The California Legislature has been active during 2018 in introducing legislation designed, in part (i) to exempt affordable housing projects in “Opportunity Zones” from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), (ii) to limit the time for courts to rule on CEQA challenges, (iii) to clarify the standards that must be met for a court to enjoin a housing development project, (iv) to shorten the time within which a CEQA challenger can file an action against a public agency alleging a CEQA violation, and (v) to amend other general CEQA provisions. Here is a brief summary of some of the proposed CEQA amendments:

1.   AB-3030. Assemblywoman Caballero, D-Salinas (Feb. 16, 2018)  



Qualifying affordable housing projects in low-income “Opportunity Zones,” which have recently been officially designated by the federal government in California, may proceed without undergoing CEQA review if the project proponent certifies that the project is a “public work” or otherwise meets certain wage and hour requirements:

i. The bill would exempt from CEQA a project that is financed by a qualified opportunity fund and that meets certain CEQA requirements.

ii. As of May 18, 2018, the Department of the Treasury has designated 273 Opportunity Zones in Los Angeles County. Please visit the Opportunity Zones Resources page at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, at https://www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx.

2. B-1340. Senator Glazer, D-Orinda (Feb. 16, 2018) 

 

Courts have 270 days to rule on lawsuits challenging housing projects. In an action alleging a violation of CEQA, the court may not stay or enjoin the siting, construction, or operation of a housing development project unless the court finds:

i. The continued construction and operation of the housing project presents an imminent threat to public health and safety; or

ii. The project site contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts or unforeseen important historical or archaeological values that would be damaged by the housing project.

3. AB-3099. Assemblyman Santiago, D-Los Angeles (Feb. 16, 2018) 

 

This bill would shorten the time periods within which a person is required to bring an action alleging that a public agency violated the CEQA requirements.

i. An action alleging that a public agency has approved a project that may have a significant effect on the environment without having determined whether or not it will have a significant effect on the environment will be commenced within 160 (instead of 180) days from the date of approval of the project (or commencement if the project is commenced without a formal decision from the public agency).

ii. An action alleging that a public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or that an environmental impact report does not comply, must be commenced within 15 (instead of 30) days after filing notice.

4. AB-2341. Assembl yman Mathis, R-Visalia (Feb. 13, 2018)  



(a) Except as specified, aesthetic effects of projects meeting certain requirements are not significant effects on the environment for the purposes of CEQA. A lead agency is not required to evaluate the aesthetic effects of a project and aesthetic effects shall not be considered significant effects on the environment if the project involves refurbishing, converting, repurposing, or replacing an existing building that is:

i. Abandoned, dilapidated, or has been vacant for more than one year;

ii. The building site is immediately adjacent to parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses . . .;

iii. The project includes the construction of housing;

iv. Any new structure does not substantially exceed the height of the existing structure; and

v. The project does not create a new source of substantial light or glare.

(b) These requirements shall not apply to either:

i. A project with potentially significant aesthetic effects on an official state scenic highway . . .; or

ii. A project with potentially significant aesthetic effects on historic or cultural resources.

(c) This section will be in effect until January 1, 2024, and then repealed.

5. SB-1341. Senator Glazer, D-Orinda (Feb. 16, 2018) 

(a)

In an action brought under CEQA, a plaintiff must:

i. Disclose the identity of a person / entity that contributes over $1,000 towards the costs of the action;

ii. Identify any pecuniary or business interest related to the project of any person / entity that contributes over $1,000 to the costs of the action.

(b) The plaintiff may request permission to withhold public disclosure of a contributor, which the court may grant if it finds that the public interest in keeping the information confidential clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 


(c) A lawsuit may not be brought challenging the approval of a housing project in a plan or project that has already been approved following the completion of environmental review.

6. AB-1905. Assemblyman Grayson, D-Concord (Jan. 22, 2018) 



In an action or proceeding seeking judicial review under CEQA, a court would be prohibited from staying or enjoining a transportation project that would reduce total vehicle miles traveled, that is included in a sustainable communities strategy, and for which an environmental impact report has been certified, unless:

i. The continued construction and operation of the transportation project presents an imminent threat to public health and safety, or

ii. The project site contains unforeseen important Native American artifacts or unforeseen important historical or archaeological values that would be damaged by the transportation project.

7. AB-3027. Assemblyman Chavez, R-Oceanside (Feb. 16, 2018)



Attorneys’ fees would be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in an action or proceeding under CEQA, only if the prevailing plaintiff is either:

i. A homeowner, property owner, or business owner, or a residential or commercial tenant whose tenancy is effective at the time the project application is submitted to the public agency, and that is located within a certain mailing radius, or

ii. A 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) with an active membership of at least 50,000, formed primarily for the purpose of protecting the environment.

_____________


* Cary Jones would like to thank summer associate Christina LaBarge who assisted with this article.