Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills into law Monday night that would amend the historic California Environmental Quality Act in an attempt to ease new development in the state, bringing the Golden State’s struggle between environmental advocacy and a deepening housing crisis to a head.
The governor’s signing was contingent upon the passing of two pieces of legislation, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which were crucial in approving a projected $320 billion yearly state budget deal. Together, they will exempt a wide range of infrastructure and housing development projects from CEQA, a 1970 legislation requiring government organizations to assess and lessen the environmental effects of their operations.
According to Newsom, the laws will remove long-standing obstacles to development, accelerating output, reducing expenses, and enabling the state to solve its housing shortage.
The governor said in a statement that today’s bill is a game changer that will have an impact on future generations. According to development experts, it is one of the biggest changes to CEQA in its fifty-five-year history.
However, environmental organizations strongly objected to its passage, claiming it represents a broad reversal of crucial safeguards for the state’s most vulnerable residents, wildlife, and ecosystems.
A coalition of over 100 organizations sent a letter to the governor ahead of Monday’s decision, calling the bill the worst anti-environmental legislation California has seen in recent memory. At a time when Californians are dealing with unprecedented federal attacks on their lives and livelihoods, it marks an unparalleled retreat to the state’s basic environmental and community protections.
California
In order to expedite housing construction in California, Governor Gavin Newsom linked the state budget to the enactment of legislation lowering environmental review requirements.
The purpose of CEQA was to increase public participation and transparency in land-use decisions throughout California. The measures have been praised by outside experts for requiring governmental agencies to take into account and deal with the environmental effects of their initiatives, as well as for maintaining ecosystems, streams, and picturesque views, as well as for protecting community health across the state.
However, CEQA has also come under heavy fire over the years, partly due to the fact that its onerous environmental impact reports have caused housing and high-speed rail projects to be postponed or even abandoned.
Some of the issues will be addressed by AB 130 and SB 131. In particular, the Assembly measure will remove the majority of urban infill development from CEQA, which means that environmental evaluation will no longer be necessary for the majority of housing projects constructed in areas that have already been developed.
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the measure’s lead, stated that the Senate version will exempt an even wider range of projects from CEQA review, including high-speed rail segments and projects focused on water infrastructure, electric vehicle manufacture, and wildfire mitigation.
In a statement, Wiener said, “These bills remove significant process obstacles and red tape, enabling us to finally begin addressing these shortages and securing an affordable California and a brighter future.”
Those opposed to the legislation included Sierra Club California senior policy strategist Jakob Evans. According to him, it coincides with the federal government’s rollback of environmental regulations, including certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which served as the blueprint for CEQA.
“At a time when we’re also losing protections nationwide, this is California deregulating a strong transparency law in a completely opaque process,” Evans said.
Homelessness & Housing
According to experts, two legislation signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom will significantly alter the California Environmental Quality Act for the first time in many years. Lawmakers anticipate these reforms will spur a surge in public infrastructure and housing projects.
The main issues raised by opponents are exemptions for advanced manufacturing facilities, which might permit nuclear power plants, semiconductor plants, industrial factories, and other organizations handling high-risk hazardous materials to be built in communities that are already at risk without first undergoing an environmental review.
Particularly semiconductor plants have been linked to chemical solvent-induced groundwater contamination; Santa Clara County in Silicon Valley has more active Superfund sites than any other county in the nation, with 23. Opponents of AB 130 and SB 131 argued that since the facilities are already exempt from NEPA, they would undergo almost no environmental evaluation if they were excluded from CEQA.
According to a statement from Asha Sharma, state policy manager at the Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability, SB 131 will repeal decades of environmental regulations in the name of accelerating industrial development at great expense to the environment and public health. The question is not whether a public health calamity will happen, but rather when it will happen.
The legislation’s provisions that would permit agencies to omit certain staff notes and internal agency communications from requests for public records also alarmed opponents, who claimed that this could enable government workers to selectively disclose information and hide project risks or concerns.
Furthermore, they pointed out that the law does not safeguard endangered and sensitive species, which could leave hundreds of thousands of acres of deserts, woodlands, chaparral, and coastal regions vulnerable to largely unregulated development.
The state’s natural history and distinctive biodiversity will be severely damaged if a large area of development is exempted without taking into account habitat for endangered species, according to Frances Tinney, an attorney with the charity Center for Biological Diversity.
In addition to endangered species, low-income communities, communities of color, and other groups that have historically been disproportionately affected by pollution and other environmental harms may also suffer under the new regulations, according to Raquel Mason, senior legislative manager with the California Environmental Justice Alliance.
Mason stated in a statement that the Legislature’s passage of this law made it quite evident that our safety, our health, and our ability to influence decisions that affect our lives are all negotiable. Industrial development will be ushered in by this measure without giving our communities a chance to push for the necessary safeguards. And without any involvement from the general people, all of this was done behind closed doors.
California
Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism about the extent of California’s financial issues, which is reflected in the spending plan, which displays resistance to making drastic cuts to alleviate a $12 billion budget shortfall anticipated in the next year.
In fact, the origin of the law worried a number of opponents. The law was rushed. There was little time for comments or changes after SB 131 was introduced on Friday and passed on Monday.
Furthermore, it was unusual for the governor to use the bills as a sway in the state budget agreement. If the Senate bill hadn’t been passed, the move—sometimes called a poison pill—would have rendered the entire funding plan void, enabling Newsom to pursue his goal of speeding up development.
Newsom expressed his desire to avoid having to link the state budget’s future to legislation once more during a press conference on Monday night, when he signed the bills.
Newsom stated, “I’m not attempting to set any precedent here.” I simply believe that the state is experiencing an unparalleled affordability crisis that is only getting worse.
Housing advocates backed the governor, arguing that the bills were necessary changes to solve the state’s housing issue.
Corey Smith, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, said in a statement that AB 130 and SB 131 guarantee that the state’s environmental assessment process functions better for fairness, climate action, and housing. Too frequently, California’s present CEQA framework is abused to prevent the kind of cheap, sustainable, and infill housing that our communities sorely need.
In a statement, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who spearheaded AB 130, said that this is the long-awaited step that will prevent CEQA from being used as a weapon against housing.
We’re making significant progress in constructing much-needed homes more quickly, fairly, and confidently with AB 130. “This is how we turn California’s housing goals from promise to reality and what our working class families deserve,” Wicks added.
Environmental organizations, however, stated that they are not done battling. In the coming weeks, they encouraged lawmakers to pass follow-up or clean-up legislation to address their numerous issues and provide clarification.
This report was written by Liam Dillon and Taryn Luna, both Times staff writers.
