BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1017
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2007-2008 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1017
AUTHOR: Ma
AMENDED: January 7, 2008
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 16, 2008
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare
a negative declaration, mitigated 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 21080 et
seq.).
2) Authorizes the certification of an EIR, approval of a
negative declaration, or determination that a project is
exempt from CEQA, by a nonelected decisionmaking body to be
appealed to the agency's elected decisionmaking body.
This bill :
1) Requires an appeal of a nonelected decisionmaking body to
be brought within 30 days of the certification, approval,
or determination, unless that period is extended to no more
than 60 days by the elected decisionmaking body.
2) Makes technical clarifying amendments.
AB 1017
Page 2
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . The author is concerned that while
serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, CEQA was
amended "to provide for certain environmental
determinations from the nonelected decisionmaking body
(e.g., Planning Commission) to the elected decisionmaking
body." The author asserts that many local organizations
expressed concern about this change, citing SB 1393 (Kuehl)
Chapter 1121, Statutes of 2002.
The author's response to these concerns is a requirement that
these CEQA appeals be brought within 30 days unless
extended to no more than 60 days by the elected
decisionmaking body.
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
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
AB 1017
Page 3
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure
must be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the proposed project.
3) The appeal process . SB 722 (Kopp) Chapter 1070, Statutes
of 1993, authorized the certification of an EIR by a lead
agency's nonelected decisionmaking body to be appealed to
the agency's elected decisionmaking body.
SB 1393 (Kuehl) Chapter 1121, Statutes of 2002, extended this
appeal authority to approvals of negative declarations and
exemption determinations.
While the author and organizations in her district may be
concerned about the CEQA appeal process, there are those
who believe their elected officials have a responsibility
to hear appeals of this nature. Also, absent appeal
authority, many may simply resort to litigation as an
avenue to address concerns.
The CEQA guidelines also authorize local lead agencies to
establish procedures governing CEQA appeals (CEQA
Guidelines 15061(e), 15074(f), 15090(b)). In this way,
local officials (including those from San Francisco) are
free to establish procedures more closely aligned to their
hearing schedules, as well as being aligned to various land
use actions that may have different time periods for
decisions and appeals.
4) Clarification needed . If the Committee believes specific
deadlines for CEQA appeals are appropriate, then
clarification is needed to: a) specify that these
deadlines apply to an appeal "filed" rather than "brought,"
b) authorize the legislative body to extend that deadline
up to 60 days, c) clarify that a CEQA appeal follows
approval of the project, d) invalidate any notices of
exemption or notices of determinations for the project, and
e) extend any related underlying appeals that are shorter
than the CEQA appeal limit.
SOURCE : Assemblymember Ma
AB 1017
Page 4
SUPPORT : California Council for Environmental and
Economic Balance
OPPOSITION : None on file