Lawmakers push to fast-track radical housing model that could transform urban areas: 'Faster timelines and fewer bureaucratic hoops'
Assembly Bill 609 will streamline the approval process for urban multi-family housing on pre-developed land (a.k.a., infill housing). This presents an alternative to suburban sprawl, which develops unused land outside cities.
California YIMBY, an organization that advocates for affordable housing, collaborated with Buffy Wicks, a California State Representative, to create the bill.
If passed, infill housing will be exempt from review under California's Environmental Quality Act. Since it's been proven that infill housing benefits the environment, the bill's proponents argue that there's no need for such extensive review.
"The science is clear: building infill housing in cities reduces pollution that causes climate change," Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY, said in a press release. "AB 609 codifies that science in law."
According to the press release, new developments would still have to comply with local regulations, which are already approved by the CEQA.
Building cheap, affordable housing in urban centers is key to solving California's ongoing housing crisis. Infill housing also takes less of an environmental toll. Residents will be closer to work and other daily necessities, meaning less pollution from cars and shorter commutes.
More cities around the globe are waking up to infill housing. London's Elephant and Castle neighborhood utilizes infill housing to keep the city's emissions down, for example. If the process becomes simpler in California, it could set a great precedent for the rest of the United States.
AB 609 is part of a larger package of bills introduced in the California state legislature in early 2025. A press release from Assemblymember Wicks' office said, "The Fast Track Housing package is about making our systems work better: clearer rules, faster timelines, and fewer bureaucratic hoops."
Do you think America is in a housing crisis?
Definitely
Not sure
No way
Only in some cities
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
From green icon to housing villain: The fall of California's landmark environmental law
'The air is going to be cleaner, the water we drink is going to be purer and we are going to alert the people of California to the indisputable fact that the protection of our natural environment must rank as one of our major priorities,' Reagan wrote in an op-ed adapted from a speech. CEQA was heralded for ushering in a new age of clean air and water in an era when an oil-slicked river in Ohio caught on fire and Joni Mitchell sang about replacing paradise with a parking lot. It was relatively modest at first, requiring government entities to analyze and mitigate the impact of proposed public projects. President Richard M. Nixon signs the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) January 1, 1970. | Richard Nixon Library But two years later, a court case changed everything. A group of property owners in the Eastern Sierra region of majestic mountains and crystalline water sued to block a proposed development. Warning of issues with sewage, water and vanishing open space, they argued their county had erred in approving a permit — and they had backup from a new environmental unit created by the state's attorney general, Evelle Younger. 'Evelle Younger, a moderate Republican — remember when we had those? — he charged us with making him look good and doing good on the environment,' said Clement Shute, Jr., then a young attorney for Younger who would go on to become one of CEQA's most resolute defenders. The California Supreme Court's response would shape environmental and housing politics for generations. Justices ruled in 1972 that CEQA applied to private projects if they required a public agency's approval — in other words, virtually everything. 'Most activity that takes place is private activity, which usually requires a permit from the government, so if you want to make a real difference that has to be included,' said Nick Yost, an attorney who backed the homeowners as a young deputy attorney general. The impact was immediate. Many projects halted as lenders, builders, real estate agents, and 'anybody engaged commercially in putting two sticks of wood together descended on the Legislature in a panic,' then-Sierra Club lobbyist John Zierold recounted in an oral history. Industry backlash intensified through the years as CEQA continued to expand through various court rulings. In the mid-'70s, Dow Chemical launched a concerted campaign to dilute the law, which it faulted for stalling economic activity, and irate loggers drove their trucks around the Capitol, horns blaring, after a ruling applied CEQA to timber projects. CEQA has long been 'the scapegoat for everything,' said Shute, and 'under attack almost constantly' since its inception.
Vox
5 days ago
- Vox
Why it's taking LA so long to rebuild
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. Sisters Emilee and Natalee De Santiago sit together on the front porch of what remains of their home on January 19, 2025, in Altadena, the wake of the record-breaking wildfires in Los Angeles in January — some of the most expensive and destructive blazes in history — one of the first things California Gov. Gavin Newsom did was to sign an executive order suspending environmental rules around rebuilding. The idea was that by waiving permitting regulations and reviews under the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), homeowners and builders could start cleaning up, putting up walls, and getting people back into houses faster. But that raised a key question for housing advocates: Could California do something similar for the whole state? Earlier this month, Newsom took a step in that direction, signing two bills that would exempt most urban housing from environmental reviews and make it easier for cities to increase housing by changing zoning laws. Newsom also signed another executive order that suspends some local permitting laws and building codes for fire-afflicted communities with the aim of further speeding up reconstruction. Los Angeles is a critical case study for housing for the whole state, a test of whether the Democratic-controlled government can coordinate its conflicting political bases — unions, environmental groups, housing advocates — with a desperate need for more homes. Revising the state's environmental laws was seen by some observers as a sign that the Golden State was finally seeing the light. Related California just showed that a better Democratic Party is possible But despite the relaxed rules, progress in LA has been sluggish. More than 800 homeowners in areas affected by wildfires applied for rebuilding permits as of July 7, according to the Los Angeles Times. Fewer than 200 have received the green light, however. The City of Los Angeles takes about 55 days on average to approve a wildfire rebuild, and the broader Los Angeles County takes even longer. (Los Angeles County has a dashboard to track permitting approvals in unincorporated areas.) 'LA's process is super slow, so that's not surprising,' said Elisa Paster, a managing partner at Rand Paster Nelson based in Los Angeles and specializing in land use law. 'Anecdotally, we've heard that a lot of people have decided they don't want to go through the process of rebuilding in LA because it is quite onerous.' Now, half a year out after the embers have died down, it's clear that changing the rules isn't enough. Advocates for CEQA say the 55-year-old law is really a scapegoat for bigger, more intractable housing problems. Other factors, like more expensive construction materials and labor shortages, are still driving up housing construction costs, regardless of permitting speeds. And some environmental groups worry that the rush to rebuild everything as it was could recreate the conditions that led to the blazes in the first place, a dangerous prospect in an area where wildfire risks are only growing. How CEQA reforms can and can't help communities harmed by wildfires CEQA is one of California's tentpole environmental laws, signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970. It requires that state and local governments preemptively look for any potential environmental harms from a construction project, like water pollution, threats to endangered species, and later, greenhouse gas emissions. Developers need to disclose these issues and take steps to avoid them. The law also allows the public to weigh in on new developments. In the years since, CEQA has been blamed as a barrier to new construction. Many critics see it as a cynical tool wielded to prevent new housing construction in wealthy communities, even being invoked to challenge highway closures and new parks on environmental grounds. It's one of the villains of the 'abundance' movement that advocates for cutting red tape to build more homes and clean energy. However, CEQA isn't necessarily the gatekeeper to rebuilding single-family homes after wildfires, according to Matthew Baker, policy director at Planning and Conservation League, a nonprofit that helped shepherd CEQA in the first place. For one thing, CEQA already has broad exemptions for replacing and rebuilding structures and new construction of 'small' structures like single-family homes. 'Our general take is that the executive orders around revoking environmental review and environmental regulations around the rebuilding [after the fires] did little to nothing beyond what was already in existing law,' Baker said. He added that the vast majority of projects that face CEQA review get the go-ahead, and less than 2 percent of proposals face litigation. An aerial view shows homes burned in the Eaton Fire on February 5, 2025, in Altadena, the mere threat of a lawsuit and the precautions to avoid one can become a significant hurdle on its own. 'CEQA can be an expensive and lengthy process, especially for large or complicated projects. This is true even if there is not litigation,' according to a 2024 report from California's Little Hoover Commission, the state's independent oversight agency. 'Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA can take a year or longer and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even, in some cases, more than $1 million.' In addition, CEQA does come into play for people who want to make more extensive changes to their property as they rebuild, like if they want to expand their floorspace more than 10 percent beyond their original floor plan. The law is also triggered by broader wildfire risk reduction initiatives, namely brush clearance and controlled burns, as well as infrastructure upgrades like putting power lines underground to prevent fire ignitions or installing more pipelines and cisterns for water to help with firefighting. Exempting these projects could help communities build fire resilience faster. For multifamily homes like duplexes and apartment buildings, CEQA can be an obstacle, too, if the developer wants to rebuild with more units. 'We have multifamily buildings in the Palisades that had rent-controlled units, and what we've been hearing from some of these property owners is like, 'Yeah, sure. I had 20 rent-controlled units there before, but I can't afford to just rebuild 20.' Those people want to go back and build 50 units, 20 of which could be rent-controlled, or all of which are rent-controlled.' By bypassing CEQA, higher-density housing has an easier path to completion. Environmental regulations aren't the only barriers to rebuilding Rebuilding after fires is always going to be expensive. Your home may have been built and sold in the 1970s, but you'll have to pay 2025 prices for materials and labor when you rebuild. California already faces some of the highest housing costs in the country and a shortage of construction workers. The Trump administration is pushing the price tag higher with tariffs on components like lumber and its campaign to deport people. About 41 percent of workers in California's construction industry are immigrants, and 14 percent are undocumented. But even before they can rebuild, one of the biggest challenges for people who have lost their homes is simply becoming whole after a loss. 'From the clients that I've spoken to, they've had to argue with their insurance company to get full replacement value or reasonable compensation, and that's where they're getting stuck,' said David Hertz, an architect based in Santa Monica. On top of the tedious claims process, insurance companies in California have been dropping some of their customers in high fire-risk areas, leaving them no option besides the FAIR Plan, the state's high-priced, limited-coverage insurer of last resort. But after the multibillion-dollar losses from the Los Angeles fires, the FAIR Plan had to collect an additional $1 billion from its member companies, a move that will raise property insurance prices. People who can't get property insurance can't get a mortgage from most lenders. There's also the concern of exactly where and how homes are rebuilt. In 2008, California updated its building codes to make structures more resistant to wildfires, but bringing burned-down old homes to new standards in high fire risk areas adds to the timeline and the price tag. 'There's this tension between all of us wanting to have people be able to rebuild their homes in their communities, and there's the question of 'Are we just going to build back the same thing in the same unsafe place? Are we going to try to do things better?' Baker said. All the while, wildfires are becoming more destructive. Wildfires are a natural part of Southern California's landscape, but more people are crowding into areas that are primed to burn, and the danger zones are widening. That increases the chances of a wildfire ignition and makes the ensuing blazes more damaging. With average temperatures rising, California is seeing more aggressive swings between severe rainfall and drought. The 2025 Los Angeles fires were preceded in 2024 by one of the wettest winters in the region's history, followed by one of the hottest summers on record, and bookended by one of the driest starts to winter. It created the ideal conditions for ample dry grasses and chaparral that fueled the infernos. Related 5 approaches that experts say are our best shot at surviving future wildfires 'The question is, how does one really exist within a natural system that's designed to burn?' Hertz said. Reducing wildfire risk on a wider scale requires coordination between neighbors. For example, Hertz said that in many of the communities that burned, there are likely many residents who won't come back. Neighbors could coordinate to buy up and swap vacant land parcels to create a defensible space with fire-resistant trees like oak to serve as fire breaks and water storage to help respond to future blazes. Hertz himself leads a community brigade, trained volunteers who work to reduce wildfire risk in their neighborhoods. He also cautioned that while there's a lot of well-deserved pushback against regulations like CEQA, the reasoning behind it remains sound. Development without any environmental considerations could put more homes in the path of danger and destroy the ecosystems that make California such an attractive place to live. 'I think there's a balance,' Hertz said. 'Nature doesn't have its own voice.' At the same time, without speeding up the pace at which California restores the homes that were lost and builds new ones, the housing crisis will only get worse. The state will become unlivable for many residents. Long after the burn scars fade and new facades are erected, communities will be altered permanently.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Fox News
Newsom just took a page from Trump. But there's more to do to keep California a golden state
California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom took a page out of Donald Trump's playbook late in June by approving an overhaul of his state's costly and unnecessary environmental regulations. Newsom's signature updated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 1970s-era law that forces developers and homeowners to undergo an absurdly expensive and long environmental review before starting any building project. Among other things, the update streamlines the review process and exempts huge swaths of the state's infrastructure construction from the ancient regulatory statutes. Critics and the homebuilding industry have long blamed this cumbersome policy for California's long-running housing shortage, sky-high real estate prices, and even the state's infamous homelessness problem. As a free-market economist, I applaud Newsom for defanging some of his state's most burdensome measures – but he should go much further to a) help his constituents and b) shore up his national moderate bona fides as he likely runs for president in 2028. For example, his signature left the "CEQA abuse" loophole untouched. This is a regulation which allows labor unions and NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) activists to file frivolous environmental lawsuits that delay projects and run up development costs. Environmentalists often pretend these suits are about protecting animals and trees, but they're primarily a means of harming companies these radicals don't like. And the radicals aren't just holding up signs. They're in elected offices, abusing their power for the sake of their agendas instead of serving constituents. That's what a court ruled in 2022 after two local governments stopped "much-needed housing" for decades. The court also said that CEQA was intended for narrow use, and that its abuse was holding up progress within the state, especially related to easing the problem of low housing supply. Those lawsuits impact more than the rich company owners. They prevent young families from achieving the American Dream by making first homes too expensive to own and maintain. That's another piece of low-hanging regulatory fruit for Newsom, because his CEQA reform focused on urban apartments and large infrastructure projects – important to millions of Californians, but also ignoring more structural reforms to the issue of expensive housing. Since one of the primary drivers of California's population decline is the high cost of living, allowing developers to build more single-family homes would encourage more people to rent or buy the type of home they want to flee to – or did end up fleeing to. Many former California residents might even return from affordable states like Texas, Arizona and Tennessee. Finally, there's trash collection. This one doesn't earn the same flashy headlines as environmental policy, crime or homelessness, but California has quietly (and expensively) been struggling in this area, too. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) currently employs a Byzantine system of greenhouse gas emissions standards and penalty schemes that squeeze privately owned landfills without reducing the amount of trash to process. Not only does this force California taxpayers to cover the higher cost of transporting their garbage to faraway landfills, but it's put some landfills out of business. Late last year, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill announced that it would no longer be accepting waste, eliminating a critical option for Angelenos' trash disposal. Newsom can't solve the entire landfill problem by himself, as many counties employ their own ridiculous landfill and environmental regulations. But his bully pulpit and influence with local and county lawmakers could get those entities to fall into line and create affordable waste disposal services for all those new homes. People vote with their feet, and millions of people have voted against California in recent decades by moving to more affordable states. Governor Gavin Newsom should be commended for getting his party to accept reforms to California's notoriously burdensome environmental review laws. However, there is much more work to be done to stem the California exodus … not to mention to elevate a 2028 Newsom presidential run.
