Did Gov. Gavin Newsom go too far with CEQA reform?
Gov. Gavin Newsom sidestepped a lengthy political battle when he signed sweeping changes recently to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Much to the fury of San Diego environmentalists, Newsom attached the reforms to the state budget, making changes immediate. “This was a backdoor deal,” said Lisa Ross, chair of the Sierra Club’s San Diego branch.
RELATED: Will Democrats’ big changes to landmark California environmental law lower housing prices?
Newsom said the changes were necessary and needed quickly to remove hurdles to increase homebuilding.
The changes were celebrated by homebuilding advocates and some environmentalists who prefer increased building in urban areas, instead of the backcountry. Still, environmentalists have pushed back on the bill as an eroding of protections.
Question: Did Gov. Gavin Newsom go too far with CEQA reform?
Economists
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: It was long overdue and restructuring is badly needed. CEQA is one of the main reasons California has the nation’s most unaffordable housing, with median prices more than double the rest of the U.S. Actions using CEQA typically attempt to stop any building project, impose considerable delays and increase costs of construction. The reforms retain protections on natural and sensitive lands while exempting local government rezoning from CEQA requirements. Only Democrat political actors could make these actions happen.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
NO: Not only San Diego, but all of coastal California needs more housing. The changes will make it easier to build infill housing, which is vital, given the lack of developable land in coastal areas. The emphasis on infill housing will increase density and reduce urban sprawl. That has the environmental benefit of reducing commuting, which lessens air pollution and gasoline usage. It also protects land on the outskirts of metropolitan areas that might otherwise be developed for housing.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
NO: CEQA was an effective weapon in the hands of groups who wanted to stop or delay a project, often for reasons that had little to do with protecting the environment. Allowing decisions to be tied up for years of litigation and review is a dysfunctional system that contributes to California’s high cost of living. We need clear laws that allow everyone to anticipate the outcome and be able to get the job done.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: In fact, it would have been great if CEQA’s use as an anti-development weapon were further constrained. We have attorneys like Cory Briggs who have filed lawsuits tying up billions in development, supposedly on behalf of smart growth sounding organizations. Lawyers like Briggs end up getting payoff settlements that do nothing to help protect the environment. We need a permanent injunction to block self-dealing lawyers who abuse the system for their own benefit.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The CEQA reforms can be expected to change the environment for homebuilding in ways that will shorten project timelines, simplify construction planning and lessen the risk of litigation. The changes should spur the expansion of housing in urban areas that are close to jobs and transportation and make an impactful contribution toward addressing the housing crisis in California by narrowing the gap between housing demand and supply.
Ray Major, economist
NO: CEQA is broken and should be completely rethought. It has routinely been weaponized to block affordable housing, transit projects, homeless shelters, bike lanes and clean energy, often for political, not environmental motives. Eighty percent of CEQA suits target infill projects in urban areas and delay development by an average of 2 1/2 years increasing housing costs in California. Unfortunately, the new bills, AB 130 and SB 131, are selective and don’t go far enough to reform CEQA.
Executives
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: While I am always concerned about the environment, sometimes well-intentioned legislation goes too far, creating unintended consequences. CEQA increases housing and building costs dramatically, frequently delaying projects for years due to litigation – which also increases costs. I’m concerned this does not go far enough to lower the costs of hospitals and other important projects. But it’s a step in the right direction and we should be looking at other state laws that increase costs.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: CEQA reform is long overdue. By decades. While not a housing panacea, by expediting the process, creating more certainty, and not requiring a bunch of conditions, infill housing will be built at a faster rate. What is missing from this exemption is a focus on subdivisions, particularly in unincorporated areas. The state must eliminate the ability to sue proposed development under CEQA, an oft abused tactic by no-growth oppositionists under the guise of “environmentalism.”
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: California’s housing crisis stems from regulatory barriers, such as CEQA, which have long delayed construction. Despite the need for 3.5 million homes, only around 100,000 are built annually. Recent legislation, backed by Gov. Newsom, will streamline approvals by exempting many urban projects from environmental reviews. With nine of the nation’s least affordable cities, California lawmakers are now urgently trying to fix the affordability conundrum. The governor is jumping in solely for political reasons.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: California housing supply is short 2.5 million units. Newsom’s streamlining of CEQA requirements retains most environmental protections but imposes realistic timelines and limits external delays that substantially add time and cost to urban infill projects. Environmentally, we should encourage growth within cities and preserve existing habitats from suburban sprawl. While the budget maneuver upset the strictest process and environmental constituencies, the soaring cost of housing and reluctance of developers required decisive action to end procedural gridlock.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: CEQA reform was long overdue. For decades, it was frequently used to delay or cancel projects. Reforming legislation, trimming red tape, and reducing lawsuits can streamline homebuilding, ideally lowering costs for builders and buyers. Still, reforms must avoid overbuilding that could harm community character or strain infrastructure. Even with changes to CEQA, thoughtful planning and a focus on quality of life must remain priorities.
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: These changes were way overdue. Any legislation that is abused and results in excessive litigation should be reviewed for updating on a regular basis. The San Diego world is changing far too quickly for it to function under antiquated thinking. Our communities will be better with CEQA reform, as it was with PAGA reform.
Not participating this week:
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020