BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 890
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 890 (Olsen) - As Amended: March 29, 2011
SUBJECT : Environment: CEQA exemption: roadway improvement
SUMMARY : Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) a project or activity undertaken by a city or county
within an existing road right-of-way for the purposes of roadway
improvement.
EXISTING LAW requires lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project
to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this
action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes
various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions
in the CEQA guidelines).
THIS BILL exempts from CEQA a project or activity undertaken by
a city or county within an existing road right-of-way for the
purposes of roadway improvement that includes, but is not
limited to, shoulder widening, guardrail improvement, minor
drainage, culvert replacement, traffic signal modification,
safety improvements, and operation, repair, maintenance, or
minor alteration of existing roadway improvements, including,
but not limited to, highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters,
bicycle and pedestrian ways, and similar facilities.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. If
the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a
negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare an EIR.
AB 890
Page 2
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant environmental
impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent
feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to
the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has
received environmental review, an agency must make certain
findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated
into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or
monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
2)Need for the bill. According to the author:
In recent years, CEQA has slowed or halted many public and
private projects. It is important to understand the
environmental impacts of a public works project, but to
slow or halt a public roadway project that improves public
safety is illogical. Cities and counties need to be able
to quickly perform some public works projects. Public
safety must be the number one priority of the state, and
CEQA has hindered cities and counties from performing their
basic duty?AB 890 streamlines the process for minor roadway
improvements for cities and counties to improve road
safety.
While the author's comments are focused on minor projects
intended to improve safety (and presumably could be undertaken
quickly enough that compliance with CEQA would impose an
unreasonable delay), the bill's language establishes a broad
exemption for any city or county roadway improvement project
with an existing road right of way - major or minor, for any
purpose. The example projects listed in the bill (shoulder
widening, guardrail improvement, minor drainage, culvert
replacement, traffic signal modification, safety improvements,
and operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of
existing roadway improvements, including, but not limited to,
highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and
pedestrian ways, and similar facilities) don't appear to be
intended to limit its scope, although by using the word "and"
rather than "or", the bill could be read to require a project
to meet every purpose listed.
3)Statutory CEQA exemption may not be necessary. This bill does
not specify any particular project. As such, the Committee is
AB 890
Page 3
making a judgment about the merits of the CEQA exemption in
the dark. Once a project is defined, existing law contains at
least two alternatives to full-blown CEQA review with
preparation of an EIR. First, the CEQA Guidelines provide a
categorical exemption for work on existing facilities where
there is negligible expansion of an existing use, specifically
including "(e)xisting highways and streets, sidewalks,
gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar
facilities" (Section 15301(c), CEQA Guidelines). Second, if
the project is not exempt from CEQA, but the initial study
shows that it would not result in a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative
declaration (and no EIR is required). In the interest of
improving traffic safety, either of these existing
alternatives would be faster than enacting a new statutory
exemption.
4)Even if necessary, statutory CEQA exemption may not be useful.
State and local transportation projects often receive federal
funding and/or require federal agency approvals. This bears
heavily on the efficacy of the CEQA exemption, because a
federal decision may result in application of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the preparation of a
federal environmental impact statement (EIS). If NEPA applies
to the project and an EIS must be prepared, the CEQA exemption
might not provide the relief the proponents are seeking.
AB 890
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
California State Association of Counties
California State Council of Laborers
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092