The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA confers standing on a person satisfying specified requirements to file and maintain an action or proceeding alleging that an EIR, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration was not prepared and certified in compliance with CEQA. CEQA requires a court, in an action or proceeding brought challenging any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA and a finding by the court of such noncompliance, to enter an order that includes one or
more of specified mandates, one of which may be a mandate to suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, as provided. CEQA provides that, except as otherwise specified, it is not intended to limit the equitable powers of the courts.
This bill would limit the standing to file and maintain the above action or proceeding to the Attorney General. The bill would authorize the court, upon its own motion or of a party, to conduct a hearing to determine if the Attorney General is bringing and maintaining an action or proceeding for nonenvironmental purposes, as defined. If the court determines that the action is brought or maintained for nonenvironmental purposes, the bill would authorize the court to take necessary actions, including the dismissal of the action or proceeding, award of attorneys’ fees, or both dismissal and award.
This bill would prohibit the court from staying or
enjoining the construction or operation of a project unless it makes certain findings.
This bill would prohibit additional or subsequent CEQA actions or proceedings if an action or proceeding under CEQA has already been instituted against a housing development project, as defined, and a trial court has issued a peremptory writ of mandate, as prescribed. The bill would require that any claims regarding the lead agency’s noncompliance with the peremptory writ be raised during the public comment period provided in connection with the lead agency’s action to comply with the peremptory writ and when the lead agency makes a return to the peremptory writ. The bill would limit those claims to the adequacy of the lead agency’s remedial compliance efforts in response to the peremptory writ, and would prohibit the court from considering issues, claims, or complaints under CEQA that were not raised in the original action or proceeding or that were not
resolved by the trial court in favor of the petitioners in the original action or proceeding from which the peremptory writ was issued. The bill would also prohibit subsequent actions or proceedings under CEQA against a housing development project if that project has already been subject to suit under CEQA and a court has entered a final judgment in that action or proceeding. The bill would specify that it does not extend any statute of limitations.
This bill would, until January 1, 2030, require an action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul a determination, finding, or decision of the lead agency certifying the EIR for a commercial, housing, or public works project, as defined, that addresses longstanding critical needs in the project area or the granting of project approvals on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA, to the extent feasible, be resolved within 365 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court. The bill would specify
that this provision does not apply if the court makes certain findings. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court to implement this provision.
This bill would repeal a provision that would become obsolete as the result of the above provision limiting the standing to file and maintain an action or proceeding to the Attorney General.