Planning commission reviews new CEQA exemptions in AB 130 and SB 131; staff calls implementation complex

City planning staff gave a workshop on recent state legislation that changes how some residential and community projects are reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Israel Trejo of the Planning and Development Department summarized Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which were enacted as part of California’s budget package. Trejo said AB 130 creates a statutory exemption intended to streamline environmental review for certain housing projects if they meet a series of “checkbox” tests, and SB 131 creates a “near‑miss” pathway and adds exemptions for specific project types.

Trejo outlined the primary AB 130 thresholds: (1) the project site must be 20 acres or less; (2) the site must meet one of three ‘‘urban’’ location tests (previously developed, at least 75% of the perimeter adjoining urban uses, or 75% of uses within a quarter‑mile are urban); (3) the site must be planned and zoned for the proposed residential use (rezones and plan amendments disqualify the exemption); and (4) the project density must be at least 15 dwelling units per acre. He also said projects using AB 130 must complete tribal consultation (the Native American Heritage Commission provides a list of tribes and tribes have 60 days to comment), a Phase I environmental site assessment, and must implement air filtration measures where the site lies within 500 feet of a freeway. Trejo added that prevailing wage is not required under the exemption unless a project is more than 85 feet tall or is 100% affordable.

On SB 131, Trejo described the “near‑miss” approach — if a project meets most but not all of the CEQA categorical exemption criteria (for example, the five tests for CEQA’s 15332 infill exemption), the lead agency can prepare a focused initial study limited to the environmental topic that was not met rather than preparing a full initial study covering all standard CEQA topics. He said that can reduce time and cost when only one narrow issue needs study.

Planning staff also noted that SB 131 provides streamlined review for certain non‑housing uses when they meet strict location and use criteria: licensed daycare centers located outside residential zones, federally qualified health centers under 50,000 square feet (not on protected lands), nonprofit food banks or pantries located in industrially zoned sites, and advanced manufacturing facilities located on sites zoned exclusively for industrial uses. Philip Segris of the planning department expanded on the advanced manufacturing definition, which the statute ties to high‑tech manufacturing activities such as semiconductors, nanotechnology, additive manufacturing and industrial biotechnology.

Commissioners asked whether projects already in the planning pipeline would be able to use the new exemptions. Staff said the laws are effective immediately, so projects in the pipeline could potentially use the new paths if they meet the statutory conditions; staff cautioned that applying the standards will require extra review and internal procedural updates. One commissioner expressed skepticism that the changes would be a panacea, noting the statutes add new consultation and study requirements (tribal consultation, phase I assessments and air filtration rules) and that there are nine additional exceptions that can disqualify a project. Trejo and Segris said staff will evaluate projects on a case‑by‑case basis and expect legislative cleanup and guidance from state agencies in upcoming months.

Staff advised that the city might see the greatest effect for certain multiunit infill projects that can meet the 15 du/acre threshold and for qualifying industrial‑zone uses such as advanced manufacturing and food bank facilities. For other project types and for parcels that do not meet the new thresholds, staff said the changes are less likely to shorten review timelines.