For the second time in two years, the California Legislature handed a one-off regulation to bypass the California Environmental High quality Act. And this time, the optics aren’t good: In June, the Legislature exempted its personal new workplace constructing undertaking from CEQA.
The brand new regulation handed rapidly. Even Sen. John Laird of Santa Cruz, one of many state’s main environmentalists, expressed concern about the way in which CEQA was driving delays and subsequently the price of the undertaking, which is kind of the identical concern that builders have been expressing ceaselessly about CEQA.
The state workplace constructing exemption comes on the heels of an identical motion final yr that saved a UC Berkeley dorm and residence undertaking alive on the positioning of Individuals’s Park, regardless of a court docket discovering that noisy college students within the new residences would possibly represent a big environmental affect that required CEQA evaluation and mitigation.
Everyone likes to hate the California Environmental High quality Act — besides the environmentalists, neighborhood teams and unions that use it and infrequently abuse it. These teams have sufficient political energy to create an everlasting stalemate in Sacramento over whether or not and tips on how to reform CEQA. Minus rational reform, the Legislature exempts tasks separately, punching holes within the regulation — let’s name it the Swiss cheese strategy to public coverage. Legislators ought to have extra braveness.
CEQA was handed in 1970, as environmentalism took off. It was carried within the Legislature by a Republican — Assemblymember (and later Gov.) Pete Wilson — and it was signed by a Republican — Gov. Ronald Reagan. The regulation doesn’t shield the atmosphere immediately. Fairly, it requires cities and counties to research and reduce the seemingly environmental impact of recent improvement. It additionally offers nearly anyone standing to problem that evaluation and the mitigation effort in court docket, so long as the lawsuit is filed inside 90 days of the native authorities’s “closing” allowing choice.
CEQA’s proponents argue that they’re simply attempting to make tasks higher, which frequently does occur. However CEQA gives numerous alternatives for third events to sluggish issues down and to attempt to kill proposed tasks for a lot of causes — easy NIMBYism, for instance, or competitors amongst rival builders — that don’t have anything to do with actual environmental issues. And it can provide unions leverage to extract labor concessions from builders and their industrial tenants that isn’t simply obtainable in any other case.
It’s troublesome to place a quantity on the price of CEQA, although one current research confirmed that in 2020, about 40% of the proposed housing items in California have been topic to some form of CEQA lawsuits. Clearly lots of these items have been constructed ultimately — not all CEQA lawsuits are profitable — however the litigation slows issues down and provides expense and uncertainty to the method.
Because of the efforts of state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), some reasonably priced housing tasks now get a free move from CEQA — so long as they use union labor. Yard “accent dwelling items” are exempt. Different infill housing tasks — new housing on vacant heaps and underused heaps in present communities — generally qualify for an exemption, too, and cities are utilizing these potential exemptions extra usually. Some tasks designated by the state as essential additionally get faster decision in court docket, as was the case lately with the Websites Reservoir in Colusa County.
To a sure extent, the Swiss cheese strategy in these circumstances is smart. Incremental change is simpler than wholesale reform. Nevertheless it has additionally led to very large inequities.
in case you’re constructing properties for school college students, you will get a CEQA break. But when UC or Cal State needs to construct lecture rooms and labs for those self same college students, chances are high they’ll have to arrange an extended and costly environmental affect report. And, in fact, in case you’re constructing properties for the scholars after they graduate, you don’t get a CEQA break — except you’re constructing in sure areas or for sure earnings teams.
And whereas giant infrastructure tasks just like the Websites Reservoir could qualify for streamlined court docket evaluation, it’s on the governor’s discretion. There are not any set standards that mechanically fast-track a undertaking.
It’s time to cease punching holes in CEQA and repair it as a substitute. The state ought to streamline CEQA evaluation for tasks that meet California’s coverage objectives on local weather, in addition to assembly native plans and ordinances that help these objectives. A constant normal must be utilized in each case.
Setting requirements would additionally assist to finish the usage of CEQA as blackmail. If environmental teams, neighborhood associations or unions need land-use planning to assist them meet their objectives, they need to interact in that battle when the land-use insurance policies are being made, not on a project-by-project foundation utilizing CEQA as a cudgel.
Typical knowledge would counsel that such reforms are politically troublesome if not not possible to realize. However what number of holes does the Legislature should punch in CEQA — both for the state’s personal tasks or these of politically influential mates — earlier than the Swiss cheese strategy leaves the state’s development and improvement insurance policies in shreds?
William Fulton is editor and writer of “California Planning & Growth Report.” He’s a former mayor of Ventura and planning director of San Diego.
