BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 617 (Evans) - California Environmental Quality Act.
Amended: April 1, 2013 Policy Vote: EQ 7-2
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Consultant: Marie Liu
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: SB 617 would require assessments under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consider the
exposure of people to natural hazards or adverse environmental
conditions; make various changes to CEQA reporting requirements;
require the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) make CEQA
notices publically available on an online database; and repeal
obsolete exemptions.
Fiscal Impact:
Ongoing costs, varying annually in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, from the General Fund and special
funds, depending on the project, for additional analysis
under CEQA with some costs being recovered through fees.
Possible one-time costs, likely in the high tens of
thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
General Fund for OPR to create an expanded database for CEQA
notices.
Background: CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of a project. Under CEQA, lead agencies
with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving
a proposed discretionary project are required to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, unless the
project is exempt. Generally an EIR must be prepared for
projects that have a "significant impact on the environment"
with the environment being defined as the physical conditions
that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed
project. Certain types of project also require that the lead
agency conduct at least one scoping meeting.
At several decision points, such as when the lead agency decides
an EIR needs to be prepared or when an EIR is approved, CEQA
SB 617 (Evans)
Page 1
requires notifications be sent to the public, local agencies,
and interested parties. Notification requirements vary somewhat
depending on the action.
AB 900 (Buchanan/Gordon) Chapter 354/2011 established CEQA
procedures for "environmental leadership development projects."
These projects are selected by the Governor and must meet
certain requirements. The lead agency considering a leadership
project must prepare a record of proceedings concurrently with
the administrative process.
Existing law requires OPR to develop guidelines for the
implementation of CEQA ("CEQA Guidelines"). OPR is required to
review the CEQA guidelines every two years for possible updates.
The guidelines are anticipated to be updated in 2014.
Proposed Law: This bill would expand the definition of the
"environment" and "significant effect on the environment" and
would require that projects are evaluated for how it might be
affected by the environment, such as sea level rise and natural
hazards.
This bill would also standardize how notices are filed under
CEQA and to whom. This bill would require expand the notices
required to be sent to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
and would require OPR to post the notices in a publicly
available, online database. OPR would also be authorized to
charge the filing agency an administrative fee not to exceed $10
per notice.
This bill would also require lead agencies, until January 1,
2017 and at the request of a project applicant, to prepare a
record of proceedings concurrently with the administrative
process. The request would be required to include an agreement
to pay all of the lead agency's costs for preparing and
certifying the record of proceedings.
This bill would also require that scoping meetings under CEQA
are public and would delete obsolete statutory CEQA exemptions.
Related Legislation: AB 380 (Dickinson) is substantially similar
to the provisions of this bill that would expand the notices
that are required to be sent to OPR and would require OPR to
post the notices in a publically available, online database. AB
SB 617 (Evans)
Page 2
380 is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 953 (Ammiano) is identical to the provisions of the bill that
would expand the definition of "environment" and "significant
effect on the environment and require that projects be evaluated
for how it might be affected by the environment. AB 953 is
currently on the Assembly Floor.
SB 984 (Simitian) 2012 would have allowed concurrent preparation
of the record of proceedings. SB 984 died pending concurrence on
the Senate Floor.
Staff Comments: This bill potentially increases the workload for
a lead agency to review a project as this bill would require
that lead agency to also consider the impact of natural hazards
or adverse environmental conditions on the project. This
requirement could increase state costs for both when a state
agency is a lead or responsible agency and when the state is the
project proponent. However, staff notes that this analysis is
currently required by the current CEQA Guidelines (�15126.2(a),
which are adopted regulations, despite recent litigation.
Because this analysis is currently in the CEQA guidelines, it is
reasonable to assume that at least some agencies may already be
doing this analysis, thus reducing the potential cost impact of
this bill provision. Actual costs would vary greatly depending
on the project and are speculative, but staff believes it is
reasonable to assume that costs could average in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars collectively across state agencies.
Currently OPR has a searchable database of CEQA documents that
are received by the office, including summaries of EIRs and
negative declarations, called CEQAnet. This database was created
in the 1990s and does not provide the full text of any
environmental documents. CEQAnet is also not a comprehensive
database of all CEQA documents as not all documents are required
to be submitted to OPR. Last year, OPR initiated an effort to
modernize and expand the database and they anticipate a
prototype being finished in Fall 2013. OPR, through the
contractor for the database update, is exploring options that
allow for the full electronic submission of CEQA documents from
various parties, linking CEQA documents to interactive maps and
state parcel data, electronic collection of CEQA fees on behalf
of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and various search
capabilities. The contract to create a prototype database cost
SB 617 (Evans)
Page 3
approximately $200,000. Costs are likely to total $500,000 once
the database is finalized. This update may result in a database
that meets the requirements set under this bill; however, if it
does not, OPR may incur additional information technology (IT)
costs. Staff notes that these IT costs are likely in the high
tens of thousands of dollars to low hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
This bill allows OPR to charge an administrative fee of up to
$10 to pay for its costs of maintaining the database. However,
OPR notes that as an office of the Governor's office it is
difficult and awkward to charge fees. Staff notes as an example,
the services provided to businesses through GoBiz, another
office of the Governor, are provided at no costs. Therefore,
although the bill gives OPR fee authority, it is likely that OPR
will not utilize the authority.
This bill is a mandate as it would require a lead agency, which
can be a local agency, to take certain actions under CEQA.
However, as local agencies can charge a fee to a project
proponent to cover the costs of providing such activities, this
bill does not create a reimbursable mandate.