Latest news with #PlanningandConservationLeague
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
California passes major overhaul of CEQA, hoping to kickstart housing production
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Monday passed some of the most significant changes to the state's environmental review law since its inception that supporters say will lessen a major barrier to building housing. Reforming the state's landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act, has been discussed for years, but has proven to be particularly challenging because the law has staunch supporters among powerful environmental and labor groups. Despite many attempts by the Legislature to speed up housing construction, California home production remains stubbornly slow, something that has dogged Gov. Gavin Newsom. Facing the last two years of his governorship, Newsom threw his weight behind two major CEQA overhaul proposals in the Legislature and made his signature on the budget this year contingent on the passage of some of those provisions. That put immense pressure on Democrats in the Legislature to pass the bills to ensure the state will have a budget in effect on Tuesday when the 2025-26 fiscal year begins. The bills grant broad exemptions to CEQA for homes and other buildings in already developed areas. The lawmakers who crafted the original proposals argue that the law is regularly abused by people trying to block development and that building more in densely populated areas where people live and work is good for the environment. Cities and counties are already required to plan to build housing to meet their population's needs and conduct environmental assessments as part of that work. The legislation passed Monday will exempt housing in already developed areas in compliance with those housing plans from being subject to an additional environmental review. The bills also exempt from CEQA various individual types of projects, including childcare centers in nonresidential areas, farmworker housing, wildfire risk reduction projects, food banks in industrial areas, advanced manufacturing sites and health clinics less than 50,000 square feet. Republicans and Democrats alike raised concerns about the governor's move to push the policies through as part of the budget, arguing that the process was rushed and didn't allow for enough deliberation on controversial provisions of the bills. Initial versions of the bills drew swift backlash, especially from labor unions, last week. Many of labor unions' concerns were assuaged with amendments taken to one of the bills, but opposition from environmental groups has persisted. Many environmental groups opposed one of the bills, SB131, particularly because they said it will not protect habitats for endangered species and allow advanced manufacturing projects to proceed without environmental review. Natalie Brown of the Planning and Conservation League called it 'the worst anti-environmental bill in decades' during a Monday committee hearing. 'We're in a nature crisis, we're seeing unprecedented loss of wildlife, and that's to be made worse with this bill,' said Laura Deehan with the group Environment California. 'We're also very concerned about opening the floodgates for new development that could be really polluting … We also think it was ridiculous to do this type of action behind closed doors in a budget bill.' But supporters of the bills say CEQA needs to be reined in. Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, pointed to lawsuits against a food bank in Alameda and a housing development in San Francisco that were both blocked because people sued under CEQA to preserve parking lots. He said the bills passed Monday will make it 'easier and faster to build new housing.' 'If California is ever going to truly tackle our crisis of affordability, we need to build an abundance of housing, child care centers, transportation, water infrastructure, broadband, and all of the things that make life better and more affordable for people,' Wiener said. The bills passed Monday also contain funding for homeless aid, which Newsom had at first tried to prevent, saying cities and counties had already gotten enough money from the state and needed to start making progress in decreasing their homeless populations. The bill includes half a billion dollars for the state's homeless aid program. Bill Fulton, a planning expert and former Ventura mayor who has advocated for CEQA reform, said that the changes passed Monday are significant but are not a panacea. 'I don't think this alone is going to create a housing boom,' he said. 'I think this, together with other things, will gradually increase the amount of housing approved.'
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them?
It's not that typical that an acronym for an arcane regulation would be a household word, but in California the term CEQA—pronounced see-kwa—is as well-known as terms such as OMG and LOL. Signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, the voluminous statute provides a laundry list of terms and conditions on developers of every manner of construction project. CEQA has created a regulatory nightmare, although it still has defenders. LOL indeed. As the Planning and Conservation League explains, "The California Environmental Quality Act…is California's premier environmental law. It allows public agencies to make informed decisions about activities that could degrade public health and damage the environment. It also provides California residents with the legal framework to hold their public agencies accountable." That sounds so unobjectionable. Who doesn't want public agencies to make informed decisions and provide community members with tools to protect the environment and hold officials accountable? But the reality is far different than what these Pollyannaish civics-textbook explanations suggest. California lawmakers refuse to substantively reform the law, but what's the first thing they do whenever they want a particular project built? You guessed it—they provide a CEQA exemption or streamlining. When the Sacramento Kings wanted to build a new downtown arena and keep the team from leaving town, Senate President Darrell Steinberg (later elected the city's mayor) ushered through an exemption. We've seen multiple examples—or attempts—to reduce the application of CEQA to other professional sports projects, as well as other favored projects, including one tied to LA's effort to lure the Olympics. It's always the sign of a bad law when it constantly requires exemptions. That reminds me of Assembly Bill 5, which banned most independent contracting—but its supporters exempted more than 100 industries from its grip because it threatened so many people's livelihoods. A recent national example: Donald Trump's tariffs posed an existential threat to many businesses, so he's been exempting certain industries. All these regulatory edicts empower the politically well-connected, who have lobbyists who can secure special favors. So what's wrong with CEQA? Whenever the government has discretionary approval authority, the law requires the agency to conduct a review. It usually requires the developers to conduct an extensive environmental analysis. It triggers an initial study process and then often a costly, time-consuming full Environmental Impact Report. Agencies can then mandate remediation or reject the project. It gives any stakeholder the right to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval. As is now well documented, interest groups often file lawsuits that are not related to improving the environment. No-growthers file suits to stop—or reduce the size—of projects they don't like. Neighbors can file lawsuits because they don't want more traffic. Unions threaten suits as a way to gain leverage to secure project-labor agreements and other union-friendly conditions. As the law firm Holland & Knight reported in 2015, "64% of those filing CEQA lawsuits are individuals or local 'associations,' the vast majority of which have no prior track record of environmental advocacy." And if you think these cynical efforts to gum up the construction process help the environment, then consider this alarming point from that analysis: "Projects designed to advance California's environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits." These include transit projects, multi-family housing, parks, schools and libraries. It notes that 80 percent of the CEQA lawsuits are in infill locations, which is where environmentalists want us to build. CEQA criticism has grown even on the political Left thanks largely to the law's stifling effect on new housing construction. As everyone here knows, California faces a severe housing crisis as the median home price statewide has soared above $800,000 and well over $1 million in many coastal metros. That has led to massive rent spikes and has exacerbated our homelessness situation. Lawmakers have—to their credit—passed targeted exemptions and streamlining provisions for particular types of housing projects (infill, multi-family, duplexes), but it's not enough. A 2022 report for the Center for Jobs and the Economy by Holland & Knight attorney Jennifer Hernandez notes that despite those new laws, "CEQA lawsuits targeting new housing production, in contrast, continue to expand—with 47,999 housing units targeted in the CEQA lawsuits filed just in 2020." The California Air Resources Board (CARB) "acknowledges that two-thirds of CEQA lawsuits allege violations of climate impacts." Look, if CEQA can be used to stop projects based on climate impacts, then it can be used against any project. It's been weaponized as a no-growth tool—constraining housing, energy projects, freeways, rail, you name it. Unless we're happy just grinding progress to a halt, we need to repeal—or significantly reform—this monstrosity and get beyond occasional exemptions for ballparks and public housing. We all know CEQA by name and deed, so why won't elected officials do anything about it? This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them? appeared first on
