The Planning and Zoning Law requires a county or city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, that law authorizes the preparation of specific plans by the planning agency for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. That law generally requires that a specific plan be adopted in the same manner as a general plan, but provides that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and amended as often as the legislative body deems necessary.

This bill would authorize a legislative body of a city or county to identify an area of underperforming infill and direct the planning agency to prepare a specific plan, in accordance with the above described provisions and specified additional procedures, to provide for immediate development within that area. The bill would require the specific plan make certain findings relating to the need for affordable housing and to designate the specific plan area as an overlay zone in which development is permitted by right. The bill would require the legislative body conduct at least one public hearing before approving a specific plan pursuant to these provisions to provide for community participation.

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Cristina Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 30 (

Author:Caballero) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2017

SUBJECT: Environmental quality: judicial review: strip mall conversion housing projects

SUMMARY: Generally prohibits a court, in granting relief in an action or proceeding challenging a "qualified strip mall housing conversion project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), from staying or enjoining the construction or operation of the project.

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. 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.
3. Exempts from CEQA specified residential housing projects which meet detailed criteria established to ensure the project does not have a significant effect on the environment, including urban affordable housing projects not more than 100 units on a site not more than 5 acres in size, and urban infill housing projects not more than 100 units on a site not more than 4 acres in size, which is within one-half mile of a major transit stop. [SB 1925 (Sher), Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002]
4. 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 (GHG) emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the 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]
   
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. The CEQA Guidelines include a categorical exemption for infill development projects (Section 15332), as follows:
   1. 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;
   2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
   3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species;
   4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and,
   5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
8. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR doesn't comply with CEQA, must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. The courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all other civil actions.
9. Upon finding a public agency's actions are not in compliance with CEQA, requires a court to order one or more of the following:
   1. A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part;
   2. If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division; and
   3. A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.

Any order shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA.

1. Imposes specific limits on injunctive relief under CEQA for three specified projects: Los Angeles football stadium /convention center, Sacramento downtown arena, and Capitol Building annex project.

THIS BILL:

1. Defines a "qualified strip mall conversion housing project" as a project to construct new housing units at the site of a single-story shopping center with surface parking that meets the following criteria:
   1. The project does not displace residents of existing housing units;
   2. The project includes either rental units affordable to households at or below 120% of the area median income (AMI) or for-sale units affordable to households at or below 150% of AMI, or a combination of rental and for-sale units;
   3. The project is located in a city or "urbanized area" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (a community with a population over 50,000);
   4. The project includes, onsite or offsite, the equivalent of 20% of the units as deed-restricted housing affordable to very low and low-income households; and
   5. The project pays $200 per housing unit to support certified construction trade apprenticeship programs offered in partnership with California Community Colleges.
2. Limits remedies available to a court in a CEQA lawsuit challenging a qualified strip mall housing conversion project by generally prohibiting a court, in granting relief, from staying or enjoining the construction or operation of the project and provides that a court may only enjoin those specific activities associated with the project that present an imminent threat to public health and safety or that materially, permanently, and adversely affect unforeseen important Native American artifacts or unforeseen important historical, archaeological, or ecological values (in effect limiting the equitable powers of the court and prohibiting existing remedies under CEQA such as voiding the lead agency's decision or suspending project activities).

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 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. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. As noted in the existing law section above, there are several existing statutory and categorical exemptions for housing projects. It appears a strip mall conversion housing project in an urban area could qualify for most, if not all, of these existing exemptions.

1. CEQA judicial review. CEQA is enforced through judicial review. CEQA actions taken by public agencies can be challenged in Superior Court once the agency approves or determines to carry out the project. CEQA appeals are subject to unusually short statutes of limitations. Under current law, court challenges of CEQA decisions generally must be filed within 30 to35 days, depending on the type of decision. The courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all other civil actions. The petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition and, generally, briefing must be completed within 90 days of the request for hearing. There is no deadline specified for the court to render a decision.

Since 2011, the Legislature has established expedited CEQA judicial review procedures for a limited number of projects, including limiting injunctive relief for three projects: Los Angeles football stadium /convention center, Sacramento downtown arena, and Capitol Building annex project.

The bills limiting injunctive relief for the Los Angeles stadium and Sacramento arena projects included provisions requiring the projects to minimize traffic and air quality impacts through project design or mitigation measures, including reducing to at least zero the net GHG emissions from private automobile trips.

1. Prior legislation. The following bills included provisions limiting injunctive relief nearly identical to the provisions in this bill:
   1. SB 292 (Padilla), Chapter 353, Statutes of 2011, applied to the Los Angeles football stadium /convention center project, which has not proceeded;
   2. SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013, applied to the Sacramento downtown arena project, now known as Golden1 Center;
   3. SB 836 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 31, Statutes of 2016, applied to the Capitol Annex project;
   4. AB 1586 (Mathis), which applied to the Temperance Flat Reservoir, failed in this committee by a vote of 1-6 on April 4, 2016;
   5. AB 311 (Gallagher), which applied to water storage projects funded by the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1), failed in this committee by a vote of 3-6 on April 27, 2015; and
   6. AB 641 (Mayes), which applied broadly to housing developments, failed in this committee by a vote of 2-7 on April 27, 2015.
2. Double referral. This bill has been double referred to the Housing and Community Development Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

California League of Conservation Voters

Judicial Council of California

Sierra Club California

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /