BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 348


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          348 (Galgiani)


          As Amended  April 6, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  35-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Natural         |6-0  |Williams, Cristina    |                    |
          |Resources       |     |Garcia, Hadley,       |                    |
          |                |     |McCarty, Rendon, Mark |                    |
          |                |     |Stone                 |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |10-0 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta,  |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Eggman,     |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Rendon, Weber, |                    |
          |                |     |Wood                  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 









                                                                     SB 348


                                                                    Page  2






          SUMMARY:  Extends until 2019 the exemption from the California  
          Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 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.  Specifically, this bill:


          1)Extends the sunset on the exemption for closure of a railroad  
            grade crossing from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019.
          2)Requires a state or local agency claiming the grade separation  
            exemption to file a notice with the Office of Planning and  
            Research (OPR).


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for  
            carrying out or approving a proposed project which may have a  
            significant effect on the environment 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).


          2)Exempts from CEQA, until January 1, 2016, 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.  Any  
            crossing for high-speed rail is excluded.  A state or local  
            agency claiming the exemption is required to file a notice  
            with OPR.


          3)Exempts from CEQA any railroad grade separation project which  
            eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an  
            existing grade separation. 









                                                                     SB 348


                                                                    Page  3






          4)Grants the PUC exclusive 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.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, negligible state costs.


          COMMENTS:  


          The sponsor of this bill, the PUC, has broad and exclusive power  
          to regulate railroad crossings.  According to the PUC, AB 660  
          (Galgiani), Chapter 315, Statutes of 2008, eliminated a  
          provision from Streets and Highways Code Section 2450 which had  
          described a grade separation project to include removal or  
          relocation of highways or tracks to eliminate existing at-grade  
          crossings.  CEQA Section 21080.13 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.  


          To confirm its ability to claim a CEQA exemption for orders to  
          close at-grade crossing found to be unsafe, the PUC sponsored AB  
          1665 (Galgiani), Chapter 721, Statutes of 2012, which created  
          the exemption that is the subject of this bill.  Since AB 1665  
          was enacted, the exemption has not been used.  However, the  
          exemption may be used for a pending railroad crossing project in  
          Glendale.  This bill extends the application of the exemption  
          for three years so that it may be used for the Glendale project,  
          as well as potential future projects.  The exemption is limited,  
          non-controversial, and appears appropriate under a circumstance  
          where a railroad crossing must be closed quickly to protect  
          public safety.









                                                                     SB 348


                                                                    Page  4








          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092   
                                                                      FN:  
          0001193