Creating Quality of Life by Making Markets Work

1. CEQA
HOW TO MAKE CEQA MORE
INNOVATIVE FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY?

2. Helpful?
Unhelpful?
Needs Work?
What is Your CEQA
Threshold?

3. Infill Impediments
 Discouraging Factors Development Incentives
 Development costs and Improvement of
 Lack of comparables Playing Field
 Inadequate incentives  Density bonuses
 Incompatible land uses  Low cost redevelopment land
 Adjacent SF uses  CEQA exemptions and plan-
 Small parcel sizes level EIRs covering infill
 Confusing zoning  Crime reduction
 Suburban setbacks  Improved streetscapes
 Uncertain design review  Improved open space
 Excessive parking ratios  Revised zoning codes
 Crime concerns  Neighborhood communication
 Environmental conditions  Permit process efficiency
Mejias, Luis and Keakin, Elizabeth. 2008. Redevelopment and Revitalilzation
Along Urban Arterials (from the Developer’s Perspective)

4. Perfect World Scenario

5. Streamlining of Urban Infill EIRs
 Program EIR (CCR §15168)
 Master EIR (§§PRC 21157 – 21158.5, CCR §15175)

6. 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 streamline
 Find consistent projects “within the scope” of the Program
EIR or
 Simplify and focus subsequent environmental documents
on consistent projects
Guidelines Section 15168

7. 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 EIR
Seek to find consistent projects “within the scope” or
Limit additional environmental documentation

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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”

13. Banker’s Hill Decision
 Proper use of Class 32 affirmed based on City’s substantial
evidence
 Balboa Park considered an urban use
 Findings of no significant impacts on traffic, noise, AQ, WQ
based on substantial evidence
 Conclusion 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Basic TTP – Approve with SCEA
Qualify for Sustainable
Communities EA:
 Incorporate all feasible
mitigation, performance
standards, or criteria in EIR

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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!

24. 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