California rolls back environmental law to expedite housing
Why it matters: The move could cut down planning and zoning timelines in cities that desperately need more housing.
Catch up quick: An extension of a national policy, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows individuals and groups to file lawsuits to challenge projects, which can delay building by years and rack up litigation costs.
It was enacted in 1970 to prevent environmental damage and requires developers to mitigate potential impacts through a public review process.
Attempts to reform it have escalated over the last decade amid California's housing shortage.
Driving the news: The new law exempts urban "infill" housing projects, which are built in and around existing development, from CEQA if they are less than 20 acres and located outside hazardous zones.
Certain infrastructure projects, such as water system improvements, day care centers and advanced manufacturing facilities will also be excluded from CEQA.
What they're saying: These exemptions are "almost certainly the most significant rollback of CEQA for housing since it passed" and "will unambiguously reduce the time frame" for development, Ben Metcalf, managing director of UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation, told Axios.
Under CEQA, projects usually must undergo review by city staff and a public body like a planning commission. The threat of litigation gives some groups, such as unions, leverage to negotiate project labor agreements, Metcalf said.
Market-rate housing projects "will get in the ground faster as a result of this change," he added.
The other side: Opponents say the rollback axes essential protections for wildlife, biodiversity and California's most vulnerable communities.
It forces "blind exemptions for massive industrial projects" and could enable projects handling "highly explosive and hazardous materials" without scrutiny, a coalition of over 100 organizations wrote in a letter to Newsom last week.
Between the lines: The legislation states that a "special statute is necessary" for San Francisco due to its "unique construction of housing projects."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial
Gov. Gavin Newsom isn't afraid to step into the political fray when it comes to standing up to President Donald Trump over national issues that impact California. He's not always wrong when he sues the administration or speaks out against, say, ICE raids in Los Angeles. But most of those high-profile actions seem designed to burnish his national reputation. For your own safety, please don't stand between him and a television camera. Newsom would have a better national-leadership case, however, had he strategically arm-twisted the state's Democratic-controlled Legislature to pass controversial measures that address California's long-simmering problems of homelessness, traffic congestion, the high cost of living, crime, and sky-high housing costs. The best way to prove the wisdom of the California Way is to, you know, actually run the state in a stellar manner. But maybe he is learning. As various news sources reported last week, the governor had tied his signing of a budget deal by requiring the Legislature to pass reforms to the state's "landmark" California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—the 1970 law that has mired construction projects in regulation, environmental impact reports and litigation (or threats of it). The details of the measure were in flux late last week, but it was pitched as being far more aggressive than past housing reforms. Sure enough, Newsom succeeded. Just in time for the July 1 budget-signing deadline, the legislature overwhelmingly passed the measure, which ended up as two bills. They exempt "nine types of projects from environmental reviews: child care centers, health clinics, food banks, farmworker housing, broadband, wildfire prevention, water infrastructure, public parks or trails and, notably, advanced manufacturing," per a CalMatters report. One of the bills also "restricts legal challenges under CEQA by narrowing which documents courts can consider." The measures were based on several existing proposals, including Senate Bill 607, which affirms the Legislature's intent "to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to ensure the state meets its infrastructure needs and is more affordable for all Californians, as specified, without compromising environmental protections," according to the legislative analysis. Lawmakers in May stripped away specific exemptions, turning it into a non-substantive bill in the face of opposition from the usual suspects. Without Newsom's efforts, major CEQA reform would have died on the vine. Another late-breaking housing bill was under consideration as part of the budget, but not subject to Newsom's ultimatum—but the Legislature caved in to union demands. The Sacramento Bee reports this bill was roughly based on another measure that "allows developers to bypass CEQA review if they agree to pay a certain minimum wage to construction workers." Mandating wage boosts drives up the cost of housing construction and weakens the usefulness of these deregulations, but it was an attempt to lessen the degree to which unions use CEQA to slow construction projects to extract concessions. Newsom's failure to overcome union opposition here is a disappointment, but doesn't tarnish an otherwise noteworthy effort. The Bee interviewed Capitol insiders who cannot recall a budget ever before being held up to secure passage of a single non-budget-related bill. More of this, please. Even sweeter: The governor and lawmakers brushed off the overheated objections of the environmental community. Instead of folding, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, rebuked the "extreme, unfounded, melodramatic statements" from environmental groups, as CalMatters noted. Lawmakers routinely gripe about CEQA, but they never do anything to fix it beyond adding a limited streamlining or exemption provision (especially when it comes to sports arenas). The pro-housing YIMBY Law (Yes In My Back Yard) produced a report showing the myriad laws that have reduced CEQA impediments for housing have produced few real-world results. That's no surprise given that they don't go far enough, rarely apply to market-rate housing and always include union giveaways. Legislators are finally pushing harder for broader exemptions. I rarely agree with them on non-housing issues, but Wiener and Assembly member Buffy Wicks (D–Oakland) deserve praise for doggedly pursuing the issue. And with Newsom using this nuclear option to bring this bill across the finish line, we are finally seeing progress. I feared the final version might be toothless, but it appears substantive. Isn't it time, however, to reform CEQA for every type of project? It might seem odd that progressives have embraced the pro-housing religion, but consider a study from the Holland & Knight law firm. It found 49 percent of CEQA lawsuits target governmental projects, with infill projects also a particular target. "CEQA litigation abuse is primarily the domain of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) opponents and special interests such as competitors and labor unions seeking non-environmental outcomes," the study added. Basically, progressives are finding their own objectives threatened by CEQA abuse. Gov. Newsom is learning that if he wants to look tough—and help address a serious state problem—there no downside for him to use his political capital in such a way. This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial appeared first on
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Congratulations, America, you're 249 years old! But this last one has been rough
Happy Birthday, America! Today, you turn 249 and, honestly, you don't look a day over 248. (Ha ha.) Seriously, it's perfectly understandable why there's more gray on your scalp and deeper worry lines on your face. This last year has been challenging, to say the least. A convicted felon and adjudicated sex abuser was elected president — history made! — and ever since has worked tirelessly and diligently to establish himself as the nation's first monarch, and a fabulously remunerated one at that. Federal troops are occupying the nation's second-largest city, over the objection of the state's leaders, as masked agents scoop people off the streets of Southern California for the temerity of venturing out with brown skin and an accent. Our social safety net is being shredded, the country is pulling back from its international leadership in the arts and science, and we've squandered our global standing as a beacon of hope and compassion. But that's not all. Political violence is becoming about as familiar and normalized as schoolyard shootings. In roughly the last 12 months we've witnessed two attempts on Trump's life and the assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. Medicaid, the program that serves millions of the needy, elderly and disabled, is on the chopping block. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which helps Americans weather the worst times after natural disaster, has been drastically depleted just as we're heading into the fire and hurricane seasons. As for the loyal opposition, Democrats are in bad odor with voters and even many of their own partisans after Joe Biden's handlers gaslighted the public on the frailty and declining faculties of the octogenarian president. Only after a cataclysmically bad debate performance, which revealed his infirmities for all to see, did Biden grudgingly stand aside in favor of his anointed successor, Vice President Kamala Harris. Once more, Democrats are wandering the wilderness, wearing a familiar groove in their desolate pathway as they debate — again — whether to veer left or hug the center. That's quite the catalog. But no one ever said this representative democracy thing was going to be easy, or endlessly uplifting. America, you're a big, boisterous nation of more than 342 million people, with all sorts of competing impulses and interests, and no end of certitude to go around. In our last presidential election, we split nearly evenly, with Trump squeaking past Harris in the popular vote 49.8% to 48.3%. It was one of the narrowest margins of victory in the last century, though you wouldn't know it from Trump's radical actions and the servility of the Republican-run Congress. But our differences go even deeper than the now-familiar gulf between red and blue America. In a recently completed deep dive on the state of our democracy, researchers at UC Berkeley found an almost even divide over how to measure our political system's success. Slightly more than half of those surveyed said a successful democracy is one that's adaptable and has the capacity for change, while nearly half said success stems from adherence to long-standing principles. With that kind of stark disagreement on such a fundamental question, is it any wonder we struggle to find consensus on so much else? But, heck, if it's any consolation on this star-spangled holiday, the country has been through worse. Much worse. And you, America, have not only survived but also in many ways grown stronger by facing down your flaws and overcoming some knee-buckling challenges. Slavery. Civil war. Racist exclusionary laws. Two worldwide conflicts. Depression. Financial crises. And too many deadly natural disasters — floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes — to possibly count. Your treatment of some Americans, it should be said, hasn't always been fair and just. People are despairing over the Supreme Court and its deference to the president. But it's worth noting that earlier court majorities held that Black Americans — 'beings of an inferior order,' in the words of the notorious Dred Scott decision — could be denied citizenship, that racial segregation was constitutional and that compulsory sterilization based on eugenics was perfectly legal. That sordid history won't necessarily make anyone feel better about the current state of affairs, nor should it. But it does give some perspective. All of that said, today's a day to celebrate the good things and the bright, shining place you aspire to be, with liberty and justice for all. So, chin up, America! Have another slice of birthday cake, and don't worry about the calories — you really do look terrific for 249! Meantime, it's up to us, your citizens, to keep working toward that more perfect union. Whatever ails you, America, the remedy resides with we the people and the power we hold, particularly at the ballot box. Unhappy with the wrecking crew that's chain-sawing federal programs and allowing Trump to blowtorch the Constitution and rule of law? Vote 'em out, starting with the 2026 midterm election. Don't give up hope or the belief that, as dark and difficult as things seem right now, better days lie ahead. That abiding faith is what makes America great.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can weaker environmental rules help fight climate change? California just bet yes.
Earlier this week, California lawmakers passed among the most sweeping reforms to the state's environmental regulations in more than half a century. The measures were primarily intended to boost housing construction and urban density in the Golden State, which faces among the most severe housing shortages in the U.S. Though the move was celebrated by Governor Gavin Newsom as he signed the bills into law, it has exposed tensions between the progressive priorities that motivate Democratic lawmakers. Housing affordability advocates have clashed with those promoting environmental justice, with the former boosting the bills and the latter remaining wary. More broadly, the move exposes divisions between those who want more tools to mitigate climate change and environmentalists who would rather maintain strict limits on what can be built and how. The reforms target the California Environmental Quality Act, which then-governor Ronald Reagan signed more than 50 years ago. Known as CEQA, the legislation requires public agencies and decision-makers to evaluate the environmental impact of any project requiring government approval, and to publicize any effects and mitigate them if say the law has prevented or altered scores of projects that would have been detrimental to the environment or Californians' quality of life. But CEQA has also become the basis for a regular stream of formal complaints and lawsuits that pile substantial costs and delays onto projects that are ultimately found to have minimal harmful effects — sometimes killing them entirely. In one infamous instance, opponents of student housing near the University of California, Berkeley argued that the associated noise would constitute environmental pollution under CEQA, which led to a three-year legal battle that the university only won after it went to the state Supreme Court. Examples like this have led CEQA, which was once a national symbol of environmental protection, to become vilified as a cause of the state's chronic housing shortage. After this week's reforms, most urban housing projects will now be exempt from the CEQA process. The new legislation also excepts many zoning changes from CEQA, as well as certain nonresidential projects including health clinics, childcare centers, and advanced manufacturing facilities, like semiconductor and nanotech plants, if they are sited in areas already zoned for industrial uses. (A related bill also freezes most updates to building efficiency and clean energy standards until 2031, angering climate advocates who otherwise support the push for denser housing.) Governor Newsom used a budgetary process to push the long-debated changes into law, with strong bipartisan support. Some activists welcomed the changes, saying they will lead to denser 'infill' housing on vacant or underutilized urban land, slower growth in rents and home prices, and shorter commutes — with the welcome byproduct of fewer planet-warming emissions. 'For those that view climate change as one of the key issues of our time, infill housing is a critical solution,' read one op-ed supporting the measures. Other environmentalists, however, lambasted the changes as environmentally destructive giveaways to developers. After Newsom signed the legislation, the Sierra Club California put out a statement calling the changes 'half-baked' measures that 'will have destructive consequences for environmental justice communities and endangered species across California.' At a time when President Donald Trump's assaults on climate policy and environmental protections have galvanized opposition from the left, what unfolded in California serves as a reminder that, even among Democrats, a divide remains on the extent to which regulation can help — or hurt — the planet. It's the type of pickle that liberals across the country may increasingly face on issues ranging from zoning to permitting reform for renewable energy projects, which can face costly delays when they encounter procedural hurdles like CEQA. (Indeed, in California, CEQA has been an impediment to not just affordable housing but also solar farms and high-speed rail.) 'How do we make sure the regulations we pass to save the planet don't harm the planet?' asked Matt Lewis, director of communications for California YIMBY, a housing advocacy organization and proponent of the CEQA reforms. Transportation accounts for the largest portion of California's carbon footprint, and Lewis argues that denser housing will be key to keeping people closer to their jobs. But, he said, people with a 'not in my backyard' attitude have abused CEQA to slow down those beneficial projects. (His organization's name is a play on this so-called NIMBY disposition, with YIMBY standing for 'yes in my backyard.') 'One of the leading causes of climate pollution is the way we permit or do not permit housing to be built in urban areas,' Lewis said, adding that more urban development could reduce pressure to build on unused land in more sensitive areas. He pointed to other legal backstops, like state clean water and air laws, that can accomplish the environmental protection goals often cited by supporters of the CEQA process. 'CEQA isn't actually the most powerful law to make sure that manufacturing facilities and other industrial facilities protect the environment,' he said. In short, Lewis believes that any downsides of the new reforms pale in comparison to their benefits for both people and the planet. 'Did we fix it perfectly this time? I'm willing to admit, no,' he said, adding that any shortcomings that environmentalists are concerned about could be repaired in future legislative sessions. But many environmentalists contend that the downsides in the new legislation are too large.'We put one foot forward but we take another step back,' said Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California, noting his opposition to the nonresidential exemptions. He said that CEQA often acts as a first line of defense that allows community input on development projects. Without it, he argues, community voices will be marginalized. Miguel speaks from personal experience: CEQA helped save the mobile home park where he grew up from being replaced by more expensive apartments. Kim Delfino, an environmental attorney and consultant who followed the legislation, said that the scope of the reforms expanded from simple support for urban housing development to become 'a potpourri of industry and developer desires.' She added that CEQA requires biological surveys that can be the first step to invoking other environmental protections. 'If you never look, you will never know if there are endangered species there,' she said. 'We've decided to take a head-in-the-sand approach.' This impasse between environmentalists and housing-focused advocates like Lewis is now decades-old and among the reasons that CEQA reforms — or rollbacks, depending on whom you ask — have taken so long to come about. As the fight has drawn out, skepticism has become entrenched. 'Maybe I'm wrong,' California YIMBY's Lewis said of his optimism that the latest changes can thread the needle between the state's housing needs and environmental priorities. But, he added, he'd rather defer to elected lawmakers than environmentalists, who have long opposed his housing advocacy. 'The environmental movement in California has been fundamentally dishonest about housing,' he charged. The Sierra Club's Miguel, for his part, hopes for more cooperation between the competing parties, lest the disagreements poison future legislative efforts. At the end of the day, all parties involved share the same broad goals, if with different levels of emphasis. 'We have to do everything and anything all at once,' he said, referring to climate and environmental policy. 'That is fine art.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Can weaker environmental rules help fight climate change? California just bet yes. on Jul 2, 2025.
