BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 380
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 380 (Dickinson) - As Introduced: February 14, 2013
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: notice
requirements.
SUMMARY : Establishes uniform procedures for electronic posting
of CEQA documents by county clerks and the Office of Planning
and Research. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires specified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
notices to be filed with the Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), and posted by OPR on a public, online database,
including:
a) Decisions made by agencies with a certified regulatory
program, which are currently required to be filed with, and
posted by, the Natural Resources Agency;
b) Scoping meetings;
c) Preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) or
negative declaration;
d) Completion of an EIR; and,
e) Approval of a project.
2)Requires notices of project approval by a state agency,
currently required to be filed with OPR, to also be filed with
the county clerk of each county in which the project will be
located.
3)Requires notices of project approval by a local agency,
currently required to be filed with the county clerk of each
county in which the project will be located, to also be filed
with OPR.
4)Requires notices of EIR completion, currently required to be
filed with OPR by a state or local public agency, to also be
filed with the county clerk of each county in which the
project will be located.
AB 380
Page 2
5)Requires notices currently required to be posted for 30 days
(or 20 days in the case of a notice of negative declaration)
to be posted for at least 30 days or the full duration of any
statutory time period, whichever is longer.
6)Requires that the time limits for CEQA litigation, which
commence on the date of notice filing, be based on the latest
posting date between a county clerk and OPR.
7)Requires county clerks and OPR to post notices within one
business day and date stamp the notices.
8)Authorizes OPR to collect a fee of up to $10 per notice from
agencies filing the notice.
9)Authorizes an agency in turn to recover its filing costs from
the applicant.
10)Clarifies that scoping meetings, required to be held by lead
agencies for certain highway projects and other projects or
statewide, regional, or area wide significance, are public.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a lead agency with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR
for its action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2)Requires a lead agency to make these and other documents,
including notices, comments, and responses, available to the
public, including specified individuals and agencies, such as
residents adjacent to a proposed project, and the OPR's State
Clearinghouse for projects reviewed by state agencies, and
provide documents directly to individuals upon request.
3)Requires a lead state agency to file a notice of determination
(NOD) with OPR and requires a lead local agency to file a NOD
with the appropriate county clerk(s). A lead agency is
authorized, but not required in most cases, to file a notice
of exemption (NOE) if it determines that a project is exempt
from CEQA.
4)Requires a lead agency to call at least one scoping meeting
AB 380
Page 3
for a proposed project of statewide, regional, or area-wide
significance. Notice of at least one scoping meeting must be
provided to specified agencies, as well as any organization or
individual who has filed a written request for notice.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)This bill establishes uniform procedures for lead agency CEQA
documents, and would require all lead agency documents to be
filed and posted online by OPR. This bill is
author-sponsored. This bill is author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, "Various time periods for public,
trustee, and responsible agency participation under CEQA are
triggered by the issuance of a variety of notices required by
statue. Under current law, where and how these various
notices are made public (if at all) substantially differs
depending on the type of notice, the nature of the project,
and whether the lead agency is a state agency or a local
agency.
"State agencies post their notices electronically at OPR's
CEQAnet website, while local agencies post their notices with
the local county clerk-recorder's office. For some notices,
there is no requirement of public posting at all, or mandatory
time frame for how soon after issuance these notices must be
posted, or mandate that the date they are publicly posted is
clearly and actually recorded, yet, in most cases, the
postings trigger short periods of time for public or
interested agency response. Additionally, there is no clarity
on what procedures CEQA's posting requirements require of
local county-clerk's offices, subjecting these provisions to
abuse.
"The earliest stage for input in the CEQA process is scoping,
which determines what issues will be examined by the lead
agency in its environmental review for a given CEQA project.
Current law does not mandate that the scoping be public."
3)Public notice of lead agency actions and access to documents
is essential to CEQA's public participation purpose. However,
CEQA's various notice requirements have been enacted over the
years in a piecemeal fashion. Many of the procedures predate
AB 380
Page 4
common use of the Internet and current expectations about
electronic access to information. Local governments' use of
electronic document posting varies widely and there are no
uniform requirements.
The state has gradually incorporated the use of electronic
information in the CEQA process. For example, since 2003, the
State Clearinghouse within OPR, which coordinates the
state-level review of environmental documents pursuant to
CEQA, has distributed EIRs in CD-ROM format for state agency
review and comment. The Clearinghouse now offers most other
environmental documents in electronic format. The
Clearinghouse also maintain CEQAnet, an online searchable
database of CEQA documents. The CEQAnet database provides
summaries of EIRs, negative declarations, and other types of
CEQA documents. The summaries include the project title,
project location, lead agency name, contact information, and
project description. At this time, CEQAnet does not provide
the full text of any environmental documents. Because not all
environmental documents are submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, CEQAnet is not a comprehensive database of all
CEQA documents in California. OPR is the process of updating
CEQAnet, which may improve its functionality and increase the
scope of CEQA documents available.
4)Several local government associations and an individual local
agency have expressed concerns with the bill's provisions, as
follows:
a) The American Planning Association (APA), California
Chapter (Support if Amended) notes that the bill includes a
large number of notices that currently do not have to be
filed?these notices should be pared down to only those
relating to review periods and project approval. APA
suggests that the bill should require that the lead agency
only link the notice on the OPR site rather than also
require uploading it to their own site, although the lead
agency could always post it on their own site if they wish.
b) Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
(Oppose unless Amended), writes that the bill specifies
that the CEQA time period or limitation period does not
commence until the notices are actually posted for public
review by the county clerk or is available in the OPR
AB 380
Page 5
online database, whichever is later. RCRC writes that
"most troublesome is the lack of certainty caused by the
"whichever is later" provision related to posting?this
requirement would complicate planning efforts relating to
the start and end of CEQA timelines."
c) The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
(Oppose unless Amended), writes that they believe that AB
380 "would add further cost, delay and the risk of
actionable procedural violations to the administrative CEQA
process. We are also unclear whether a scoping meeting for
an EIR can be held before the 30 days' posting period for a
notice of intent to prepare an EIR has run its course. If
the bill's intent is for the scoping meeting to be preceded
by a full 30 days' posted notice, the EIR process would be
lengthened adding additional time delays."
d) El Dorado Irrigation District (Oppose unless Amended),
writes that "AB 380 does not trigger the deadlines for
commenting on a Draft EIR until the later of two notice
processes have run their course?this makes it difficult for
agencies to plan timelines and requires them to monitor the
activities of the County Clerk and the state Office of
Planning and Research in order to determine when the
timelines begin and end. This adds uncertainty, delay, and
the possibility of error to what is already an intricate
process with arguable robust public participation."
The Committee may wish to ask the author about the status of
ongoing discussions with these local government groups and
update the Committee on any agreements that may have been
reached to address the above concerns.
5)Support arguments : Supporters argue that many of the changes
that the bill would make to the CEQA notice requirements would
be helpful by creating a single system of posting regardless
of the lead agency, ensuring accessibility.
Opposition arguments : Opponents argue that the bill would
complicate the administrative process and increase the risk of
actionable procedural violations as well as adding to the cost
of CEQA.
6)This bill was heard in the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee on April 1, 2013, and passed on a 6-2 vote.
AB 380
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Planning Association, California Chapter (if amended)
California Bicycle Coalition
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Native Plant Society
Californians Against Waste
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment
Clean Water Action California
Coastal Conservation Network
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Communities for a Better Environment
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Environmental Defense Center
Escondido Creek Conservancy
AB 380
Page 7
Friends of Palm Springs Mountains
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.
Los Padres ForestWatch
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning
North Country Watch
Rural Residents and Friends
Planning and Conservation League
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The River project
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California Action
Network
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies (unless amended)
El Dorado Irrigation District (unless amended)
Rural County Representatives of California (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958