BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 584
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nguyen |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |4/20/2015 |Hearing | April 29, 2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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). (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.)
2. Provides a categorical exemption for minor alterations to land,
which consists of minor public or private alterations in the
condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve
removal of healthy, mature scenic trees except for forestry and
agricultural purposes. (CEQA Guidelines §15304).
This bill:
1. Exempts from the requirements of CEQA a project for resurfacing a
city or county park.
2. Defines "resurfacing" as changing the surface of a field while
retaining the original purpose of the park as a recreational
facility, including, but not limited to, changing a grass field
to a baseball field or an artificial turf field.
SB 584 (Nguyen) Page 2 of ?
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 (ND). If the initial study shows
that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, then the lead agency must prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (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.
SB 584 (Nguyen) Page 3 of ?
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. What Is Lost With An Exemption From CEQA?
It is not unusual for some 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
SB 584 (Nguyen) Page 4 of ?
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, congestion)?
Also, challenges to CEQA determinations must be commenced within
an unusually short 30 days of an agency's filing of a notice of
determination. In addition, no later than 20 days from the date
of service upon a public agency, the public agency must file a
notice with the court setting a time and place for all parties to
meet and attempt to settle the litigation.
1. Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations to Land.
This bill exempts from the requirements of CEQA a project for the
resurfacing of a local park and cites an example of changing a
grass field to a baseball field or an artificial turf field.
Based on limited information, it appears that the purpose of this
bill may already be fulfilled in existing law with the
categorical exemption for minor alterations to land, which
includes minor public or private alterations in the condition of
land (CEQA Guidelines §15304). Changing a grass field to a
baseball field or an artificial turf field may be considered a
minor alteration in the condition of land. This bill seems
redundant to the exemption already provided in law and is
unnecessary.
2. Maybe a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
SB 584 (Nguyen) Page 5 of ?
Applies.
If a categorical exemption does not apply, then it should be noted
that not all projects subject to CEQA are required to do an EIR.
In fact, based on the number of documents submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, data shows that most projects do not trigger an
EIR.
If the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
effect on the environment, then the lead agency must prepare an
ND. If the initial study shows potentially significant impacts
but the applicant revises the project plan, which would avoid or
mitigate those impacts, before the proposed ND and initial study
are released for public review, then the lead agency must prepare
a mitigated negative declaration (MND). These types of
environmental reviews tend to be less expensive and
time-consuming than an EIR. Perhaps, such a project as described
in SB 584 would qualify for an ND/MND.
As existing law appears to accomplish the intended goal of this
bill, it is unclear why an additional exemption may be warranted.
SOURCE: Unknown
SUPPORT: None on file
OPPOSITION: None on file
-- END --