Density Bonus, Demolition, and the Class 32 Exemption
A 48-unit, five-story infill project is proposed on a 1.8-acre site 1,200 feet from a major transit stop. The site holds a 12-unit rent-controlled apartment built in 1958 that would be demolished; four units are occupied by lower-income households. Zoning allows 30 units and 45 feet. The developer requests a 35 percent density bonus with five very-low-income units, three waivers (height to 62 feet, reduced rear setback, one fewer parking space per unit), and a Class 32 infill categorical exemption. Neighbors have submitted a letter demanding an EIR for traffic and displacement. The planning director asks the architect to state, in writing, what environmental review is required and whether demolition changes the answer.
1. Can the project rely on the Class 32 infill exemption? Identify every condition that must be tested and where this project is likely to fail or succeed.
Read the worked answer
- Class 32 requires all of the following: within city limits; site under five acres (1.8 acres passes); consistent with the general plan and zoning; substantially surrounded by urban uses; no significant effect on traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and no habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
- Transit proximity does not by itself make the project exempt; it supports the density and the parking waiver, and it supports a vehicle-miles-traveled screening. Under the current CEQA Guidelines, a project within a transit priority area may presume a less-than-significant VMT impact, which answers the neighbors' traffic letter on the correct metric.
- The exposure is consistency and displacement. A density-bonus project is judged against the zoning as modified by the approved waiver; the exemption is lost if the project as designed exceeds what the bonus and waivers actually authorize.
- Demolition of 12 occupied rent-controlled units is a potentially significant effect under the housing and population questions, and it can defeat a categorical exemption through the unusual-circumstances exception or through the reasonable possibility of a significant effect. The exemption analysis must address it, not omit it.
2. The developer insists 48 units is supported by a 35 percent bonus (30 base plus 35 percent equals 40.5). What is the architect's position before drawing 48 units?
Read the worked answer
- The arithmetic does not close. A 35 percent bonus on a 30-unit base yields roughly 40 units; the project as requested is a 60 percent increase. The statutory bonus for a given very-low-income set-aside is set by the density bonus law's tier table, and the architect should not assume the 35 percent figure the client has chosen is the maximum available or that 48 units follows from it.
- The architect's correct move is to stop at the technical facts and push the entitlement question to counsel: state the base density, the number of affordable units and their level, the requested bonus percentage, and the resulting unit count for each reading of the statute. Ask for a written determination from the city.
- Designing to an unsupported density is a professional-practice risk, not just a schedule risk: the drawings, the parking count, the height, and the CEQA consistency finding all rest on it. If the entitlement fails, the client's remedy is against the architect who drew it.
- Note the linkage: the height and setback waivers are only justified insofar as they are needed to physically accommodate the bonus units. Excess height that no bonus unit requires weakens the waiver and, with it, the Class 32 consistency finding.
3. The planning director asks the architect for a written statement of required environmental review. What should the architect write, and what should the architect refuse to write?
Read the worked answer
- The architect supplies facts and technical judgments within the architect's competence: site area, distances to the major transit stop and to the transit priority area boundary, existing uses and unit counts on and around the site, project density and parking, and the design features that reduce impacts.
- The architect may state the analytical path - that VMT is the applicable transportation metric, that the transit proximity supports a screening conclusion, that the demolition of occupied rent-controlled units is the issue the exemption analysis must confront.
- The architect should not issue the CEQA determination. The lead agency makes the exemption finding; the conclusion about whether demolition creates a reasonable possibility of a significant effect is a legal and policy call. Writing 'this project is categorically exempt' over the architect's signature converts a technical role into an uninsured legal opinion and will be Exhibit A if the exemption is challenged.
- Recommend that the owner retain CEQA counsel and prepare a replacement-housing analysis for the demolished rent-controlled units. That analysis, not the exemption memo, is what the city will ask for.