California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: railroad crossings.
Summary
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, 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 if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts from its requirements railroad grade separation projects that eliminate an existing grade crossing or reconstruct an existing grade separation. Existing law grants the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) the authority to regulate railroad crossings, as prescribed. This bill would, until January 1, 2016, exempt from CEQA the closure of a railroad grade crossing by order of the PUC under the above authority if the PUC finds the crossing to present a threat to public safety. CEQA authorizes a state agency, whenever it determines that a project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to designated provisions and the state agency approves or determines to carry out the project, to file a specified notice of that approval or determination with the Office of Planning and Research. CEQA authorizes a local agency, whenever it determines that a project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to designated provisions and the local agency approves or determines to carry out the project, to file a specified notice of that approval or determination with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. This bill would require a state agency that determines that such a railroad closure grade crossing project is not subject to CEQA, and the state agency approves or determines to carry out that project, to file a specified notice with the Office of Planning and Research. The bill also would require a local agency that makes such a determination, and approves or determines to carry out that project, to file a specified notice with the Office of Planning and Research and with the county clerk in each county in which the project will be located. Because the bill would impose new duties on local agencies with regard to providing notice of project determinations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Aug 2012
Signed into Law
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 14, 2012
Signed Sep 28, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Aug 20, 2012 · Assembly May 21, 2012
How they voted
27–8
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 39
Aug 20, 2012
D
Democratic24
83% Yea
R
Republican15
53% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
25
Key actions
10
Committee
10
Amendments
2
Sep 28, 2012
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 22, 2012
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 56. Noes 21. Page 6144.).
lower
Aug 20, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (27-8-4)
senate
Aug 20, 2012
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 22 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 6, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Aug 6, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (July 2).
upper
May 31, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on E.Q.
upper
May 21, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (50-22-7)
assembly
May 9, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 9).
lower
Apr 24, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 19, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Apr 16, 2012
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Mar 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Feb 23, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Feb 15, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 16.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Cathleen Galgiani
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1665
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1665. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline