BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |2/11/2016 |Hearing |4/6/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: State Route 710
North Study
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act,
a) Provides that "[i]f a cost-benefit analysis is relevant
to the choice among environmentally different alternatives
being considered for the proposed action, it shall be
incorporated by reference of appended to the statement as an
aid in evaluating the environmental consequences?." (40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.23).
2) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (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
(CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as
categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public
Resources Code §21000 et seq.)
b) Authorizes economic or social information to be included
in an EIR or presented in whatever form the agency desires,
but specifies that economic or social effects of a project
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 2 of
?
may not be treated as significant effects on the
environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15131).
c) Requires the lead agency to evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the
draft EIR (DEIR) and prepare a written response; and
specifies that the written response must describe the
disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g.
revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated
impacts or objections). (CEQA Guidelines §15088).
This bill:
1) Deems a specified cost-benefit analysis (CBA) prepared for the
State Route 710 North Study to be a technical study and
requires the CBA to be included in the draft environmental
impact report/environmental impact statement (DEIR/DEIS).
2) Requires the lead agency to consider and respond to comments
regarding the CBA submitted during the public comment period
for the DEIR/DEIS.
3) Requires the comments on the CBA and the lead agency's
responses to be deemed part of the record of proceedings for
purposes of CEQA.
4) Deems this bill an urgency statute.
Background
1) CEQA: Environmental review process.
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
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 3 of
?
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.
2) What is analyzed in an environmental review?
Pursuant to CEQA, an environmental review analyzing the
significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of a
proposed project, may include water quality, surface and
subsurface hydrology, land use and agricultural resources,
transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions, terrestrial and aquatic biological resources,
aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation, public services and
utilities such as water supply and wastewater disposal,
cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources.
The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of any
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/activities
within study areas that are applicable to the resources being
evaluated. A study area for a proposed project must not be
limited to the footprint of the project because many
environmental impacts of a development extend beyond the
identified project boundary. Also, CEQA stipulates that the
environmental impacts must be measured against existing
physical conditions within the project area, not future,
allowable conditions.
3) CEQA: Economic and social effects not considered unless they
relate to physical changes.
CEQA analysis looks at physical changes in the environment caused
by a project. Economic and social effects are not considered
environmental effects but may be used to determine the
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 4 of
?
significance of physical changes caused by the project. When
an economic or social effect is not related to a physical
change in the environment, the evaluation of that effect is
generally treated as optional - agencies may, but are not
required to, evaluate them.
4) CEQA: Public review period.
Public participation is one of the fundamental purposes of CEQA.
The public review period is an opportunity for public
involvement in the environmental review process of a project
and serves several goals, including: sharing expertise,
disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting
omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter
proposals. The lead agency must respond to comments pertaining
to environmental issues in the draft environmental review
document. Comments submitted orally or in writing become part
of the administrative record for the project and are responded
to in writing in the response to comments in the final
environmental review document. In general, the minimum public
review period for a DEIR is 30 days, and the maximum is 60
days; but may be extended for a longer amount of time by the
lead agency.
5) North State Route 710 (SR-710) project.
SR-710 is a major north-south transportation link through Los
Angeles County. SR-710 terminates at Valley Boulevard, and the
traffic coming off SR-710 continues on local streets within the
cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Los Angeles causing
major traffic congestion. The extension of the SR-710 project
has been in the planning stages for several decades. A surface
freeway had been proposed, which led to the issuance of a
Record of Decision in 1998 by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), but was rescinded by FHWA 2003 citing
changes in project circumstances such as funding uncertainty
and the opening of the Metro Gold line in Pasadena. In 2006,
Caltrans and Metro conducted two tunnel feasibility assessments
to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a tunnel to
complete the planned SR-710 freeway route that would lessen the
potential impacts associated with a surface route. The
assessments showed that a tunnel could be a feasible solution
and would warrant more detailed evaluation.
In March 2011, Caltrans published a Notice of Intent pursuant to
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 5 of
?
NEPA and a Notice of Preparation under CEQA to initiate the
environmental review process for the "Interstate 710 North Gap
Closure" project. For purposes of NEPA, the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency;
and, for purposes of CEQA, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) is the lead agency for this
project.
An environmental review must describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed
projects. The five alternatives being considered for this
project include:
a) No Build option that would leave conditions as they are.
b) A traffic management system to upgrade and synchronize
signals and improvements to local street intersections to
more quickly move traffic.
c) A rapid bus line featuring high frequency service with
minimal stops and potentially a dedicated bus lane. The
proposed route is approximately 12 miles.
d) A 7.5-mile light rail line, including 3 miles of aerial
segments and 4.5 miles of bored tunnel segments, to carry
passengers between East Los Angeles and Pasadena.
e) A 6.3-mile freeway tunnel, of which 4.2 miles would be
completely underground, that would extend the SR-710.
On March 6, 2015, the DEIR/DEIS was released and the public
review period for the document commenced. On June 19, 2015,
Caltrans and Metro extended the public comment period for the
DEIR/DEIS until August 5, 2015. By mid-August 2015, Caltrans
had received more than 2,500 letters. The Final EIR/EIS has
yet to be certified.
In June 2010, the Metro Board directed the chief executive
officer to conduct a parallel CBA concurrently with the
DEIR/DEIS. The purpose of the CBA is to apply economic value
to each alternative in order to compare them in terms of
monetary costs and benefits. On June 19, 2015, the CBA for the
SR-710 North study alternatives was released. Caltrans states
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 6 of
?
that the CBA will be considered in conjunction with the
information provided in the DEIR/DEIS during identification of
the preferred alternative.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill.
According to the author:
The saga of the highly controversial North State Route 710
project transcends over 50 years. Caltrans, the lead agency
for NEPA, and Metro, the lead agency for CEQA, are trying to
conclude the long process of producing a joint EIR/EIS
evaluating construction of a tunnel and alternatives
including light rail, express bus, and transportation demand
management to address the local congestion, air quality, and
mobility issues the project is intended to relieve. The
project study area includes Pasadena, South Pasadena,
Alhambra and the City of Los Angeles community of El Sereno.
There has been significant confusion surrounding the process
including confusion over the status of the Cost Benefit
Analysis (CBA) which has bearing on the feasibility of the
tunnel but is asserted by Metro to not be part of the
EIR/EIS. SB 1018 is designed to bring clarity to the legal
status of the CBA so the public can meaningfully participate
in the Final EIR/EIS development and final decision processes
and be assured that their comments on the CBA will be
substantially addressed and considered.
2) The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
The "Analysis of Costs and Benefits for the State Route 710 North
Study Alternatives" (June 19, 2015) evaluates the following
factors: travel time benefits, capital expenditures
(construction and right-of-way costs), vehicle operating costs,
system operations and maintenance costs, safety effects,
emissions effects, employment benefits, and residual values
that have a life of more than 20 years (the residual value for
assets such as tunnels and right-of-way). Concerns have been
raised about the adequacy of the CBA such as the CBA may
overvalue and underprice the project.
As noted by the lead agency, the CBA will be considered in
conjunction with the information provided in the DEIR/DEIS
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 7 of
?
during identification of the preferred alternative.
3) Is the CEQA review process the appropriate forum to address the
CBA?
The purpose of CEQA is not to analyze economic effects or
considerations, but to analyze impacts on the physical
environment. Comments and responses should focus on the
sufficiency of the document regarding the identification of
environmental impacts and methods to avoid or mitigate those
environmental impacts.
The author is concerned that without the bill, Metro and Caltrans
could disregard the cost-benefit aspects of the tunneling
alternative, stating, "It is possible they will not respond to
public comments on it, which were substantial." However, CEQA
Guidelines specifies that the lead agency must evaluate and
respond to comments on environmental issues in the
environmental review. For comments related to the CBA, the
lead agency would be required to respond to those comments only
to the extent that they relate to environmental issues;
otherwise, the comments are outside the scope of CEQA and would
be inappropriate to address in the environmental review.
In addition, in a staff report, Metro states, "Metro and Caltrans
are committed to responding to comments on the CBA. Metro is
committed to an open and transparent process in its decision
making and we believe the CBA has a role in the fund decision
making process."
A question arises as to whether the environmental review process
is the appropriate means for ensuring that Metro responds to
all comments related to the CBA.
4) Too late in the environmental review process?
This bill requires the lead agency to respond to comments
regarding the CBA submitted during the public comment period
for the DEIR/DEIS. The comment period for the Draft EIR closed
approximately 8 months ago. Is it reasonable to require the
lead agency to respond to oral comments in public hearings that
took place almost a year ago? What if there are no recordings
of those hearings?
This bill limits responses to only comments received during that
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 8 of
?
time. The CBA was released in the middle of the comment period
and was not part of the DEIR/DEIS. This bill would not provide
the same amount of time for public review and comment on the
CBA even though the bill would deem the CBA as part of the
DEIR/DEIS.
Also, is it fair to the public who did not provide comment on the
CBA during the public comment period knowing the CBA was not
part of the DEIR/DEIS at the time; and then change the rules
almost eight months after the opportunity to comment has
closed?
A question arises as to whether this bill provides the public
adequate opportunity to be heard after the fact.
5) A different option to ensure that public concern about the CBA
is addressed.
Public participation is an important element of governmental
decisionmaking. The author seeks to make sure that public
comments to the CBA are responded to by Metro. However, this
bill cannot fully realize this intent because CEQA limits
comments and responses to environmental issues - a CBA
considers economic concerns, not environmental effects of a
project. Also, this bill does not provide the public adequate
or reasonable opportunity to comment on the CBA.
In order to ensure that Metro responds to comments on the CBA, and
due to the issues raised above, it would be prudent to address
this issue outside of CEQA and have a separate process for
addressing public comments on the CBA. The Committee may wish
to consider replacing the contents of SB 1018 with amendments
to require Metro to provide opportunities for public comment on
the CBA such as hold three noticed public hearings and provide
a 90-day, noticed public comment period. The Committee may
also wish to require Metro to respond to those comments on the
CBA in a stand-alone document, which must be posted on its
website and considered by Metro prior to making a final
decision on the SR-710 project.
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer
SB 1018 (Liu) Page 9 of
?
the bill to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
City of Monterey Park
City of Rosemead
City of San Gabriel
City of San Marino
-- END --