BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 734
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
SB
734 (Galgiani) - As Amended May 19, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 37-0 (not relevant)
SUBJECT: Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011
SUMMARY: Extends for two years the expedited California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) judicial review procedures
established by the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through
Environmental Leadership Act (AB 900, Chapter 354, Statutes of
2011).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Pursuant to CEQA, requires a lead agency with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
discretionary project to evaluate the environmental effects of
its action and prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR).
If an initial study shows that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must
prepare an EIR. CEQA authorizes judicial review of the
agency's decision to carry out or approve the project.
SB 734
Page 2
Challenges alleging improper determination that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an
EIR doesn't comply with CEQA, must be filed in the Superior
Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. The
courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all
other civil actions.
2)Pursuant to AB 900, establishes procedures for expedited
judicial review (i.e., requiring the courts to resolve
lawsuits within 270 days) for "environmental leadership"
projects certified by the Governor and meeting specified
conditions, including LEED silver-certified infill site
projects, clean renewable energy projects, and clean energy
manufacturing projects.
a) Defines "environmental leadership" project as a CEQA
project that is one of the following:
i) A residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural,
entertainment, or recreational use project that is
certified as LEED silver or better by the United States
Green Building Council and, where applicable, that
achieves a 10% greater standard for transportation
efficiency than for comparable projects.
(1) Requires that these projects be located on an
infill site.
(2) Requires a project that is within a
metropolitan planning organization for which a
sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative
planning strategy (APS) is in effect, to be consistent
with specified policies in either the SCS or APS,
which, if implemented, would achieve greenhouse gas
emission (GHG) reduction targets.
ii) A clean renewable energy project that generates
electricity exclusively through wind or solar, but not
including waste incineration or conversion.
SB 734
Page 3
iii) A clean energy manufacturing project that
manufactures products, equipment, or components used for
renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, or for
the production of clean alternative fuel vehicles.
b) Allows a person proposing to construct a leadership
project to apply to the Governor for certification that the
leadership project is eligible for streamlining. Requires
the person to supply evidence and materials that the
Governor deems necessary to make a decision on the
application. Requires any evidence or materials be made
available to the public at least 15 days before the
Governor certifies a project pursuant to AB 900.
c) Authorizes the Governor to certify a leadership project
if the Governor finds the project meets all of the
following conditions:
i) The project will result in a minimum investment of
$100 million in California upon completion of
construction.
ii) The project creates high-wage, highly skilled jobs
that pay prevailing wages and living wages, provides
construction jobs and permanent jobs for Californians,
and helps reduce unemployment.
iii) The project does not result in any net additional
GHG emissions, including emissions from employee
transportation, as determined by the Air Resources Board
pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006.
iv) The project applicant has entered into a binding and
enforceable agreement that all mitigation measures
required under CEQA shall be conditions of approval of
the project, and those conditions will be fully
enforceable by the lead agency or another agency
SB 734
Page 4
designated by the lead agency. In the case of
environmental mitigation measures, the applicant agrees,
as an ongoing obligation, that those measures will be
monitored and enforced by the lead agency for the life of
the obligation.
v) The project applicant agrees to pay the costs of the
Court of Appeal in hearing and deciding any case,
including payment of the costs for the appointment of a
special master if deemed appropriate by the court, in a
form and manner specified by the Judicial Council.
vi) The project applicant agrees to pay the costs of
preparing the administrative record for the project
concurrent with review and consideration of the project
pursuant to CEQA, in a form and manner specified by the
lead agency for the project.
d) Requires the Governor, prior to certifying a project, to
make a determination that each of the conditions specified
above has been met. These findings are not subject to
judicial review.
e) If the Governor determines that a leadership project is
eligible for streamlining, requires the Governor to submit
that determination, and any supporting information, to the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for review and
concurrence or non-concurrence.
f) Requires the JLBC to concur or non-concur in writing
within 30 days of receiving the Governor's determination.
g) Deems the leadership project certified if the JLBC fails
to concur or non-concur on a determination by the Governor
within 30 days of the submittal.
h) Authorizes the Governor to issue guidelines regarding
application and certification of projects pursuant to AB
900. These guidelines are not subject to the rulemaking
SB 734
Page 5
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
i) Requires the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court
to establish procedures that require resolution within 270
days, including any appeals, of a lawsuit challenging the
certification of the EIR or any project approvals for a
certified environmental leadership project.
j) Prohibits AB 900 from applying to a leadership project
if the applicant fails to notify a lead agency prior to the
release of the draft EIR for public comment.
aa) Sets requirements for preparation and certification of
the administrative record for a leadership project
certified by the Governor.
bb) Requires the draft and final EIR to include a specified
notice in no less than 12-point type regarding the draft
and final EIR being subject to AB 900.
cc) Provides that provisions of AB 900 are severable.
dd) Provides that nothing in AB 900 affects the duty of any
party to comply with CEQA, except as otherwise provided in
AB 900.
ee) Prohibits AB 900 from applying to a leadership project
if the Governor does not certify the project prior to
January 1, 2016.
ff) Provides that certification of the leadership project
expires and is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to
approve the project prior to January 1, 2017.
gg) Requires the Judicial Council to report to the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2017, on the effects of
AB 900 on the administration of justice.
hh) Sunsets January 1, 2017.
SB 734
Page 6
THIS BILL:
1)Extends the operation of AB 900 by two years, so that the
Governor must certify a project prior to January 1, 2018, the
project must be approved prior to January 1, 2019, and AB 900
sunsets January 1, 2019.
2)Adds the following prevailing wage conditions and enforcement
provisions:
a) Requires contractors and subcontractors to pay to all
construction workers employed in the execution of the
project at least the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages.
b) Provides that this obligation may be enforced by the
Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and
penalty assessment pursuant to relevant provisions of the
Labor Code, unless all contractors and subcontractors
performing work on the project are subject to a project
labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing
wages and provides for enforcement through an arbitration
procedure.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. If
the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
SB 734
Page 7
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, 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. 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.
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 to unusually short
statutes of limitations. Under current law, court challenges
of CEQA decisions generally must be filed within 30 to 35
days, depending on the type of decision. The courts are
required to give CEQA actions preference over all other civil
actions. 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) and SB 292 (Padilla) established
expedited CEQA 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. For these eligible projects, the bills provided
for original jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal and a
SB 734
Page 8
compressed schedule requiring the court to render a decision
on any lawsuit within 175 days. This promised to reduce the
existing judicial review timeline by 100 days or more, while
creating new burdens for the courts and litigants to meet the
compressed schedule. AB 900's provision granting original
jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal was invalidated in 2013 by
a decision in Alameda Superior Court in Planning and
Conservation League v. State of California. The stadium
project subject to SB 292 has not proceeded. In 2013, SB 743
(Steinberg) established special CEQA procedures modeled on SB
292 for the Sacramento Kings arena project. Like SB 292, SB
743 applied to a single project and included specified traffic
and air quality mitigations. CEQA lawsuits were filed against
the Kings arena, and the lawsuits, including appeals, were
resolved 267 days after certification of the record.
To date, six projects have been certified under AB 900. Only
one, the proposed Golden State Warriors arena and related
development at Mission Bay in San Francisco, has been
challenged under CEQA. The case, Mission Bay Alliance et al.
v Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, was filed
March 11, 2016. A hearing is scheduled June 17 in San
Francisco Superior Court.
2)Author's statement:
SB 734 extends the Environmental Leadership Development
Projects application process and adds to existing law that
if the project is certified, contractors and subcontractors
shall pay prevailing wage to its workers if a project labor
agreement is not in place (AB 900 always required payment
of prevailing wages-SB 734 just strengthens it). SB 734
also extends the sunset of this chapter to 2019. It also
states that if, prior to January 1, 2019, a lead agency
fails to approve a project certified by the Governor
pursuant to this chapter, the certification expires.
SB 734
Page 9
SB 734 would help large job producing green projects to
avoid significant delays in breaking ground. Litigation
for such projects is currently taking up to 3 years, not
including appeals, and jobs and housing are not being
created or are being delayed due to this process.
3)The six AB 900 projects. The deadline for AB 900
certification under current law has passed (it was January 1,
2016). The following six projects were certified prior to AB
900's expiration:
a) McCoy Solar Energy Project in Riverside County.
b) Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino.
c) Soitec Solar Energy Project in San Diego County.
d) 8150 Sunset Boulevard, a mixed-use commercial and
residential project in Hollywood.
e) Event Center and Mixed-Use Development at Mission
Bay Blocks (i.e., Warriors Arena) in San Francisco.
f) Qualcomm Stadium Reconstruction Project in San
Diego.
To date, it appears that only the Apple Campus 2 has received
final approval and proceeded to construction as proposed.
SB 734
Page 10
4)More projects in the wings. Although this bill provides a
blanket extension of AB 900 and is not specific to any
particular projects, proponents have identified four projects
that would apply for AB 900 certification if the bill is
enacted:
a) 6701 Sunset/Crossroads in Hollywood - Nine new
mixed-use buildings, including residential, hotel,
commercial office, retail, and restaurant uses, including
up to 308 hotel rooms and 950 residential units, 84 of
which will be affordable to low-income households (to
replace 84 rent-controlled units the project will
demolish).
b) Yucca-Argyle Project in Hollywood - Mixed-use
project with hotel, residential, and commercial uses,
including 260 hotel rooms and 191 residential units, 39
of which will be affordable to low-income households.
c) Barlow Hospital Project in Echo Park - Hospital
replacement and residential development on a 25-acre site
near Dodgers Stadium, including 400 new single-family
homes, with no commitments to affordable housing to date.
d) Hollywood Central Park - A 38-acre regional street
level park created by capping US 101 between Hollywood
and Santa Monica Boulevards.
5)Should the AB 900 model be extended? It's an open question
whether the idea of limiting the scope and time of judicial
review of favored projects was ever good policy, even for one
project. The practical benefit of this approach to developers
is debatable, and it's unclear whether that benefit outweighs
SB 734
Page 11
the potential sacrifice to effective environmental review and
the increased burden on the courts. The only project that
seems to have used and possibly benefited from the judicial
review procedures enacted since 2011 is the Sacramento Kings
arena project. It should be noted that SB 743 required the
Kings arena to be certified Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Gold, as well as minimize traffic
and air quality impacts through project design or mitigation
measures, including reducing to at least zero the net GHG
emissions from private automobile trips to the arena, achieve
reductions in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks
that will exceed the GHG emission reduction targets for 2020
and 2035 adopted for the Sacramento region pursuant to SB 375,
and achieve a 15% reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)
per attendee. In contrast, AB 900 requires the lower LEED
Silver certification, a 10% improvement in transportation
efficiency over comparable projects, and zero net GHG
emissions, with no requirement that the GHG emission
reductions be from local sources.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Chamber of Commerce
Opposition
California League of Conservation Voters
SB 734
Page 12
Judicial Council of California
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by:Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092