BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 323
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Olsen |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |4/6/2015 |Hearing | 6/17/2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption:
roadway improvement
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to
prepare a negative declaration, mitigated 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). (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.).
2) 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 project, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA.
3) Exempts from CEQA, until January 1, 2016, minor roadway
repairs, maintenance and minor alterations as follows (PRC
§21080.37):
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 2 of
?
a) Requires the project to meet the following conditions:
i. The project is carried out by a city or county with a
population of less than 100,000 to improve public safety.
ii. The project does not cross a "waterway" (defined as a
bay, estuary, lake, pond, river, slough, or a perennial,
intermittent, or ephemeral stream, lake, or
estuarine-marine shoreline).
iii. The project involves negligible or no expansion of an
existing use.
iv. The project is not on a state roadway.
v. The site of the project does not contain wetlands,
riparian areas, or significant wildlife habitat value and
does not harm any protected species, impact cultural
resources, or affect scenic resources.
b) Requires the lead agency to:
i. Include measures in the project to mitigate potential
vehicular traffic and safety impacts and bicycle and
pedestrian safety impacts.
ii. Hold a noticed public hearing on the project to hear
and respond to public comments.
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 3 of
?
iii. File a notice of exemption with the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR).
This bill extends the January 1, 2016 sunset date to January 1,
2020 on an exemption from CEQA, pursuant to PRC §21080.37, for
projects to repair, maintain, and make minor alterations to
existing roadways under specified conditions.
Background
1) CEQA: Environmental review process.
CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects
of a project, and includes 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.
2) What is analyzed in an environmental review?
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 4 of
?
Pursuant to CEQA, an environmental review analyzing the
significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of a
proposed project, may include water quality, surface and
subsurface hydrology, land use and agricultural resources,
transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions, terrestrial and aquatic biological resources,
aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation, public services and
utilities such as water supply and wastewater disposal,
cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources.
The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of any
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/activities
within study areas that are applicable to the resources being
evaluated. A study area for a proposed project must not be
limited to the footprint of the project because many
environmental impacts of a development extend beyond the
identified project boundary. Also, CEQA stipulates that the
environmental impacts must be measured against existing
physical conditions within the project area, not future,
allowable conditions.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill.
According to the author, "California has four times as many
traffic fatalities on rural non-interstate roads compared to
all other roads. Oftentimes, small communities come across
minor or emergency roadway repairs that need to be made
quickly. To delay or halt those repairs is to impact the
safety and economic health of small communities that may have
limited road alternatives. AB 323 would allow the streamlined
process to continue to save lives."
2) Has this exemption been used yet?
AB 890 (Olsen, Chapter 528, Statutes of 2012), established the
exemption, which is the subject of AB 323. Among the
conditions, AB 890 required lead agencies claiming this
exemption to file a notice of exemption with OPR. OPR reports
no notices filed to date, so it appears that the AB 890
exemption has yet to be used. To preserve the Legislature's
ability to periodically evaluate the effects of this exemption,
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 5 of
?
AB 323 extends the sunset to January 1, 2020.
3) What is lost with a CEQA exemption?
It is not unusual for certain interests to assert that a
particular exemption will expedite construction of a particular
type of project and reduce costs. This, however, frequently
overlooks the benefits of adequate environmental review where
lead and responsible agencies are legally accountable for their
actions to:
Inform decisionmakers and the public about project
impacts;
Identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce
environmental damage;
Prevent environmental damage by requiring feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures;
Disclose to the public reasons why an agency approved a
project if significant environmental effects are involved;
Involve public agencies in the process; and,
Increase public participation in the environmental review
and the planning processes.
If a project is exempt from CEQA, certain issues should be
addressed. For example:
How can decisionmakers and the public be aware of impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives of a project because of
the exemption?
Is it appropriate for the public to live with the
consequences when a project is exempt and impacts may not be
mitigated and alternatives may not be considered regarding
certain matters, such as air quality, water quality, and
noise impacts?
Because adverse project impacts do not disappear when they
are not identified and mitigated, does an exemption result in
a direct transfer of responsibility for mitigating impacts
from the applicant to the public (i.e., taxpayers) if impacts
are ultimately addressed after completion of the project?
If taxpayers, rather than the project applicant, are
ultimately responsible for mitigating certain impacts of such
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 6 of
?
a project after project completion, what assessments or taxes
will be increased to fund mitigation or pay for alternatives
at a later date?
It is also not unusual for certain interests to blame CEQA
lawsuits. However, according to a study on the issue, "Despite
criticisms that CEQA often results in litigation, CEQA-related
litigation is relatively rare." The study noted that the
number of lawsuits to the number of CEQA reviews "yields an
estimate of one lawsuit per 354 CEQA reviews."
Those citing CEQA and CEQA litigation as a problem do not
indicate the result of that litigation. Were significant
impacts that were not evaluated in the initial document
ultimately addressed? What would have been the result if those
impacts had not been mitigated (e.g., flooding, exposure of
people to hazards, inadequate public services, congestion)?
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 890 (Olsen, Chapter 528, Statutes of 2012), exempted a project
or activity from CEQA to repair, maintain, or make minor
alterations to an existing roadway if certain conditions are met,
and sunsets January 1, 2016.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
American Society of Civil Engineers Region 9
Association of California Cities - Orange County
California Chamber of Commerce
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
California State Association of Counties
California Construction Trucking Association
City of Camarillo
City of Fountain Valley
City of Indian Wells
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
Southwest California Legislative Council
Town of Danville
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
AB 323 (Olsen) Page 7 of
?
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --