California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 174 — Public resources: California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: native fish and wildlife: Capitol Annex.

Last action — Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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. Existing law, until January 1, 2025, exempts from the requirements of CEQA projects that conserve, restore, protect, or enhance, and assist in the recovery of California native fish and wildlife and the habitat upon which they depend and projects that restore or provide habitat for California native fish and wildlife, as provided. Existing law requires the lead agency to obtain the concurrence of the Director of Fish and Wildlife for the exemption determination. Existing law requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption within 48 hours of making a determination that a project is exempt from CEQA with the Office of Planning and Research and requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to post the director's concurrence on its internet website. This bill would extend the above-described exemption from the requirements of CEQA by 5 years to instead be until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of the lead agency in implementing the exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, known as the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 (annex act) , authorizes the Joint Rules Committee to pursue the construction of a state capitol building annex or the restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, or reconstruction of the existing State Capitol Building Annex. Existing law states that it is the intent of the Legislature that all available cash sources, as described, be used to fund the projects authorized under a specified provision of the annex act. Existing law establishes the State Project Infrastructure Fund and continuously appropriates moneys in the fund for state projects and specified other purposes, including for transferring to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate to be used for the capital outlay projects specified in the annex act, as specified. For works undertaken pursuant to the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 or the State Office Building Act of 2018, existing law requires the environmental review under CEQA be conducted in a specified manner and requires an action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved or is undertaking those works in violation of CEQA to be subject to the Judicial Council rule of court requiring the action or proceeding, including any appeals, be resolved, to the extent feasible within 270 days of the certification of the record of proceedings. This bill would repeal those provisions related to environmental and judicial reviews of those works and would expressly provide that works performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 are exempt from CEQA. The bill would make conforming changes to the State Office Building Act of 2018. This bill would appropriate a total of $700,000,000 from the General Fund over 3 fiscal years, starting with the 2024–25 fiscal year, as specified, to fund the acquisition, design, construction, and equipping of projects authorized by the annex act and would require the amount appropriated for each fiscal year to be transferred to the State Project Infrastructure Fund, as provided. The bill would require the Director of Finance to augment the appropriated amounts in any fiscal year with a corresponding reduction in the subsequent fiscal year or years if needed to provide timely payments for those purposes and upon receipt of an amended transfer schedule provided by the Joint Rules Committee. The bill would require the Joint Rules Committee to confer with the Department of Finance and the Department of General Services or their designated representatives before submitting the amended transfer schedule. The bill would, upon the transfers of the appropriated amounts or the augmented amount specified in the amended transfer schedule, if any, require the Director of Finance to direct the Controller to transfer the entirety of the amount to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate. The bill would, upon the transfer of $700,000,000 from the State Project Infrastructure Fund to the General Fund, as provided, require all remaining amounts in the State Project Infrastructure Fund be transferred to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate for capital outlay projects specified in the annex act. This bill would declare the severability of its provisions. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 4.) (June 26).

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  5. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  6. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  7. Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  8. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 60. Noes 14. Page 865.)

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Ordered to second reading.

  12. Withdrawn from committee.

  13. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 61. Noes 17. Page 732.)

  14. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  15. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on BUDGET. Read second time and amended.

  16. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  17. From printer. May be heard in committee February 9.

  18. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 15 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Do pass

Passed 14 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10000
Republican 1300
Unaffiliated 3101
Total 14401
% of votes cast 74%21%0%5%
How each member voted (19)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Newman — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Eggman — Not Voting
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 60 Yea · 14 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 45001
Unaffiliated 15303
Republican 01102
Total 601406
% of votes cast 75%18%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Maienschein — Not Voting
Waldron — Not Voting
Holden — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Boerner Horvath — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Mathis — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 AB 174 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. Existing law, until January 1, 2025, exempts from the requirements of CEQA projects that conserve, restore, protect, or enhance, and assist in the recovery of California native fish and wildlife and the habitat upon which they depend and projects that restore or provide habitat for California native fish and wildlife, as provided. Existing law requires the lead agency to obtain the concurrence of the Director of Fish and Wildlife for the exemption determination. Existing law requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption within 48 hours of making a determination that a project is exempt from CEQA with the Office of Planning and Research and requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to post the director's concurrence on its internet website. This bill would extend the above-described exemption from the requirements of CEQA by 5 years to instead be until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of the lead agency in implementing the exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, known as the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 (annex act) , authorizes the Joint Rules Committee to pursue the construction of a state capitol building annex or the restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, or reconstruction of the existing State Capitol Building Annex. Existing law states that it is the intent of the Legislature that all available cash sources, as described, be used to fund the projects authorized under a specified provision of the annex act. Existing law establishes the State Project Infrastructure Fund and continuously appropriates moneys in the fund for state projects and specified other purposes, including for transferring to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate to be used for the capital outlay projects specified in the annex act, as specified. For works undertaken pursuant to the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 or the State Office Building Act of 2018, existing law requires the environmental review under CEQA be conducted in a specified manner and requires an action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved or is undertaking those works in violation of CEQA to be subject to the Judicial Council rule of court requiring the action or proceeding, including any appeals, be resolved, to the extent feasible within 270 days of the certification of the record of proceedings. This bill would repeal those provisions related to environmental and judicial reviews of those works and would expressly provide that works performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 are exempt from CEQA. The bill would make conforming changes to the State Office Building Act of 2018. This bill would appropriate a total of $700,000,000 from the General Fund over 3 fiscal years, starting with the 2024–25 fiscal year, as specified, to fund the acquisition, design, construction, and equipping of projects authorized by the annex act and would require the amount appropriated for each fiscal year to be transferred to the State Project Infrastructure Fund, as provided. The bill would require the Director of Finance to augment the appropriated amounts in any fiscal year with a corresponding reduction in the subsequent fiscal year or years if needed to provide timely payments for those purposes and upon receipt of an amended transfer schedule provided by the Joint Rules Committee. The bill would require the Joint Rules Committee to confer with the Department of Finance and the Department of General Services or their designated representatives before submitting the amended transfer schedule. The bill would, upon the transfers of the appropriated amounts or the augmented amount specified in the amended transfer schedule, if any, require the Director of Finance to direct the Controller to transfer the entirety of the amount to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate. The bill would, upon the transfer of $700,000,000 from the State Project Infrastructure Fund to the General Fund, as provided, require all remaining amounts in the State Project Infrastructure Fund be transferred to the Operating Funds of the Assembly and Senate for capital outlay projects specified in the annex act. This bill would declare the severability of its provisions. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Who sponsors AB 174?
AB 174 is sponsored by Committee on Budget.
What is the current status of AB 174?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 AB 174?
Track AB 174 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 174

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.

Stay ahead of AB 174

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →