Journal of Transport and Land Use

Can governments streamline environmental impact analysis to promote transit-oriented development? Evidence from California

Bailey Affolter

University of California, Davis

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9003-2822

Jamey Volker

University of California, Davis

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4559-6165

Nicholas Marantz

University of California, Irvine

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2565-6885

Susan Pike

University of California, Davis

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6558-3479

Graham DeLeon

University of California, Davis

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6975-7151

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2025.2606

Keywords: SB 375, Transit-oriented development, Housing, Streamlining, Environmental review, CEQA

---

Abstract

California’s seminal Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008—Senate Bill (SB) 375—includes two provisions specifically intended to help streamline transit-oriented development (TOD) projects through environmental review (California SB 375, 2008). One provision exempts qualifying TODs from environmental review entirely. The other provision streamlines environmental review for qualifying projects. This study explores the use and effect of those provisions. We first quantify how much and where the provisions have been used. We then use interviews and email communications with planning and development practitioners to explore why streamlining is used, whether streamlining actually helps reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty of permitting TOD projects, and how streamlining could be improved to better facilitate TOD projects. We find that SB 375 streamlining is a mixed bag. Neither streamlining provision has been used extensively. The full exemption appears to have been avoided because its costs and complications outweigh any streamlining benefit, though the more limited streamlining provision was regarded as having at least some utility. We also found that SB 375-streamlined projects might not be fulfilling SB 375’s more fundament goals—reducing vehicle kilometers traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. The clearest lesson for policymakers is to reduce the eligibility requirements for environmental review streamlining provisions.

---

References

Barbour, E., Jin, J., Goldsmith, E., Grover, S., Martinez, J., & Handy, S. (2021). Tensions and trade-offs in planning and policymaking for transit-oriented development, transit, and active transport in California cities. Davis, CA: National Center for Sustainable Transportation. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49t729rc

Barbour, E., & Teitz, M. (2005, April 6). CEQA reform: Issues and options (Background report for the CEQA Improvement Advisory Group). San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/op/OP_405EBOP.pdf

Biber, E., Elmendorf, C., Marantz, N., & O’Neill, M. (2024). Just look at the map: Bounding environmental review of housing development in California. Environmental Law, 54, 221–311. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4831370#

California Assembly Bill 2011. (2022–2023). Chapter 647 (Cal. Stat. 2022). Retrieved from https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2011/id/2609143/California-2021-AB2011-Chaptered.html

California Code of Regulations. (n.d.) Title 14, division 6, chapter 3, § 15000 et seq (CEQA guidelines). Retrieved from https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I95DAAA70D48811DEBC02831C6D6C108E&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

California Code of Regulations. (n.d.) Title 24, part 6. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAEC2022P1

California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2022). Annual building activity report summary—New construction, entitled, permitted, and completed units, APR Table 2. Retrieved from https://data.ca.gov/dataset/housing-element-annual-progress-report-apr-data-by-jurisdiction-and-year/resource/fe505d9b-8c36-42ba-ba30-08bc4f34e022

California Government Code. (n.d.). Division 1, § 65584.04. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65584.04

California Government Code. (n.d.). Division 1, § 65905.5. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-government-code/title-7-planning-and-land-use/division-1-planning-and-zoning/chapter-4-zoning-regulations/article-3-administration/section-659055-effective-until-112034-maximum-number-of-hearings-in-connection-with-completed-application

California Public Resources Code (n.d.). Division 13, § 21000 et seq. Retrieved from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/#!tid=N13BD5B5F2C35467A83716A19C28673F6

California Senate Bill 35. (2017-2018). Chapter 366 (Cal. Stat. 2017). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35

California Senate Bill 226. (2011-2012). Chapter 469 (Cal. Stat. 2011). Retrieved from http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_226_bill_20111004_chaptered.html

California Senate Bill 375. (2008). Chapter 728 (Cal. Stat. 2018). Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf

California Senate Bill 743. (2013-2014). Chapter 386 (Cal. Stat. 2013). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743

California Senate Bill 1925. (2001-2002). Chapter 1039 (Cal. Stat. 2002). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020SB1925

City of Los Angeles. (2018). Technical clarifications to the transit oriented communities affordable housing incentive program guidelines (TOC guidelines). Retrieved from https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/39fae0ef-f41d-49cc-9bd2-4e7a2eb528dd/TOCGuidelines.pdf

Fehr & Peers. (2023). Find your VMT with VMT+: A tool to support California

transportation planning. Retrieved from https://www.fehrandpeers.com/project/find-my-vmt/

Fulton, W., & Shigley, P. (2018). Guide to California planning (5th ed.). Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.

Hernandez, J. (2018). California Environmental Quality Act lawsuits and California’s housing crisis. Hastings Environmental Law Journal, 24(1), 21–71. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal

Hernandez, J., Friedman, D., & DeHerrera, S. (2015). In the name of the environment: How litigation abuse under the California Environmental Quality Act undermines California’s environmental, social equity and economic priorities — and proposed reforms to protect the environment from CEQA litigation abuse. Tampa, FL: Holland & Knight. https://issuu.com/hollandknight/docs/ceqa_litigation_abuseissuu?e=16627326/14197714

Landis, J. D., Pendall, R., Olshansky, R., & Huang, W. (1995). Fixing CEQA: Options and opportunities for reforming the California Environmental Quality Act. Paper presented at the California Policy Seminar, University of California, Berkeley.

Lewis, P. G., & Marantz, N. J. (2019). What planners know: Using surveys about local land-use regulation to understand housing development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(4), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1643253

Ma, Z., Becker, D. R., & Kilgore, M. (2009). Characterising the landscape of state environmental review policies and procedures in the United States: A national assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 52(8), 1035–1051 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903327591

Manville, M., Monkkonen, P., Gray, N., & Phillips, S. (2023). Does discretion delay development? Journal of the American Planning Association, 89(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2106291

Mawhorter, S., Martin, A., & Galante, C. (2020). California’s SB 375 and the pursuit of sustainable and affordable development. In E. Deakin (Ed.), Transportation, land use, and environmental planning (pp. 497-521). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Commission. (2024). World map of EIA/SEA legislation. Retrieved from https://www.eia.nl/en/topics/esia-sea/introduction2

Office of Planning and Research. (2024). CEQAnet web portal: California Environmental Quality Act. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov

Office of Planning and Research. (2023). Site check. https://sitecheck.opr.ca.gov

Office of Planning and Research. (2021). Submitting CEQA documents to the state clearinghouse (Technical advisory). Retrieved from https://opr.ca.gov/sch/docs/20210913-Submitting_CEQA_Documents_to_the_SCH_2021.pdf

Olshansky, R. (1996). The California Environmental Quality Act and local planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975697

O’Neill-Hutson, M., Biber, E., Gualco-Nelson, G., & Marantz, N. (2022). Examining entitlement in California to inform policy and process: Advancing social equity in housing development patterns. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board and California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3956250

O’Neill, M., Gualco-Nelson, G., & Biber, E. (2019). Developing policy from the ground up: Examining entitlement in the Bay Area to inform California’s housing policy debates. Hastings Environmental Law Journal, 25(1), 1–84. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol25/iss1/2/

Reid, C., Galante, C., & Weinstein-Carnes, A. (2017). Addressing California’s housing shortage: Lessons from Massachusetts chapter B. Journal of Affordable Housing, 25(2), 241–274. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/AH_25-2_15Reid.pdf

Reynolds, L. (2015). Quicker, easier, cheaper? The efficacy of CEQA streamlining for infill development (master’s thesis), California State University, Sacramento, CA. https://scholars.csus.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/Quicker-easier-cheaper-the-efficacy-of/99257831362201671#metrics

Rothman, L. D. (2011). CEQA turns forty: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Environmental Law News, 20(1), 1–19. https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/Rothman-article-Hernandez.pdf

Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento. (2019). 37 Cal. App. 5th 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist.) Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/sacramentans-for-fair-planning-v-city-of-sacramento

Smith-Heimer, J., & Hitchcock, J. (2019). CEQA and housing production: 2018 survey of California cities and counties. Environmental Practice, 21(2), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2019.1609848

Smith-Heimer, J., Hitchcock, J., Roosa, P., & Guerrero, C. (2016). CEQA in the 21st century: Environmental quality, economic propserity, and sustainable development in California. Retrieved from https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CEQA-in-the-21st-Century.pdf

Thomas, T. (1993). CEQA turns twenty-one: In defense of CEQA. Land Use Forum, 2(2), 102–108.

United Nations Environment Program. (2018). Assessing environmental impacts—A global review of legislation. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations. https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/assessing-environmental-impacts-global-review-legislation

Volker, J., Lee, A., & Fitch, D. (2019). Streamlining the development approval process in a post–level of service Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(2), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1601587