BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Bob Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 348 Hearing Date: 4/15/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Galgiani |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/6/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Joanne Roy |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption:
railroad crossings
ANALYSIS:
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
(PRC) §21000 et seq.).
2. Specifies that 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. (PRC §21080.14)
A. Explicitly excludes the application of this exemption
from any crossing for high-speed rail.
B. Requires any state or local agency claiming an
exemption pursuant to this secton to file a notice with
the Office of Planning and Research.
C. Sunsets this provision January 1, 2016.
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 2
of ?
3. Contains other 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. (PRC §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. (PRC §21080(b)(12)).
C. Any railroad grade separation project that eliminates
an existing grade crossing or reconstructs an existing
grade separation. (PRC §21080.13)
4. Under the Public Utilities Act, provides various powers to
PUC relating to railroad crossings. (Public Utilities Code
§1201 et seq.). For example, grants PUC authority over
railroad crossings, 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.
This bill:
1.Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2016 to January 1,
2019 for an exemption to CEQA for the closure of a railroad
grade crossing by order of the PUC under the above authority
if the PUC finds the crossing to present a threat to public
safety.
2.Requires a public agency to file a Notice of Exemption when a
public agency determines that the railroad grade separation
exemption, pursuant to PRC §21080.13, applies to a project.
Background
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
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 3
of ?
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
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure must be
discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the
proposed project.
Comments
1. Purpose of Bill.
According to the sponsor, PUC, "More fatalities occur across
California each year in rail-related accidents than with any
other type of public utility. More than 30 individuals lost
their lives in rail-related accidents in 2014, and there has
already been a major accident in 2015 in the City of Oxnard
that has claimed the life of one individual and badly injured
several more. It is essential that regulators have all
necessary tools at their disposal when assessing the safety
of at-grade rail crossings. SB 348 would allow regulators to
ensure safe at-grade rail crossings by facilitating closures
of unsafe crossings without repetitive and unnecessary
reviews. As such, SB 348 will avert future accidents and
save lives."
2. What is Lost With an Exemption from CEQA.
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 4
of ?
It is not unusual for some interests to assert that a particular
exemption will expedite construction of a particular type of
project and reduce costs. This, however, frequently
overlooks the benefits of adequate environmental review where
lead and responsible agencies are legally accountable for
their actions: to inform decisionmakers and the public about
project impacts, identify ways to avoid or significantly
reduce environmental damage, prevent environmental damage by
requiring feasible alternatives or mitigation measures,
disclose to the public reasons why an agency approved a
project if significant environmental effects are involved,
involve public agencies in the process, and increase public
participation in the environmental review and the planning
processes.
If a project is exempt from CEQA, certain issues should be
addressed. For example:
How can decisionmakers and the public be aware of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives of a project
because of the exemption?
Is it appropriate for the public to live with the
consequences when a project is exempt and impacts may not
be mitigated and alternatives may not be considered
regarding certain matters, such as air quality, water
quality, and noise impacts?
Because adverse project impacts do not disappear when
they are not identified and mitigated, does an exemption
result in a direct transfer of responsibility for
mitigating impacts from the applicant to the public ( i.e. ,
taxpayers) if impacts are ultimately addressed after
completion of the project?
If taxpayers, rather than the project applicant, are
ultimately responsible for mitigating certain impacts of
such a project after project completion, what assessments
or taxes will be increased to fund mitigation or pay for
alternatives at a later date?
Such issues may be overlooked or disregarded when a project
is exempt from CEQA, but should be addressed for the benefit
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 5
of ?
of the public good.
1. Brief History of This Exemption.
This bill extends the sunset of an exemption for the closure of
a railroad grade crossing when the PUC has found the crossing
to present a threat to public safety.
The sponsor of this bill, PUC, has broad and exclusive power to
regulate railroad crossings. PUC also sponsored AB 1665
(Galgiani), Chapter 721, Statutes of 2012, which enacted the
exemption that is the subject of SB 348.
According to the PUC, AB 660 (Galgiani), Chapter 315, Statutes
of 2008, eliminated a provision from §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. §21080.13 of CEQA
exempts certain grade separation projects, and PUC combined
this exemption with the Streets and Highways definition to
justify claiming a CEQA exemption for the closure of an
at-grade crossing. However, §21080.13 did not include the
closure of a railroad grade crossing. As a result, PUC
sponsored AB 1665, which exempts a railroad grade crossing
when the PUC has found the crossing to present a threat to
public safety. SB 348 seeks to extend the sunset of the
exemption provided in AB 1665.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 525 (Galgiani) (2013), would have provided 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 would have qualified for the CEQA exemption
pursuant to PRC §21080(b)(10). SB 525 died in Senate
Environmental Quality Committee.
AB 1665 (Galgiani), Chapter 721, Statutes of 2012, exempts the
closure of a railroad crossing by PUC order if the PUC found the
crossing presents a threat to public safety (except for a high
speed rail crossing), and sunsets January 1, 2016.
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 6
of ?
AB 353 (Carter) (2008) would have authorized CTC to allocate $15
million in a fiscal year to the highest five priority projects
on the grade separation program funding list; thus allowing four
other projects to receive a $15 million allocation during any
fiscal year. AB 353 died in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 660 (Galgiani), Chapter 315, Statutes of 2008, among other
things, redefined the terms "grade separation" and "project" for
purposes of the state's Section 190 Grade Separation Program.
AB 633 (Galgiani) (2007) would have required PUC and Caltrans to
jointly prepare a report by September 1, 2008, to the
Legislature on the railroad-highway at-grade separation program.
AB 633 was held in the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee.
AB 1785 (Bermudez) (2006) would have increased annual funding
for the grade separation program from $15 million to $70
million. AB 1785 died in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1853 (Matthews) (2006) would have revised the Grade
Separation Projects program's prioritization formula. AB 1853
died in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 2630 (Benoit), Chapter 420, Statutes of 2006, removed the
restriction placed upon an applicant from receiving funding for
grade separation projects if it received funding within the
recent ten-year period.
ACR 151 (Matthews), Chapter 133, Statutes of 2006, encouraged
PUC to revise the prioritization formula used to add a factor
for delays that disproportionately affect emergency services.
AB 453 (Benoit), Chapter 298, Statutes of 2005, authorized one
additional year for local agencies to complete state-funded
grade separation projects.
AB 1067 (Frommer), Chapter 716, Statutes of 2005, in addition to
the provisions related to violations at rail-highway grade
crossings, authorized CTC to allocate up to $15 million to the
highest priority project on the PUC priority list.
SB 549 (Johnson), Chapter 58, Statutes of 1982, enacted the
SB 348 (Galgiani) Page 7
of ?
current CEQA grade separation exemption.
SOURCE: California Public Utilities Commission
SUPPORT: None on file
OPPOSITION: None on file
-- END --