SB 1180 and Baseline Conditions
A fundamental question in environmental analysis is what baseline conditions
should be used for determining whether a proposed military base reuse plan
will result in significant environmental effects. Should the potential impacts
of the reuse plan be analyzed relative to the closed base, or in the context
of the higher level of activity which existed before its closure or realignment?
SB 1180 of 1995 (Stats. of 1995, Chapter 861) was enacted as an optional
means of establishing a baseline context for analysis. It offers a statutory
"safe harbor" for agencies which follow its procedures. Although
primarily designed for situations where an EIR is being prepared apart from
an EIS, it is flexible enough to be used during preparation of a combined
EIS/EIR.
Baseline Context
Most, but not all, armed services have opted in preparing their base closure
and reuse EIS to relate their closure and reuse plan to the activity level
which existed on their base when it was in full operation. Some reuse authorities
and local agencies have followed the federal lead and assumed pre-closure
activity as a baseline. Others have not felt comfortable with that approach
and have analyzed the reuse plan as if no activity had previously existed.
SB 1180, codified in Section 21083.8.1, enables the lead agency to identify
the specific physical conditions which existed when the federal decision
to close or realign the base became final that will form the context for
environmental review. For example, the lead agency may decide to ground
its environmental analysis on preexisting noise and traffic levels. The
EIR would analyze that increment of impact, if any, which exceeds the baseline
and, where that increment may result in a significant effect, address mitigation
measures and alternatives accordingly. Where the reuse plan would not exceed
the baseline level of activity, the lead agency could presume that no significant
impact would occur. Once an EIR had been certified for a base reuse plan
under this provision, all later activities consistent with or to implement
that plan would avoid the need for further EIRs or negative declarations
unless subject to Guidelines Sections 15162-15164.
There are limits to the conditions which may be included in the baseline
determination. No hazardous material or waste can be included in a baseline,
nor can water quality issues. In addition, although adoption of a baseline
limits the review necessary for CEQA purposes, it does not forgive the plan's
future compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and ordinances
which might otherwise apply. For example, adopting a CEQA baseline for preexisting
traffic levels at the military base would avoid the need to include mitigation
measures or alternatives to address reuse plan traffic levels projected
at that level or below, but would not change the requirements of the county's
congestion management program or local traffic impact fees.
Reuse Plan
SB 1180 applies only to reuse plans which match the definition set out in
Section 21083.8.1(a). For purposes of the statute, "reuse plan"
means the initial plan for reuse of a military base adopted by a local government
or redevelopment agency. The reuse plan may take the form of a general plan,
general plan amendment, specific plan, redevelopment plan, or other planning
document such as a community plan. The military base or reservation in question
must be either closed or realigned, or slated for closure or realignment
by the federal government.
A reuse plan under Section 21083.8.1 must include a statement of development
policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating that policy. The plan must
designate the proposed general distribution and location, as well as the
development intensity, of housing, business, industry, open space, recreation,
natural resources, public buildings and grounds, roads and other transportation
facilities, infrastructure, and those other public and private uses of land
which may be of importance to the local government.
Section 21151.1, enacted in 1995, requires that an EIR be prepared for every
initial base reuse plan. The local lead agency has the usual options in
preparing that document. For instance, a joint EIS/EIR would fulfill the
requirement. Where an EIR alone is being prepared, it may incorporate pertinent
portions of a previously prepared EIS. Section 21083.8.1 may be used to
narrow the range of potential impacts of the proposed initial plan which
must be analyzed in the required EIR.
Procedure
SB 1180 has unique requirements intended to ensure that the public, as well
as responsible and trustee agencies are given ample opportunity to consider
and discuss any proposed baselines. These create new responsibilities for
the lead agency.
Prior to preparing its EIR, the lead agency must hold a noticed public hearing
on the proposed baseline(s) at which to discuss the federal EIS prepared
or being prepared for the base closure or realignment. This must include
a discussion of the significant effects identified in the EIS, mitigation
measures, feasible alternatives, and the mitigative effects of federal,
State, and local laws applicable to planned future nonmilitary activities.
Hearing notice must be provided per Section 21092. If the hearing cannot
be completed at once, it may be continued to a time certain. Prior to the
close of the hearing, the lead agency may specify, at its discretion:
- The baseline conditions to be used in preparation of the EIR. This
should identify those particular levels of activity which existed prior
to the federal base closure or realignment ROD that are to form the context
within which the reuse plan's activities are analyzed. Activities might
include traffic levels, housing, water use, or others.
- Any particular physical conditions to be addressed in greater detail
in the EIR than in the EIS. This could include conditions which would be
significant under CEQA that were not considered significant in the EIS,
or adding detail to the mitigation measures discussed in the EIS.
Prior to holding the above hearing, the lead agency must consult with pertinent
responsible and trustee agencies regarding the proposed baseline(s) and
provide those agencies 30 days in which to respond with their concerns.
This consultation requirement neatly coincides with the NOP consultation
period otherwise provided for under CEQA and can be combined with the NOP
to avoid duplication of effort. Where the lead agency intends to use a previously
prepared EIS as its EIR through the alternative procedure established under
Section 21083.8 (see Section 5 of this
advisory), it must also include a copy of the EIS with the NOP.
Section 21083.8.1 does not specify the contents of the notice sent to responsible
and trustee agencies for review and comment. OPR suggests that it identify
the particular activity, its specific preexisting level, and outline any
related significant effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives discussed
in the EIS, and the expected mitigative effects of other regulations. Unless
sent with an NOP, the notice should specify the location of the military
base and the location of the activity (where applicable), the name and address
of the lead agency, a contact person, and the date by which comments must
be received. The notice should also provide the date, time, and place of
the public hearing on the baseline, if known.
At the close of the public hearing, the lead agency must specify the following
in writing:
- How it will integrate the selected baseline(s) into the CEQA analysis
and the reuse planning process. Areas of discussion include community environmental
standards, the applicable general plan, specific plan, and redevelopment
plan, and any applicable provisions of adopted congestion management plans,
habitat conservation or natural communities conservation plans, integrated
waste management plans, and county hazardous waste management plans. One
purpose of this requirement is to relate the baseline(s) to community environmental
standards. The other is to describe the planning and regulatory context
within which the baseline(s) exist.
- The economic and social reasons which support adoption of the baseline(s).
These may include such things as new job creation, opportunities for the
employment of skilled workers, availability of low- and moderate-income
housing, and economic continuity. Although this determination resembles
the finding of overriding consideration required under Guidelines
Section 15093, it is a separate requirement which must be met before the
draft EIR is circulated for review.
SB 1180 requires that the "no project" alternative analyzed in
the EIR discuss the existing conditions on the base at time the EIR is being
prepared, as well as what could be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the reuse plan were not approved. The reasonable expectations
must be based on current plans and be consistent with available infrastructure
and services. This is identical to the requirement established in Guidelines
Section 15126 for any discussion of a no project alternative.
After reaching this point, a lead agency which has chosen to employ Section
21083.8.1 would proceed as usual with the standard EIR process. It would
release a draft EIR for review, respond to comments in the final EIR, certify
the final EIR, adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program, and make
the required findings under Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093.
Filing a notice of determination would fulfill the agency's responsibilities.
The provisions of SB 1180 will only be available for a limited time. If
a lead agency chooses to employ Section 21083.8.1, it must release an NOP
for consultation within one year from either the date of approval of the
federal ROD completing the base closure or realignment, or January 1, 1997,
whichever is later.
Advantages
The primary attraction of using Section 21083.8.1 is that it offers the
lead agency a safe harbor within which to use preexisting physical conditions
as the context for determining whether the reuse plan may have a significant
effect under CEQA.
Secondarily, the procedure ensures that interested public agencies and the
public are given an opportunity to comment on the proposed baseline for
analysis. And, that the lead agency makes a full disclosure of its approach
to using the baseline.
Where a joint EIS/EIR is being prepared, SB 1180 offers an opportunity to
publicly disclose and discuss the baseline assumptions applied in that joint
document.
Back to Table of Contents
Next: Bibliography
State of California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2318