BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 525
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 525
AUTHOR: Galgiani
INTRODUCED: February 21, 2013
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: May 1, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Joanne Roy
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: EXEMPTION
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary
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). (Public
Resources Code �21000 et seq.).
2) Contains exemptions relating to railroad projects that
include, for example:
a) The institution or increase of passenger or commuter
services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in
use, including modernization of existing stations and
parking facilities. (�21080(b)(10)).
b) Facility extensions not to exceed four miles in
length required to transfer passengers from or to
exclusive public mass transit guideway or busway public
transit services. (�21080(b)(12)).
c) Any railroad grade separation project that eliminates
an existing grade crossing or reconstructs an existing
grade separation. (�21080.13)
SB 525
Page 2
This bill provides that a project by the San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission and the High-Speed Rail Authority to improve
the existing tracks, structure, bridges, signaling systems,
and associated appurtenances located on the existing railroad
right-of-way used by the Altamont Commuter Expressway service
qualifies for the CEQA exemption pursuant to (�21080(b)(10)).
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, the "High-Speed
Rail Project is the largest public project in the history
of the State of California. SB 525 would save taxpayer
money by clarifying that an existing CEQA exemption applies
to an important segment of the project. This bill is
needed to help expedite a segment of the project."
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, then 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 an 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
SB 525
Page 3
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure
must be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the proposed project.
3) High-Speed Rail (HSR) and CEQA/NEPA . HSR is the largest
and most expensive infrastructure project in the history of
California. According to the High Speed Rail Authority, the
environmental review is being conducted in two parts - a
statewide program-level EIR/EIS followed by a more specific
project-level EIR/EIS of each of nine sections of the
system. Program-level review began in 2002 and was
completed in 2005. The project-level EIR/EIS's began in
2007 for nine sections: San Francisco-San Jose, San
Jose-Merced, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield,
Bakersfield-Palmdale, Palmdale-Los Angeles, Los
Angeles-Anaheim, Los Angeles-San Diego, and
Sacramento-Merced. All sections have completed scoping and
have either completed the alternatives analysis or have it
underway.
As noted by the author, the exemption sought applies to a
segment of a larger project, the High-Speed Rail.
Exempting portions of potential HSR track simply because
there was a past use by a slower rail service in the same
right-of-way is imprudent. There are significant
environmental impacts that exist with a much faster train
including, but not limited to, agriculture, wildlife such
as animal migration patterns, land use and planning,
traffic and noise, greenhouse gas emissions and energy use
associated with rail construction, rail crossings, grade
separations, and expansion of crash zones.
In addition, pursuant to CEQA, an action has to be considered
as part of the whole - segmenting a project under CEQA is
unlawful. As noted by the author, the project in this bill
is an element of HSR. Thus, the project in the bill cannot
be treated separately under CEQA and must be considered as
part of the whole HSR project.
4) Plenty of Exemptions . The author's office notes that there
are many exemptions under CEQA and this project deserves
one as well. It is true that many projects are exempt from
CEQA - in fact, according to the Office of Planning and
SB 525
Page 4
Research, thousands of projects file a notice of exemption
(NOE) with the State Clearinghouse each year. For example,
3,894 projects had a Notice of Exemption filed with the
State Clearinghouse in 2011. Each and every one of those
exempted projects did not necessitate individual inclusion
in the CEQA statute or guidelines.
The author would like to protect this project from any
lawsuits. If a project qualifies for a statutory or
categorical exemption, the lead agency may file an NOE with
the State Clearinghouse. The filing of an NOE triggers a
35-day statute of limitations for someone to file a court
challenge on the exemption. (CEQA Guidelines �15112).
Aside from the fact that this project is part of a larger
project and cannot be treated separately from HSR under
CEQA, if the project in this bill actually did qualify for
the specified statutory exemption in this bill, then
current law would have sufficed. This bill was introduced
on February 21, 2013. Had an NOE been filed with the State
Clearinghouse on that date, the 35-day statute of
limitations would have been completed by now.
5) Opposition . Opposition contends, "SB 525 would expand a
section of the environmental review law that was intended
to provide exemptions for certain emergency construction
needs. The expansion would apply these exemptions to rail
improvements related to the high-speed rail project.
Nothing about these improvements are emergency in
nature?There is simply no reason these improvements should
not be considered under the usual CEQA provisions. Indeed,
considering them under the usual environmental review
provisions will help ensure that the public has the
opportunity to know about and support the rail
improvements. A major, high-profile public works project
like high-speed rail is exactly the kind of project that
demands environmental review."
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : Sierra Club California
SB 525
Page 5