Transcript CEQA at 40 Midlife Crisis or

CEQA at 40:
Midlife Crisis or Mission
Accomplished?
Presentation by Kip Lipper
Office of Senate pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
UC Davis King Hall
November 2011
Legislative Disclaimer
“The opinions expressed by the presenter
are his alone and do not necessarily
represent the views of the California
Senate, or any member of the Senate.”
Presentation Summary
 Review key CEQA statutory law since 1970’s
 Review key budgetary, policy, and political
dynamics affecting CEQA
 Preview emerging CEQA issues in legislative and
executive branches
CEQA in Legislative Context
 Little understood law in both executive and
legislative branches (term limits, new Adm etc)
 Often under attack—whether justified or not-particularly during bad economic times
 Very few bills strengthen CEQA
 In recent years, CEQA debates tend to be
polarized and uninformed (exemptions versus
status quo)
CEQA in Legislative Context
 Environmental groups defend CEQA (though some try to
work through issues)
 Business, developer groups oppose CEQA (distressingly
weak CEQA lobbying bar)
 Administrations vexed by CEQA (ARB, Caltrans)
 Business fights with itself on CEQA issues (LA stadium;
gravel mines)
 Organized Labor significant force, though hardly monolithic
(laborers, carpenters v pipe fitters)
CEQA in Legislative Context
 “Progressive” Democrats tend to defend, while “moderate”
Democrats willing to amend. Policy Committees front lines of
defense
 Republicans uniformly support modifying CEQA except where
business (or occasionally labor) oppose.
 CEQA generally viewed as cumbersome and litigious. Little
understanding of its benefits.
 Governors and Administrations often set stage for CEQA debates
CEQA in 1980’s—Deukmejian Era
 Prison construction boom--CEQA Exemptions “Plus”
 EAS—”Environmental Assessment Study”
 “Expert” Administrative Tribunal Review
 Loma Prieta Earthquake Repairs
 Further use of “tribunals” (Resources, BTH, Environmental
Affairs Secretaries) to review environmental effects in lieu
of CEQA review
CEQA in 1990’s—Wilson Era
 Early 1990’s Recession hit State hard. Like today, jobs and
economy were the issues.
 Formation of “Californians Against Red Tape” CART
(Labor/business coalition)
 Various reports and recommendations submitted to
Legislature urge CEQA Reforms (State Bar, Uberroth Report,
Landis Report)
 CEQA Reform Act of 1993 (MEIR, FEIR, streamlining for
mandated projects, new standing and evidentiary rules,
CEQA judges etc)
CEQA in 1990’s—Additional
Developments
 Military base reuse and renovation—need to bring federal
and state processes together
 Continuing conflict over certified regulatory programs (e.g.
Forest Practices)
 Inchoate but growing interest in climate change (AB
4420/1988, SB 1771—1999)
 1996--First “stadium” Bill--Giants Stadium Legislation
CEQA in New Millennium
 Increasing interest in climate change—lack of action at
federal level—Enactment of AB 1493 (GHG vehicle
standards)
 Enactment of AB 32—Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006—identified GHG’s as significant effect on
environment.
 State Department of Justice, others bring actions under
CEQA to enforce GHG mitigation for general plans,
housing dev.
 CBIA, major developers, local governments protest
loudly
CEQA in 2000’s (cont.)
 GHG CEQA litigation prompted Republican legislative
backlash in budget process
 SB 97 (Dutton—Chapter 185/2007)—closed the 2006 budget
deal
 Directed OPR/Resources to update guidelines to
incorporate guidance on GHG mitigation.
 Stated that failure to analyze or mitigation GHG’s under
CEQA for certain infrastructure projects was not basis for
litigation. (retroactive, 2010 sunset)
CEQA in 2000’s (cont.)
 Increased interest in integrating regional transportation,
housing, land use and GHG considerations.
 Driven in part by enactment of major new infrastructure
bonds passed in 2006, emerging GHG issue.
 Early legislation: SB 832 (Perata), SB 303 (Ducheny)—both
failed.
 Final legislation—SB 375 (Steinberg)—passed in 2008.
2009-2010 CEQA Legislation—New Round
of Exemptions/”Reforms”
 Like early 1990’s, driven by “Jobs and economic
development” imperative
 Budget/CEQA Exemption Linkages: levee repairs,
Transportation Projects (Hwy 50 HOV lane; Caldecott Tunnel
4th Bore; Doyle Drive)
 SB 1456 (Simitian/Logue et al)—Tiering, pre-litigation
mediation, AG expedited hearings, Sanctions for frivolous
claims
 AB 1581 (Torres)—CEQA Exemption for “big box” stores
(failed passage)
2011 CEQA Legislation
 New Administration, similar themes
 First six months occupied with more Budget/CEQA linkages
(Rep/business pkg), which ultimately failed.
 Three Key Bills Emerged as 2011 Session Adjourned
 SB 292 (Padilla et al)—LA Downtown Stadium
 AB 900 (Buchanan et al)—Environmental Leadership Projects
 SB 226 (Simitian et al)—CEQA scoping, Solar PV exemption,
Infill streamlining, GHGs/categorical exemptions
Closing Thoughts….
 CEQA middle-aged but still California’s bedrock
environmental law
 Regrettably, CEQA politics often supersedes
serious policy discussion
 Like taxes, size of government, few interests have
any incentive to find middle ground on CEQA
Reforms
 Legislature reflection of state as a whole (want
both clean environment, strong economy)
 New Administration key (OPR, NR Agency, Gov
himself)