BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1665
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1665 (Galgiani)
As Amended August 6, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-22|(May 21, 2012) |SENATE: |28-8 |(August 20, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Specifies that the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) does not apply to the closure of a railroad grade
crossing by order of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) when
the PUC has found the crossing to present a threat to public
safety.
The Senate amendments :
1)Explicitly exclude application of the bill to any crossing for
high-speed rail.
2)Require any state or local agency claiming an exemption
pursuant to the bill to file a notice with the Office of
Planning and Research.
3)Sunset the bill January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project which may have a
significant effect on the environment 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).
2)Exempts from CEQA any railroad grade separation project which
eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an
existing grade separation (Public Resources Code Section
21080.13, enacted in 1982).
3)Grants the PUC exclusive authority over railroad crossings,
AB 1665
Page 2
including prescribing the terms of installation, operation,
maintenance, use, and protection of each crossing, as well as
requiring the closure or separation of grades at any crossing.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill specified that CEQA does
not apply to the closure of a railroad grade crossing by order
of the PUC when the PUC has found the crossing to present a
threat to public safety.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : 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.
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.
The sponsor of this bill, the PUC, has broad and exclusive power
to regulate railroad crossings. According to the PUC, AB 660
(Galgiani), Chapter 315, Statutes of 2008, eliminated a
provision from Section 2450 of the Streets and Highways Code
which had described a grade separation project to include
removal or relocation of highways or tracks to eliminate
existing at-grade crossings. Section 21080.13 of CEQA exempts
certain grade separation projects, and the PUC combined this
exemption with the Streets and Highways definition to justify
claiming a CEQA exemption for the closure of an at-grade
crossing. The PUC feels that the amendments made by AB 660
AB 1665
Page 3
eliminated this exemption.
While the basis for the prior exemption is questionable, the
exemption added by this bill is quite limited,
non-controversial, and appears appropriate under a circumstance
where a railroad crossing must be closed quickly to protect
public safety.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0004720