SB 972

Page 1

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman

2011-2012 Regular Session

BILL NO:SB 972

AUTHOR:Simitian

AMENDED:March 8, 2012

FISCAL:YesHEARING DATE:March 19, 2012

URGENCY:NoCONSULTANT:Randy Pestor

To stop numbering press Shfit/Enter. To change from second level (a) to first level (1) click on Increase Indent Button, to change from first level (1) to second level (a) click on Decrease Indent Button. Increase/Decrease Indent Button located in upper right corner of second toolbar.

SUBJECT:CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

SUMMARY:

Existing law, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

1)Requires a lead agency to call at least one scoping meeting for a proposed project that may affect highways or other facilities under Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction, if requested by Caltrans, or for a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. (Public Resources Code §21083.9). Notice of at least one scoping meeting must be provided to the following:

a)A county or city that borders on the county or city within which the project is located, unless otherwise designated annually by agreement.

b)A responsible agency.

c)A public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project.

d)A transportation planning agency and public agencies having transportation facilities within the jurisdiction.

e)An organization or individual who has filed a written request for notice.

2)Sets various notice requirements and requires an agency to mail specified notices to any person who has filed a written request for notices with either the governing body clerk or the agency director. The agency may require requests for notices to be annually renewed and may charge a fee for providing the service. Notices to be provided include the notice of preparation (NOP) of an EIR, scoping meeting notice, and a notice of determination (NOD). (§21092.2).

3)Requires a copy of a notice of completion of an EIR (NOC) to be provided by the State Clearinghouse to any legislator in whose district the project has an environmental impact if the legislator requests the notice and the State Clearinghouse has received it. (§21162).

This bill:

1)Requires a scoping meeting notice to also be provided to any entity that has filed a written request for the notice. (§21083.9).

2)Requires an NOC to also be mailed to any person who has filed a written request for notices. (§21092.2).

3)Repeals the legislator NOC notice requirement, adds this requirement under §21092.2, and also requires an NOP to be provided to a legislator under the same conditions as for receipt of an NOC.

COMMENTS:

1)Purpose of Bill. Under current law, a person may file a written request with an agency to receive certain CEQA notices. However, this provision does not reference the NOC. Current law also enables a legislator to receive an NOC for a project in their district that has an environmental impact, but there is no reference to the NOP.
According to the author, SB 972 “ensures that a person requesting CEQA notices from public agencies also receives NOCs, along with other notices required under current law.” The author also notes that SB 972“enables legislators to be aware of proposed projects in their district early in the CEQA process – when there is an NOP for an EIR, rather than laterwhen the NOC is filed.” SB 972 also revises scoping meeting notice requirements.

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.
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)Improving scoping. According to the CEQA guidelines, early consultation “solves many potential problems that would arise in more serious forms later in the review process.” The guidelines also provide that scoping “has been helpful to agencies in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important.” The guidelines further note that scoping “has been found to be an effective way to bring together and resolve the concerns of affected federal, state, and local agencies, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds.”
Under CEQA, a scoping meeting notice must be provided to certain public agencies. An organization or individual may file a written request to receive the notice, but there is no provision allowing an entity to receive a scoping meeting notice upon request if that entity is not otherwise required to receive notice – such as a special district or nearby city that does not border the county or city within which the project is located. SB 972 provides an opportunity for these entities to file a written request to receive the scoping meeting notice.

4)Related legislation. SB 226 (Simitian) Chapter 469, Statutes of 2011, contained various amendments to CEQA, including streamlined procedures for certain infill areas, as well as an amendment to §21083.9 allowing public agencies to comment on planning and zoning matters (required under Planning and Zoning Law) concurrently with project scoping meetings under CEQA. Provisions in SB 972 relating to scoping meeting notice to other entities were addressed in a similar fashion in AB 1581 (Carter) of 2010 (that died on the Senate Inactive File) and SB 620 (Correa) of 2011 (where Senate Environmental Quality Committee hearings were cancelled at the author’s request).
Provisions in SB 972 relating to NOPs and NOCs were contained in the March 21, 2011, version of SB 880 (Corbett) Chapter 6, Statutes of 2012, but were subsequently stricken when the bill was amended to address another issue.

5)Encouraging early comments. SB 226 also contained provisions to address late comments on environmental documents that were stricken due to opposition from many interest groups. While the notice and scoping provisions in SB 972 encourage earlier comments, and thereby help to avoid the need for late comments, the author is continuing to meet with various interest groups to further address late comment concerns.

SOURCE: Senator Simitian

SUPPORT:None on file

OPPOSITION: None on file