February 16, 2010 Update:
The Office of Administrative Law filed the Guideline Amendments with the Secretary of State. The Amendments become effective on March 18, 2010. The text of the adopted Amendments and other rulemaking documents are available on the web at Natural Resources Agency
It’s official, the CEQA Transportation Guideline amendments we fought for over the past two years have been adopted by the State of California. In order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, existing bicycle plans and access must be considered in any development proposal that goes through an Environmental Impact Review in California. An excerpt of changes to section XVI. Transportation/Traffic was published in rideOn, January 2010 on page 4.
Among the EBBC members I wish to thank are thank are Jason Patton, Michelle DeRobertis, and Dave Campbell who participated in a panel discussion on CEQA during the 2008 TransForm summit. Thanks to TransForm for responding to our appeal to publically expose the inadequacies of CEQA. And finally, Dave was at his legal best when we testified before the CEQA rulemaking committee in Sacramento last August 18. He noted that addressing “roadway capacity in EIRs is a stumbling block, we need to focus on access and safety.”
-Robert Raburn, Executive Director
December 30, 2009 Update:
The Secretary for Natural Resources adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
October 23, 2009 Update:
Good news! The CA Resources Agency released the draft amendments to CEQA reflecting the input of EBBC and others. Read Matthew Roth’s report on Streetsblog and additional reaction from EBBC leaders in the November issue of rideOn.
August 27, 2009 Update:
EBBC attended an August 18 public hearing at the Natural Resources Agency in Sacramento and requested the Agency to include safe bicycle and pedestrian access into CEQA law. EBBC was joined by Andy Thornley of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and the Matt Vander Sluis of the Planning and Conservation League, asking that roadway capacity be removed from CEQA law and replaced with vehicle miles traveled (or auto trips generated). Following the meeting, EBBC submitted formal written comments, and worked with the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency to see that these local agencies submitted constructive comments as well. These comments are under consideration by the Natural Resources Agency. We will provide additional details once the Agency responds.
Read our July 23 Letter to the CMA Board. At the July 23 CMA Board Meeting, the Board gave staff direction to work with EBBC to revise the language of the guidelines, and to take a look at the County’s Congestion Management Program and make it consistent with the Alameda Couuntywide Bicycle Plan and the goal of prioritizing safe bike access to transit.
The Problem Striping Bike Lanes under CEQA
Current CEQA environmental guidelines for transportation projects promote driving while creating legal barriers to build new bikeways, widen sidewalks or create dedicated bus lanes. Ironically, CEQA keeps cities from installing new bike lanes near Smart Growth and transit, because future population growth will cause too much congestion to allow for bikeways! In the East Bay we can blame CEQA for an unbuilt Telegraph Ave bikeway in Oakland and the lack of bicycle access to MacArthur BART and Fruitvale BART. A frivolous CEQA lawsuit in San Francisco halted ALL bike plan implementation for almost three years. Oakland had to spend over a $250,000 to create a Bicycle Master Plan that addressed CEQA!
It sounds crazy, but it’s true. CEQA requires projects that have an effect on traffic to evaluate future roadway capacity in the year 2035. And CEQA requires this analysis whether we are proposing to take out a lane of traffic for a bike lane, or a developer is proposing to build a new condo complex. Another ironic twist is that the Bay Area has made it a high priority to create transit-oriented development. Yet, around this future transit-oriented development, we can’t provide safe bike access, because of how CEQA is ridiculously applied. Change is in the air!
West MacArthur Blvd Bike Lane Project
Read Jason Patton’s presentation to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 8, 2008, about the City of Oakland’s attempt to stripe bike lanes on W. MacArthur Blvd leading up to the MacArthur BART Station. Jason Patton’s analysis illustrates the absurdity of CEQA applied to bike lane projects.
CEQA Reform Efforts to Date
In Nov 2008 Nelson/Nygaard’s Jeff Tumlin listed “CEQA reform” as #1 in his “Top 5 Transportation and Land Use Solutions for a Carbon Neutral Future.” Main point: CEQA actually makes it a lot easier to do sprawl and a lot harder to do infill and TOD. CEQA guidelines focus on localized traffic impacts and ignore regional (GHG and trip reduction) impacts. The guidelines also assume parking scarcity (a prime motivator for trip reduction) to be an environmental impact. Therefore, the unintended consequence of CEQA is the following: If a project sponsor wants to mitigate a negative transportation impact they should reduce density, widen roadways, add parking or move the project to a more isolated location with less existing traffic congestion.
About 50% of Bay Area emissions come from automobiles and California law requires the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2020 to 1990 levels. In December 2008 a panel of transportation experts called upon the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to replace traffic Level of Service (LOS) measures with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for CEQA evaluation of proposed new developments. Appendix G, Transportation Guidlines begins on page 10 near the end of the Jan 8, 2009 draft CEQA Amendments from OPR. In sum, use of LOS measures leads to widening of roads to accommodate more traffic that generates more GHG, while also degrading the opportunity for people to walk, bicycle, or take transit.
Governor’s Proposal on CEQA Reform
On April 13, 2009 the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research turned its back on reducing GHG and ignored the work of experts. This latest draft proposed amendments, compared to the earlier draft amendments to the Transportation Guidelines:
- Restored auto LOS as an impact measure for Congestion Management Program routes;
- Removed VMT, vehicle trips and roadway vehicle volume from the checklist;
- Identify capacity of streets, highways, freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit as impact measures.
We can assume that the mitigations for most projects undere the most recent amendments would include adding traffic capacity. This is hardly an environmental mitigation. As well, it is ridiculous to discuss the “capacity” of pedestrian and bicycle paths. The Planning and Conservation League labeled this latest draft amendment as “squishy.”
What You Can Do
Join the fight against the highway lobby at the State Resources Agency and call for CEQA guidelines that will reduce GHG emissions and end the charade that CEQA guidelines for transportation “protect the environment.” Please address your comments to chris.calfee@resources.ca.gov.
Specifically, we ask to:
- restore the Jan 8 Transportation Guideline amendments to sections (a) and (b); and
- change section (f) to read “Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs of other transportation modes (e.g., transit, bicycling and walking).”