BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 417
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 417
AUTHOR: Frazier
AMENDED: June 13, 2013
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 19, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Joanne Roy
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): BICYCLE
TRANSPORATION PLAN
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
a) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary
project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
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). (Public
Resources Code §21000 et seq.). If there is substantial
evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead
agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency must prepare a draft EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines §15064(a)(1), (f)(1)).
b) Contains exemptions relating to bicycle facilities that
include, for example:
i) Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor
alteration of existing or public structures involving
negligible or no expansion, including existing
highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and
pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (including
road grading for the purpose of public safety). (CEQA
Guidelines §15301(c)).
ii) Minor public or private alterations to land,
AB 417
Page 2
water, or vegetation, including, but not limited to:
"creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way."
(CEQA Guidelines §15304(h)).
iii) Restriping of streets or highways to relieve
traffic congestion. (Public Resources Code (PRC)
§21080.19).
iv) Restriping of streets and highways for bicycle
lanes in an urbanized area. (PRC §21080.20.5).
a) Prior to determining that this
exemption applies to a project, the lead agency
must do the following:
(1) Prepare an assessment of any
traffic and safety impacts of the project
and include measures in the project to
mitigate potential vehicular traffic impacts
and bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts.
(2) Hold public hearings in
areas affected by the project to hear and
respond to public comment.
c) Defines "mitigation" to include:
i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action.
ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation.
iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the
life of the action.
v) Compensating for the impact by replacing or
providing substitute resources or environments. (CEQA
Guidelines §15370).
AB 417
Page 3
2) Under the California Bicycle Transportation Act,
authorizes a city or county to prepare a bicycle
transportation plan, which must include certain elements
(e.g., proposed land use and settlement patterns, existing
proposed bikeways and bicycle facilities, bicycle safety and
education facilities, project priorities for implementation,
past expenditures and future financial needs). (Streets and
Highways Code §891.2).
This bill :
1) Exempts from CEQA, a bicycle transportation plan prepared
pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §891.2 for an urbanized
area for restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking
and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway
intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles,
pedestrians, and vehicles.
2) Prior to determining that a project is exempt pursuant to this
section, requires the lead agency to do the following:
a) Hold public hearings in affected areas; and,
b) Prepare an assessment of any traffic and safety impacts
of the project and include measures in the bicycle
transportation plan to mitigate potential vehicular, and
bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts.
3) Requires a local agency, which determines that a project is
exempt pursuant to this section and determines to approve the
project, to file notice of the determination with the Office
of Planning and Research and with the county in which the
project is located.
4) Sunsets the exemption for a bicycle transportation plan on
January 1, 2018.
5) For an exempted project that consists of the restriping of
streets and highways for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area
pursuant to PRC §21080.20.5, provides that the lead agency is
not required to prepare an assessment of any traffic or safety
impacts of the project if either of the following conditions
are met:
AB 417
Page 4
a) Mitigation measures are identified in the CEQA
environmental review document for the bicycle
transportation plan that is certified or approved within
the past five years and those measures are incorporated
into the project; or,
b) An assessment was prepared pursuant to #2(b) within the
past five years, mitigation measures are included in the
plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Bicycle
transportation plans do not require extensive public
investment and improve conditions for bicycling in order to
help achieve numerous important environmental, health, safety,
and economic goals. Biking is a proactive way to effectively
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in
California. To this end, AB 417 supports California's efforts
to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions through the
implementation of AB 32 and SB 375. By facilitating the
development of safe bike corridors and associated facilities
this bill will also help reduce criteria air pollutants
throughout the state and promote an environmentally friendly
means of transportation."
2) Brief background on CEQA . CEQA provides a process for
evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and
includes statutory exemptions, as well as categorical
exemptions in the CEQA guidelines. If a project is not exempt
from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether a
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
AB 417
Page 5
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.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant
effects in addition to those that would be caused by the
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure must
be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects
of the proposed project.
3) Background on San Francisco bicycle plan litigation . The San
Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the 2005 Bicycle Plan
on June 7, 2005, and determined that the plan was exempt from
CEQA because there was no possibility that it would have
significant impacts on the environment. The San Francisco
County Transportation Authority Commission (composed
exclusively of members of the board of supervisors) adopted
the bicycle plan's "Network Improvement Document," a five-year
plan for funding and implementing the Bicycle Plan on June 21,
2005.
Petitioners challenged the adoption of the 2005 Bicycle Plan and
Network Improvement Document under CEQA and the Court granted
the petitioner's petition finding the Plan and Document should
have been reviewed pursuant to CEQA together as one project -
and that considered as a whole could have a significant impact
on the environment. The Court issued a Preemptory Writ of
Mandate on June 18, 2007, requiring San Francisco to conduct
adequate environmental review of the Plan and Document, and
enjoined the city from implementing any individual improvement
projects until the review was completed.
San Francisco planning department published a draft EIR on
November 26, 2008. According to the Court, "The bulk of the
Draft EIR's analysis concerned impacts on transportation,
particularly impacts from the 60 near-term improvements on 63
different intersections located throughout San Francisco, as
well as impacts on 12 'transit corridors,' 10 transit 'spot
studies,' and 13 parking and loading corridors." The Court
also noted that the EIR identified mitigation measures to
AB 417
Page 6
minimize or eliminate many of the significant environmental
impacts identified in the EIR, including measures such as
adding or modifying traffic signals at intersections
(lengthening green light time or adding a green arrow),
modifying roadway striping (changing shared lanes to exclusive
turn lanes, narrowing traffic lanes, or eliminating or
restricting on-street parking).
The Planning Commission certified the EIR on June 25, 2009; the
MTA board of directors adopted the 2009 Bicycle Plan and
approved the traffic changes necessary to implement 45 of the
60 improvements, and made the required CEQA findings. The
petitioners appealed the Planning Commissioner's certification
of the EIR to the Board of Supervisors on July 15, 2009; and
the Board of Supervisors heard the appeals on August 4, 2009,
and denied the appeals. The city filed a Notice of
Determination on August 14, 2009, and filed a return to the
Writ of Mandate on September 18, 2009, to which the
petitioners objected. The Court found that the city complied
with CEQA and the Court's order to conduct environmental
review of the Bicycle Plan, including its policies and goals
and individual improvement projects on August 6, 2010. The
main criticism heard about the San Francisco case is that one
petitioner had the power to delay something good from
happening for several years.
However, it should be noted that if San Francisco had simply
performed a proper environmental review in the first place,
which the Court found that it should have done, there would
not have been as long of a delay. In addition, because of the
CEQA review, many improvements were made that would not have
been done otherwise.
Projects considered environmentally beneficial, such as
improving bicycle transportation in urbanized areas, may also
have significant impacts on the environment. To disregard
that possibility and fail to at least assess and mitigate
those impacts would be harmful to the community in which the
project is located as well as counterproductive to the overall
goal of improving the environment. Although this bill
provides a CEQA exemption for a bicycle transportation plan,
AB 417 ensures that the plan and projects pursuant to the plan
are done in a thoughtful and responsible manner with respect
to traffic and safety impacts.
AB 417
Page 7
4) Sunset . This bill provides a sunset date of January 1, 2018
for the bicycle transportation plan exemption and requires a
local agency to file a notice of determination with OPR so
that the exemption can be evaluated and any unanticipated
consequences can be considered.
5) Previous legislation . AB 417 is substantially similar to SB
1380 (Rubio), 2012, which would have exempted from CEQA
bicycle transportation plans developed for urbanized areas.
SB 1380 was approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee April 30, 2012 (6-0) but died on the Assembly Floor
inactive file.
AB 2245 (Smyth), Chapter 680, Statutes of 2012, exempts from CEQA
a project that consists of restriping of streets and highways
for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area that is consistent with
a city or county bicycle transportation plan.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Civil Justice Association of California
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Orange County Transportation Authority
OPPOSITION : None on file