CEQA Reform and Sustainable Communities
- 1. CEQA Reform and Sustainable Community Planning: What’s in it for Schools? Dwayne Mears The Planning Center|DC&E San Bernardino County/Riverside County Facility Planners Meeting October 3, 2012
- 2. Initial Observations We haven’t seen this much CEQA action – legislatively or by the courts in a long time Legislative action tends to come during recessions – a call to “streamline” CEQA Development and business interests believe CEQA is too cumbersome and hurts the California economy Many believe it can be improved Previous streamlining efforts have failed, but maybe this time?
- 3. Initial Observations Governor Brown: “I’ve never seen a CEQA exemption I didn’t like!” Governors Deukmejian, Wilson and Davis: wrote a piece call for CEQA reform CEQA Working Group, four-pronged effort: Integrate environmental and planning laws Eliminate duplicative CEQA project reviews Reduce CEQA lawsuits Enhance public disclosure and accountability
- 4. CEQA BECOMES TIER EIRS EXEMPTION LAW WHERE FOR INFILL FEASIBLE PROCESS FRIENDS OF < 5 ACRES MITIGATION MAMMOTH MONITORING MNDS PLANS MAY TIER COURTS CAN’T CALLS FOR OFF MEIRS SUBSTITUTE GROWTH THERE OWN CONTROL AB 32 GLOBAL JUDGMENT COOLS WARMING SOLUTIONS PROP. 13 ACT PASSES SB 375 > 60 REFORM BILLS AB 226 INTRODUCED AND “MASTER AB 900 EIRS”
- 5. We’re Going to Cover CEQA Streamlining under SB226 (for infill projects) – Could be some real benefits for school districts (save time/money, more than current other streamlining approaches) SB375 and coming Sustainable Communities Strategy Plans – Additional CEQA streamlining opportunities – Growth patterns will change and schools could be impacted in multiple ways
- 6. AB 226: CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects
- 7. Draft Guidelines – The Basics SB226 adopted in 2011, amended CEQA, & requires development of revised implementing Guidelines for new infill streamlining Final Guidelines must be adopted by 1/1/2013 Also need SCS or APS adopted by MPO for use by LEAs Other SB226 sections are now in effect for solar project exemptions
- 8. Infill Projects Defined Consists of any one or combination of: 1. Residential 2. Retail or com’l with no more than ½ area in parking 3. Transit station 4. School 5. Public office building And located in an “Urban Area” and site previously developed (substantial portion mechanically altered for zoning allowed use), or if vacant 75% of site’s perimeter adjoins developed urban land uses
- 9. “Urban Area” Defined “Urban Area” – Incorporated city – Unincorporated area that meets both: • Population of unincorporated area and surrounding incorporated cities of 100k or more, and • Population density of unincorporated area equal to or greater than incorporated cities.
- 10. Qualifying for Exemption Satisfy any of: 1. Consistent with SCS/APS 2. Small Walkable Community Project (not applicable to schools) 3. Located in MPO before SCS/APS adopted (not applicable to schools) And satisfy all applicable statewide performance standards
- 11. Proposed CEQA Guidelines – Performance Standards Eligibility Standards for Infill Projects, each must have: 1. On-site Renewable Energy for non-residential projects (where feasible) 2. Soil and Water Remediation • Sites on Gov. Code Section 65962.5 Cortese list must document how remediated or that PEA recommendations will be implemented as part of project 3. Residential Units near High-volume Roadways and Stationary (doesn’t apply to schools)
- 12. Proposed CEQA Guidelines – Performance Standards Additional Eligibility Standards for Schools 1. Elementary Schools Located within 1 mile of 50% of projected student population 2. Middle and High Schools Located within 2 miles of 50% of projected student population OR 3. School is located within ½-mile of existing major transit stop or high quality transit corridor with bus service every 15 minutes
- 13. Proposed CEQA Guidelines – Performance Standards Additional Eligibility Standards for Schools (con’t) – Schools must provide parking/storage for bikes/scooters – Must comply with Ed. Code Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 (nothing new here for state-funded schools)
- 14. New Checklist for “Infill Projects” Prior Plan-Level EIR – Was school project’s effects addressed in EIR? – Are effects more significant than in EIR? – Exempt if answers are 1: yes, and 2: no Even where effect not addressed or addressed but more significant: – Exemption possible if uniformly applicable development standards/policies would “substantially mitigate” effect
- 15. Streamlined “Infill EIR” If EIR required for Infill Projects, streamlining still available: 1. Focus on new issues 2. EIR need not review alternative locations, densities or building intensities 2. EIR need not review growth inducing impacts
- 16. Some Questions How is consistency with SCS determined? – If school is allowed use in GP/Zone? – Guidelines specify use, density, building intensity, policies – But many school buildings exceed height limits No minimum size required of renewable energy? How is “where feasible” defined in this context? Compliance with ECS 17213 (part B for ¼ mile and 500 feet findings even if not preparing a ND or EIR?) Compliance with ECS 17213.1&2 (require DTSC even if not state funded?)
- 17. Some Questions (con’t) How to measure projected “student population” – Within attendance area? (official attendance boundaries are often not established until after CEQA process is complete) – What about charters, magnets without boundaries? – New schools are often phased. Is it based on opening, ultimate buildout, or other projected enrollment? How is distance measured? – “Pedestrian miles” was deleted; now as crow flies from perimeter? – What if K-8, K-12? Prorate distances? – Suggested Appendix N: “attach map and methodology” Bikes & scooters parking & storage? – Both bikes and scooters? What about skateboards? – What capacity? What constitutes storage?
- 18. What to Do Now Review general plan/zone designations of school sites Look for consistency with use, density, building intensity, policies Monitor updates to your city’s general plan – seek to build consistency Determine if school sites were previously exempted from local zoning
- 19. What to Do Now (con’t) Consider creating “uniformly applicable development policies or standards” Check with your city to see if you can benefit from their efforts Work with C.A.S.H. to develop a model set of standards?
- 20. Inland Empire Sustainable Communities Strategy Regional RTP/SCS Adopted April ‘12 Goal is reduction of GHGs from cars and light trucks to achieve targets set by Air Resources Board for 2020 & 2035 SB375 established incentives for compliance (transportation funding and CEQA streamlining for consistent infill projects) SCS implementation is primarily up to city/county planning/zoning
- 23. Sustainable Communities Strategy Does the SCS land use /transit strategy put existing or future schools at risk? New transit facilities/or increased use of traffic corridors near schools and resulting hazards/exposures Regional benefits (GHG reduction) vs. local impacts (air toxics)? Greater competition for land? Higher costs, greater difficulty in finding land for schools in urban areas? Increased opposition from industry (restrictions in use/expansion) and cities (revenue concerns)
- 24. What About Streamlining under SB375? SB375 also allows certain qualifying projects to be exempt from CEQA, or to use streamlined documents (limited SC Environmental Assessment or EIR School might qualify as part of: - Transit Priority Projects (TPP): -at least 50% residential, at least 20 units/acre -within ½ mile of major transit stop/corridor -no more than 8 acres, 200 residential units Mixed Use Project -at least 75% residential or a TPP Our opinion: the req’ts to qualify aren’t worth the effort
- 25. CEQA Reform and Sustainable Community Planning: What’s in it for Schools? Contact Info The Planning Center|DC&E Dwayne Mears, dmears@planningcenter.com 714.966.9220 More info on SB226: ceres.ca.gov/guidelines-sb226/
- 26. CEQA: Impacts on the Environment Ballona Wetlands v. City of Los Angeles Court rejects notion that CEQA is an all-purpose public health statute CEQA is focused on impacts on the environment, not the reverse What about environmental hazards on school facilities? (CEQA checklist covers several hazards related to impacts on project and its occupants) Some developers may push to eliminate such impacts from CEQA documents Ed Code, etc. require review of hazards Why not maintain public review of these issues within CEQA?