Internal Review Document - Not for Public Distribution
Proposed Approach to CEQA Statutory Reform
Preferred option
21083.8. (a) As part of the determination made pursuant to Section21080.1, the lead agency shall determine whether the project may havea significant effect on the spread of vector-borne diseases that might subject the project proponent to abatement costs under Health and Safety Code section 2060.
(b) If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause the spread of vector-borne diseases, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to prevent creation of mosquito habitat and conditions that will result in spread of disease.
(c) To the extent that the best management practices recommended by the Department of Public Health are feasibly employed, the project’s effects on the spread of disease will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Pro:
Will require every project applicant to use the BMP document.
Provides an inexpensive way to avoid preparing an EIR and mitigating potential impacts.
Will assist project proponents reduce long term costs from nuisance abatement and pesticide contamination liability.
Con:
Will add a new significant effect to CEQA and adding new effects may be contrary to author’s purposes.
FIVE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
ALTERNATIVE 1
21083.06. (a) On or before July 1, 2013, the Office of Planning andResearch shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the ResourcesAgency guidelines for the prevention and mitigation of mosquito-borne disease and avoid potential abatement costs pursuant to section 2060 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, effects associated with stormwater control and water supply management.
(b) On or before January 1, 2014, the Resources Agency shallcertify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office ofPlanning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).
(c) The Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agencyshall periodically update the guidelines to incorporate newinformation or criteria established by the Department of Public Health regarding the prevention of vector-borne disease.
Pros:
If Legislature is unwilling to adopt the preferred option, this option would allow the agency to make scientific determinations of significance or nonsignificance of BMPs.
This option provides flexibility to expand over time in future as new issues arise for additional vectors, diseases and BMPs.
Cons:
This option delays date of effectiveness until OPR acts, which could be years if not indefinitely.
This option gives OPR discretion and may not result in desired outcome.
ALTERNATIVE 2
21080.27. This division does not apply to alterations to land and water bodies that are necessary to reduce the transmission of disease and to comply with the “Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California” as adopted by the Department of Public Health.
Pro:
This option will stimulate activities to comply with BMPs.
If the mandatory nature of the preferred option is resisted, this option provides a voluntary incentive to look at BMPs in early project design.
Con:
This option is not mandatory.
It applies to a more limited set of activities.
ALTERNATIVE 3
21096. (a) If a lead agency prepares an environmental impact reportfor a project situated within airport land use compatibility planboundaries, or, if an airport land use compatibility plan has notbeen adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a publicairport or public use airport, the Airport Land Use Planning Handbookpublished by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department ofTransportation, in compliance with Section 21674.5 of the PublicUtilities Code and other documents, shall be utilized as technicalresources to assist in the preparation of the environmental impactreport as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards and
noise problems.
(b) If a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report for a project that creates water features, the “Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California” adopted by the Department of Public Health shall be utilized as a technical resource to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to prevention of the spread of vector-borne diseases.
(bc) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration for aproject described in subdivision (a) unless the lead agency considerswhether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problemfor persons using the airport or for persons residing or working inthe project area.
Pro:
This is a softer approach, and a strictly voluntary one.
This could be one of the better fallbacks in the first two mandatory ones are not politically feasible.
Con:
It is not mandatory.
It applies in a more limited set of circumstances.
ALTERNATIVE 4
21084. (a) The guidelines prepared and adopted pursuant to Section21083 shall include a list of classes of projects that have beendetermined not to have a significant effect on the environment andthat shall be exempt from this division. In adopting the guidelines,the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall make a findingthat the listed classes of projects referred to in this section donot have a significant effect on the environment.
(b) A project's greenhouse gas emissions shall not, in and ofthemselves, be deemed to cause an exemption adopted pursuant tosubdivision (a) to be inapplicable if the project complies with all
applicable regulations or requirements adopted to implementstatewide, regional, or local plans consistent with Section 15183.5of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
(c)A project’s creation of water features that create mosquito habitat and facilitate the spread of disease shall not cause an exemption adopted pursuant to this section to be inapplicable if the project complies with the “Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California” as adopted by the Department of Public Health.
(cd) A project that may result in damage to scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rockoutcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway designated as anofficial state scenic highway, pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencingwith Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets andHighways Code, shall not be exempted from this division pursuant tosubdivision (a). This subdivision does not apply to improvements as
mitigation for a project for which a negative declaration has beenapproved or an environmental impact report has been certified.
(ed) A project located on a site that is included on any listcompiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code shall notbe exempted from this division pursuant to subdivision (a).
(fe) The changes made to this section by Chapter 1212 of theStatutes of 1991 apply only to projects for which applications havenot been deemed complete on or before January 1, 1992, pursuant toSection 65943 of the Government Code.
(gf) A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of an historical resource, as specified in Section21084.1, shall not be exempted from this division pursuant to
subdivision (a).
Pro:
This disqualifies project proponents from relying on a categorical exemption.
It provides an incentive to use the BMPs.
May be more politically feasible since it would not creating a new significant impact.
Cons:
Does not apply to projects requiring EIRs.
May be useful in a too limited set of circumstances.
ALTERNATIVE 5
21080.4. (a) If a lead agency determines that an environmentalimpact report is required for a project, the lead agency shallimmediately send notice of that determination by certified mail or anequivalent procedure to each responsible agency, the Office ofPlanning and Research, and those public agencies having jurisdictionby law over natural resources affected by the project that are heldin trust for the people of the State of California. Upon receipt ofthe notice, each responsible agency, the office, and each publicagency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected bythe project that are held in trust for the people of the State ofCalifornia shall specify to the lead agency the scope and content ofthe environmental information that is germane to the statutoryresponsibilities of that responsible agency, the office, or thepublic agency in connection with the proposed project and which,pursuant to the requirements of this division, shall be included inthe environmental impact report. The information shall be specified
in writing and shall be communicated to the lead agency by certifiedmail or equivalent procedure not later than 30 days after the date ofreceipt of the notice of the lead agency's determination. The leadagency shall request similar guidance from appropriate federal
agencies.
. . .
(d) With respect to the Department of Transportation, and withrespect to any state agency that is a responsible agency or a publicagency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected bythe project that are held in trust for the people of the State ofCalifornia, subject to the requirements of subdivision (a), theOffice of Planning and Research shall ensure that the informationrequired by subdivision (a) is transmitted to the lead agency, andthat affected agencies are notified regarding meetings to be heldupon request pursuant to subdivision (b), within the required timeperiod.
(e) With respect to the Department of Public Health, the Office of Planning and Research shall assist the lead agency in coordinating with the Department of Public Health and to identify tools and best management practices to prevent the spread of disease, including but not limited to “Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California” as adopted by the Department of Public Health.
Pros:
Softest of the approachs, but also the weakest.
Possible option if resistance to all others is high, so for use as back up back up if all else fails
Con:
Doesn’t mandate anything.