SB 1118: California Environmental Quality Act: judicial relief.
- Session Year: 2021-2022
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2022-05-05
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 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 also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA authorizes a court, in an action or proceeding brought challenging the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency agency, to grant relief on the ground of noncompliance with CEQA, to enter, among other things, an order to void the determination, finding, or decision, in whole or in part, as further specified in an opinion of the California Supreme Court. CEQA.
This bill would expressly authorize a court to enter such an order in an action or proceeding only if the court finds that the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency was made with a prejudicial lack of compliance with CEQA, consistent with that California Supreme Court opinion. The bill would require the court, before entering the order, to issue written findings that the order is necessary to avoid or mitigate a specific, adverse impact upon the environment, public health, or public safety. The bill would make findings and declarations related to these provisions. state the intent of the Legislature that, in undertaking judicial review under CEQA, insubstantial or merely technical omissions are not grounds for relief and that an omission in an environmental impact reports significant impacts analysis is prejudicial if it deprived the public and decisionmakers of substantial relevant information about the projects likely adverse impacts.