BILL ANALYSIS
SB 976
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 976
AUTHOR: Hollingsworth
AMENDED: March 22, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 19, 2010
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), requires lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
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).
This bill exempts the expansion of an existing overpass,
onramp, or offramp from CEQA if it is built within an easement
or right-of-way controlled by a state or local transportation
agency, a city, or a county.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author in 2004, 2005,
and 2007, "Overpasses provide the opportunity to increase
traffic safety and traffic flow. Fast growing areas, or
areas without sufficient planning[,] often create
thoroughfares that bisect other major roads. As
thoroughfares have increased speed limits[,] normal traffic
controls such as stop signs or traffic lights do not
provide adequate service for pedestrian or vehicular safety
and impair traffic flow. Removing obstacles to building an
overpass will reduce the cost and expedite construction.
Only exempting overpasses built within a right-of-way
ensures that the projects are designed to meet these
goals."
SB 976
Page 2
According to the author this year, "Overpasses, onramps, and
off-ramps are vital conduits of traffic in California. As
such, facilitating their improvement offers California the
opportunity to heighten traffic safety and increase traffic
flow. Fast growing areas - or those without sufficient
planning - often experience severe road congestion and a
likelihood of vehicle accidents. Further, the longer a car
idles in stopped traffic, the greater the emissions."
SB 1486 (Hollingsworth) of 2004 provided a CEQA exemption for
the construction of an overpass built within an easement or
right-of-way controlled by a state or local transportation
agency or by a city or county. SB 1486 failed in the
Senate Environmental Quality Committee April 19, 2004
(2-4). SB 427 of 2005 (April 25, 2005 version) provided a
CEQA exemption for the expansion of existing overpasses,
onramps, and offramps within an easement or right-of-way
controlled by a state or local transportation agency or by
a city or county. SB 947 of 2007 (introduced version) and
SB 976 provide a similar exemption. SB 976 therefore
represents the fourth effort by the author seeking to
exempt these types of construction projects from CEQA.
The author was concerned about progress in constructing
overpasses, onramps, and offramps in his district; and
communication between public entities involved in the
environmental review and planning process for these
projects and facilities. In response to that concern, SB
427 was subsequently amended (January 4, 2006, version) to
ensure that project impacts on overpasses, onramps, and
offramps are addressed in the consultation process, and
that transportation planning agencies and public agencies
receive notice of scoping meetings for these projects. The
Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved this
version of the bill January 10, 2006 (7-0), and the Senate
January 26, 2006 (31-0), but the author did not take up the
bill in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. SB 947
of 2007 was similarly amended April 30, 2007, approved by
the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and signed into
law (Chapter 707, Statutes of 2008).
SB 976
Page 3
Although SB 947 (Hollingsworth) Chapter 707, Statutes of 2008,
was a response to the author's concern, while not being a
CEQA exemption, the author's response this year with SB 976
is a CEQA exemption that is similar to previous exemption
measures by the author.
2) Brief background on CEQA . 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, 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 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.
3) Temecula issues . Press accounts in 2006 indicated a good
working relationship between Caltrans and Murrieta
officials, but not with Temecula officials (where Senator
Hollingsworth is concerned about progress in completing
interchanges). The city is reported to believe that
Caltrans asks for too much information, while Michael
SB 976
Page 4
Perovich, the Caltrans district director said to city
officials in May 2006 that "Every time something comes up,
its argued and debated . . . . You need to understand what
you need to do, how long it will take and work together to
get things done." At that time Perovich reportedly asked
for a new schedule of an entire interchange project because
he had never seen one - only schedules for parts of the
project that were unrealistic. The city indicated that
they would provide the schedule.
In June 2007, Federal Highway Administration officials also
indicated that Temecula had not made a good case for why
the French Valley Parkway interchange project is needed
because it failed to comply with nationally accepted
procedures for project approval. FHA officials were
concerned about determining the need for better connections
with Temecula's border and into Murrieta. "The interstate
is for regional movement, not driving to the bank," Bren
George, a FHA field operations engineer noted. "We are
looking for these things to be studied."
According to information provided by Temecula, a draft EIR was
approved April 2009, for a French Valley Parkway/Interstate
15 overpass project, while other transportation-related
documents are being prepared. Therefore, the author may be
focusing on CEQA, while FHA, Caltrans, and funding issues
must be addressed by Temecula. It should also be noted
that CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents are often required in order to respond to other
project permitting requirements - and a CEQA exemption may
simply delay other project approvals.
This year, the author's office also raises issues with the
California Oaks Road and Clinton Keith I-215 Interchanges.
For more information on issues relating to Interchange
challenges in the Murrieta/Temecula area - unrelated to
CEQA - see "Have the U.S. Supreme Court's 5th Amendment
Takings Decisions Changed Land Use Planning in California"
(California Research Bureau, March 2000, pp. 38 to 42).
4) What about impacts ? There may be significant impacts that
would not be addressed with a SB 976 exemption. For
SB 976
Page 5
example, a widened onramp may adversely affect congestion
on a receiving highway, and a widened overpass may
adversely affect narrower roads at either end of the
overpass. A widened onramp or offramp may cause conflicts
with entrances to nearby homes and businesses. There may
also be adverse noise and air quality impacts for residents
near an onramp or offramp, or sensitive uses such as
schools, senior centers, and hospitals. With a CEQA
exemption, as provided by SB 976, there would be no
consideration of these and other impacts under the Act.
5) Blaming CEQA . It is not unusual for certain 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
environmental review: 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 an
exempt project?
Is it appropriate for the public to live with the
consequences of exempt projects where impacts may not be
mitigated and alternatives are not 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 with an exemption,
does the exemption result in a direct transfer of
responsibility for mitigating impacts from the applicant
SB 976
Page 6
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
an exempt project after project completion, what
assessments or taxes will be increased to fund mitigation
or pay for alternatives at a later date?
It is also not unusual for certain interests to blame CEQA
lawsuits. However, according to a study on the issue,
"Despite criticisms that CEQA often results in litigation,
CEQA-related litigation is relatively rare." The study
noted that the number of lawsuits to the number of CEQA
reviews "yields an estimate of one lawsuit per 354 CEQA
reviews."
Those citing CEQA and CEQA litigation as a problem do not
indicate the result of that litigation. Were significant
impacts that were not evaluated in the initial document
ultimately addressed? What would have been the result if
those impacts had not been mitigated ( e.g. , flooding,
exposure of people to hazards, inadequate public services,
congestion)?
When some suggest that CEQA "reforms" may be needed, others
note various provisions of CEQA that already provide
streamlined approaches, including master and focused EIRs,
transit priority and residential project streamlining
(enacted by SB 375 (Steinberg, Ducheny) Chapter 728,
Statutes of 2008), expedited review for environmental
mandated projects, special procedures for various types of
housing projects (enacted by SB 1925 (Sher, Polanco)
Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002), and several categorical
exemptions contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Challenges to
CEQA determinations must be commenced within an unusually
short 30 days of an agency's filing of a notice of
determination. Also, no later than 20 days from the date
of service upon a public agency, the public agency must
file a notice with the court setting a time and place for
all parties to meet and attempt to settle the litigation.
SB 976
Page 7
SOURCE : Senator Hollingsworth
SUPPORT : Engineering & Utility Contractors Association
OPPOSITION : California Council of Land Trusts, Center for
Biological Diversity, Consumer Attorneys of
California, Forests Forever, Planning and
Conservation League, Sierra Club California