BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 468 HEARING DATE: April 12, 2011
AUTHOR: Kehoe URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 29, 2011 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: Transportation and HousingFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Department of Transportation: capacity-increasing state
highway projects: coastal zone.
NOTE: The double referral of this bill to Senate Transportation
and Housing will provide a forum for the transportation-related
issues contained in this bill. Testimony in this committee
should be limited to those issues within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The possession and control of the state highway system is
assigned to the Department of Transportation (CalTrans).
CalTrans also is responsible, through contracts with Amtrak, for
the operations of California's intercity passenger rail service.
In addition, California has numerous state law provisions for:
developing and funding state transportation projects that
involve local governments; complying with federal and state
regulatory and environmental requirements; and making funding
decisions that include regional councils of government
(federally recognized metropolitan planning organizations) who
most recently have been assigned a major role in administering
SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008).
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) was established by voter
initiative in 1972 and in 1976, the Legislature adopted the
California Coastal Act. The CCC has regulatory authority for
development projects in the coastal zone. The coastal zone is a
defined strip of land that varies in width from several hundred
feet in urban areas to as much as five miles inland in more
rural areas of the state. Within these boundaries, the CCC
implements policies including but not limited to public access
to the coast, visual resources, agriculture, water quality,
1
offshore oil and gas development, and numerous other topics.
According to information from the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee, there are currently two major state highway
projects proposed in the coastal zone. The first is a high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane project in Ventura and Santa
Barbara counties. Segments of this project are under
construction or have received permits from the CCC.
Second is the most significant coastal zone transportation
project in California - the 27-mile widening of I-5 from
Oceanside to La Jolla, a district in the City of San Diego. This
project, referred to as the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
(NCCP), is intended to address the long-term mobility needs of
travel in the corridor between the residential communities of
northern San Diego County and the employment centers found
primarily in the City of San Diego. After a variety of studies
by Caltrans and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG),
it was concluded that demand in the corridor would increase 50%
from 200,000 vehicles in 2000 to 300,000 vehicles in 2030.
Currently I-5 is an eight lane freeway with some segments of the
corridor already having two HOV lanes, one lane in each
direction. For purposes of conducting the draft environmental
impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, five options were identified:
1. No-build: eight lanes with some segments currently
operating High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
2. Twelve lanes: eight free-flowing lanes and four
HOV/managed lanes separated by pavement stripes from the
free flowing lanes, for carpools and single occupant
vehicles that would pay to drive in the lanes. (A managed
lanes is a lane for car-pools, van-pools, and buses. A
single occupant vehicle is permit to use the lane provided
they pay. The charge can vary, depending on the amount of
transit on the managed lane as well as on the adjacent
conventional lanes.)
3. Twelve lanes: eight free-flowing lanes and four
HOV/managed lanes concept separated by concrete barriers.
4. Fourteen lanes: ten free-flowing lanes and four
HOV/managed lanes concept separated by pave stripes.
5. Fourteen lanes: ten free-flowing lanes and four
2
HOV/managed lanes concept separated by concrete barriers.
The planning documents indicate that this project will cost
between $3.3 billion in $4.4 billion depending on which option
is selected and may be implemented over a period of thirty to
forty years. A point of controversy is whether the draft EIR
includes adequate analysis of the multi-modal (train and light
rail) aspects of transportation improvements in this corridor
No preferred alternative for construction was identified in the
draft EIR. There is some hope that the draft will be finalized
later this year or in 2012.
Coordination with the CCC Pursuant to state law, the CCC issues
permits for highway projects in the coastal zone. The Federal
Highway Administration is a partner along with Caltrans and
SANDAG in developing this project. However, the FHA cannot
approve the DEIR unless the CCC certifies to the federal
government under the terms of the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act that the NCCP is consistent with the Coastal
Act's policies. Thus, the CCC has an important role in
permitting this project under both state and federal law.
In a separate undertaking from the draft EIR, the CCC asked
SANDAG and CalTrans to development another document, the Public
Works Plan (PWP). The PWP is intended to provide a streamlined
and comprehensive basis for whatever CCC permits might be
required for the NCCP and to avoid project-by-project permitting
requirements. The PWP is not subject to the same procedural
requirements pertaining to public participation as are documents
prepared pursuant to CEQA. The draft PWA, at about 500 pages in
length, does include the railroad corridor aspects of the
project that are not included in the draft environmental impact
statement.
PROPOSED LAW
1. This bill contains findings and declarations
regarding the coastal zone, including recognizing the
coastal zone as a unique resource with both its natural and
built environment destination for people to enjoy its
recourses. In addition, it declares that transportation
investments in the coastal zone should not erode the very
qualities that make it an attractive setting in which to
live, work, and recreate. Further, to meet the goals for
greenhouse emission describe in AB 32 (Nuenz) Chapter 488,
Statues of 2006, and the objectives of SB 375 (Steinberg)
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008, several activities are
3
necessary, including transportation investments that
minimize vehicle miles traveled and reduce the geographical
disparity in the location of jobs and housing.
2. The bill would require CalTrans to comply with the
following requirements for projects in the state highway
system that would increase capacity and that are located in
the coastal zone as it is defined in the Coastal Act:
a. Collaborate with local agencies situated in the
coastal zone through which the proposed highway traverse,
and with the regional transportation planning agency and
the CCC to establish traffic congestion goals and
determine how the proposed project will achieve the goals
without compromising the unique features of the coastal
zone.
b. Include in the environmental analysis for the
proposed project other local projects and state highway
projects.
c. Coordinate and integrate construction of public
transportation services, including commuter rail, in the
corridor that have a program of service and facility
enhancements and have those projects completed prior to
construction of the highway project.
d. If the proposed project is expected to generate
additional traffic on city and county roads within the
coastal zone, a program to mitigate the traffic and the
funding to construct the program must be identified. The
proposed highway project shall not commence construction
until the mitigation program is implemented.
e. Projects within the capacity increasing program may
proceed to construction provided the projects will reduce
vehicle miles traveled and provided the construction of
the projects do not delay the implementation of the
public transportation projects.
d. The environmental consequences of the proposed
program of projects within the corridor highway
improvement are required to be monitored to ensure the
benefits of mitigation, as described in the project's
environmental documents, are being achieved.
CalTrans would also be required to suspend a determination
4
pursuant to CEQA for projects that do not comply with the above
provisions if a project was approved after 1/1/11 but before
1/1/12.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, this bill is a reaction to the proposed
highway project in San Diego County in the coastal zone. She
believes the 27-mile I-5 project is unprecedented in complexity,
size, scope, and cost. The freeway travels through some of the
most scenic territory in California and traverses six unique
coastal lagoons. She is concerned about the possible increased
emissions from such a massive highway in light of the state's
commitment in SB 375 to fund transportation projects that will
ultimately lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. She
has drafted a lengthy letter to CalTrans in which she identifies
numerous alleged deficiencies in the draft environmental
document including but not limited to: inadequate consideration
of multi-modal transportation options (which could include rail,
light rail, bike facilities, and bus rapid transit), the cost of
up to $4.5 billion, and mitigation for the effects on the
coastal lagoons.
The author also worked with the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee to convene an information hearing on this
matter last November. Her summary of that meeting suggests that
the public and many affected local governments are concerned
about the adequacy of the draft EIR and the lack of coordination
with the Coastal Commission, in addition to the other issues
mentioned earlier.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
SANDAG has several points in opposition to the bill. It believes
the bill imposes new requirements on a project that has been in
the region's transportation plan for many iterations. It rejects
the idea that the NCCP will adversely affect development of a
multi-modal transportation system in the coastal zone-in fact,
it argues that SANDAG is committed to traffic reduction and
congestion relief on I-5 as well as development of public
transit. It also notes that voters in a local sales tax measure
approved SANDAG's proposed expenditures, including this project
which was included in the regional transportation plan.
SANDAG considers the bill's requirement to coordinate with the
CCC to be unnecessary since that collaboration is already
underway as evidenced by the PWP mentioned earlier. It objects
to the provisions in the bill requiring that the environmental
analysis include affected local streets and roads since it
5
believes those impacts are addressed through other means. It
objects to terms it considers vague such as a "transit
investment program" and it considers SB 468 as a de facto bar
against highway improvements in the affected corridor.
SANDAG also points out that the bill's emphasis on transit runs
contrary to the Legislature's reductions of transit funding in
favor of other General Fund needs. It is also concerned about
the economic impacts of the bill on its construction sector.
The California State Automobile Association voiced many of the
same concerns as SANDAG, but it is particularly troubled by the
provision that requires the transit improvements to occur prior
to the highway improvements. CSAA considers this provision as
holding hostage the highway projects with a result of increased
congestion.
A coalition including the California Chamber of Commerce and the
California Business Industry Association, among others, argues
that the bill misconstrues the regional planning process of SB
375 and that the bill ignores existing protections for the
coastal zone. It also denies that CalTrans does not work with
other agencies and local governments. This coalition also
objects to the provision requiring a project to demonstrate a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
COMMENTS.
As an anecdote that might help explain the author's objectives
with this bill, the Committee may want to consider the question
of the proposed highway expansion and its effects on the coastal
lagoons, two of which have been extensively restored by parties
who have been required to mitigate for other coastal projects.
Restoration work was done by the Port of Los Angeles at the
Batiquitos Lagoon, and Southern California Edison did
restoration work at San Diegueto Lagoon as part of its
mitigation for the San Onofre nuclear plant.
One one hand, the CCC has identified possible impacts which it
acknowledges will vary depending on what alternative is
scheduled for development. It is trying to work with CalTrans
staff on how the project should be designed that would improve
the ecological functioning of these lagoons.
A different view is expressed by SANDAG and CalTrans who believe
that the highway project can be complementary to, and even
enhance, the existing lagoon restoration projects. SANDAG notes
that the project would create 50 acres of wetlands adjacent to
6
the Southern California Edison restoration project and the San
Dieguito lagoon and that all of the project's impacts on all of
the lagoons would occur on right-of-way already owned by
CalTrans. These parties believe that proposed mitigation
activities would enhance the existing restoration efforts and
lead to additional restoration work at other lagoons.
The point here is that both perspectives may ultimately be
accurate-even though each uses a different lens to assess the
same information. This is one example of many that will surface
in a project of this scope that the author wants to help
resolve. The Committee may determine that CalTrans, SANDAG,
local governments, and the CCC should be directed to collaborate
in identifying how the proposed project will achieve its goals
without compromising the unique features of the coastal zone.
While still a work in progress, at this early stage of the
legislative process, the Committee may determine that the bill
is worthy of ongoing work by the author.
Moreover, it is clear that the author plans a series of
negotiations with CalTrans, SANDAG, and other opponents of the
bill as well as with other affected state agencies and local
governments. It is highly likely that a series of amendments
will be developed over the ensuing months that will necessitate
this Committee re-hearing the bill, assuming it moves forward
from this hearing in its current form.
Therefore, instead of suggesting specific amendments at this
hearing, staff instead would suggest that the author consider
the following questions assuming the bill moves forward:
1. Should the bill also include the jurisdiction of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, an entity with similar authorities as the CCC
in the San Francisco Bay area?
2. Should the bill have different criteria for projects
that would be built within the existing footprint of a
state highway that is located in the coastal zone as a way
to encourage improvements within that existing footprint
that would avoid more significant impacts in the coastal
zone?
3. Should the collaboration provisions of the bill be
amended to include all affected public agencies?
4. Should other metrics or factors other than vehicle miles
7
traveled and public transit be included in the bill?
Examples could include air quality impacts, innovative
traffic management strategies, and land use decisions
within the scope of SB 375 that would minimize the need for
increased highway capacity in the coastal zone.
5. Should the bill impose a requirement that impacts to the
existing coastal lagoon mitigation projects be avoided or
minimized, or that the coastal impacts on lagoons and
elsewhere (including multimodal) should be required to
provide specified environmental benefits to the lagoon or
coastal ecosystems?
SUPPORT
Alliance of Citizens to Improve Oceanside Neighborhoods
California Coastal Commission - if amended
California Public Interest Research Group
City of Del Mar
City of Oceanside
City of Solana Beach
Cleveland National Forest Foundation
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Move San Diego
San Diego County Democratic Party
Save our Forest and Ranch Lands
Sierra Club of California
Sustainable San Diego
Torrey Pines Community Planning Board
1 individual
OPPOSITION
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated General Contractors
CA Building Industry Association
CA Business Properties Association
CA Chamber of Commerce
California Chapter of the American Fence Association
California Fence Contractors' Association
California State Automobile Association
Engineering Contractors' Association
Flasher Barricade Association
Marin Builders' Association
8
Orange County Business Council
Professional Engineers in California Government
SANDAG
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission - unless
amended
Southern California Contractors Association
9