Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
Creates an optional CEQA and permitting process, with set deadlines, for defined housing, infrastructure, public-service, and clean-energy projects.
The measure would set statewide procedures for reviewing many projects and for lawsuits over their approvals. It would retain environmental review but change deadlines, public-comment rules, alternatives analysis, and court remedies.
What it does
- Lets applicants use the new process for qualifying housing, water, clean-energy, medical, wildfire-risk-reduction, broadband, education, transportation, and first-responder projects.
- Requires agencies to decide whether applications are complete within 30 days and generally complete environmental review within 365 days for projects requiring an environmental impact report, 180 days for negative declarations, or 90 days for other review documents.
- Requires agencies to use laws in effect when an application is submitted when assessing impacts, subject to specified life-safety and building-code exceptions.
- Allows an applicant using an optional scoping process to provide one project alternative, along with a no-project alternative, for environmental impact report review.
- Sets public comment periods of 20 days for negative declarations and 45 days for draft environmental impact reports, and limits which comments enter the administrative record.
- Limits CEQA court claims to compliance with objective existing laws, generally requires cases to finish within 270 days, and generally permits courts to halt only the noncomplying part of a project while an agency corrects it.
Who it affects
- Applicants and public agencies reviewing qualifying projects and related permits.
- Residents, public agencies, and other commenters participating in environmental-review processes.
- Federally recognized tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project area, which would receive the measure's consultation process for tribal cultural resources.
- People and organizations challenging qualifying project approvals in court.
Context
Under current CEQA, agencies assess environmental effects, may prepare environmental impact reports that consider alternatives, accept public comments, and can face lawsuits over compliance. Courts can require agencies to correct CEQA errors and may stop an entire project while the error is addressed.
A yes vote means
A yes vote would create an optional CEQA, permitting, public-comment, and court-review process with set deadlines for qualifying projects.
A no vote means
A no vote would keep existing CEQA, permitting, public-comment, and court-review procedures for these projects.
Fiscal effect
The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates:
- Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects. Fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would partly cover these costs.
- In the longer term, uncertain, but potentially more significant positive or negative fiscal effects for state and local governments. The overall effect depends, in part, on how the new procedures change the number of eligible projects that get built and whether those projects have different environmental impacts.