Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04141992 - 1.35 1 . 35 ' Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � -• Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7''� < "� County DATE: April 14 , 1992 SUBJECT: ASSEMBLY BILL 3120 (Polanco) and SENATE BILL 1890 (Maddy) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPPOSE Assembly Bill 3120 (Polanco) which exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act projects which are undertaken to comply with requirements of the State Air Resources Board or the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. 2 . OPPOSE Senate Bill 1890 (Maddy) which exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act "clean fuels projects" and prohibits the requirement of emission offsets for . . emission increases. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The State Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have adopted regulations which will result in major modifications to oil refineries located within our county. Assembly Bill 3120 and Senate Bill 1890 provide that these projects would be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and make other related provisions for the processing and review of applications for "clean fuels projects. " CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM A ON OF ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : yC� ACTION OF BOARD ON !� _ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED >< OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED 42&de.Z /!g / 9 ?aZ cc: Director, GMEDA PHIL BA CHELOR, CLERK OF CAO: . C. Van Marter THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY CK/at A. Assembly Bill 3120 (Polancoj__�_ Existing law requires state and local agencies to prepare an environmental impact report on any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would exempt from CEQA the issuance of a permit or approval for certain projects which are proposed for compliance of the facility or any of its products with any requirement of the State Air Resources Board (pursuant to Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code) or the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Air Act if the project meets all of the following conditions: 1. The project will not increase the maximum capacity of the facility; 2 . The project will comply with all applicable state, federal and local air quality laws and regulations. 3 . The project is contiguous to existing structures. In lieu of preparing an environmental impact report or a negative declaration of environmental significance, the lead agency would prepare a summary environmental review. B. Senate Bill 1820 (Maddy) : Senate Bill 1890, as amended March 26, 1992 provides the following for projects which fall within the definition of a "clean fuels project": 1 . Exempts the project from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . Prohibits the requirement of emission offsets for any net emission increase after the application of Best Available Control Technology. 3 . Requires air districts to coordinate and expedite all permits required for clean fuel projects. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The statewide environmental benefits of clean fuel projects do not eliminate the importance of identifying significant impacts to the environment in our local area and mitigating those impacts. These bills would exempt clean fuel projects from that process. 2 . Although the clean fuel projects may result in improved air quality statewide, emissions may increase locally. Senate Bill 1890 would prohibit the requirement of emission offsets for clean fuel projects thereby reducing local air quality. 3 . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the preparation of environmental impact reports which provide the public with detailed information regarding a proposed project, the associated environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation. CEQA also provides additional opportunities for public input on proposed projects. These bills would exempt clean fuel projects from these requirements. Thus, the public and permitting agencies would not be provided with detailed information on environmental impacts, and the public would not be afforded the additional opportunities for comment provided by CEQA. 4 . CEQA provides for the adoption of feasible mitigation for significant effects . These bills would exempt clean fuels projects from this process .