This week, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a proposal to reform the the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by expanding the types of projects that qualify for “streamlined” environmental review.
From a planning perspective, the latest OPR proposal marks an interesting (and quite frankly, overdue) evolution away from the traditional focus on “transit-oriented development” and instead emphasizes walkability as a key performance measure of sustainable growth. Namely, it focuses on “low vehicle travel areas” in which “project-generated per capita VMT is less than regional per capita VMT.”
To encourage a walkable neighborhood scale, for example, big box stores with a floorplate greater than 50,000 SF locating in these areas would not be exempt from CEQA requirements. Commercial and retail projects would qualify for exemption only if they (a) use 50% or less of the project area for parking and (b) are located within one-half mile of at least 1,800 households.
The proposed OPR guidelines also define a new category of “Small Community Walkable Projects,” which includes residential areas within “approximately” one-quarter mile of a retail downtown area. Such projects would need to achieve a residential density of at least 8 units per acre (upa) or a commercial FAR greater than 0.5, or both. (Interesting, a density threshold of 8 upa would still allow for single-family housing.)
This type of fresh thinking extends the potential for CEQA exemptions not just to dense urban cores but suburban areas, where pockets of walkability may thrive amid conventional sprawl.
This latest step toward CEQA reform appears to reflect a broader, emerging consensus that the grip of the regulatory State is stifling economic development in California. Indeed, CEQA has become a fashionable bête noire of late, blamed for blocking a pipeline of “shovel-ready” public works and private development projects that represent hundreds of thousands of potential construction jobs, from high-speed rail to new stadiums and hospitals.
The public policy question becomes: should mega projects, like the proposed Farmers Insurance Stadium in downtown Los Angeles, enjoy a “streamlined” environmental review, as they now do under AB 900? Or should that privilege be limited to “transit-priority” urban infill and “small community walkable” projects? What about medium-scale projects that fit neither category?
