California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 2 D cosponsors

SB 25 — California Environmental Quality Act: projects funded by qualified opportunity zone funds or other public funds.

Last action — August 6 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

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 establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, establish specified procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the environmental review and approvals granted for projects located in specified counties that are funded, in whole or in part, by specified public funds or public agencies and that meet certain requirements. Because a public agency would be required to comply with those new procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by March 31, 2021, to adopt rules of court applicable to an action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification or adoption of an environmental review document or the granting of project approvals, including any appeals therefrom, to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court to an action or proceeding seeking judicial review of the lead agency's action related to those projects. The bill would require a party seeking to file an action or proceeding pursuant to CEQA to provide the lead agency and the real party in interest a notice of intent to sue within 10 days of the posting of a certain notice and would prohibit a court from accepting the filing of an action or proceeding from a party that fails to provide the notice of intent to sue. The bill would also require a qualified opportunity fund that finances, in whole or in part, a qualified project to provide, to the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and upon initial application for a qualified project and every 6 months thereafter, specified information regarding the fund and the qualified opportunity zone in which the project is located. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, and Stanislaus. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 6 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

  2. July 29 hearing postponed by committee.

  3. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  4. July 8 hearing: Testimony taken. Hearing postponed by committee.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  6. Coauthors revised.

  7. Re-referred to Coms. on L. & E. and NAT. RES. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  8. Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and L. & E.

  9. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 6. Page 1257.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  13. Set for hearing May 13.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 797.) (April 23).

  16. Set for hearing April 23.

  17. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 651.) (April 10).

  19. Set for hearing April 10.

  20. March 20 hearing postponed by committee.

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on EQ.

  22. Set for hearing March 20.

  23. Referred to Coms. on EQ. and JUD.

  24. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 3.

  25. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (2)

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

3rd Reading SB25 Caballero et al.

Passed 28 Yea · 6 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 21303
Democratic 5301
Republican 2000
Total 28604
% of votes cast 74%16%0%11%
How each member voted (38)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Beall — Nay
Wieckowski — Nay
Leyva — Nay
Mitchell — Not Voting
Skinner — Not Voting
Monning — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Nay
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Nay
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 5 Yea · 1 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Democratic 2002
Unaffiliated 2101
Total 5103
% of votes cast 56%11%0%33%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Wieckowski — Nay
Monning — Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 25 do?
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 establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, establish specified procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the environmental review and approvals granted for projects located in specified counties that are funded, in whole or in part, by specified public funds or public agencies and that meet certain requirements. Because a public agency would be required to comply with those new procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by March 31, 2021, to adopt rules of court applicable to an action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification or adoption of an environmental review document or the granting of project approvals, including any appeals therefrom, to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court to an action or proceeding seeking judicial review of the lead agency's action related to those projects. The bill would require a party seeking to file an action or proceeding pursuant to CEQA to provide the lead agency and the real party in interest a notice of intent to sue within 10 days of the posting of a certain notice and would prohibit a court from accepting the filing of an action or proceeding from a party that fails to provide the notice of intent to sue. The bill would also require a qualified opportunity fund that finances, in whole or in part, a qualified project to provide, to the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and upon initial application for a qualified project and every 6 months thereafter, specified information regarding the fund and the qualified opportunity zone in which the project is located. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, and Stanislaus. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 25?
SB 25 is sponsored by Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic), Glazer, and Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 25?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 25?
Track SB 25 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 25

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 25

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →