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 --