Abstract
Although a recent survey of cities and counties ranks the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process well below other barriers to implementing infill projects, many developers still feel CEQA is vexatious, creating uncertainty that hinders investment and drives up costs, especially when hampered by frivolous lawsuits. Developers believe CEQA adds time, cost, and uncertainty to infill and mixed-use development projects. This perception may deter needed development and inhibit the building industry’s shift to more infill development projects. While infill development will not satisfy all market demands, infill helps California meet the AB 32’s requirement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Further, infill development creates a more sustainable development, a healthier environment, and a more vibrant quality of life. To boost infill development, the California Legislature adopted several CEQA reforms to streamline --or in some cases exempt -- certain infill projects. No mechanism comprehensively tracks the use of specific infill streamlining provisions. Further, there is almost no empirical research that analyzes these streamlining provisions for either their effectiveness or promoting infill development. I conducted nine interviews to find out more about the CEQA reforms in SB 375 and SB 226, plus the exemption for residential infill development in SB 1925. I wanted to solicit information about individual experiences and perceptions within the real estate development industry. I also wanted to know about the challenges of using those CEQA streamlining provisions and exemptions. Most importantly, I wanted to know if the recent CEQA streamlining legislation supports infill development by making the environmental review process for these projects quicker, easier, and cheaper. My research revealed multiple barriers to infill development, but interview respondents agreed that infill development is harder than greenfield development. I also discovered several projects that used (or are using) recent CEQA reforms to streamline the environment review process. I believe that the recent streamlining provisions can reduce time and costs. While streamlining provisions help infill development, the process could be still faster, easier, and less expensive. I conclude that challenges still remain before CEQA streamlining reforms can really work.