BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1017|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1017
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 8/18/08 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/16/08
AYES: Simitian, Runner, Aanestad, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl,
Lowenthal
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 1/29/08 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: appeal
to local lead
agencys elected decisionmaking body
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill places time limits on when an appeal
may be filed against the actions of a nonelected
decisionmaking body of a local lead agency with regard to
projects subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/08 clarify appeal
procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The amendments specifically (1) set deadlines for setting
the matter for hearing and hearing the appeal (90 days) and
CONTINUED
AB 1017
Page
2
acting on the appeal (30 days unless extended to 45 days by
the elected decisionmaking body), and (2) clarify the
effect of an appeal on notices of determination and notices
of exemption.
ANALYSIS : 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). (Section 21080 et
seq. of the Public Resources Code).
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 filed within 30 days of the approval of a project,
or unless the period for filing the appeals is extended
to a maximum of 60 days by the elected decisionmaking
body, in which case an appeal will be required to be
filed within that extended period.
2. Requires the elected decisionmaking body to set the
matter for a hearing within 90 days of the filing of the
appeal and to make a decision on the appeal within 30
days of a hearing, which may be extended by the
decisionmaking body to 45 days, following the conclusion
of the hearing.
3. Provides that the time period for filing specified
actions or proceedings commences on the date that the
elected decisionmaking body acts on the appeal.
4. Provides that a notice of an approval or a determination
to carry out a project subject to CEQA, or a notice of a
AB 1017
Page
3
determination that a project is not subject to CEQA,
shall be set aside and is, therefore, null and void if
the approval of the project is appealed.
5. Requires the local lead agency, following final action
by the elected decisionmaking body on the appeal, to
file a notice of an approval or determination to carry
out the project and authorizes the local lead agency to
file a notice of a determination that the project is not
subject to CEQA.
Comments
Purpose of the 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.
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
AB 1017
Page
4
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.
NOTE: Please refer to the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee analysis for further background
information on CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/08)
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Benoit,
Berg, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall, Dymally, Emmerson, Eng,
Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia,
Garrick, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Horton, Houston,
Huff, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Karnette, Keene,
Krekorian, La Malfa, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu,
Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nava, Niello,
Parra, Plescia, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Spitzer, Strickland,
Swanson, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Walters, Wolk, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Adams, Sharon Runner, Soto, Vacancy
TSM:mw 8/19/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 1017
Page
5
**** END ****