BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1415
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bates |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |4/18/2016 |Hearing |4/20/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: local water
projects
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, 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 (PRC) §21000 et seq.)
This bill requires an early consultation and scoping process for
specified local water projects and requires the lead agency to
provide notice of at least one scoping meeting to receive public
comments.
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
SB 1415 (Bates) Page 2 of
?
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
physical conditions within the project area, not future,
allowable conditions.
SB 1415 (Bates) Page 3 of
?
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill.
The author states:
Unfortunately, developers, business leaders, and government
agencies can have difficulty getting projects launched due to the
burdensome length of time that the CEQA approval process can take.
This approval process can also be subject to frivolous lawsuits
late in the game from opponents who decide to weigh in at the end,
just before the approval of a project, as an attempt to delay or
altogether kill a project. It is important that the state protects
the environment for current and future generations; however, it is
also important that we allow projects to move forward, assuming
they still allow adequate time for public comments on the front
end. SB 1415, as amended, seeks to speed up the CEQA process,
allowing proponents and opponents to express their comments
publicly in a scoping meeting scheduled by the lead agency on the
project at the beginning of the project. The bill is now limited
to three specific types of projects: local storm water runoff
capture, local water recycling projects, and local wastewater
treatment projects. Though not as expansive as originally
intended, I believe SB 1415 is a step in the right direction to
aid our locals early in the process with consultation occurring at
the front end as opposed to causing further delays at the later
end of a project's approval.
2) Load up in front, save time on the back end.
According to CEQA Guidelines, early consultation "solves many
potential problems that would arise in more serious forms later
in the review process." The guidelines also provide that
scoping "has been helpful to agencies in identifying the range
of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant
effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating
from detailed study issues found not to be important. The
guidelines further note that scoping "has been found to be an
effective way to bring together and resolve the concerns of
affected federal, state, and local agencies, the proponent of
the action, and other interested persons including those who
might not be in accord with the action on environmental
grounds."
SB 1415 (Bates) Page 4 of
?
Because of the author's intent to expedite the environmental
review process for local water projects to alleviate the
current drought state of emergency conditions as well as to
preserve the ability to make informed decisions and provide
transparency and public participation, this bill provides for
early consultation on such projects.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --