BILL ANALYSIS
AB 594
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 594 (Leno)
As Amended March 24, 2003
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 9-1 APPROPRIATIONS 20-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jackson, La Malfa, |Ayes:|Steinberg, Bates, Berg, |
| |Hancock, Keene, Koretz, | |Calderon, Corbett, |
| |Laird, Levine, Lowenthal, | |Correa, Daucher, Diaz, |
| |Wolk | |Firebaugh, Goldberg, |
| | | |Leno, Maldonado, Nation, |
| | | |Negrete-McLeod, Nunez,, |
| | | |Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, |
| | | |Simitian, Wiggins, Yee |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harman |Nays:|Haynes, Pacheco, Runner, |
| | | |Samuelian |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there is no direct state fiscal effect. There are
potential savings to local agencies to the extent new bicycle
lanes using existing paved right-of-ways can be opened without
being subject to the environmental impact report (EIR) or the
negative declaration requirements of CEQA.
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, 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 local
government.
AB 594
Page 2
According to the author's office, local jurisdictions have been
forced to pay for unnecessary reviews when restriping bicycle
lanes with the EIR often costing more than 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 believes that this type of project deserves
a statutory exemption from CEQA.
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 (La Suer) of 2001, which died
in the Assembly, 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 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Jeff Arthur / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN: 0000662