BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1451 SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator Jerry Hill, Chair 2013-2014 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 1451 AUTHOR: Hill and Roth AMENDED: April 21, 2014 FISCAL: No HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Joanne Roy SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SUMMARY : Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): 1)Prohibits an action from being brought on alleged grounds of noncompliance with CEQA unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before issuance of the notice of determination (NOD). (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21177). 2)Until January 1, 2016, precludes an organization formed after the approval of a project from maintaining an action unless a member of the organization has objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing and presented the grounds of noncompliance to the public agency. (PRC §21177). 3)On and after January 1, 2016, precludes an organization formed after the approval of a project from maintaining an action unless a member of the organization has objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing. (PRC §21177). 4)Provides requirements and procedures for an action against a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (PRC §21167). SB 1451 Page 2 This bill : 1) Provides that an action or proceeding may not be brought on alleged grounds of noncompliance with CEQA unless: a) The alleged grounds for noncompliance were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by CEQA; (current law) b) The alleged grounds for noncompliance were not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the public comment period; or, c) If no public comment period was provided by CEQA (for example, a CEQA-exempted project), the alleged grounds for noncompliance were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of determination. 2) Extends the preclusion listed above in existing law #2 indefinitely and deletes the preclusion in #3. COMMENTS : 1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "SB 1451 would reduce the use of the document dumping tactic. Specifically, the proposal would require comments to be presented during the public comment period on the draft environmental document, unless the comments could not have been presented during the public comment period. Importantly, under the proposal, any comments that could not have been presented during the public comment period may be presented after the public comment period and prior to the close of the public hearing on the project. This will prevent commenters from raising issues on the day of the hearing that could have been brought earlier in the process, such as those related to the initially circulated draft environmental document, and then suing on those SB 1451 Page 3 issues in court. This change encourages early public engagement and informed decision making and thus preserves the overall function and purpose of CEQA." 2) Background: CEQA: The Environmental Review Process . A CEQA environmental review document is a public document. It provides for transparency as well as an opportunity for citizens to comment on the document and participate in the environmental review process. 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, then 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 an 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) Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies . Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to challenging any project approval under CEQA. (Santa SB 1451 Page 4 Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011), 197 Cal.App.4th 1042.) The basic premise of the legal doctrine is that a person or organization may not bring a legal challenge on an agency's decision unless that person or organization has participated during the agency's administrative review process (PRC §21177). A plaintiff must "exhaust" his or her administrative remedies by first raising arguments to the agency during its consideration of the project. By doing so, the agency has the opportunity to correct the issue before there is a need to seek review by a court of law. Exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a person preparing written or oral comments on an environmental document must allege specific violations of CEQA procedures or substantive findings. General objections to the project are not sufficient to alert an agency to an objection based on CEQA - The essence of the exhaustion doctrine under CEQA is the public agency's opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subjected to judicial review. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614). 4) Late Comments and Document Dumping . When a person or organization fails to comment within the lead agency time limits provided for an environmental review, the lead agency may assume that the person or agency has no comment (Guidelines §15207). However, this does not mean that the lead agency should ignore late comments. Although the CEQA Guidelines and judicial precedent indicate that a lead agency does not need to respond to a late comment in writing, the lead agency does need to exercise discretion because all comments - including late ones - become part of the project's administrative record. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997) 60 Cal.App. 4th 1109). Sometimes interested parties to a project may submit comments late in the review process and perhaps voluminous amounts of content in their comment as a tactic to delay a project - this is referred to as "document dumping". As mentioned SB 1451 Page 5 earlier, the comment becomes a part of the administrative record to which future litigants can refer. The California Supreme Court has stated, "We cannot, of course, overemphasize our disapproval of the tactic of withholding objections?solely for the purpose of obstruction and delay," and stressed that strategically delaying commenting on a project is not a "game to be played by persons who?are chiefly interested in scuttling a particular project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1990) 52 Cal. 3rd 553, 368). However, this may not always be the case - interested parties, who submit late comments, may raise genuine, significant issues that were not adequately addressed in the environmental review or provide important information that was not available earlier in the process. SB 1451 does not entirely preclude late comments. Rather, this bill adds a condition, for purposes of bringing an action or proceeding, that the new information provided in a late comment was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the public comment period. 5) Recent Legislative History on Late Comments/Document Dumping . In 2011-12, Senator Simitian convened a CEQA stakeholder group. Among the topics of discussion was late comments (sometimes referred to as "document dumping"). Some stakeholders wanted to limit opportunity for late comments. Others, who were concerned about placing too strict of limits on public participation at the end of the environmental review process, wanted more opportunities to participate earlier in the process. After much discussion and debate, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee consultant developed a compromise to address these concerns, but that language ultimately did not come to fruition - the final consensus of the stakeholder group members was that they all preferred the exhaustion of administrative remedies statute in its current form over the compromise. To address the broader issue of minimizing delay of a project, an alternative option to late comment/document dumping that SB 1451 Page 6 has been discussed (and which was more preferable to the stakeholders than the compromise above) is via preparation of the administrative record. In 2012, SB 984 (Simitian)/AB 1570 (Perea) would have required the lead agency, at the request of a project applicant, to prepare and certify the record of proceedings concurrent with the administrative process for certain environmental documents under certain conditions. Similar language was introduced in SB 731 (Steinberg and Hill) and AB 37 (Perea) in 2013. For various reasons, other than the substance of this proposal, these bills were either held in committee, amended to address another issue, or not taken up. 6) Support . According to support, "Over the past decade, project opponents - including individual businesses, unions, environmental groups and others - have sought to intentionally delay project approvals by submitting lengthy, detailed comment letters and extensive documentation on the day the project is scheduled to be approved. These comment letters and documentation often contain entirely new claims and allegations that had not - but indeed could have - been presented during the designated public comment period provided under CEQA." Support further states, "Document dumping presents two distinct problems: (1) it is nearly impossible to address late comments during the hearing, which typically must be delayed weeks or months after the late comments are received; and (2) late comments may typically be used as a basis for a subsequent legal challenge on the project, even though the comments are presented for the first time on the day of the hearing and could have otherwise been presented earlier in the environmental review process." 7) Opposition . According to opposition, "Unfortunately, this bill likely will have unintended consequences. Those consequences will fall most heavily not on organizations?which have the resources to participate fully throughout the CEQA process, but instead on community members throughout the state, who often do not have the funds to retain legal counsel and expert assistance until late in the CEQA process?As drafted, SB 1451 could preclude those community members from raising those issues in SB 1451 Page 7 comments prior to project approval, essentially giving agencies a 'free pass' on potentially serious CEQA violations that could result in tangible harm to human health, safety, and the environment." Opposition further states, "[C]urrent law and court practice indicate that this sort of late submittal is neither common nor tolerated by the courts, and so additional law on the subject is not needed." Center for Biological Diversity notes that the bill in its current form has a serious technical problem: "Proposed Public Resources Code section 21177(a)(1)(B), which allows petitioners to file later comments on issues that were not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the official comment period, is inconsistent with proposed subdivision (b)(2), which would require parties to object during the official comment period unless no notice of the project was provided. This inconsistency could have the effect of foreclosing comment by individuals who did not know and could not have known that there was any reason to object during the public comment period, because they could not have known the grounds for objection. If this unintentional error is not corrected, the bill could even more dramatically curtail public participation in the CEQA process. We therefore strongly recommend amending proposed subdivision (b)(2) as follows to ensure consistency with subdivision (a)(1)(B) (page 3, lines 24-28; additions in double underline): (b)(2) if the grounds for objection were not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the public comment period or if no public comment period was provided by this division, that person object to the approval of the project orally or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of determination." 8) Previous Legislation Amending PRC §21177 . SB 683 (Correa) (2011) would have clarified that an action or proceeding under CEQA cannot be brought unless the person has raised SB 1451 Page 8 the grounds for noncompliance before the filing, rather than the issuance, of the notice of determination. SB 683 was subsequently amended to address the California Early Intervention Services Act. SB 1456 (Simitian), Chapter 496, Statutes of 2010, authorized mediation to resolve CEQA disputes to avoid litigation while ensuring that mediation after an action is filed does not affect the timing of any judicial proceeding; established a process for an expedited schedule to resolve cases while allowing any party to request imposition of a penalty for frivolous litigation; ensured more accountability for an organization challenging a project that is formed after project approval, and set procedures for tiering environmental documents. SB 476 (Correa) (2009) would have prohibited a person from maintaining an action or proceeding unless that person objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of determination, rather than before issuance of the notice of determination. SB 476 died in Assembly Natural Resources Committee. 9) Double Referral to Senate Judiciary Committee . If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee. SOURCE : Author SUPPORT : American Institute of Architects American Council of Engineering Companies The Associated General Contractors of America Bay Area Council California Apartment Association California Association of Realtors California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Business Roundtable California Chamber of Commerce California Hospital Association SB 1451 Page 9 California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California Transit Association Civil Justice Association of California Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Chamber of Santa Barbara Region Construction Employers' Association Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Independent Energy Producers Irvine Chamber of Commerce Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce League of California Cities Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Murrieta Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Rural County Representatives of California San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Silicon Valley Central Chamber of Commerce Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce South Shore Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Turlock Chamber of Commerce Visalia Chamber of Commerce Ventura County Chamber of Commerce West Coast Lumber and Building Material Association OPPOSITION : California Labor Federation SB 1451 Page 10 California League of Conservation Voters California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Trades Council Center for Biological Diversity Nature Resources Defense Council Planning and Conservation League Sierra Club California State Association of Electrical Workers State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Unified Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers