ARTICLE
For decades, California has been the nation’s leader in the environmental protection of our land, our waters and the built environment. With some of the most restrictive regulations to protect our natural environment, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is renowned by the environmental community for aiming to protect our great state from the perils of overdevelopment, the threat of unhealthy air and water quality and a myriad of environmental hazards that can doom our state’s future. No one disputes that environmental protection is an absolute necessity and regulatory tools are needed to rid out bad policy and awful development projects. However, where is the balance when other pressing issues hit the state: affordable housing, adequate access to clean water supply, an aging, inefficient energy system that is challenged by our growing climate emergency, and a transportation network that poorly moves people and goods across our state? The list is long and growing. We need a collaborative policy strategy addressing more than just one issue at a time seemingly in isolation. Where are we headed in the short and long term to ensure a healthy state that is environmentally resilient and meets the needs of Californians while ensuring economic vitality, adequate housing, and a more efficient public transportation network? California has led the global economy, rising to the 5th largest economy in the world — yes, it is a fashionable position to be in such high regard compared to other nations, yet, the shine on the Golden State is beginning to lose its luster. Today, the solution for California policy decision makers (at the state and local government level) is: Find a common balance of protecting our environment while addressing our housing and transportation crisis. It is doable if we collaborate. In a recent report prepared for the Center for Jobs & the Economy authored by Holland & Knight, Jennifer Hernandez points out some serious concerns about how CEQA has curtailed California’s housing development stating, “Although the Legislature has enacted over 80 laws over the past seven years to solve the state’s acute housing crisis, actual housing production to address what Governor Newsom described as a 3.5 million housing shortfall has remained flat. California has built an average of 110,784 homes per year for the past six years, only about one-third of the Governor’s housing production target. Production is expected to fall in 2023 due to inflation and interest rate hikes.” You can review the report here: https://centerforjobs.org/wp-content/uploads/Full-CEQA-Guest-Report.pdf. Lawsuits alleging environmental harm under CEQA challenged roughly 39% of the homes approved in California in 2020. The study's authors arrived at its conclusion by obtaining copies of every California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit filed in California that year from the state Attorney General’s office. Analysis of those complaints shows 47,999 residential units were challenged in 2020. CEQA, a 1970s-era environmental statute that requires developers in California to identify and then mitigate the potential environmental impact of their projects, has increasingly come under fire in California’s pro-housing, pro-growth circles: critics say it is a favorite tool of special interest groups that seek to stop or otherwise influence residential development in California, and has therefore played a role in exacerbating California’s housing crisis. CEQA suits are not designed to reverse a project’s approval. But they can force developers into a kind of limbo: A pending CEQA suit could make it impossible for them to obtain project financing or secure final building permits, and can take years to resolve. The holding costs associated with that kind of delay can render a project financially infeasible. The Holland & Knight team has produced two major research papers reporting on what kind of projects are targeted by CEQA lawsuits, based on a review of all CEQA lawsuits filed statewide which they obtained from the Attorney General's office using the Public Records Act. Holland & Knight completed the first year (2020) of their three-year study (2019-2021) of CEQA lawsuits in publishing this interim report to help elected officials, community and local policy decision makers learn about the increased level of anti-housing CEQA lawsuits. Holland & Knights found a substantial number of the developments did not properly analyze or mitigate two important climate change-related impacts that are now a part of CEQA — greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from project activities (construction as well as the future building occupancy and resident/guest/vendor vehicle fuel used attributed to a housing project) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from vehicles regardless of fuel type, including electric vehicles). The discussion through inner circles of the environmental community, environmental advocates and policymakers state that these housing and transportation mandates are a necessary response to climate change. The California Air Quality Resources Board (CARB) has claimed that CEQA lawsuits under GHG and VMT policies are a tool to limit needed housing for Californians as well as the state’s energy and infrastructure transition and resiliency projects. In the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan released in May of this year, CARB concluded that two-thirds of the CEQA lawsuits allege deficient analysis or mitigation of GHG and VMT. Keep in mind, California’s per capita GHG emissions are the lowest in the nation, and those families and jobs that move to other states are actually causing an increase in global GHG. What does the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan mean as an intended policy to link housing projects to state climate goals? The Draft 2022 Plan suggests that the state Legislature give CARB authority for land use decisions, using GHG and VMT requirements as a tool in both addressing climate change goals and housing affordability access. Where is the balance between climate change and housing production? As we have written often over the last five years, affordable housing (using whatever definition fits your circumstances) is a high-priority policy issue for Santa Cruz County. Released earlier this year by the state Department of Housing Community Development via local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) — in our case — Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) housing numbers have taken a significant increase for all regions of the state. There seems to be a disconnect between regulatory agencies such as CARB and the state Legislature. Dozens of important housing production laws, like the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and SB 375’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, include streamlined approvals for housing built in compliance with RHNA, the HAA, and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Two of those bills are heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. Assemblymember Buffy Wick’s Assembly Bill 2011 more narrowly targets infill building along heavily transited commercial corridors. Under her proposal, a developer would get to build housing “by right” — which means skipping lengthy and costly local review processes, including the CEQA requirements — as long as they paid workers union-level wages and offered health care benefits, among other requirements. Senate Bill 6, by Sen. Anna Caballero, a Salinas Democrat, would knock down one key barrier to building housing in commercial sites — rezoning — but leave in place many of the other forums for local government input on housing projects. To take advantage of the rezoning benefit, developers must use a skilled and trained workforce which effectively means a portion of the workforce must be union labor. In a noteworthy concession from the Trades, Caballero’s bill was amended Thursday to say that if developers don’t get at least two bids on a project, they can move forward with it anyway — as long as they pay union-level wages. Any layperson who doesn’t follow state policy closely would see the dynamics between the regulatory agencies and the will of the state Legislature — leaving Governor Newsom with the keys to the electrification of California utilities and vehicles and somehow ensuring climate change objectives while meeting the state’s housing objectives. The solution is collaboration between legislators and regulators that serves in the best interest of California.
For decades, California has been the nation’s leader in the environmental protection of our land, our waters and the built environment. With some of the most restrictive regulations to protect our natural environment, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is renowned by the environmental community for aiming to protect our great state from the perils of overdevelopment, the threat of unhealthy air and water quality and a myriad of environmental hazards that can doom our state’s future. No one disputes that environmental protection is an absolute necessity and regulatory tools are needed to rid out bad policy and awful development projects. However, where is the balance when other pressing issues hit the state: affordable housing, adequate access to clean water supply, an aging, inefficient energy system that is challenged by our growing climate emergency, and a transportation network that poorly moves people and goods across our state? The list is long and growing.
We need a collaborative policy strategy addressing more than just one issue at a time seemingly in isolation. Where are we headed in the short and long term to ensure a healthy state that is environmentally resilient and meets the needs of Californians while ensuring economic vitality, adequate housing, and a more efficient public transportation network?
California has led the global economy, rising to the 5th largest economy in the world — yes, it is a fashionable position to be in such high regard compared to other nations, yet, the shine on the Golden State is beginning to lose its luster.
Today, the solution for California policy decision makers (at the state and local government level) is: Find a common balance of protecting our environment while addressing our housing and transportation crisis. It is doable if we collaborate.
In a recent report prepared for the Center for Jobs & the Economy authored by Holland & Knight, Jennifer Hernandez points out some serious concerns about how CEQA has curtailed California’s housing development stating, “Although the Legislature has enacted over 80 laws over the past seven years to solve the state’s acute housing crisis, actual housing production to address what Governor Newsom described as a 3.5 million housing shortfall has remained flat. California has built an average of 110,784 homes per year for the past six years, only about one-third of the Governor’s housing production target. Production is expected to fall in 2023 due to inflation and interest rate hikes.”
You can review the report here: https://centerforjobs.org/wp-content/uploads/Full-CEQA-Guest-Report.pdf.
Lawsuits alleging environmental harm under CEQA challenged roughly 39% of the homes approved in California in 2020. The study's authors arrived at its conclusion by obtaining copies of every California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit filed in California that year from the state Attorney General’s office. Analysis of those complaints shows 47,999 residential units were challenged in 2020.
CEQA, a 1970s-era environmental statute that requires developers in California to identify and then mitigate the potential environmental impact of their projects, has increasingly come under fire in California’s pro-housing, pro-growth circles: critics say it is a favorite tool of special interest groups that seek to stop or otherwise influence residential development in California, and has therefore played a role in exacerbating California’s housing crisis.
CEQA suits are not designed to reverse a project’s approval. But they can force developers into a kind of limbo: A pending CEQA suit could make it impossible for them to obtain project financing or secure final building permits, and can take years to resolve. The holding costs associated with that kind of delay can render a project financially infeasible.
The Holland & Knight team has produced two major research papers reporting on what kind of projects are targeted by CEQA lawsuits, based on a review of all CEQA lawsuits filed statewide which they obtained from the Attorney General's office using the Public Records Act.
Holland & Knight completed the first year (2020) of their three-year study (2019-2021) of CEQA lawsuits in publishing this interim report to help elected officials, community and local policy decision makers learn about the increased level of anti-housing CEQA lawsuits. Holland & Knights found a substantial number of the developments did not properly analyze or mitigate two important climate change-related impacts that are now a part of CEQA — greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from project activities (construction as well as the future building occupancy and resident/guest/vendor vehicle fuel used attributed to a housing project) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from vehicles regardless of fuel type, including electric vehicles).
The discussion through inner circles of the environmental community, environmental advocates and policymakers state that these housing and transportation mandates are a necessary response to climate change. The California Air Quality Resources Board (CARB) has claimed that CEQA lawsuits under GHG and VMT policies are a tool to limit needed housing for Californians as well as the state’s energy and infrastructure transition and resiliency projects.
In the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan released in May of this year, CARB concluded that two-thirds of the CEQA lawsuits allege deficient analysis or mitigation of GHG and VMT. Keep in mind, California’s per capita GHG emissions are the lowest in the nation, and those families and jobs that move to other states are actually causing an increase in global GHG. What does the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan mean as an intended policy to link housing projects to state climate goals? The Draft 2022 Plan suggests that the state Legislature give CARB authority for land use decisions, using GHG and VMT requirements as a tool in both addressing climate change goals and housing affordability access.
Where is the balance between climate change and housing production? As we have written often over the last five years, affordable housing (using whatever definition fits your circumstances) is a high-priority policy issue for Santa Cruz County. Released earlier this year by the state Department of Housing Community Development via local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) — in our case — Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) housing numbers have taken a significant increase for all regions of the state. There seems to be a disconnect between regulatory agencies such as CARB and the state Legislature.
Dozens of important housing production laws, like the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and SB 375’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, include streamlined approvals for housing built in compliance with RHNA, the HAA, and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Two of those bills are heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. Assemblymember Buffy Wick’s Assembly Bill 2011 more narrowly targets infill building along heavily transited commercial corridors. Under her proposal, a developer would get to build housing “by right” — which means skipping lengthy and costly local review processes, including the CEQA requirements — as long as they paid workers union-level wages and offered health care benefits, among other requirements.
Senate Bill 6, by Sen. Anna Caballero, a Salinas Democrat, would knock down one key barrier to building housing in commercial sites — rezoning — but leave in place many of the other forums for local government input on housing projects. To take advantage of the rezoning benefit, developers must use a skilled and trained workforce which effectively means a portion of the workforce must be union labor. In a noteworthy concession from the Trades, Caballero’s bill was amended Thursday to say that if developers don’t get at least two bids on a project, they can move forward with it anyway — as long as they pay union-level wages.
Any layperson who doesn’t follow state policy closely would see the dynamics between the regulatory agencies and the will of the state Legislature — leaving Governor Newsom with the keys to the electrification of California utilities and vehicles and somehow ensuring climate change objectives while meeting the state’s housing objectives. The solution is collaboration between legislators and regulators that serves in the best interest of California.