THE CASE AGAINST SB 123 Environmental and Land Use Court THE DEBATE
THE REFORM
Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett introduced the bill on January 18, 2013.
• Streamlines judicial proceedings • Produces more consistent outcomes • Reduces number of appeals • Reduces the administrative burden • Reduces costs
Proposes the establishment of an “environmental and land use division” within the superior courts selected by the Judicial Council.
Minimum total of twelve new divisions within two or more superior courts in each of the six appellate districts.
Educational requirements and other qualifications for specialized judges .
More types of environmental cases heard by CEQA Judges: CEQA, air quality, biological resources, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, land use planning, and water quality.
SUPPORTERS say:
OPPONENTS say: • State law already requires the superior courts of counties with populations >200,000 to designate at least 1 specialist CEQA judge • SB 123 would limit access to justice for people in rural areas (RCRC Counties) • No evidence to determine whether the funding mechanism would generate enough revenue to support heavy operational costs Population 2010 < 199,999
Civil proceedings FIRST filed at the superior court in which claim arises, THEN transferred to the nearest court with an environmental and land use division.
SUPPORTERS American Planning Association, California Chapter
OPPONENTS California Chamber of Commerce
3
1
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Enhanced CEQA Action Team
American Council of Engineering Companies, California
Appellate Districts RCRC Counties
East Bay Municipal Utility District
State Senators: Corbett (D, 10th), Evans (D, 2nd), Leno (D, 11th), and Monning (D, 17th)
> 200,000
6
5
California Manufacturers and Technology Association State Senators: Anderson (R, 36th), Jackson (D, 19th), and Walters (R, 27th)
2
. 0
30
60
120
180
240 Miles
2
4