BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 323|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 323
Author: Olsen (R), et al.
Amended: 4/6/15 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/17/15
AYES: Wieckowski, Gaines, Bates, Hill, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption:
roadway improvement
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill extends the January 1, 2016 sunset date to
January 1, 2020, on an exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects to repair,
maintain, and make minor alterations to existing roadways under
specified conditions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, under 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
AB 323
Page 2
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 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):
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.
AB 323
Page 3
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.
a) 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.
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
AB 323
Page 4
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? 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
AB 323
Page 5
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 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,
AB 323
Page 6
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 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,
AB 323
Page 7
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/18/15)
American Society of Civil Engineers Region 9
Association of California Cities - Orange County
California Association of Councils of Governments
California Chamber of Commerce
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
California Construction Trucking Association
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California State Association of Counties
City of Camarillo
City of Fountain Valley
City of Indian Wells
City of Ventura
County of Tuolumne
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
Southwest California Legislative Council
Town of Danville
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
United Contractors
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/18/15)
None received
AB 323
Page 8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau,
Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos
Prepared by:Joanne Roy / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
6/18/15 13:44:55
**** END ****