BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1380
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1380 (Rubio) - As Amended: May 3, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 36-2
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
exemption for bicycle plans in urbanized areas.
SUMMARY : Exempts from CEQA bicycle plans developed for
urbanized areas. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes an exemption from CEQA for bicycle plans prepared
for an urbanized area for plans that contain only the
following types of projects: the restriping of streets and
highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to
improve street and highway intersection operations, and
related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
2)Requires the lead agency, prior to determining that a project
is exempt, to do both of the following:
a) Hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by the
bicycle transportation plan to hear and respond to public
comments as specified; and,
b) Include measures in the bicycle transportation plan to
mitigate potential bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts.
3)Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2018.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed 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).
2)Requires a local agency that determines that a project is not
subject to CEQA pursuant to certain exemptions and approves or
SB 1380
Page 2
determines to carry out that project, to file notice of the
determination with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
3)Authorizes local agencies to prepare bicycle transportation
plans with specified elements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In June, 2005, San Francisco County adopted their
2005 Bicycle Plan, determining that the plan was exempt from
CEQA based upon their finding that there was no possibility that
the bicycle plan would have significant impacts on the
environment. During the same month, the county adopted the
bicycle plan's Network Improvement Document, a five-year plan
for funding and implementing the bicycle plan. Petitioners
challenged adoption of the 2005 Bicycle Plan and Network
Improvement Document under CEQA and the court granted the
Petitioner's petition, finding that the plan and document should
have been reviewed under CEQA together as one project - and that
considered as a whole could have a significant impact on the
environment. The court issued a Preemptory Writ of Mandate June
18, 2007, requiring San Francisco to conduct adequate
environmental review of the plan and document, and enjoined the
city from implementing any individual improvement projects until
the review was completed.
After revising the plan, the court upon its review indicated
that "The bulk of the draft EIR's analysis concerned impacts on
transportation, particularly impacts from the 60 near-term
improvements on 63 different intersections located throughout
San Francisco, as well as impacts on 12 transit corridors, 10
transit spot studies, and 13 parking and loading corridors."
The court also noted that the EIR identified mitigation measures
to minimize or eliminate many of the significant environmental
impacts identified in the EIR, including measures such as adding
or modifying traffic signals at intersections (lengthening green
light time or adding a green arrow), or modifying roadway
striping (changing shared lanes to exclusive turn lanes,
narrowing travel lanes, or eliminating or restricting on-street
parking). Subsequent to ruling against another appeal, the
court determined that the report met the CEQA requirements on
August 6, 2010.
Purpose of this bill : The author cites the benefits of bicycle
SB 1380
Page 3
transportation plans that require limited public investment to
implement and improve conditions for bicycling in order to help
achieve numerous important health, safety, and environmental
goals. Further, as mentioned earlier, he indicates that
litigation under CEQA challenging bicycle transportation plans
can be expensive and delay or prevent adoption of such plans and
that the San Francisco opponents "did not support accommodations
for cycling under any circumstances and used the CEQA process as
a tool to delay the plan." The author contends that this bill
would reduce the potential for CEQA litigation potentially
reducing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars needed by a public
agency to defend a CEQA challenge.
CEQA : CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental
effects of plans or applicable projects undertaken or approved
by public agencies. If a plan or project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the plan
or 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 plan
or project may have a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare an EIR. Generally, an EIR must
accurately describe the proposed plan or project, identify and
analyze each significant environmental impact expected to
result, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to
the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable
alternatives. Prior to approving any plan or project that has
received environmental review, an agency must make certain
findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated
into a plan or project, the agency must adopt a reporting or
monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
Bike lane projects subject to environmental review? Existing
law appears to contain alternatives to full CEQA review with
preparation of an EIR for bike lane projects. First, there is a
statutory exemption for "a project for restriping of streets or
highways to relieve traffic congestion." Second, the CEQA
Guidelines provide two possible categorical exemptions: (1)
work on existing facilities where there is negligible expansion
of an existing use, specifically including "(e)xisting highways
and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails
(emphasis added), and similar facilities" and (2) minor public
or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or
vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature,
SB 1380
Page 4
scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes,
specifically including the creation of bicycle lanes on existing
rights-of-way. (emphasis added) Finally, if the project is not
exempt from CEQA, but the initial study shows that it would not
result in a significant effect on the environment, the lead
agency must prepare a negative declaration, and no EIR is
required.
Restriping affects upon traffic : It is reasonable to conclude
that the creation of bike lanes on existing streets is not
likely to have extensive or complicated environmental impacts.
However, traffic impacts may be a worthwhile consideration and,
to the extent that a bike lane project increases vehicular
congestion, it could have a significant effect on local air
quality.
Support :
1)Writing in support of this bill, the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group, the bill's sponsor, indicates that the CEQA challenges
on local bicycle transportation plans can be expensive and
that this bill would reduce the potential for litigation
delays, such as those experienced by San Francisco.
2)This bill has been strictly crafted to allow a bicycle plan,
developed only for urbanized areas as specified in law, to be
exempt from CEQA provided certain conditions are met and only
for certain bicycle projects as specifically identified.
Those bicycle projects currently enjoy CEQA exemptions and
this bill would basically allow those types of bicycle
projects to receive an exemption if considered in a
consolidated plan. Further, the bill would authorize the
exemption for a limited five-year time period.
Opposition : Writing in opposition to the bill, the Sierra Club
California contends most, if not all of the bicycle plans,
probably would qualify for a mitigated negative declaration, if
not a negative declaration. But by exempting the plans, there is
no certainty that the impacts of these plans will be
appropriately reviewed and mitigated. This could lead to some
problems. It further indicates that "the best way to create
robust bicycle plans is to do it in a way that ensures
environmental and community impacts are taken into consideration
and, where possible, reduced or mitigated."
SB 1380
Page 5
Suggested committee amendments :
1)The bill requires the bicycle plan to include mitigation
measures for potential bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts.
The committee suggests that mitigation measures for traffic
impacts should be discussed also in the plan.
On page 3, line 10, after "potential", insert: vehicular
traffic impacts and
2)The bill establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2018, unless
a later enacted statute extends the bill's provisions.
Accordingly, in order to help determine whether or not the
statute should be extended or allowed to sunset, and to
determine whether the exemption is being used, the bill should
require OPR to post on their website those notices of
determination filed pursuant to the exemption as provided by
this bill and other information pertaining to the use of the
exemption.
On page 3, line 11, add the following:
c) The Office of Planning and Research shall post on its
Internet website each lead agency filing a notice of the
determination pursuant to this section, as required pursuant
to Section 21152.1; a link to the Internet website for any
plan that was exempt pursuant to this section; any action or
proceeding alleging noncompliance with this division for a
plan that was exempt pursuant to this section; the causes of
action; and the case outcome.
Related bill : AB 2245 (Smythe), of 2012, this bill has similar
features as AB 2245, that passed the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee (8-0) and the Assembly (73-0). That bill is awaiting
hearing in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
Double referral : This bill has also been referred to the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (sponsor)
California Bicycle Coalition
SB 1380
Page 6
California Park and Recreation Society
City of San Jose
Orange County Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Shasta Living Streets
One individual
Opposition
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by :
Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093