BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 633|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 633
Author: Pavley (D)
Amended: 5/6/13
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 8-0, 5/1/13
AYES: Hill, Gaines, Calderon, Corbett, Hancock, Jackson, Leno,
Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : CEQA
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes, but does not require, the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide guidance by
July 1, 2015, to local communities pursuant to the existing
categorical exemptions in the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) that pertains to minor temporary uses of land and
public gatherings that have no significant impact on the
environment. This bill clarifies when a subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report may be required.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law, under CEQA:
CONTINUED
SB 633
Page
2
1.Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary 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).
2.Provides for the guidelines to list classes of projects that
have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and are exempt from CEQA.
3.Provides specific requirements to revising the guidelines for
infill projects.
4.Prohibits a lead agency or responsible agency from requiring a
subsequent or supplemental EIR when an EIR has been prepared
for a project unless one or more specified events occurs,
including that new information becomes available that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was
certified as complete.
This bill:
1.Authorizes OPR to revise the guidelines to add a categorical
exemption for a class of projects involving minor temporary
uses of land and public gatherings that do not have a
significant effect on the environment by July 1, 2015.
2.Requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to
certify and adopt proposed revisions authorized above by
January 1, 2016.
3.Specifies that new information that becomes available was not
known and could not have been known by the lead agency or any
responsible agency at the time the EIR was certified as
complete for one of the specified events listed to prohibit a
lead agency or responsible agency from requiring a
supplemental or subsequent EIR.
Background
Brief background on CEQA . CEQA provides a process for
evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and includes
CONTINUED
SB 633
Page
3
statutory exemptions as well as categorical exemptions in the
CEQA guidelines. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an
initial study is prepared to determine whether a 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, then 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 an 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.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant
effects in addition to those that would be caused by the
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure must be
discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the
proposed project.
San Diego litigation . San Diego requires a Parks Use Permit,
which is intended to be a ministerial permit, for certain public
facility events. The city's Special Events Permit for certain
other organized activities is considered a discretionary permit.
As noted above, CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Section
21080(a))
In 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court in
San Diego, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) v.
City of San Diego related to temporary special event and park
use permits issued by the City of San Diego and whether the
permits are subject to CEQA review. The Court held that a
decision to issue a Park Use Permit is not ministerial because
the city's ordinance gives the Parks and Recreation Department
leeway in determining whether to issue the permit due to such
factors as congestion or interference with vehicular or
CONTINUED
SB 633
Page
4
pedestrian traffic.
San Diego has revised Park Use Permit and Special Events Permit
requirements so that the Park Use Permit is ministerial, and a
fireworks event is subject to the Park Use Permit and not
subject to the Special Events Permit.
Since the initial case, referred to as "CERF I," subsequent
lawsuits have been filed against the city by the same plaintiff
for the following: (a) the practice of issuing Special Events
permits ("CERF II"); (b) the first set of permit ordinance
amendments and the exception of fireworks displays from the
Special Events ordinance ("CERF III"); and (c) the second set of
ordinance amendments relating to the Park Use Permit and setting
capacity thresholds for fireworks displays ("CERF IV"). Three
of the cases (CERF I, III, and IV) are on appeal. In addition,
CERF and the City of San Diego are currently working on settling
their issues out of court.
Prior Legislation
SB 973 (Vargas, 2012) allowed a lead agency to grant a
categorical exemption under CEQA for an annual firework display
subject to limitations. The bill also authorized the Office of
Planning and Research to evaluate issues related to events that
include fireworks displays to assist local agencies to mitigate
impacts and develop ordinances. The bill failed passage (3-1)
in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
SB 206 (Harkey, 2012) exempted a municipal fireworks display
from the California Coastal Act and CEQA. The bill failed
passage (3-4) in Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time costs
of approximately $50,000 from the General Fund to OPR to create
a new categorical exemption for minor temporary uses of land and
public gatherings.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/13)
California Council for Environmental Balance
CONTINUED
SB 633
Page
5
California Travel Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"Some local governments and sponsors of local events such
as nonprofit groups, charities, schools, businesses,
farmers' markets, tourism boards, and others have become
concerned that litigation in 2010 may require many
temporary local events fully to comply with CEQA. This
concern exists even though several categorical exemptions
within the CEQA Guidelines would already seem to apply to
these events, especially Section 15304 that exempts minor
alterations to land or water including 'temporary use of
land having negligible or not permanent effects on the
environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees,
etc.' Thus, although the concern may be exaggerated, it is
one that the Legislature may help resolve."
"On an unrelated point, the bill also clarifies the need
for supplemental EIRs. Current law says that a
supplemental EIR has to be done when new information is
available at the time the EIR was certified. This bill
would limit that to new information known to the lead
agency or a responsible agency."
RM:ej 5/30/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED