BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 890|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 890
Author: Olsen (R) and Perea (D), et al.
Amended: 8/7/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 7/2/12
AYES: Simitian, Strickland, Blakeslee, Hancock, Lowenthal,
Pavley
NOES: Kehoe
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-9, 1/26/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Environment: CEQA exemption: roadways
improvement
SOURCE : Tuolumne County
DIGEST : This bill exempts from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) repair, maintenance, and
minor alterations of existing roadways, provided the
project is initiated by a city or county to improve public
safety, does not cross a waterway, and involves negligible
or no expansion of an existing use. Whenever a state
agency determines that a project is not subject to CEQA
pursuant to this bill, and it approves or determines to
carry out that project, the state agency shall file a
notice with the Office of Planning and Research in the
manner specified in current law. Whenever a local agency
CONTINUED
AB 890
Page
2
determines that a project is not subject CEQA pursuant to
this bill, and it approves or determines to or carry out
that project, the local agency shall file a notice with the
Office of Planning and Research, and with the county clerk
in the county in which the project will be located in the
manner specified in current law. The exemption sunsets
January 1, 2016.
ANALYSIS : 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).
Comments
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 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.
According to the author, "In recent years, CEQA has slowed
or halted many public and private projects. It is
important to understand the environmental impacts of a
AB 890
Page
3
public works project, but to slow or halt a public roadway
project that improves public safety is illogical. Cities
and counties need to be able to quickly perform some public
works projects. Public safety must be the number one
priority of the state, and CEQA has hindered cities and
counties from performing their basic duty?..AB 890
streamlines the process for minor roadway improvements for
cities and counties to improve road safety."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/9/12)
Tuolumne County (source)
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors
Association of California Cities - Orange County
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California State Association of Counties
California State Council of Laborers
Cities of Kingsburg, Martinez, and Ventura
County of Tulare
Fresno Council of Governments
Greater Bakersfield Chamber Commerce
Kern Council of Governments
League of Cities
Madera County
Madera County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Business Council
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Region 9 American Society of Civil Engineers
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Southwest California Legislative Council
Southwest Riverside County Legislative Council
Stanislaus County
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Tulare County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/9/12)
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
AB 890
Page
4
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Tuolumne County
Board of Supervisors in supporting and sponsoring this
bill, "These studies and mitigation seem to be taking
longer periods of time and higher costs to complete. The
result is a reduction in financial resources available to
make public safety improvements to existing roadways." The
board notes that it "has advocated for a change in the law
that regains a proper perspective as to CEQA compliance
costs relative to the actual disturbance of the physical
environment within already established right of ways."
The California Chamber of Commerce supports this bill and
writes, "AB 890 (Olsen) as a JOB CREATOR by encouraging job
growth through the reduction of time and cost associated
roadway improvements. This legislation is consistent with
the goals of our 2012 RENEW AGENDA and will help position
California for economic recovery. AB 890 would exempt
improvements within an existing roadway from the CEQA
process. AB 890 would allow local governments to fix and
maintain roadways in a timely manner ensuring the safety of
drivers and ease of goods movement. Allowing necessary
improvements to be completed without delay will create
certainty for businesses and developers involved in the
projects as well as provide for more efficient goods
movement."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to opponents,
"Current law already provides two alternatives to a
full-scale CEQA exemption, which we believe will achieve
the author's goals while still identifying and mitigating
any significant impacts of the project." Opponents also
note that "while the author may intend to deal with only
minor impacting projects, the fact is, the bill could also
exempt projects that have significant effects on
archaeological, Native American heritage sites, and
riparian endangered plant and species."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-9, 1/26/12
AYES: Achadjian, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Block, Bonilla,
Bradford, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
AB 890
Page
5
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Dickinson, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Fuentes, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Grove,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Huber,
Hueso, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, John A. Pérez
NOES: Allen, Ammiano, Blumenfield, Feuer, Gatto, Hill,
Huffman, Monning, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Atkins, Brownley, Butler, Davis,
Eng, Fong, Furutani, Gordon, Gorell, Halderman, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Mitchell, Skinner, Smyth, Wieckowski, Williams
DLW:d 8/15/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****