BILL ANALYSIS
SB 532
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Byron D. Sher, Chairman
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 532
AUTHOR: Romero
AMENDED: March 24, 2003
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 7, 2003
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and
develop guidelines for the implementation of CEQA by public
agencies. The guidelines must include criteria for
determining whether or not a proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The criteria must
require a finding that a project may have such an effect
under certain circumstances, including that the possible
effects of a project are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. A definition for "cumulatively
considerable" is provided in this provision.
2) Specifies the contents of an environmental impact report
(EIR) ( e.g. , significant effects on the environment of the
proposed project, mitigation measures, alternatives to the
proposed project).
3) Includes legislative intent ( e.g. , develop and maintain a
high-quality environment, protect the environment
consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable
living environment for every Californian, develop standards
and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality).
This bill :
1) Strikes the definition of "cumulatively considerable" in
the above provision and adds a definition of "cumulative
SB 532
Page 2
effects" in a new section.
2) Requires the EIR to specify the significant cumulative
effects on the environment, and to include a determination
of whether or not there is a reasonable possibility that
the project or its cumulative effects would pose a
significant risk to public health exposure to one or more
hazardous or toxic substances. If a reasonable possibility
exists, then a risk assessment must be performed to
ascertain the risk to human health.
3) Adds legislative intent that promoting environmental
justice must be a guiding criterion in public decisions
made pursuant to CEQA.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, this bill
requires "the EIR undertaken pursuant to CEQA to determine
whether there is a reasonable possibility that the project
or the cumulative effects of the project would result in a
significant risk to public health from exposure to one or
more toxic substances. If a reasonable probability does
exist then the bill requires that a risk assessment shall
be performed." This bill also requires environmental
justice to be a leading criterion in public decisions made
under CEQA.
2) Brief background on CEQA . 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. If the initial
study shows that the project may have a significant effect
on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant
SB 532
Page 3
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 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.
3) Federal and state environmental justice efforts .
Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of
people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. On February
11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898
regarding "federal actions to address environmental justice
in minority populations and low-income populations." The
executive order followed a 1992 Environmental Protection
Agency report indicating that "communities of color and
low-income populations experience higher than average
exposures to selected air pollutants, hazardous waste
facilities, and other forms of environmental pollution."
President Clinton also directed each federal agency to
address effects of actions on these communities when
analysis is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
SB 115 (Solis) Chapter 690, Statutes of 1999, requires the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to be the
coordinating agency in state government for environmental
justice programs and requires the California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to develop a model
environmental justice mission statement and requires
certain entities to comply with related environmental
justice requirements. SB 89 (Escutia) Chapter 728,
SB 532
Page 4
Statutes of 2000, enacts working group, advisory group, and
implementation report requirements. AB 1553 (Keeley)
Chapter 762, Statutes of 2001, requires OPR to adopt
guidelines for addressing environmental justice matters in
city and county general plans. SB 1542 (Escutia) Chapter
1003, Statutes of 2002, addresses environmental justice
issues for certain solid waste management activities, and
AB 2312 (Chu) Chapter 994, Statutes of 2002, establishes an
environmental justice grant program.
Prior to enactment of the above measures, several legislators
attempted to address environmental justice issues in
California, including AB 937 (Roybal-Allard) of 1991
(vetoed), AB 3024 (Roybal-Allard) of 1992 (vetoed), and AB
2212 (Lee) of 1994 (refused passage on Senate Floor).
These bills required the submittal of "project site
demographics" for a "potentially high-impact development
project" and prohibited an application for such a facility
from being accepted as complete, deemed complete, or
approved without this information. SB 451 (Watson), SB 906
(Lee), SB 1113 (Solis), and SB 2237 (Escutia) addressed
environmental justice issues during the 1997-98 session.
All were vetoed except for SB 906 (Senator Watson canceled
a hearing on the bill).
4) Cumulative effects and environmental justice . The CEQA
guidelines currently define cumulative impacts (CEQA
guidelines 15355), and the definition for cumulative
effects added by SB 532 is similar to the guidelines
provision.
Environmental justice is defined as "the fair treatment of
people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to
the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
(Government Code 65040.12(e)). SB 532 provides
legislative intent for environmental justice to "be a
guiding criterion in public decisions made pursuant to
[CEQA]."
CEQA requires an EIR to include a detailed statement regarding
certain matters, such as the significant impacts of a
SB 532
Page 5
project, significant effects on the environment that can be
avoided if the project is implemented, significant effects
on the environment that would be irreversible if the
project is implemented, mitigation measures proposed to
minimize significant effects on the environment, project
alternatives, and growth-inducing impacts. The EIR must
also include a statement indicating the reasons for
determining that various effects on the environment are not
significant. SB 532 requires the EIR to also include a
determination on whether or not there is a reasonable
possibility that the project or its cumulative effects
would pose a significant risk to public health exposure to
one or more hazardous or toxic substances. If a reasonable
possibility exists, then a risk assessment must be
performed to ascertain the risk to human health.
With regard to the risk assessment provisions of SB 532, there
have been some concerns that the "reasonable possibility"
determination be based on some evidence, which may be
appropriate to specify in this bill. The Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment provides risk
assessment guidelines and this bill could, for example,
allow for this assessment or the assessment referenced in
the bill, whichever is more stringent. Clarification may
also be helpful regarding the cumulative effects to be
considered in this determination and assessment.
SOURCE : California League of Conservation Voters
Education Fund
Planning and Conservation League
SUPPORT : Defenders of Wildlife
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
OPPOSITION : American Planning Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Environmental and
Economic Balance
California Manufacturers & Technology
Association
Western State Petroleum Association
SB 532
Page 6