BILL NUMBER: SB 1562 CHAPTERED 09/29/00 CHAPTER 925 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 25, 2000 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 21, 2000 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 18, 2000 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 11, 2000 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 6, 2000 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2000 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2000 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 3, 2000 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 5, 2000 INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton FEBRUARY 18, 2000 An act to add and repeal Sections 21085.7 and 21151.10 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1562, Burton. Mitigation of projects through wetlands restoration. (1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effect of the project. This bill would require the lead agency to include a detailed statement of mitigation, with specified analyses, in an environmental impact report for a specified airport project, if the environmental impact report identifies as a proposed mitigation the payment of funds to one or more public agencies to mitigate the impacts of the project for which the lead agency of the airport project prepared the document, and the agencies propose to use the funds for that purpose. The bill would require the lead agency of the airport project to make the approval of the project and the payment of funds for mitigation measures contingent upon a specified agreement between the lead agency of the airport project and the public agency. The bill would also require the lead agency, if the project includes more than one acre of fill in the San Francisco Bay, to include in the environmental impact report an analysis of a form of joint management of the airport by the city and county and the Oakland International Airport, as an alternative to the project. By imposing these requirements on a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district are the result of a program for which legislative authority was requested by that local agency or school district, within the meaning of Section 17550 of the Government Code and Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 21085.7 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21085.7. (a) (1) If an environmental impact report for a project at an airport that is owned by a city and county and that is located in another county identifies as a proposed mitigation measure the acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of salt ponds and the lead agency proposes the payment of funds to one or more public agencies to mitigate the impacts of the proposed project and the public agency or agencies propose to use those funds to acquire, enhance, and restore land, the lead agency shall include in the environmental impact report on the proposed project a detailed statement of the mitigation measure, including all of the following: (A) An analysis of the relationship between the impacts of the proposed project and the benefits of the proposed acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of land that the payment of funds would allow. (B) An analysis of the feasibility of the proposed acquisition, enhancement, and restoration. (C) A discussion of the expected impacts of the proposed acquisition, enhancement, and restoration. (2) The detailed statement of the mitigation measure shall consist of the following: (A) Information in existence at the time the environmental impact report is prepared, including the restoration goals specific to salt ponds as identified in the San Francisco Estuary Baylands Ecosystem Goals Report published in 1999. (B) Information that is reasonably obtainable, including, but not limited to, a hydrodynamic analysis of potential flood impacts, and analyses regarding the potential for the following: (i) Changes to the waters and tidal currents of the southern portions of the San Francisco Bay. (ii) Potential alterations to the San Francisco Bay floor. (iii) Related impacts on water quality. (3) If, at the time of the publication of the draft environmental impact report, a restoration plan has not been adopted by a public agency with jurisdiction to carry out the restoration project, the lead agency for the airport project need not prepare a detailed restoration plan or analyze the impacts of a restoration plan for the lands proposed for acquisition, enhancement, and restoration; however, the lead agency shall evaluate a conceptual restoration plan, and shall fully evaluate a potentially feasible alternate mitigation measure that does not depend on the salt ponds. (b) If the lead agency for the airport project approves the proposed project and approves the payment of funds for the acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of land as a mitigation measure, it shall make both such approvals contingent upon an agreement between the lead agency and the public agency or agencies wherein the public agency or agencies agree to use the funds solely for the following purposes: (1) The acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of the lands identified by the lead agency in its detailed statement of the mitigation measure. (2) The preparation and implementation of a restoration plan that, at a minimum, mitigates the significant impact that would be substantially lessened or avoided by implementation of the mitigation measure as identified in the final environmental impact report certified by the lead agency. (c) The agreement described in subdivision (b) shall identify a feasible alternative mitigation measure to be implemented if the restoration of all or a portion of the salt ponds proves to be infeasible, as determined by the lead agency. (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to assess or assign liability with respect to the salt ponds. (e) Funds for the costs of mitigation shall include the costs of the environmental reviews conducted by a state agency of the restoration plan prepared by a state agency. (f) This section shall only apply to the acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of salt ponds located in the southerly portion of the San Francisco Bay. (g) As used in this section, "acquisition, enhancement, and restoration" also includes acquisition, enhancement, or restoration. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends that date. SEC. 2. Section 21151.10 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21151.10. (a) If an environmental impact report is prepared for a project at an airport that is owned by a city and county and that is located in another county that includes more than one acre of fill in the San Francisco Bay, the environmental impact report shall analyze, as an alternative to the project, a form of joint management of that airport owned by the city and county and the Oakland International Airport. This joint management alternative shall separately analyze an underground high-speed rail transit connection and a high-speed ferry connection between the two airports and shall utilize in both analyses all technological enhancements reasonably expected to be available. The analysis of the joint management alternative shall include a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of the alternative with the proposed project, and shall assess the feasibility of the alternative notwithstanding that changes in state law may be required for its implementation. The environmental impact report shall identify any changes in state law that would be required in order to implement this alternative. (b) Nothing in this section or in Section 21085.7 shall be interpreted in a manner that alters the lead agency's obligation to comply with this division in connection with proposed mitigation measures other than the mitigation measure described in Section 21085.7. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends that date. SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that because of a unique situation involving a construction project at San Francisco International Airport, a statute of general applicability cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution and that a special statute is therefore necessary. SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district are the result of a program for which legislative authority was requested by that local agency or school district, within the meaning of Section 17550 of the Government Code and Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.