BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 157
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
157 (Levine)
As Introduced January 20, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-------------------------+--------------------|
|Transportation |15-0 |Achadjian, Baker, Bloom, | |
| | |Campos, Chu, Daly, Dodd, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, | |
| | |Kim, Linder, Medina, | |
| | |Melendez, Nazarian, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires an environmental review to be completed
concurrent with design work for a project to open a third lane in
each direction on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, under certain
conditions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
history of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and of a planned
project to improve traffic flow on the bridge by re-opening a
third lane to vehicle traffic in the eastbound direction and to
bicycle traffic in the westbound direction.
AB 157
Page 2
2)Requires, to the extent possible, environmental work and design
work be done concurrently on the project if the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) develop such a project.
3)Includes an urgency clause, allowing the bill's provisions to
take effect immediately.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Created MTC as a local area planning agency to provide
comprehensive regional transportation planning for the region
comprised of the City and County of San Francisco and the
Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
2)Created the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a public
instrumentality governed by the same board as that governing the
MTC. The authority, however, a separate entity from the MTC;
vests with the BATA the responsibility to administer all toll
revenues from state-owned toll bridges within the geographic
jurisdiction of the MTC.
3)Required state and local agencies, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to identify significant
environmental impacts of discretionary projects and to avoid or
mitigate those impacts, if feasible; required lead agencies to
prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration,
or environmental impact report (EIR) for the project.
AB 157
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge originally opened in
1956 with three lanes of vehicular traffic in each direction. In
the 1970s, one lane of the bridge was temporarily closed to allow
for an aqueduct to transport water to a drought-stricken Marin.
Even though the aqueduct was later removed, the bridge continues
to operate with two traffic lanes in each direction.
The author introduced this bill to address growing concerns about
congestion delays in the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridor.
According to BATA, regional population growth and local business
developments in Marin County have resulted in significant traffic
increases on eastbound Interstate 580 (I-580) and the bridge
approach during evening peak commute periods. BATA also reports
that the congestion in the bridge corridor backs up traffic on
northbound U.S. Highway 101 in Marin County. In addition to
traffic congestion, the current configuration on the bridge (two
lanes in each direction) does not allow for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. As a result, there is a significant gap in the
270-mile Bay Trail, reportedly one of the most heavily used
recreation and non-motorized transportation assets in the region.
Last month, BATA voted to proceed with the I-580 Access
Improvement Project. The project includes improvements for
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge corridor. Proposed improvements include opening a third
lane of vehicular traffic in the eastbound direction of I-580 from
Marin County to Contra Costa County (across the bridge) and
converting an existing shoulder in the westbound direction of the
bridge to a barrier-separated path for bicyclists and pedestrians.
AB 157
Page 4
BATA's February action authorized its staff to proceed with a
"design-at-risk" strategy (i.e., begin design in advance of
environmental clearance) to shorten the timeframe for opening all
improvements. BATA's stated goal is to complete the final design
and be able to advertise for construction at the completion of the
environmental review. According to the author, the design-at-risk
strategy will expedite completion of the project by as much as 18
months.
Assembly Transportation Committee staff concerns:
1)The author's stated intent with the bill is to speed completion
of the project by proceeding with the design-at-risk strategy.
However, since BATA is already pursuing this approach, it is not
clear why the bill is necessary to expedite the project.
2)Typically, the goal of an EIR process is to evaluate project
alternatives with the aim of avoiding or minimizing impacts to
the environment. Most lead agencies are careful to complete
this process before beginning design work. One advantage for
doing so is to avoid inviting a legal challenge that the EIR is
inadequate because the outcome was pre-determined and therefore
biased. Agencies do, however, occasionally proceed with design
prior to completion of the EIR, just as BATA has with the I-580
Access Improvement Project. Arguably, it may make sound
business sense for an agency to proceed with a design-at-risk
strategy when, for example, the number of alternatives is
limited and the project schedule needs to be accelerated.
The author indicates that his intent in introducing this bill is
AB 157
Page 5
to specifically ensure that BATA has clear authority to proceed
with the design-at-risk strategy. However, this bill goes
beyond authorizing a design-risk strategy by, instead, mandating
that BATA use this strategy if it pursues this project. In so
doing, this bill could effectively absolve BATA of legal risks
related to pre-determining the outcome of its EIR, a consequence
that goes beyond the author's stated intent and one for which
there is no justification presented as to why BATA should
uniquely enjoy this protection.
Analysis Prepared by:
Janet S. Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN:
0000084