BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 250
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 250
AUTHOR: Rubio
AMENDED: April 25, 2011
FISCAL: No HEARING DATE: May 2, 2011
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 (OPR) to
prepare and develop proposed guidelines to implement CEQA,
and submit them to the Secretary of the Resources Agency
for certification and adoption. OPR must review the
guidelines at least every two years and recommend changes
or amendments to the Secretary for certification and
adoption. (Public Resources Code �21083).
2) Requires the CEQA guidelines to include a list of projects
determined to not have a significant effect on the
environment and be exempt from the Act (i.e., categorical
exemptions). In adopting the guidelines the Secretary must
make a finding that the listed classes do not have a
significant effect on the environment. Certain projects
cannot be exempt pursuant to this provision (e.g., historic
buildings, projects on sites listed as containing certain
hazardous wastes (Cortese list)). (�21084).
3) Authorizes a public agency to request the addition or
deletion of a class of projects designated exempt under the
CEQA guidelines (#2 above), which must be made in writing
to OPR and include the agency's position that the class of
projects does, or does not, have a significant effect on
the environment. OPR must review each request and submit
its request to the Secretary. Following the
recommendation, the Secretary may add or delete the class
SB 250
Page 2
of projects, and the amendment must be adopted in
accordance with ��21083 and 21084 (#1 and #2 above).
This bill :
1) Clarifies that OPR's review of each request to add or
delete a class of exempt projects under CEQA, and submittal
of the request to the Secretary, must also be in accordance
with ��21083 and 21084.
2) Changes references from the "Resources Agency" to the
"Natural Resources Agency."
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . CEQA contains provisions relating to
preparation and revision of the CEQA guidelines (�21083),
and adding exemptions to the CEQA guidelines (�21084).
CEQA also authorizes a public agency to request adding or
deleting such a categorical exemption to the CEQA
guidelines. A guidelines amendment regarding such a
request must be adopted in accordance with ��21083 and
21084. SB 686 clarifies that OPR's review and
recommendation of such a request must similarly be in
accordance with those two provisions.
SB 686 also appropriately references the Natural Resources
Agency, rather than the Resources Agency.
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.
SB 250
Page 3
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
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure
must be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the proposed project.
3) Trying again . This bill mirrors SB 686 (DeSaulnier) of
2009, which was approved by the Senate Environmental
Quality Committee April 21, 2009 (7-0); the Senate April
27, 2009 (36-0); and subsequently amended in the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee July 1, 2011, to address
another issue and held in that committee.
4) Double Referral to Judiciary Committee . If this measure is
approved by this committee, the do pass motion must include
the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
SOURCE : Senator Rubio
SUPPORT : Kern County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION : None on file