3 ms·
Exempting infill housing from CEQA is on the YIMBY agenda. That said, CEQA only applies to discretionary decisions, so if permitting residential development is
by shuckles 4y ago
Exempting infill housing from CEQA is on the YIMBY agenda. That said, CEQA only applies to discretionary decisions, so if permitting residential development is a ministerial decision (i.e. anyone who meets certain criteria is approved), then the CEQA review for it is incorporated into the Housing Element. That is itself a huge step forward.
- jeffbee 4y agoI don't think that is current law or jurisprudence. There is a bill introduced in this session that will make any project consequent to an adopted general, area, or specific plan be "not a project" under CEQA. But that's not where we are now, which is why cities have to EIR their general plans and then every project has another EIR. Personally, I think they should just write down that anything inside the boundary of an incorporated city, built on a site that previously had something on it, is not a project.
- shuckles 4y agoYes it is: private projects are only subject to CEQA if permits are discretionary cf https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21723 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21723. In San Francisco and some neighboring cities, every permit is discretionary either directly or through ambiguity (https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/CEQA_Housing_Presentation-Elmendorf.pdf https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi...), but it doesn’t have to be that way.
- jeffbee 4y agoThanks. I was thinking about projects like UC housing. I believe the new bill is meant to exempt public agencies from this problem.
- shuckles 4y agoYeah the UC has the great blessing of not being subject to local zoning and the great curse of being a public project subject to CEQA no matter what.