BILL ANALYSIS
AB 594
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
AB 594 (Leno) - As Amended: March 24, 2003
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: bicycle lanes.
SUMMARY : This bill exempts from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000, et
seq.) a project that consists of restriping an existing paved
right-of-way for bicycle lanes, provided that it satisfy several
conditions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared,
and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report
(EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve
that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to
adopt a negative declaration (ND) if it finds that the project
will not have that effect.
2)Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare
and develop guidelines for the implementation of CEQA by
public agencies, and requires those guidelines to include a
list of classes of projects that have been determined not to
have a significant effect on the environment.
3)Includes in that list projects known as "Class 4" projects
that consist of minor public or private alterations in the
condition of land, water, and vegetation that do not involve
the removal of healthy, mature, or scenic trees, except as
specified, and specifically includes the creation of a bicycle
lane on an existing right-of-way as an example of a "Class 4"
project.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
According to the author's office, the CEQA categorical exemption
that applies to bicycle lanes is meant to prevent unnecessary
environmental reviews as well as the costs associated with them.
The author's office states that the exemption is inadequate,
AB 594
Page 2
however, because opponents of bike lanes challenge the
exemption, forcing local jurisdictions to pay for unnecessary
reviews. Moreover, the author's office asserts that this bill
makes the exemption clear to local jurisdictions throughout the
state and save money for cities.
According to the author's office, local jurisdictions have been
forced to pay for unnecessary reviews when restriping bicycle
lanes with the EIR's often costing more than the creation of the
restriping of the lanes. The author's office provides the
example of when the City of Oakland was forced to pay $250,000
for an EIR prior to restriping Telegraph Avenue when the cost of
restriping was only $145,000. The author's office state that
the City of Sacramento has been studying such projects for its
central city streets for over five years. The author's office
further asserts that many similar projects with community
support are being delayed or are never even getting off the
ground because local governments fear that costly environmental
reviews will render them unaffordable.
The author's office also cites an example in San Leandro where
Bancroft Avenue was restriped from 4 traffic lanes to 3 plus 2
traffic lanes -- including a center turn lane and bike lanes.
The road became safer for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists,
with minimal impact to automobile traffic flow. The author's
office believes that this type of project deserves a statutory
exemption from CEQA.
In terms of CEQA exemptions, the Committee has always applied
strict scrutiny in deciding whether such a law should stand in
light of the familiar principle that CEQA exemptions end run
environmental review. For example, last session, the Committee
held AB 2707 (La Suer and Bogh). However, this bill differs
from AB 2707, which sought a wholesale exemption from CEQA for
any project that creates a bicycle lane by reducing the number
of vehicle lanes on an existing roadway. Moreover, the authors
of AB 2707 refused to accept Committee amendments, which would
have restricted its broad scope and sweeping approach.
While this bill does seek an exemption from CEQA for a project
that consists of restriping an existing paved right-of-way for
bicycle lane, it, unlike AB 2707, provides the exemption only if
it meets 10 specified criteria. For example, the project must
be consistent with an applicable general plan, including, but
not limited to, the transportation element of the general plan,
specific plan, or local coastal program, and the mitigation
AB 594
Page 3
measures required by the plan or program, and the project must
not be exposed to a landslide hazard or located within a flood
plain, flood way, or restriction zone, unless the applicable
general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate
the risk of a landslide or flood. The eight other criteria are
similar in scope and intent.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Bicycle Coalition (sponsor)
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
Sierra Club California
Walk Sacramento
1 individual
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Aristotle E. Evia / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092