BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1805
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 1805 (Calderon) - As Introduced: February 10, 2010
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SUMMARY : Prohibits judicial review under CEQA for 125 projects
selected by the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
(BT&H).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA.
2)Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public
agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or
approve the project, subject to statutes of limitations
ranging from 30 to 180 days:
a) 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
within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval.
b) Challenges alleging improper determination that a
project is exempt from CEQA must be filed within 35 days of
filing of the notice of exemption, or 180 days if no notice
has been filed.
c) Challenges alleging an agency has failed to determine
whether a project has a significant effect on the
environment must be filed within 180 days.
THIS BILL enacts the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of
2010 as follows:
1)Prohibits court review of a lead agency's certification of an
EIR or adoption of a mitigated negative declaration, as well
as a lead or responsible agency's project approval, for 125
AB 1805
Page 2
projects that are selected by BT&H over a five-year period
beginning in 2010. For a project to qualify for the
exemption, the lead agency must certify to BT&H that there is
an expectation that an EIR will be certified for the project
within 12 months. BT&H's selection of projects is also exempt
from judicial review.
2)Provides that the 25 projects selected each year from 2010 to
2014 must be located in the following areas:
a) 10 projects in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
b) 5 projects in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
c) 5 projects in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties.
d) 5 projects located in the rest of the state.
3)Requires BT&H to hold at least one public hearing in each
region to consider public comments on the selected projects in
each region. The Legislature is permitted to provide "formal
comments" to BT&H through legislative committees designated by
the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker.
4)Requires BT&H to consider the following when selecting a
project:
a) Number and quality of jobs to be created by the
project.
b) Amount of capital investment made by the project.
c) A balance between projects sponsored by public and
private entities.
5)Requires BT&H to submit an annual report on the pilot program
to the Governor and Legislature by December 31 summarizing the
designation of projects, job creation, and investment
attributable to the designated projects. Additional
information regarding implementation of the projects may be
provided.
AB 1805
Page 3
6)Sunsets the above provisions January 1, 2016.
7)Contains an urgency clause.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
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
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. Prior to approving any project that has
received 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.
Generally, CEQA actions taken by local 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 30-35 days, depending on the type of decision.
No evidence has been offered in support of this bill's premise
that CEQA litigation is a scourge that must be stopped.
AB 1805
Page 4
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, one
lawsuit is filed for every 354 projects reviewed under CEQA.
Immunizing projects from judicial review eliminates the only
enforcement mechanism available to the public to assure lead
agencies comply with CEQA. Permitting BT&H to select the
projects before final action by the lead agency, as this bill
does, furthers the threat of abuse and substandard results from
the CEQA process. The process outlined in the bill eliminates
meaningful accountability and strips the public of fundamental
rights.
Related legislation. This bill is identical to SBX8 42
(Correa), which was held in the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee on February 24, and SB 1010 (Correa), which failed in
the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 5, 2010.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
City of San Marcos
Civil Justice Association of California
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Opposition
Association of Environmental Professionals
Breathe California
Born Free USA
California Audubon Society
California Coastal Coalition
California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Council of Land Trusts
AB 1805
Page 5
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento Chapter
California State Parks Foundation
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Law and Poverty
City of La Canada Flintridge
Coalition for Clean Air
Community Coalition on High Speed Rail
Consumer Attorneys of California
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
EndOil/Communities for Clean Ports
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Defense Fund
Friends of the River
Friends of the Los Angeles River
Friend of Rose Creek
Food and Water Watch
Forest Forever
Heal the Bay
Health Officers Association of California
Humane Society of the United States
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nichols ? Berman Environmental Planning
Pacific Forest Trust
Palo Alto City Council
Planning and Conservation League
Russian Riverkeeper
Sacramento Audubon Society
San Diego Audubon Society
Save the Bay
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
Trust for Public Land
Union of Concerned Scientists
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092