Chris Calfee, senior counsel at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), told the Transportation Commission that OPR’s preliminary discussion draft implementing Senate Bill 743 would remove auto delay (level of service) as the primary CEQA transportation impact and instead suggest vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) as the analytical metric.

The proposal would treat ‘‘auto delay by itself [as] no longer considered [a] environmental impact,’’ Calfee said, adding that the draft “chose vehicle miles traveled for a couple of reasons” including statutory direction and existing use of VMT in greenhouse‑gas analyses.

The proposal aims to align CEQA transportation analysis with state climate and infill‑development priorities and to avoid requiring mitigation that can work against those goals. ‘‘Level of service treats congestion as an adverse environmental impact,’’ Calfee said, and that approach has sometimes discouraged infill and multimodal development. Under the draft, OPR would provide examples of projects presumed to be less than significant for VMT, such as projects within a half‑mile of transit or projects that reduce area‑wide VMT. The draft also includes guidance on safety, mitigation examples and a ‘‘rule of reason’’ for methodology so lead agencies need not seek perfect modeling accuracy.

Why it matters

OPR and commenters said a change from LOS to VMT could reduce conflicts between CEQA studies and the state’s greenhouse‑gas goals and planning priorities by focusing review on miles traveled and multimodal outcomes rather than only on auto delay. Caltrans, counties and cities voiced concern about practical consequences outside transit‑rich urban areas and about the technical and staffing burden of new VMT analyses in rural and suburban jurisdictions.

What presenters said

Calfee described the statutory timing as tight: SB 743 gave OPR roughly six months to issue a first draft. He said OPR vetted options with transportation engineers, attorneys, local governments and metropolitan planning organizations before issuing a preliminary discussion draft and will revise it in response to public comment.

Komei Jisei of Caltrans said the department has met frequently with OPR and supports carve‑outs for safety, maintenance and non‑capacity projects to avoid impeding work needed to keep highways and bridges functioning. Kiana Buss of the California State Association of Counties said CSAC ‘‘did not have a position on SB 743’’ and urged OPR to phase in a new metric outside transit priority areas, recommending a multi‑year pilot approach. Kirsten Kopitke of the League of California Cities urged clarity that local governments may continue to use LOS in general plans and zoning.

Eric Brewer, chair of an Institute of Transportation Engineers task force, said ITE members accept VMT as the performance measure but warned that setting significance thresholds and performing induced‑travel analyses for roadway capacity projects could be technically difficult and might make some projects harder to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration.

Public‑interest and local government voices

Developers and infill advocates praised the draft for protecting plans that promote compact, walkable neighborhoods. Mott Smith of the Council of Infill Builders said the change ‘‘could make a huge difference’’ by reducing CEQA litigation that can block infill projects. Pasadena’s director of transportation, Fred Dock, said Pasadena has been preparing to use VMT per capita in local CEQA practice and supports OPR’s approach.

Implementation, timing and next steps

The draft would start in transit priority areas and let other jurisdictions opt in; OPR included a placeholder statewide effective date of Jan. 1, 2016 but said that date is likely to change. OPR extended its public comment deadline to Nov. 21, 2014 and will consider changes after that comment period. Calfee said substantial revisions would prompt additional public review and that adoption would proceed through the Natural Resources Agency’s formal rule‑making process with hearings and responses to comments.

Questions and concerns raised

Commissioners and panelists pressed OPR on how VMT will handle future electric vehicles, how thresholds will be set at regional levels so Fresno is not compared to San Francisco, and how rural jurisdictions with long trip distances and limited transit could apply a VMT metric without undue burden. Multiple speakers asked OPR to develop simple rural methodologies and to work with regional planning agencies for defensible regional averages by land‑use type.

Status

OPR asked for written comments by Nov. 21, 2014 and will continue outreach to planning, engineering and local‑government groups. The Transportation Commission did not take a formal vote on the draft at the meeting but commissioners signaled interest in continuing deliberation and requested the item be returned for further discussion if the commission decides to comment formally.