In June, RCRC helped stop several bills that would have significantly increased the complexity, ambiguity, and inherent litigation risk associated with the California Environmental Quality Act.
AB 1001 (C. Garcia) and SB 33 (Cortese) failed to advance out of policy committees in the second house by the constitutional deadlines and so are effectively dead.
Assembly Bill 1001 would have greatly restricted the areas in which a project could mitigate air quality impacts on disadvantaged communities and jeopardized a local agency’s ability to adopt statements of overriding considerations in those circumstances. The bill would have also increased ambiguity and litigation risk by requiring lead agencies to give consideration to the principles of environmental justice as part of the CEQA review process. RCRC supported the author’s underlying goals and worked with other local agencies to suggest extensive modifications to achieve those goals in a way that didn’t increase CEQA complexity or expand litigation risk. Those suggestions were ultimately rejected by the author. RCRC’s coalition letter can be found here.
Senate Bill 33 was a very late gut and amend that would have indefinitely extended the statute of limitations for CEQA litigation for even innocent and non-prejudicial procedural oversights in failing to provide notices to those individuals who request them. The bill would have also imposed an even greater burden on local governments to provide “concierge” notifications that are unnecessary and duplicative in light of existing posting procedures. RCRC and CSAC strongly opposed the measure along with the California Building Industry Association. Ultimately, SB 33 failed to secure a hearing in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Earlier this year, RCRC and other local government organizations helped to stop Senate Bill 1404 (Stern), which would have made CEQA even more unwieldly and litigious for projects involving the removal of oak trees.
For more information, contact RCRC Policy Advocate John Kennedy.