BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 515
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 13, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 515 (Dickinson) - As Amended: January 6, 2014
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: writ of
mandate
SUMMARY : Clarifies the procedures that apply when a court
orders a public agency to take corrective action to comply with
CEQA by way of a peremptory writ of mandate.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under CEQA, lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated
negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report
(EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2)Requires an EIR to identify and analyze:
a) Significant effects on the environment that would occur
if the project is approved, unless the agency finds that
alternatives to the project or mitigation measures would
address the effects, or specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project outweigh them.
b) Cumulative impacts of a project when, considered in the
context of environmental change occurring over time, the
incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
3)Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public
agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or
approve the project. 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.
4)Authorizes a court, upon finding that a public agency has
failed to comply with CEQA, to issue a peremptory writ of
mandate specifying what action by the agency is necessary to
AB 515
Page 2
comply. The court's order may include voiding the lead
agency's decision, suspending specific project activities, or
requiring the agency to take specific action to comply.
THIS BILL :
1)Requires a peremptory writ of mandate issued by the court to
include the time by which the public agency must make an
initial return of the writ.
2)Requires the public agency's initial return of the writ to
describe all of the following:
a) The actions the agency will take to come into
compliance.
b) A schedule for these actions.
c) The public comment period applicable to the agency's
revision of a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or EIR, where applicable.
3)States that the section amended by the bill does not affect
the authority of a court to allow those determinations,
findings, or decisions of a public agency that are not found
to be in violation of CEQA to proceed, if allowing the public
agency to proceed does not, in any manner, prejudice complete
and full compliance with CEQA.
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
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a ND.
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
AB 515
Page 3
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 30-35 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.
According to the author:
AB 515 directs the court to be specific in
identifying the issues or activities a public agency
needs to address in order to come into compliance
with the law. The bill also requires the public
agency's response to the court to specify the
actions the agency will take to come into
compliance, a schedule for these actions, and the
applicable public comment period in cases where a
revised document is required. The bill's modest
changes provide greater certainty and will promote
more efficient resolution of CEQA litigation.
AB 515
Page 4
2)Just making sure. This bill seems to reiterate what judges
typically do under current law and practice, as well as
codifying essential procedures for the issuance of, and reply
to, writs in CEQA cases. One potential inconsistency with
existing CEQA law and practice is the provision requiring a
public agency's initial return of the writ to describe "the
public comment period applicable to the agency's revision of
the document" [paragraph (3) on page 5, lines 1-4 of the
bill]. This provision suggests that every time an EIR, MND or
ND is found not to be in compliance with CEQA, that the
document must be revised, and that the revision will trigger
recirculation of the document for public comment. However,
this may not always be the case. CEQA currently prescribes
public review periods, as well as thresholds for recirculation
when documents are revised. The provision could lead to
confusion without adding any clear value. The author and the
committee may wish to consider whether paragraph (3) should be
removed or amended to assure it is clearly consistent with
existing standards for public review of revised CEQA
documents.
3)Prior legislation. SB 731 (Steinberg), approved by this
committee on September 10, 2013 and pending in the Assembly
Local Government Committee, includes provisions substantially
similar to this bill (Section 19 of the September 9, 2013
version).
4)Double referral. This bill has been double-referred to the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
AB 515
Page 5