Thread by @CSElmendorf

This is a super important addition to my thread. ⤵️

Applying logic of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, it's very likely that SB 79 projects will qualify for the AB 130 CEQA exemption, whether or not city has enacted a local implementation ordinance.

1/7

https://twitter.com/DRand2024/status/1967434791634268238

Yes, a NIMBY plaintiff could say, "Wolmer is different b/c in that case, the city had incorporated state density bonus law into its local zoning code, making the waived development restrictions 'inapplicable' within meaning of the municipal code."

/2

But even though the court italicized this point, it ultimately did not rely on it.
The gist of the opinion is that the word "applicable" within the meaning of the Class 32 infill exemption should be construed to give effect to the core policies of both SDBL and CEQA.

/3

Extending this logic to SB 79 and AB 130: the core policy of AB 130 is to streamline enviro review on infill sites, and the core policy of SB 79 is to accommodate dense infill near transit.

/4

Importantly, SB 79 expresses a policy of indifference to the localized "enviro" effects of developing bigger vs. smaller buildings on any given transit-proximate site by exempting "local flexibility plan" ordinances from CEQA.

/5

Given this exemption, it's just common sense, as I said my original thread, that SB 79 projects be treated as AB-130 eligible even if city hasn't passed an implementation plan that acknowledges & incorporates "SB 79 waivers" into the municipal code.

/6

https://x.com/CSElmendorf/status/1967357932288557079

What Wollmer adds is a Court of Appeal precedent with similar reasoning about the same issue (whether a state-law-waived zoning restriction is "applicable" for purposes of a CEQA exemption that requires compliance with applicable local zoning) under a similar state law.

/end

@threadreaderapp unroll