BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1185
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 1185 (Torres) - As Amended: April 26, 2011
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: retail
facilities: project review
SUMMARY : Establishes, until January 1, 2015, an exemption from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for alterations
of existing vacant retail structures not more than 60,000 square
feet and meeting specified requirements.
EXISTING LAW requires lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed 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).
THIS BILL :
1)Establishes an exemption from CEQA for a project that consists
of the alteration of a vacant retail structure that existed
prior to January 1, 2008, is not more than 60,000 square feet
and meets the following requirements:
a) The project is proposed by a person that employs less
than 500 employees in total.
b) The project improves the energy efficiency of the
structure at least 25 percent above Title 24 building
standards, as determined by the California Energy
Commission (CEC).
c) The project reduces water consumption to at least 20
percent below the previous five-year annual average for
similar retail structures, as determined by the local water
agency.
d) The project, including any replacement signage, is
consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan,
or local coastal plan, including any mitigation measures
AB 1185
Page 2
required by the plan, and any applicable zoning ordinance
or local ordinance.
e) The project does not increase the size of the
structure's footprint, floor plan, or floor area ratio.
2)Sunsets the above provisions January 1, 2015.
3)Requires a scoping meeting notice to be provided to any entity
that has filed a written request for the notice and is not
otherwise required to receive notice for CEQA projects of
statewide, regional or area-wide significance.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 1185
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
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.
This bill exempts from CEQA review projects that would now be
subject to review IF the change in use resulted in new
significant effects on the environment. The bill requires the
benefits of a 25 percent improvement in required energy
efficiency and a 20 percent reduction in water use for the
structure. However, other environmental effects that would
result from the change in use, such as changes in the volume
or flow of traffic, will not be analyzed and mitigated
pursuant to CEQA.
2)Conditions for exemption seem impractical. In order to
qualify for this exemption, a project proponent would have to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local lead agency that
(a) the CEC has determined the project improves the energy
efficiency of the structure at least 25 percent above Title 24
building standards and (b) the local water agency has
determined the project reduces water consumption to at least
20 percent below the previous five-year annual average for
similar retail structures. The CEC and water agencies are not
obligated to issue speculative determinations based on project
plans. Even if they were willing to make the determinations,
AB 1185
Page 4
they would seem to require measurement of energy and water use
once the project is completed. It's not clear determinations
could be made with certainty based on project design at the
application stage.
In addition, the lead agency would have to determine whether
the person proposing the project employs less than 500 people.
This is intended to exclude large retail chains from the
exemption, but seems like an inappropriate condition for CEQA
because it has nothing to do with the effect of the project on
the environment. It also seems a difficult and inappropriate
assignment for a lead agency to verify the number of people
employed by the project proponent.
Clearly, a primary issue in CEQA review for a retail reuse
project will be traffic impacts. If the traffic generated by
the new store is measured against a baseline of a vacant
store, as opposed to the previous retail use, the traffic
impacts will be considered more significant and more
mitigation will be required. As an alternative to the
exemption proposed by this bill, the author and the committee
may wish to consider amendments to specifically address the
traffic baseline issue by requiring the lead agency to compare
the traffic associated with the project to the traffic
generated by the previous retail use and require mitigation
only to the extent the new use increases traffic over the old
use.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
County of San Bernardino
Opposition
California Labor Federation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Sierra Club California
Western States Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
AB 1185
Page 5