CAROLINE CHASE, LAND USE PARTNER
“One of the most notable changes is creating a new statutory urban infill CEQA exemption under AB 130, which only applies to defined housing developments. The new AB 130 exemption allows for qualifying housing development projects on up to 20 acres and is a statutory exemption versus a categorical exemption, meaning that it will not be subject to exceptions that apply to the existing categorical exemptions. Furthermore, an analysis of potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality will not be required; instead, the project site must meet all SB 35 siting criteria (regarding environmentally sensitive properties), which should allow qualifying housing development projects to be processed much more quickly since technical studies will not be required (with the possible exception of a biological resources study, depending on the project site). Unlike the Class 32 exemption, the AB 130 exemption is available for remediated Cortese List sites (e.g., former LUST sites), which should prove helpful to some clients.”
DAVID BLACKWELL, LAND USE PARTNER
“Although AB 130 understandably garners the most attention, SB 131 contains significant revisions to the CEQA statute. Perhaps the most important from a practitioner’s point of view is the ‘near miss’ rule, which means that for housing development projects that meet all but one eligibility criteria for specific CEQA exemptions (all statutory and 11 categorical exemptions), the resulting CEQA analysis may examine only those effects that are caused solely by the single condition that makes the proposed project ineligible for the exemption. This new truncated review process should benefit housing developers with qualifying projects by reducing the scope and length of CEQA review.”
HEATHER RILEY, LAND USE PARTNER
“I believe the initial reaction to the ‘surprise’ CEQA reform may have been overblown. There still are some substantial hurdles to development in California that have nothing to do with CEQA, so the update is not going to have an immediate effect. Nevertheless, the new statutory CEQA exemption in AB 130 is interesting and may prove to be helpful to some of our clients. I am concerned about how local agencies will manage the mandatory tribal consultation requirement. Currently, when planning-level projects require tribal consultation, the process can drag on unless or until the agency ‘calls the question,’ which sometimes means that the agency ‘agrees to disagree’ with the tribe. If an agency establishes a time clock for tribal consultation under AB 130 and sticks to that, I do think the statutory exemption could prove to be a meaningful change.”
[View source.]
