first-city/

  • Alice Urban

    LOS measures local impact only, and pushes development to sprawl, causing much larger regional impacts. And air quality, traffic, water quality, etc. are regional impacts, not local. As the article points out, urban infill will get tripped up on LOS and perhaps fail its CEQA review, whereas a greenfield development that will induce large amounts of longer-distance driving, contributing to congestion on many miles of roads, will be graded as having less impact. The NIMBY’s who use CEQA to prevent development that would generate a few short car trips contribute to the sprawl that generates many long car trips.
    Instead of grading a single development, CEQA should grade the adopted comp plans and use regional impact measures. (Envision Tomorrow is an open-source set of tools to do this.) Only plans that want variances should need individual review, and the review would be whether the proposal is better than the adopted plan or not. Simple, cheap, fast, and means that we actually implement the adopted plans that use so much citizen and staff time. Once adopted, the plan should get built; any development that conforms to the plan should be presumed to conform to CEQA.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Excitement, Confusion Over Proposed Changes to CEQA

|
With today’s deadline looming for comments on new rules governing the way the state analyzes transportation planning impacts, many transportation planners and engineers remain confused about what the new rules might mean while others join advocates in hoping that new rules will create better projects. SB 743, signed into law last year, removes traffic Level of […]