ARTICLE
One of the most feared words to the home building industry is the famous 1970 California law — the California Environmental Quality Act (known simply as CEQA and pronounced “see-kwuh”). The state’s landmark environmental protection law affects a wide range of land-use decisions from the development of low-income housing to approval of other land-use permits — think transportation, energy solar, and wind infrastructure, and oil well permits. Like any environmental legislation, the law is sacred to environmentalists. Neighborhood groups champion the law as a fundamental right to preserve natural habitats and protect public health. On the other side of the law; home builders, developers, and housing advocates have maintained that the law is ‘weaponized’ to stop or delay new construction — which at this time only exacerbates California’s chronic housing shortage. After a state court last month ruled UC Berkeley violated the five-decade-old statute in its plans to build student and homeless housing at People’s Park, familiar calls for CEQA reform made headlines and sparked renewed discussion in Sacramento. Governor Gavin Newsom blasted CEQA for allowing the state to be “held hostage by NIMBYs” and vowed to help change the law. Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco, told the Bay Area News Group he plans to introduce a bill “to deal with the specific problems this court case has created.” This debate is not new. There have been many attempts to reform CEQA in the past decade but every effort has not gone very far. Signed into law in 1970 by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, CEQA requires public agencies to follow a complicated process for studying and disclosing how proposed projects could affect the environment and surrounding communities. In many cases, an agency must ensure plans address any “significant impacts” — from air quality and water supply to traffic. Importantly — and sometimes noted to be controversial— the law also allows private residents and organizations to sue to force additional project analysis. Over the decades, state courts have issued rulings broadening the scope of the reviews. Sometimes, addressing the issues raised makes projects too expensive to continue. Studies have found CEQA lawsuits are often filed by those seizing on precedent to stall multifamily housing projects. That can include environmental advocacy groups, competing developers, labor unions, and residents concerned about new homes in their neighborhoods. Developers and housing advocates say the lengthy reviews and lawsuits often add crushing costs and delays. They contend CEQA, while well-intentioned, has become one of the main hurdles to building desperately needed homes for people of all incomes. CEQA lawsuits have popped up in nearly every corner of the region. Recently in Livermore, a lawsuit to stall a 130-unit affordable housing complex lost on appeal, but delayed the project. Some environmentalists and neighborhood groups, citing their own studies, say those complaints are overblown. They argue the full scope of the law is necessary to ensure homes aren’t built in areas at high risk of wildfires and to limit gentrification, among other concerns. CEQA has been stretched beyond what the California legislature intended back in the late 1970s and 80s. In recent years, state lawmakers have passed legislation that exempts some housing projects from CEQA, including certain types of affordable housing, student housing, and homeless shelters. But opponents can file lawsuits challenging whether those projects meet the often-strict standards for exemption. That’s a big part of why housing advocates argue CEQA needs to be fundamentally reformed. That lawsuit attempted to limit how many students the university could enroll each year, putting the People’s Park project in jeopardy. The project isn’t exempt from CEQA because it started before the student housing bill passed, and is also a historical site. This isn’t the first time we mentioned CEQA and affordable housing. It most likely will not be the last time. Senator Scott Wiener has promised to introduce legislation to address this matter but he has not offered any specifics at this time. The CEQA ping pong ball is going to come down to whether the California Legislature is willing to make further reforms to the law and whether Governor Newsom will take a larger role in making that happen. Until then, expect to see more narrow legal challenges to housing projects across the region that probably will impact Santa Cruz County.
One of the most feared words to the home building industry is the famous 1970 California law — the California Environmental Quality Act (known simply as CEQA and pronounced “see-kwuh”). The state’s landmark environmental protection law affects a wide range of land-use decisions from the development of low-income housing to approval of other land-use permits — think transportation, energy solar, and wind infrastructure, and oil well permits.
Like any environmental legislation, the law is sacred to environmentalists. Neighborhood groups champion the law as a fundamental right to preserve natural habitats and protect public health. On the other side of the law; home builders, developers, and housing advocates have maintained that the law is ‘weaponized’ to stop or delay new construction — which at this time only exacerbates California’s chronic housing shortage.
After a state court last month ruled UC Berkeley violated the five-decade-old statute in its plans to build student and homeless housing at People’s Park, familiar calls for CEQA reform made headlines and sparked renewed discussion in Sacramento.
Governor Gavin Newsom blasted CEQA for allowing the state to be “held hostage by NIMBYs” and vowed to help change the law. Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco, told the Bay Area News Group he plans to introduce a bill “to deal with the specific problems this court case has created.”
This debate is not new. There have been many attempts to reform CEQA in the past decade but every effort has not gone very far. Signed into law in 1970 by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, CEQA requires public agencies to follow a complicated process for studying and disclosing how proposed projects could affect the environment and surrounding communities. In many cases, an agency must ensure plans address any “significant impacts” — from air quality and water supply to traffic.
Importantly — and sometimes noted to be controversial— the law also allows private residents and organizations to sue to force additional project analysis. Over the decades, state courts have issued rulings broadening the scope of the reviews. Sometimes, addressing the issues raised makes projects too expensive to continue.
Studies have found CEQA lawsuits are often filed by those seizing on precedent to stall multifamily housing projects. That can include environmental advocacy groups, competing developers, labor unions, and residents concerned about new homes in their neighborhoods.
Developers and housing advocates say the lengthy reviews and lawsuits often add crushing costs and delays. They contend CEQA, while well-intentioned, has become one of the main hurdles to building desperately needed homes for people of all incomes. CEQA lawsuits have popped up in nearly every corner of the region. Recently in Livermore, a lawsuit to stall a 130-unit affordable housing complex lost on appeal, but delayed the project.
Some environmentalists and neighborhood groups, citing their own studies, say those complaints are overblown. They argue the full scope of the law is necessary to ensure homes aren’t built in areas at high risk of wildfires and to limit gentrification, among other concerns.
CEQA has been stretched beyond what the California legislature intended back in the late 1970s and 80s. In recent years, state lawmakers have passed legislation that exempts some housing projects from CEQA, including certain types of affordable housing, student housing, and homeless shelters.
But opponents can file lawsuits challenging whether those projects meet the often-strict standards for exemption. That’s a big part of why housing advocates argue CEQA needs to be fundamentally reformed. That lawsuit attempted to limit how many students the university could enroll each year, putting the People’s Park project in jeopardy. The project isn’t exempt from CEQA because it started before the student housing bill passed, and is also a historical site.
This isn’t the first time we mentioned CEQA and affordable housing. It most likely will not be the last time. Senator Scott Wiener has promised to introduce legislation to address this matter but he has not offered any specifics at this time. The CEQA ping pong ball is going to come down to whether the California Legislature is willing to make further reforms to the law and whether Governor Newsom will take a larger role in making that happen. Until then, expect to see more narrow legal challenges to housing projects across the region that probably will impact Santa Cruz County.