BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1380
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
SB 1380 (Rubio) - As Amended: May 3, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 36-2
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: bicycle
transportation plan
SUMMARY : Establishes a CEQA exemption for the approval of a
bicycle transportation plan, as defined, until 2018.
EXISTING LAW 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).
THIS BILL :
1)Establishes an exemption from CEQA for a bicycle
transportation plan for an urbanized area for restriping of
streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal
timing, and related signage.
2)Requires a lead agency, prior to determining a plan is exempt,
to hold noticed public hearings and include measures to
mitigate potential bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts
3)Requires a lead agency to file a notice of any bicycle plan
exemption with the Office of Planning and Research.
4)Sunsets January 1, 2018.
FISCAL EFFECT : Non-fiscal
COMMENTS :
1)Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
SB 1380
Page 2
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
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.
2)CEQA and bicycle plans. In June 2005, San Francisco adopted
its 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. San Francisco also 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
petition, finding that the plan and document should have been
reviewed under CEQA together as one project, and that the two
actions 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 reviewing the revised plan, the court indicated that
"(t)he 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
SB 1380
Page 3
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 by the plaintiffs, the court
determined in 2010 that the report met the requirements of
CEQA.
3)Purpose of this bill. The author cites the benefits of
bicycle 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, the author 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.
4)Related legislation. AB 2245 (Smyth) establishes a CEQA
exemption for Class II bikeways (bike lanes) undertaken by a
city or county within an existing road right-of-way until
2017. AB 2245 was approved by this committee on May 7 and is
pending in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
5)Amendments from Transportation Committee. When this bill was
heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on June 25, the
author and committee agreed to amendments to be adopted in
this committee. The amendments require the lead agency to
include measures in its bicycle plan to mitigate potential
"vehicular traffic impacts" and require OPR to post
information regarding exemptions claimed under the bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Bicycle Coalition
SB 1380
Page 4
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Park & Recreation Society
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Opposition
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092