What SANDAG’s Chart Really Signals

SANDAG’s comparison chart is built as a practical, side-by-side guide to state laws that require cities and counties to process certain Housing applications on streamlined, deadline-driven tracks.  It’s explicitly framed as guidance—not legal advice—and it notes that local agencies retain discretion and independent judgment where CEQA applies.

Yet, within that “guidance” framework, the chart draws a bright line: most streamlining programs are labeled “Exempt” (or “Not Exempt”), while SB-4 alone is singled out as “Not a project for purposes of CEQA.”

That phrasing is not just semantic.  Its jurisdictional clarity should reassure legal professionals of the definitive legal boundary and boost their confidence in leveraging SB 4’s status.

CEQA in One Minute: “Project” vs. “Exemption”

CEQA applies when a governmental entity is asked to carry out or approve an activity that meets CEQA’s definition of a “project,” generally meaning an action with the potential for direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, tied to a public agency undertaking, funding, or discretionary approval.

From there, two common off-ramps appear in practice:

·         “Not a project”: The activity does not meet the threshold definition of a CEQA project—so CEQA does not apply at all.

·         “Exempt project”: The activity is a CEQA project, but it qualifies for a statutory or categorical exemption—often documented to manage risk and timing.

Here’s the distinction:

“Exempt” means CEQA applies, but an exception is claimed.  “Not a project” means CEQA does not apply.

This technical lens makes SB-4’s ‘Not a Project’ designation a strategic advantage, encouraging practitioners to focus on demonstrating eligibility to maximize benefits.

Why SB-4’s “Not a Project” Label Matters

Under SB-4 (Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act), qualifying Housing on eligible religious or higher-education land can be processed through a streamlined, ministerial approval path (i.e., reduced discretionary review) if it meets specified objective criteria and affordability requirements.

SANDAG’s chart summarizes SB 4 this way:

• Process type: Ministerial
• CEQA status: Not a project for purposes of CEQA
• Key affordability structure: 100% affordable to lower-income households, with limited allowances (e.g., moderate-income and staff set-asides)
• Processing timelines: application completeness and approval timelines comparable to other streamlined tracks [

Separately, practitioner summaries of SB-4 also emphasize this “use by right/streamlined” posture and the Law’s intent to avoid CEQA project treatment for qualifying applications.

The Paperwork Reality: “Not a Project” vs. Filing a Notice of Exemption

Exempt projects remain CEQA projects; therefore, sponsors often document the exemption and/or file a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to shorten the period for legal challenge.

What an NOE does (and why it’s filed)

CEQA’s Guidelines allow an agency (or applicant, in some contexts) to file a Notice of Exemption after a determination that a project is exempt, and the notice must include specific content (description, location, exemption citation, and supporting reasons).

When a NOE is properly filed and posted, CEQA’s challenge timeline is typically short—often 35 days for exemptions—compared with longer default windows when no notice is filed.

Why “not a project” is qualitatively different

If a proposal is truly “not a project,” there is no exemption to document, because there is no CEQA trigger to begin with.

That’s why many practitioners describe “not a project” determinations as involving less CEQA paperwork than exemption-based pathways—because the legal theory is threshold non-applicability rather than exception.

“An exemption is a shield inside CEQA; ‘not a project’ is the argument that CEQA never enters the room.”

What This Means for FSTC’s SB 4 Strategy

If FSTC is pursuing an SB 4-qualifying affordable Housing project, the SANDAG chart entry supports a strong, straightforward positioning:

1) Lead with eligibility, because eligibility is the gate

SB 4’s advantage is only as strong as the project’s compliance with SB 4’s objective requirements (land ownership timing, affordability composition, site constraints, and other criteria).

Takeaway: build the application record like a checklist—prove the statute applies first, because that is what supports ministerial processing and the “not a project” posture.

2) Use “not a project” as a clarity tool in agency conversations

Local agencies are used to CEQA categories (“Categorical Exemption,” “Statutory Exemption”).  SB 4’s framing is different, and SANDAG’s chart helps communicate that difference in plain language.

Takeaway: incorporate the SANDAG chart language directly in staff-level correspondence to reduce misunderstanding and administrative drift.

3) Distinguish CEQA from “everything else.”

Even if CEQA is not triggered as a ‘project,’ practitioners should consider how SB 4 interacts with other legal standards—such as local approvals, building codes, and environmental regulations—to ensure comprehensive compliance within the streamlined process.
Practical takeaway: don’t oversell “no CEQA” as “no scrutiny”—sell it as a narrower, faster lane with defined rules.

4) Litigation posture: fewer CEQA hooks, cleaner narrative

Your core claim is the right one for a magazine-grade technical overview: “Not a project” removes a major category of CEQA procedural attacks that often focus on whether an exemption was correctly invoked or documented.

By contrast, exemption-based approaches can invite disputes over the fit of the exemption and the adequacy or timing of notice filings—issues that arise precisely because the project remains within CEQA.

Bottom Line

SANDAG’s April 2024 chart captures a subtle but powerful point: SB 4’s streamlined pathway is not merely “CEQA-exempt.” It is presented as “not a project for purposes of CEQA.”

For FSTC, that difference can translate into a stronger procedural stance: fewer CEQA process steps, fewer exemption-based fault lines, and a clearer narrative—provided the project record meticulously demonstrates SB 4 eligibility.