CEQA

HOW TO MAKE CEQA MORE INNOVATIVE FOR THE 21ST

CENTURY?

What is Your CEQA Threshold?

Helpful?Unhelpful?Needs Work?

Infill Impediments

Discouraging Factors Development costs Lack of comparables Inadequate incentives Incompatible land uses Adjacent SF uses Small parcel sizes Confusing zoning Suburban setbacks Uncertain design review Excessive parking ratios Crime concerns Environmental

conditions

Development Incentives and Improvement of Playing Field Density bonuses Low cost redevelopment

land CEQA exemptions and

plan-level EIRs covering infill

Crime reduction Improved streetscapes Improved open space Revised zoning codes Neighborhood

communication Permit process efficiency

Mejias, Luis and Keakin, Elizabeth. 2008. Redevelopment and Revitalilzation Along Urban Arterials (from the Developer’s Perspective)

Perfect World Scenario

Streamlining of Urban Infill EIRs

Program EIR (CCR §15168)

Master EIR (§§PRC 21157 – 21158.5, CCR §15175)

Program EIR

Designate infill development land uses and formulate community-driven development intensity standards

Use specific plan or similar area plan in desired infill target areas

CEQA:In the Program EIR, state intent to use to

streamlineFind consistent projects “within the scope” of the

Program EIR orSimplify and focus subsequent environmental

documents on consistent projects

Guidelines Section 15168

Master EIR

Listing infill developments or development sites as “subsequent projects” in a Master EIR for a plan or program (e.g., General Plan, Redevelopment Plan)

Include type, minimum/maximum intensity, location, per Guidelines §15176(b)

CEQA:Cover infill subsequent projects in the Master EIRSeek to find consistent projects “within the scope”

orLimit additional environmental documentation

CEQA Infill Exemption

Inside city limits, §15332 is available.

2007 Book of Lists Survey: 100+ cities used it in 2005 and/or

2006 From 1 to 250 times (2 or 3 times per day?)

Only applies to cities, which causes much consternation for counties

Qualifying Criteria

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan

policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a

project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered,

rare or threatened species.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

CEQA Exemption for Infill

Either: at least 10 percent of housing will be sold to

moderate income families not less than 10 percent of housing will be rented

to low income families not less than 5 percent of housing will be rented to

very-low income families or the developer has paid or will pay “in-lieu fees”

pursuant to ordinance in amounts sufficient to ensure the development of such units

CEQA Exemption for Infill

PRC Section 21159.24 creates an exemption applicable where the project is:

residential on infill site not more than four acres in total area in an urbanized area 100 or fewer residential units not including any single-level building exceeding

100,000 square feet within one-half mile of a major transit stop higher density infill housing community-level environmental review was

completed within 5 years prior to project application completeness determination, and

Bankers Hills CEQA Case

Project (San Diego): 14-story, 14-unit residential building on 1.9 ac. Abutting uses: Balboa Park, condo tower Consistent with GP and zoning Busy traffic intersection nearby

Relevant Causes of Action: Not substantially surrounded by urban uses (park) Not consistent with the General Plan Significant traffic impacts would occur Balboa Park and congestion = “unusual circumstances”

Banker’s Hill Decision

Proper use of Class 32 affirmed based on City’s substantial evidence

Balboa Park considered an urban useFindings of no significant impacts on traffic, noise,

AQ, WQ based on substantial evidenceConclusion that no significant impacts occurred

because of unusual circumstances affirmed after considering fair argument (park and congestion were not “unusual” in urban setting)

Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation v. City of San Diego, 4th Appellate District, May 8, 2006

SB 375 Streamlining

RTP EIR addresses SCS. If an APS is prepared simultaneously, RTP EIR can also cover it.

Infill projects can benefit from CEQA streamlining, if they qualify

Projects Consistent with SCS/APS

Qualifications: Residential project or mixed-

use with no more than 25% non-residential

Consistent with SCS/APS with EIR (land use designation, density, building intensity, applicable policies)

CEQA Benefit: Need not repeat growth-inducing and GHG effects from cars and light trucks, nor include a less dense alternative to reduce GHG

Transit Priority Projects

Basic qualifications to be a TPP: At least 50% residential use, with a minimum

net density of 20 units/ac If commercial use is included, it must have an

FAR of at least 0.75 Located within ½ mile of major transit stop or

high-quality transit corridor in the RTP

Basic TTP – Approve with SCEA

Qualify for Sustainable Communities EA:

Incorporate all feasible mitigation, performance standards, or criteria in EIR

TPP Qualifying for Exemption

Complete CEQA exemption, if meets basic qualifications, plus:

Maximum of 8 acres or 200 dwelling units served by existing utilities

No significant historic resources effect 15% more energy efficient and 25%

improved water conservation, and

Community Programs and Plans

Designate infill development areas as a special use in a General Plan, Community Plan, or zoning program

Set sideboards for land use types and development parameters

CEQA: Cover infill development in the GP EIR, Community

Plan EIR, or EIR on zoning program Use §21083.3/§15183 to exempt covered issues,

and cover only what is peculiar to the site or project, not previously analyzed, substantially more severe now

SB 226/CEQA 15183.3

Pub. Res. Code 21094.5: Establishes streamlining method for any defined “infill

project” located: in an “urban area” in a city or county on a previously developed site or a vacant site that

is 75% contiguous to urban parcel in a area subject to a prior “planning level decision”

(i.e., a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning) for which an EIR was certified

SB 226/CEQA 15183.3

An eligible infill project must satisfy both of the following: Any of these three conditions:

Be consistent with an adopted “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) or an “alternative planning strategy” (APS)

Consist of a “small walkable community project” (as defined)

In a community without an adopted SCS or APS, have a residential density of more than 20 du/acre or a FAR of at least 75%

All applicable statewide performance standards adopted pursuant to Pub. Res. Code 21094.5.5 (to be effective 1/1/13)

Plan for Infill in Advance

Plan ahead for infill, regardless of planning vehicle Quickly coordinate local plans with SCS to add SB

375 streamlining as a possible strategy Take advantage of existing “regular” CEQA

streamlining provisions for later projects. Lead public education campaign during the planning process to help community understand the strategy

Promote community benefits, gain community support

Also, use Class 32 exemption in cities, if it applies

Recent CEQA Movements

In 2012, it is all about what did not pass. CEQA relief for High Speed Rail CEQA relief for LA Communication Systems Aggressive expansion of AB 900 – CEQA relief

for Leadership Projects. Get ready folks, CEQA reform/modernization/

enhancement/streamlining it is coming!

AB 900

• Leadership Project” includes: – A residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural,

entertainment, or recreational project that: Is located on an infill site Is consistent with any Sustainable Communities

Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy adopted by an MPO pursuant to SB 375

Achieves LEED Silver or better Achieves a “transportation efficiency” 10% greater

than for comparable projects