BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          122 (Jackson and Hill)


          As Amended  August 15, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  24-15


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Natural         |7-1  |Williams, Cristina    |Harper              |
          |Resources       |     |Garcia, Hadley,       |                    |
          |                |     |McCarty, Rendon, Mark |                    |
          |                |     |Stone, Wood           |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |11-3 |Gonzalez, Bloom,      |Bigelow, Chang,     |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Bonta,       |Obernolte           |
          |                |     |Eggman,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood, McCarty  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 








                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  2







          SUMMARY:  Authorizes a lead agency, upon a project applicant's  
          request, to prepare the record of proceedings that would be used  
          in a judicial challenge to the agency's action or decision under  
          the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concurrently  
          with the administrative process.  Requires CEQA documents for  
          projects reviewed by state agencies to be submitted to the  
          Office of Planning and Research (OPR), requires OPR to maintain  
          a database of these documents, and requires the database to be  
          available online to the public.  Specifically, this bill:


          1)Requires the lead agency, upon written request by a project  
            applicant and with consent of the lead agency, to concurrently  
            prepare the record of proceedings with the administrative  
            process.
          2)Requires all documents and other materials placed in the  
            record of proceedings to be posted on a Web site maintained by  
            the lead agency.


          3)Requires the lead agency to make publicly available, in  
            electronic format, the draft environmental document, and  
            associated documents, for the project.


          4)Requires the lead agency to make any comment publicly  
            available electronically within five days of its receipt.


          5)Requires the lead agency to certify the record of proceedings  
            within 30 days after filing notice of determination or  
            approval.


          6)Requires certain environmental review documents to include a  
            notice, as specified, stating that the document is subject to  
            this section.








                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  3







          7)Requires the applicant to pay for the lead agency's cost of  
            concurrently preparing and certifying the record of  
            proceedings.


          8)Requires OPR to establish and maintain a database for the  
            collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of  
            environmental documents and notices prepared pursuant to CEQA  
            and to make the database available online to the public.


          9)Requires OPR to submit a report describing the implementation  
            of the database to the Legislature by July 1, 2017, and a  
            status report by July 1, 2019.


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Requires a lead agency to prepare and certify the completion  
            of an environmental impact report (EIR) for a proposed project  
            that it finds would have a significant effect on the  
            environment, or if it finds otherwise, adopt a negative  
            declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.


          2)Authorizes a judicial challenge to an agency's act or decision  
            on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA, including an  
            improper determination that a project is not subject to CEQA  
            or the failure to prepare an EIR for a project that has a  
            significant effect on the environment.


          3)Establishes that a record of proceeding includes, but is not  
            limited to, all application materials, staff reports,  
            transcripts or minutes of public proceedings, notices, written  
            comments, and written correspondence prepared by or submitted  








                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  4





            to the public agency regarding the proposed project.


          4)Establishes a procedure for the preparation, certification,  
            and lodging of the record of proceedings.  Specifically:


             a)   Requires a plaintiff or petitioner to file a request  
               that the respondent public agency prepare the record of  
               proceedings, and serve this request, together with the  
               complaint or petition, personally upon the public agency  
               within 10 days of the date the action or proceeding was  
               filed.
             b)   Requires the respondent public agency to prepare and  
               certify the record of proceedings not later than 60 days  
               from the date that plaintiff or petitioner served the  
               request; lodge a copy of the certified record with the  
               court; and serve on the parties a notice that the record of  
               proceedings has been certified and lodged with the court.


             c)   Authorizes the plaintiff or petitioner to prepare the  
               record subject to certification by the respondent public  
               agency, or the parties to agree to an alternative method of  
               preparing the record of proceedings, within the time limits  
               specified in the law.


             d)   Requires the parties to pay any reasonable costs or fees  
               imposed for the preparation of the record of proceedings in  
               conformance with any law or rule of court.


             e)   Authorizes the plaintiff or petitioner to move the court  
               for sanctions, and the court to grant the plaintiff or  
               petitioner's motion for sanctions, if the public agency  
               fails to prepare and certify the record within the time  
               limits specified in the law.









                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  5






          5)Requires the lead agency to submit to the State Clearinghouse  
            a sufficient number of copies of specified environmental  
            review documents and a copy in an electronic form under  
            specified circumstances. 
          6)Requires OPR to establish and maintain a database to assist in  
            the preparation of environmental documents. 
          7)Requires OPR to establish and maintain a central repository  
            for the collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of  
            specified notices and make those notices available through the  
            Internet.  


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:


          1)One-time General Fund (GF) costs of $200,000 to establish the  
            database, including necessary training.
          2)Ongoing GF costs of $54,000 to host and update the database.   
            These costs may be offset by savings to GF and various special  
            funds for reduced administrative costs to state lead agencies.


          3)One-time GF costs of $20,000 for OPR to provide training for  
            lead agencies on the new database.


          4)Unknown costs to state agencies, to the extent they are lead  
            agency under CEQA, to concurrently prepare the record of  
            proceedings (GF and various special funds).  These costs  
            should be fully reimbursed by project applicants who request  
            the record of proceedings to be prepared concurrently with the  
            administrative process.


          COMMENTS:  Generally, CEQA actions taken by public agencies can  
          be challenged in Superior Court once the agency approves or  
          determines to carry out the project.  CEQA appeals are subject  








                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  6





          to unusually short statutes of limitations.  Under current law,  
          court challenges of CEQA decisions generally must be filed  
          within 30-35 days, depending on the type of decision.  The  
          courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all  
          other civil actions.  However, the schedules for briefing,  
          hearing, and decision are less definite.  The petitioner must  
          request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition and,  
          generally, briefing must be completed within 90 days of the  
          request for hearing.  There is no deadline specified for the  
          court to render a decision.


          In 2011, AB 900 (Buchanan), Chapter 354, and SB 292 (Padilla),  
          Chapter 353, established expedited judicial review procedures  
          for a limited number of projects.  For AB 900, it was  
          large-scale projects meeting extraordinary environmental  
          standards and providing significant jobs and investment.  For SB  
          292, it was a proposed downtown Los Angeles football stadium and  
          convention center project achieving specified traffic and air  
          quality mitigations.  As part of their expedited judicial review  
          procedures, these bills required the lead agency to prepare and  
          certify the record of proceedings concurrently with the  
          administrative process and required the applicant to pay for it.  
           It was commonly agreed that this would expedite preparation of  
          the record for trial.


          This bill provides the option of preparing the record of  
          proceedings during the CEQA environmental review process in  
          order to save time and effort in the event of a post-decision  
          CEQA challenge.  Depending on factors such as the complexity and  
          length of the environmental review, preparation of the record  
          can take multiple months.  However, in situations where an  
          agency believes a project is likely to be challenged, it is  
          probably more efficient and expeditious if the record is  
          prepared concurrently with the preparation of other  
          project-specific environmental documents.  










                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  7





          Concurrent preparation is not specifically prohibited under  
          existing law, but it has only been expressly authorized for  
          certain projects.  Providing public agencies a general  
          authorization to engage in concurrent preparation may take away  
          any uncertainty on the matter and make a public agency more  
          likely to adopt the practice for appropriate projects.  


          This bill's concurrent preparation provision is discretionary  
          and not mandatory.  If an applicant has no reason to believe  
          that its project will be subject to litigation, then the  
          applicant may choose not to utilize this option.




          According to the author, "OPR operates a limited online CEQA  
          repository (called "CEQAnet") as part of the State Clearinghouse  
          used for state-level review of environmental documents?this bill  
          will direct OPR to expand its online CEQA repository to include  
          copies of all CEQA documents in a single repository, forming a  
          true statewide CEQA clearinghouse."


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092   
                                                                      FN:  
          0004381



















                                                                     SB 122


                                                                    Page  8