Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: limited duration events.
Summary
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt guidelines for the implementation of CEQA and requires the guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and exempts those classes of projects from the requirements of CEQA (categorical exemption) . This bill would authorize a lead agency to grant, on an annual basis, one categorical exemption per specified site for a fireworks display held annually on a public site or large venue. Because a lead agency would be prohibited from granting more than one specified categorical exemption per site for a fireworks display, this bill would increase the level of services provided by a local agency and thereby impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the office to identify potential environmental issues related to fireworks displays and to develop guidelines to assist local agencies regarding fireworks displays. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
died
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2012
Committee Review
Jul 2012
Senate Passage
May 2012
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Jan 19, 2012
Last action Jul 2, 2012
Floor votes · Senate May 29, 2012
How they voted
29–1
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 31
May 29, 2012
D
Democratic20
90% Yea
R
Republican11
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
17
Key actions
3
Committee
4
Amendments
1
Jul 2, 2012
Committee
Set, second hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.
lower
Jun 7, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
May 29, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (29-1-1)
senate
May 24, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3589.) (May 24).
upper
May 1, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3261.) (April 23).
upper
Feb 2, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on E.Q.
upper
Jan 19, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 973
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 973. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline