BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 515
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 515 (Dickinson)
As Amended January 6, 2014
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 6-0 JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Garcia, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |
| |Muratsuchi, Skinner, | |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, |
| |Stone, Williams | |Garcia, Maienschein, |
| | | |Muratsuchi, Stone |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 15-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, | | |
| |Gomez, Holden, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies the procedures that apply when a court
orders a public agency to take corrective action to comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by way of a
peremptory writ of mandate. Specifically, 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.
AB 515
Page 2
c) The public comment period applicable to the agency's
revision of a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative
declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (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.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under CEQA, lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
project to prepare a ND, MND, or 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
comply. The court's order may include voiding the lead
AB 515
Page 3
agency's decision, suspending specific project activities, or
requiring the agency to take specific action to comply.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible, if any, reimbursable mandated local
costs.
COMMENTS : 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 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
AB 515
Page 4
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.
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." 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0002999