BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1268
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
AB 1268
(Steinorth) - As Amended May 5, 2015
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption for a
housing project
SUMMARY: Eliminates the exclusion of projects located within
the boundaries of a state conservancy from an existing
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for
specified housing projects.
EXISTING LAW:
1)CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory
exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA
guidelines).
2)Requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include
a sustainable communities strategy (SCS), as defined, in their
regional transportation plans, or an alternative planning
strategy (APS), for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and
creates specified incentives for the implementation of the
AB 1268
Page 2
strategies, including CEQA exemption or abbreviated review for
residential or mixed-use residential "transit priority
projects" if the project is consistent with the use
designation, density, building intensity, and applicable
policies specified for the project area in either an approved
SCS or APS. [SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of
2008]
3)Exempts from CEQA residential, mixed-use, and "employment
center" projects, as defined, located within "transit priority
areas," as defined, if the project is consistent with an
adopted specific plan and specified elements of a SCS or APS
adopted pursuant to SB 375. [SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386,
Statutes of 2013]
4)Establishes abbreviated CEQA review procedures for specified
infill projects, where only specific or more significant
effects on the environment which were not addressed in a prior
planning-level EIR need be addressed. An EIR for such a
project need not consider alternative locations, densities,
and building intensities or growth-inducing impacts. Infill
projects may include residential, retail, commercial, transit
station, school, or public office building projects located
within an urban area. [SB 226 (Simitian), Chapter 469,
Statutes of 2011]
5)Exempts from CEQA any residential development project,
including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is
undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan
for which an EIR has been certified after January 1, 1980,
unless substantial changes or new information require the
preparation of a supplemental EIR for the specific plan, in
which case the exemption applies once the supplemental EIR is
certified. (Section 65457 of the Government Code).
6)Exempts from CEQA specified housing projects which meet
detailed criteria established to ensure the project does not
have a significant effect on the environment, including
excluding projects within the boundaries of a state
AB 1268
Page 3
conservancy. [SB 1925 (Sher), Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002]
The SB 1925 exemptions are available to:
a) Affordable agricultural housing projects not more than
45 units within a city, or 20 units within an agricultural
zone, on a site not more than five acres in size;
b) Urban affordable housing projects not more than 100
units on a site not more than five acres in size; and,
c) Urban infill housing projects not more than 100 units on
a site not more than four acres in size, which is within
one-half mile of a major transit stop.
7)Requires local agencies to file notice of the SB 1925
exemptions with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR),
however, failure to file this notice does not affect the
validity of the project. [AB 677 (Firebaugh), Chapter 677,
Statutes of 2003]
THIS BILL eliminates the exclusion of projects within the
boundaries of a state conservancy from the SB 1925 exemptions.
FISCAL EFFECT: Non-fiscal
COMMENTS:
1)Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. If
the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a
negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the
AB 1268
Page 4
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant environmental
impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent
feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to
the proposed project.
SB 1925, enacted in 2002, exempts from CEQA certain
residential projects providing affordable urban or
agricultural housing, or located on an infill site within an
urbanized area, and meeting specified unit and acreage
criteria. The stated intent of the Legislature in enacting
those provisions included "creating a streamlined procedure
for agricultural employee housing, affordable housing, and
urban infill housing projects that do not have an adverse
effect on the environment." Projects located within the
boundaries of a state conservancy were excluded from the SB
1925 exemptions, but not from other existing exemptions
available for residential projects.
2)Need and purpose of this bill. According to a Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) report entitled "California's High
Housing Cost: Causes and Consequences" published on March 17,
2015, the authors conclude that CEQA requirements are a
significant factor in causing increased housing costs in
California. According to the author, although there are
existing laws exempting various housing projects from CEQA,
these projects are not exempt if the site is located within a
state conservancy, which covers 56% of the state. The author
states:
Eliminating the overbroad preclusion of conservancy land, while
still maintaining other existing preclusions against development
upon land with wildlife value, would prove to be a practical and
careful reform to CEQA in order to achieve a balance between
AB 1268
Page 5
environmental protection and California's critical need for
low-income housing.
3)LAO report conclusions unsupported. The conclusion that CEQA
is a significant driver to inhibiting housing development in
California was based on data between 2004-2013 from OPR that
found the average delay of a project associated with an EIR
was 2.5 years. Using this single value to draw this
conclusion is problematic for several reasons:
a) Due to a few very long delays, the average value is
inflated upwards as the middle value (median) is two years
and is more appropriate to use for analytical purposes.
b) To conclude that EIRs are a significant cause of
California housing supply shortage, knowing the proportion
of EIR projects in relation to total housing projects is
necessary. If EIR projects represent a very small
proportion, it would be inappropriate to conclude that
EIR's have a significant effect on development.
Unfortunately this data is not available.
c) Additionally, EIR projects that could be categorized as
frivolous need to be separated from others that might
provide larger cost reducing benefits in the long run. For
instance, if a two-year EIR process avoided larger and
long-term environmental quality costs to the community and
future development, the EIR process should not be
categorized as a costly delay. Unfortunately, this
analysis was not undertaken in the report.
4)The SB 1925 exemption is rarely used. When a local agency
determines that a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to SB
1925, the local agency must file a notice of exemption with
OPR. According to OPR, it has received just four notices of
exemption pursuant to the SB 1925 exemption since 2004.
Curiously, two of those projects, affordable housing
AB 1268
Page 6
developments in the City of Inglewood and the City of Goleta,
appear to be located within the general jurisdiction of the
State Coastal Conservancy.
Besides the restriction of a project not being located on
state conservancy lands, there are numerous other criteria
that must be met to receive an exemption through SB 1925. The
lack of use of the SB 1925 exemption is likely due to a
combination of the complication and difficultly of meeting all
its conditions and the availability of other exemptions with
broader application and/or fewer conditions.
5)Other CEQA exemptions are available for housing projects
within state conservancies. Although SB 375 and SB 743 offer
CEQA exemptions for only limited "transit priority areas,"
both SB 226 and Section 65457 of the Government Code offer
broader opportunities for housing projects to be either exempt
from CEQA or subject to abbreviated review requirements. All
of these existing exemptions apply to housing projects located
on state conservancy lands.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
AB 1268
Page 7
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by:Paul Jacobs / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092