BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 226|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 226
          Author:   Simitian (D)
          Amended:  9/9/11 in Senate
          Vote:     27 - Urgency

           
           SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 3/21/11
          AYES:  Simitian, Strickland, Hancock, Kehoe, Lowenthal
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Blakeslee, Pavley

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           SENATE FLOOR  :  36-0, 4/14/11
          AYES:  Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, 
            Cannella, Corbett, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Emmerson, 
            Evans, Fuller, Hancock, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, 
            Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, 
            Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, 
            Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wright, Wyland, Yee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Correa, Gaines, Harman, Wolk

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  59-12, 9/9/11 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Environmental Quality

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill, under the California Environmental 
          Quality Act, revises the scoping procedures by authorizing 
          referral of a proposed action to adopt or substantially 
          amend a general plan to a city or county under Government 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 226
                                                                Page 
          2

          Code Section 65352 to be conducted concurrently with the 
          scoping meeting, and authorizes the city or county to 
          submit its comments at the scoping meeting.

           Assembly Amendments  also establishes exemption and limits 
          to environmental review under the California Environmental 
          Quality Act for specified projects and provide that the 
          thermal powerplants certification process will be 
          applicable to owners of specified proposed solar thermal 
          powerplants who are proposing to convert the facility from 
          solar thermal technology to photovoltaic technology.

           ANALYSIS  :    California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 
          requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, 
          and certify the completion of, an environmental impact 
          report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry 
          out or approve that may have a significant effect on the 
          environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration 
          if it finds that the project will not have that effect.  
          CEQA requires a lead agency to call a scoping meeting for a 
          project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance, 
          and requires the lead agency to provide notice of at least 
          one of those scoping meetings to specified entities, 
          including a county or city that borders on a county or city 
          within which the project is located, unless otherwise 
          designated annually by agreement between the lead agency 
          and county or city. 

          This bill:

          1. Exempts from CEQA review the installation of a solar 
             energy system on the roof of an existing building or at 
             an existing parking lot.

          2. Defines "solar energy system" to include specified 
             associated equipment, meeting certain environmental and 
             permitting criteria, that might be located on the same 
             parcel of the building or, for equipment that connects 
             the system to the electrical grid or the emergency 
             responder equipment, immediately adjacent to the parcel 
             or immediately adjacent to the parcel and separated only 
             by an improved right-of-way.

          3. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), by 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 226
                                                                Page 
          3

             July 1, 2012, to develop and send to the Natural 
             Resources Agency proposed CEQA guidelines for statewide 
             standards for the review of infill projects that promote 
             specified state environmental, transportation and land 
             use goals and requires the Secretary of the Natural 
             Resources Agency to certify and adopt the guidelines by 
             January 1, 2013.

          4. Provides that a project's greenhouse gas emissions shall 
             not, by themselves, cause the project to be ineligible 
             for a categorical exemption from CEQA review if the 
             project complies with regulations adopted to implement 
             related statewide, regional or local plans as provided 
             in the CEQA guidelines.

          5. Provides that CEQA does not require a public agency to 
             consider written materials submitted after the close of 
             the public comment period, with exceptions for materials 
             addressing new information released after the close of 
             the public comment period and permits a lead agency to 
             elect to ignore written materials submitted after the 
             close of the public comment period and provides that 
             such materials shall not be raised in judicial review.

          6. Authorizes referral of a proposed action to adopt or 
             substantially amend a general plan to an adjacent local 
             government to be conducted concurrently with a scoping 
             meeting required by CEQA for a project of statewide, 
             regional or area-wide significance, and authorizes a 
             local agency to submit its comments on the proposed 
             general plan action at a CEQA scoping meeting. 

          7. Authorizes the owner of a proposed solar thermal 
             powerplant to petition the California Energy Commission, 
             by June 30, 2012, to review an amendment to an existing 
             and certified permit application to convert the proposed 
             project to solar photovoltaic technology if the owner 
             filed the original application with the commission after 
             August 15, 2007.

           Background
           
           CEQA  .  CEQA provides a process for evaluating the 
          environmental effects of a project, and includes statutory 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 226
                                                                Page 
          4

          exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in CEQA's 
          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 environmental impact report 
          (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 causes one or more significant 
          effects in addition to those that is 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.

           Comments
           
          The author's office contends the harm caused by the severe 
          economic recession, particularly to the construction 
          industry, necessitates actions, entailed by this bill, to 
          expedite construction projects that, pursuant to existing 
          statute, seek to integrate land use planning, 
          transportation investments and climate policy. 

           Related Legislation

           This bill is similar to SB 1464 (Simitian), 2009-10 
          Session, which was approved by the Senate Environmental 
          Quality Committee (7-0) on April 20, 2010, the Senate Floor 
          (Consent, 35-0) on April 26, 2010, the Assembly Natural 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 226
                                                                Page 
          5

          Resources Committee (7-0) on June 22, 2010, and the 
          Assembly Floor (Consent, 76-0) on July 1, 2010.  The bill 
          was then withdrawn from enrollment for purposes of adding 
          double-jointing amendments and was held at the Assembly 
          Desk.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  59-12, 9/9/11
          AYES:  Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, 
            Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, 
            Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, 
            Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, 
            Feuer, Fletcher, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, 
            Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, 
            Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, 
            Jones, Knight, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, 
            Miller, Mitchell, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, 
            Portantino, Solorio, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, John 
            A. P�rez
          NOES:  Achadjian, Grove, Halderman, Harkey, Logue, Mansoor, 
            Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Swanson, Valadao, Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Bill Berryhill, Fong, Gorell, Monning, 
            Morrell, Nestande, Skinner, Smyth, Yamada


          DLW:do  10/4/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                       SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  NONE RECEIVED

                                ****  END  ****
          











                                                           CONTINUED