BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de León, 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. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.


          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 (as approved on May 23, 2013): 
              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. 

          The committee amendments would delete requirements for  
          concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings.