BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 348|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 348
Author: Galgiani (D)
Amended: 4/6/15
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/15/15
AYES: Wieckowski, Gaines, Bates, Hill, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption:
railroad crossings
SOURCE: California Public Utilities Commission
DIGEST: This bill extends the sunset from January 1, 2016, to
January 1, 2019, for an exemption to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to the closure of a
railroad grade crossing when the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) finds the crossing to present a threat to public safety.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Under CEQA:
a) 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
SB 348
Page 2
(CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as
categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public
Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.).
b) Specifies that CEQA does not apply to the closure of a
railroad grade crossing by order of the PUC when the PUC
has found the crossing to present a threat to public
safety. (PRC §21080.14)
i) Explicitly excludes the application of this
exemption from any crossing for high-speed rail.
ii) Requires any state or local agency claiming an
exemption pursuant to this section to file a notice with
the Office of Planning and Research.
iii) Sunsets this provision January 1, 2016.
c) Contains other exemptions relating to railroad projects
that include, for example:
i) 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)).
ii) 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)).
iii) Any railroad grade separation project that
eliminates an existing grade crossing or reconstructs an
existing grade separation. (PRC §21080.13)
2)Under the Public Utilities Act, provides various powers to the
PUC relating to railroad crossings. (Public Utilities Code
§1201 et seq.) For example, grants the 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.
SB 348
Page 3
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
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.
SB 348
Page 4
Comments
1) Purpose of bill. According to the sponsor, the 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. 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
SB 348
Page 5
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
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, the PUC, has broad and exclusive power
to regulate railroad crossings. The 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 the 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, the PUC sponsored AB 1665, which exempts a railroad
SB 348
Page 6
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 the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee.
AB 1665 (Galgiani, Chapter 721, Statutes of 2012) exempted 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.
AB 353 (Carter, 2008) would have authorized the California
Transportation Commission (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 the 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 the PUC and the
Department of Transportation 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 the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1853 (Matthews, 2006) would have revised the Grade Separation
SB 348
Page 7
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 10-year period.
ACR 151 (Matthews, Chapter 133, Statutes of 2006) encouraged the
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
current CEQA grade separation exemption.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis
- unable to reverify)
California Public Utilities Commission (source)
California Railroad Industry
OPPOSITION: (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee
analysis - unable to reverify)
None received
SB 348
Page 8
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the PUC, Railroad
crossing accidents account for more deaths each year than all
gas, electric, telecom, and water accidents combined. In 2014
alone, 33 fatalities occurred at railroad crossings, and 2015
has already witnessed one tragic railroad crossing accident in
Oxnard, California where a Metrolink train derailed after
hitting a truck, injuring 29 and killing the engineer.
Prepared by:Joanne Roy / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
5/1/15 14:36:34
**** END ****