The Brief

In one of its most controversial decisions, California’s air board voted tonight to revamp a key climate change program, which could increase gas prices in a state already facing some of the nation’s steepest costs at the pump.

The California Air Resources Board approved major changes to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program aimed at encouraging use of cleaner transportation fuels with financial incentives as the state moves toward phasing out gasoline and diesel.

The board’s 12-2 vote tonight followed about seven hours of comments from more than 100 people and four hours of discussion by board members at its meeting, held in Riverside.

State Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, told the board during public comments that the possible impact on gas prices will harm working class Californians.

“We’re the hard working men and women here in the state of California. We build homes, we fix roads, and we serve you when you dine out,” Lackey said. “To do this, we must drive hours each day to work to put food on the table for our families. This measure before you will cause us financial pain.”

At the heart of the controversy is the question: How do you wean Californians off gasoline and diesel — which is critical for cleaning the state’s dirty air and reducing its role in the climate crisis — without substantially raising the cost to consumers?

Many air board members referred to an urgency to push for cleaner fuels in California because of the outcome of the Tuesday election, which gave Donald Trump, who has denied the existence of climate change and targeted California environmental programs, the presidency and Republicans control of the U.S. Senate.

The new rule’s potential effects on California fuel prices are largely unknown. The air board said today that oil companies typically already pass 8 to 10 cents per gallon of costs on to consumers because of the state’s fuel standard.

The board also passed a resolution tonight requiring an annual review of the rule’s impact on gas prices. If the changes “ultimately accelerate cost burdens on California consumers,” the board said in the resolution that it will consider amending them.

Eric Guerra, a Sacramento city council member who was appointed to the air board by Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the air board must prioritize public health but that support of working families is equally important, so he called for frequent monitoring of the possible impact on gas prices.

Concerns about gas prices have fueled the debate surrounding the board’s proposal since its release last December. But much of the agency’s revamp of its fuel rules focuses on intricate disputes among environmentalists, oil companies, dairy farms that use manure to produce fuels, biofuel companies and other low-carbon fuel providers.

Environmentalists and consumer advocates opposed the new rules, warning the changes will boost alternative fuels — such as biofuels made from cow manure or soy beans — that may have limited environmental upsides, and will allow oil companies to stay in business because they can buy credits or switch to producing those fuels.

“It is not based on science, and it will undermine environmental justice and the rapid transition to zero emissions that we need more than ever today,” Nina Robertson, a senior attorney with Earth Justice told the board. “It represents a grab bag of giveaways to polluting special interests that have turned what once was a program for climate progress into a piggy bank for their false climate solutions.”

Electric car advocates and a variety of biofuel company representatives supported the new rules, saying they will provide billions of dollars in funds and incentives to move California toward eliminating carbon that warms the planet.

Tonight’s vote was the culmination of a debate over changes in a fuel standard that has roiled the air board for longer than a year, becoming a political flashpoint in recent weeks.

The program, which has existed since 2011, is a $2-billion credit trading system that requires fuels sold in California to become progressively cleaner, while giving companies financial incentives to produce less-polluting fuels, such as biofuels made from soybeans or cow manure.

The amendments approved today will require gasoline, diesel and other fuels in California to meet stricter standards for greenhouse gases while changing how credits are awarded for specific lower-carbon fuels.

Air board Chair Liane Randolph told CalMatters in an interview last month that the low-carbon fuels program is “one of California’s most significant and most effective climate programs.”

At the meeting today, Randolph suggested the new rules are critical, given how California’s climate and air pollution programs could come under strain from the new Trump administration.

“We know that in order to be successful in addressing climate change, we must continue to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and invest in low-carbon energy,” said Randolph, who was appointed to the board by Newsom. “Let’s be realistic, the tools in our (climate) toolbox may become much more limited going forward.”

But the debate resulted in two rare public defections among the 14 voting members of the Air Resources Board, who often unanimously approve major rules for cleaning up air pollution and cutting greenhouse gases.

Air board members Dean Florez, a former state senator from the Central Valley, and Diane Takvorian, an environmental justice advocate, voted no.

“Obviously, I’m a no, mostly about the environmental issues that were brought up, but also this whole discussion about gas,” Florez said.

Takvorian criticized how large dairy farms, which often pollute low-income farm communities, will benefit from the state’s low-carbon fuel credits for their manure digesters for 30 years.

Florez said he is concerned that oil companies support the program and “that should give the board a little bit of pause.” Their products are a main cause of climate change.

“I listened to the testimony today, and I’ve been watching most of the industry tweets, and they all seem very giddy about the current program … that kind of worries me, because they kind of get to play both sides in some sense,” he said.

Florez warned in a CalMatters opinion piece earlier this week that the program is flawed, that it could impose financial hardships on people, and that the air board was not transparent about the costs.

“Such increases would affect essential goods and services, as transportation costs ripple through the economy, impacting food prices, housing affordability and more. For Californians already stretched thin by escalating rents and inflation, these additional costs could become overwhelming, pushing many into deeper financial insecurity,” wrote Florez, who is the state Senate-appointed member of the air board. His current term ends next month.

Air board member Hector De La Torre said oil companies are dishonest when they blame rising gas prices on the climate program. He said it was “a false narrative period” and blamed oil companies for price fluctuations.

“We’re not wildly fluctuating … we project out for many years. We let them know what we’re going to do, we let them know how it’s going to play out,” said De La Torre, a former Assembly member who was appointed to the board by the state Assembly. “So let us be clear about why we have the wild fluctuations in California on gas prices. It is not us. It is not the Legislature.”

Florez, however, disagreed. “How we can, in all good conscience, say that it’s all these other factors and somehow we’re not a cause.”

A gas price fight

Energy experts and air board staff say the fuel standard raises the cost of producing high-polluting gasoline and diesel for the California market because oil companies must buy credits from lower-carbon fuel producers, or produce the fuels themselves.

Those costs can drive up prices at the pump when companies pass them on to customers, although it’s difficult to predict by how much. Some companies might produce cleaner fuels themselves, potentially profiting from the incentives, while others may buy credits on the market.

In an initial assessment released last year, the air board projected that the proposed new standard could potentially raise the per-gallon price of diesel by 59 cents and for gasoline, 47 cents, in 2025. Air board officials have since disavowed that estimate, writing last month that the analysis “should not be misconstrued as a prediction of the future credit price nor as a direct impact on prices at the pump.”

A separate report, released last month by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, predicted that the program’s changes could increase the cost of gas by 85 cents a gallon through 2030.

The fight over the fuels standard has shown how the state’s ambitious agenda for addressing climate change can be the subject of ire if it threatens to make fossil fuels more expensive. Californians paid an average of $4.52 a gallon today, second only to Hawaiians.

The vote came three days after a presidential election marked by concerns over inflation. State Republicans, in particular, have slammed the program as misguided, saying it piles on costs at a time when affordability is a top concern.

An analysis by California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst found the average California household spent about $3,200 a year on gasoline in 2021 and 2022, but some families — typically those with below-average incomes — spent more, about $6,150 a year.

“If gas prices would have been (10 cents per gallon) higher during the period we reviewed, the typical household’s gasoline spending would have increased by about $60 per year” and $130 per year for the households most reliant on gasoline, the Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote.

Raising the cost of diesel could have sweeping effects on the economy, since it fuels trucks and trains that carry goods, from food to toys, that Californians rely on and buy.

Tim Taylor, chief legislative advocate for the National Federation of Independent Business, said the state’s small business owners are concerned about that ripple effect on the economy.

“We’re not opposed to the greenhouse gas emission goals of the state, but the choice today is not one of endorsing zero emissions…it’s one of subsidizing biofuels,” Taylor said.

Small businesses worry about “the potentially massive gasoline price hikes, and the adverse impacts those increases will have on their businesses, and the rippling effect it will have on all Californians without actually improving the air quality of the state,” he said.

The Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, has supported the program, with many of its members producing some of the new fuels the program has spurred. However, they argued against many proposed changes because they might increase costs or disadvantage some companies. Chevron also warned against what the changes might do to costs in the state.

“At a time when fuel prices are under significant scrutiny and demand in California frequently outstrips supply, regulators should be careful about adding new measures that restrict supply,” Don Gilstrap, Chevron’s manager of fuels regulations wrote to the board last month.

Millions of tons of carbon eliminated

Under the California Climate Crisis Act, the state must slash its greenhouse gases to reach net-zero greenhouse gases by 2045. Cars, trucks and other transportation are the number one source and the changes to the fuels standard are meant to prevent California from falling behind on its ambitious climate goals, which are already at risk.

The standard has helped the state clean up air pollution and cut climate-warming gases, according to the air board. Through 2022, the program has eliminated 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The air board’s changes are expected to reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent gases by 558 million metric tons through 2046, according to its initial economic assessment.

Those predicted reductions are equal to what more than 120 million cars emit on average in a year, though experts have told CalMatters the board’s estimates could be overstatements because the carbon footprint from some renewable diesel might be more than reported.

The program has been particularly successful in shifting the fuel market for medium and heavy-duty trucks, and over the course of 13 years, the program has displaced 25 billion gallons of petroleum fuels, according to the board’s economic assessment.

The previous standard’s target was reducing the climate impact of transportation fuels by 20% between 2010 and 2030. The changes impose tougher “carbon intensity” targets, tightening the greenhouse gas reductions by about 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045.

Through the state’s fuel standard, California has become a proving ground for cleaner fuels. But so many companies are producing them now that the value of credits has nosedived, dropping to an average of $68.12 last week compared to a weekly high in February 2020 of $211.02. The credits have built up to the point where some companies can buy their way out of producing cleaner fuels. To avoid that, regulators tightened the standard so that companies have incentives to burn through their excess credits.

Laura Renger, chair of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, emphasized the low-carbon fuel program’s importance in advancing the state’s electric car market. “It will bring critical funding,” she said. Electrify America and several car manufacturers also voiced their support.

“We have estimated that between now and 2035, the utilities would get about $4.8 billion” from the program to invest in electrification of cars and zero-emission trucks and buses, much of it in low-income communities, air board deputy executive officer Rajinder Sahota.

Biofuels: Are they better?

The fuel standard has notably driven a surge in biofuel production, derived from plant and animal waste. In the Bay Area, two companies are shifting their refineries to biofuels: a joint venture between Marathon and Neste is repurposing the Marathon Martinez refinery, while Phillips 66 is converting its Rodeo refinery into a biofuels-focused facility.

Bobby Thomas, general manager of the Rodeo refinery, told the board today that the program has helped “embrace and promote the production of lower carbon fuels in California.”

However, some experts are skeptical about the benefits. The University of Pennsylvania report estimates that about 80% of the credits issued to date — worth more than $17.7 billion, have gone to biofuels. While the air board says biofuels reduce emissions compared to traditional fossil fuels, experts say the results are mixed.

Renewable diesel fuels, like ones made from soybeans, also have unintended environmental consequences, including deforestation and food system disruptions. The board imposed limits on diesel produced from soybean oil, canola oil and sunflower oil, but some say the changes don’t go far enough.

“A dynamic that has simply not gotten the attention that it deserves is what it means, ethically and morally, that California is celebrating making fuel from food,” said Gary Hughes, Americas Program Coordinator for the group Biofuelwatch. “This is a trend that’s particularly disturbing with all the evidence about how these products are not a climate solution.”

The board directed the staff to convene a forum in a year to collect the latest science on the effects of biofuels and find ways to avoid any harm on resources and food supply that they may cause.

Another debate over new biofuels has sparked tension around their effects on California’s low-income, polluted communities of color. The flashpoint is the phaseout of climate credits for dairy farms’ cow poop.

California’s strategy has leaned heavily on dairy industry incentives, offering grants for digesters — systems that trap methane from manure — and valuable fuel standard credits for the resulting natural gas. With dairy and livestock responsible for nearly half of the state’s methane emissions, capturing these gases not only keeps them out of the atmosphere but also turns waste into renewable fuel.

The changes will phase out these dairy credits, starting in 30 years for existing projects and in 20 years for those built before 2030. Environmental groups wanted a faster discontinuation, arguing that the credits prop up industrial dairy farms that pollute low-income, rural communities in the Central Valley.

In response, the air board directed the staff to prepare a plan to regular methane emissions from dairy farms and other livestock.

California could create its own multi-billion-dollar science and health research agency under a bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom Wednesday, helping to fill a gap left by the politicization of science under the second Trump administration. Voters will decide in a year and a half whether to fund the idea, which the University of California has championed.

Approved by state lawmakers at a time when federal science funding has become increasingly unpredictable, the bill places a $7.5 billion bond measure on the March 2028 ballot to pay for the creation of the California Foundation for Science and Health Research. The new state agency would provide grants and loans for projects in public health, climate science, agriculture and other areas. Panels of scientists would review proposals, and the agency would develop rules allowing the state to share in some of the profits from inventions made with its support.

“Scientific advancements are curing and preventing diseases, improving the lives of people living with chronic conditions, protecting our communities from wildfires, lowering the cost of food, and powering our economy,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, said in a statement. “We cannot allow the federal government to throw away that hope for a better future.”

Newsom joined Wiener to sign the bill Wednesday atop the Golden Gate Bridge, a landmark built with voter-approved bond money in the 1930s that his press office described as a symbol of California ingenuity. He said the proposed science agency “does the opposite of what Donald Trump is doing (and) will allow us to double down on what makes this state great.”

It was a dramatic comeback for a measure that almost died in the Legislature earlier this year, when a more ambitious $23 billion version of the plan failed to make it onto the November ballot despite bipartisan support.

Researchers from UC Berkeley and elsewhere had joined with UC leadership to lobby for the bond, hosting rallies and inviting lawmakers to a science fair highlighting projects that had seen their funding stalled or canceled by the federal government.

There were plenty to choose from: The Trump administration canceled nearly $2 billion in research grants to the University of California beginning in early 2025, later acknowledging in court that officials searched for keywords such as “health equity” and “sexual orientation” in order to decide what to cut. While a court order restored much of the money, the National Science Foundation has since slowed grantmaking nationwide, and President Trump has proposed giving political appointees more power to veto National Institutes of Health grants that don’t align with his agenda.

This spring, the National Science Foundation canceled an additional $21 million in grants to UC Berkeley, accusing the projects’ lead researchers of accepting foreign funding without disclosing it, a charge some of those scientists denied. UC President James Milliken has called the disruption of federal research funding “one of the gravest threats to the University of California in our 157-year history.”

Lawmakers nevertheless declined to move the science bond forward this spring amid worries about competing demands on state funds – including a housing bond on the November ballot and the possible need to backfill other federal cuts. But negotiations among bill supporters, legislative leaders and the governor over the summer led to the scaled-down version that Newsom signed Wednesday.

Along with the University of California, California State University, private universities, and independent labs would all be potentially eligible for grants from the new state fund. A $7.5 billion state fund would not by itself make up for the instability in federal grants – the UC alone received nearly $5 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2024-25. But supporters say it could be especially helpful to researchers in fields such as climate science that are critical to the state’s future but have run afoul of Trump administration priorities.

___

Berkeleyside partners with the nonprofit newsroom Open Campus on higher education coverage.

___

This story was originally published by Berkeleyside and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

A winter of potentially devastating weather driven by what scientists predict to be a massive El Niño event could strain many of California’s TK-12 public schools, experts say, likely damaging aging structures and forcing school closures.

The southern and central parts of the state are expected to be hit hard along with coastal areas, as they were in 2023 when mid-March storms forced the closure of at least 178 schools. Only this time, weather scientists predict El Niño could stress levees to the max, and even bring potential for tornadoes, along with torrential rains, mudslides, storm-driven tides and heavy winds.

While district superintendents in especially vulnerable areas are already planning ahead, some schools may be ill-equipped to handle punishing weather. At least 59 California school districts are seeking voter approval for bonds in the November election, and have identified the need to repair or replace “leaky,” “dilapidated” and “decaying” roofs, an EdSource examination of local ballot language shows.

Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency on Sept. 21, ordering pumps and sandbags to be stockpiled near vulnerable areas, among other precautions. Federal flood data show roughly 20% of the state’s schools are located within flood plains. In 2023, heavy storms flooded schools in Alameda and Merced counties as well as one near Watsonville, where a levee ruptured.

“Climate-driven El Niño conditions could mean months of dangerous weather, heavy rain, strong winds, deep mountain snow and flooding,” Caroline Thomas Jacobs, director of the California Office of Emergency Services, said at a news conference, adding that the public shouldn’t underestimate “the power of water.”

Preparing for a severe El Niño

As predictions of severe weather spread, there isn’t a school superintendent in an area that the El Niño is predicted to impact “that hasn’t been thinking about this for weeks already,” said Scott Borba, executive director of the California Small School Districts Association. Many small districts have aging buildings — some as many as 75 years old, Borba said.

“You’ve got leaks and dry rot and all the things that a super wet winter is going to just exacerbate,” he said.

While district leaders work with other local agencies during weather emergencies, they are largely on their own when making major decisions, such as whether to cancel school, Borba said.

“Sometimes you have some county office of emergency services’ support. But when it comes to making that decision, that decision lies with the superintendent alone,” he said.

One small school district leader who may soon be making such decisions is Raven Coit, the superintendent and principal of the 61-student TK-8 Peninsula Union School District on the south end of the Northern Humboldt Peninsula in Humboldt County. It’s perhaps the most isolated coastal school in California, roughly 600 yards from the ocean. Dunes often serve as a play area for students.

Coit took steps this year to try to limit storm damage. She had trees cut back and used money saved by deferring other projects to complete much-needed roof repairs. “There was a big storm that caused leaking. I’m proud to say that it won’t rain inside this year,” she said.

But the likelihood of impacts from El Niño remains. The school’s “in a vulnerable spot,” she said. Flooding could cut off access to the only road leading to the school. There’s a backup generator that she’s “trying to figure out if I can make it work.”

While nearly all the school’s students live nearby, many teachers do not, and may not be able to get to work. Local high school students are bussed to Arcata on the mainland — if buses can get through.

She said the school could also turn to remote learning in a crisis.

How El Niño may impact schools in coastal areas

One of the things that makes El Niños so dangerous in coastal areas like Coit’s is that they are known in California for also causing rising tides known as Kelvin waves.

They are slow moving, and can raise sea levels for weeks. Some could reach shore as early as October. At the same time, an astronomical phenomenon known as super king tides is expected from November to January, Danial Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, said in an online presentation.

“That would probably bring record-breaking coastal flooding this year.”

A worst-case scenario “would be an El Niño Kelvin, plus a peak king tide, plus a significant storm,” he said.

A Southern California school leader of one of those districts said it’s bracing for storms.

Don Austin, superintendent of Laguna Beach Unified School District in Orange County, said that living on the coast, “I have seen our beaches get washed away with recent storms and homes destroyed.”

His schools have “roof leaks and other issues that will be heavily impacted by an El Niño,” he said.

The most impactful weather-driven damage to a California school in recent years was in March 2023 when a broken river levee caused the Pajaro Middle school near Watsonville to flood, along with the heavily Mexican immigrant and farmworker community it serves.

The school reopened in 2024. A complete replacement of the entire levee by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could take a decade, officials said.

Mark Strudley, executive director of the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, said the agency is spending roughly $1 million to strengthen the levee, and that the breach that led to the school flooding has been permanently repaired. El Niño, he said, is the obvious concern, and the work is aimed at protecting the town of Pajaro and the middle school.

Leaders of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District remain concerned about El Niño, but haven’t identified a temporary site to move students to if the school floods again, according to Peggy Pughe, the district’s executive director of teaching and learning.

Asked what the district officials are doing based on their experience with the 2023 floods and the threat of El Niño, Pughe said they are “canvassing local neighborhoods, encouraging families and residents to sign up for emergency alert services.”

Data journalist Daniel J. Willis and staff writer Emma Gallegos contributed to this story.

In August, the Trump administration announced a significant overhaul of the Head Start program, leaving early childhood providers in Los Angeles concerned about their ability to serve low-income children.

The proposed rules strip Head Start of many of its regulations and impose new requirements, like teaching in English only.

The public comment period ends Oct. 6 — after which the administration could finalize the new rule. It’s unclear when that will happen, and experts say it could be caught up in litigation.

Why does the administration want to change the rules?

Federal officials said the deregulation would provide for more local flexibility.

An administration statement said the moves reduce both regulatory burden and administrative costs, allowing for more available slots — as many as 236,000 Head Start slots nationwide — and save $2.2 billion.

“We are removing unnecessary bureaucracy, strengthening nutrition and physical health, trusting parents and local communities, and opening Head Start to hundreds of thousands more children,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services. “That’s how we renew the promise of Head Start for the next generation.”

Earlier in the administration, the White House proposed to cut Head Start entirely from the budget but reversed course.

The case against the proposed rules

Head Start providers worry the new rules, if implemented, could be the start of whittling down a program that provides early education and other wraparound services for about 70,000 children across the state.

“It's a holistic program really designed to lift kids out of poverty and to set them up for future success, so what's at risk when the standards are changed are a lot of those elements and guidelines that support the program quality,” said Melanee Cottrill, executive director of Head Start California.

For example, Head Start provides support services beyond education, like developmental screenings and dental care, which would no longer be required under the Trump administration’s plan. The new rules would also require documentation beyond self-attestation for families experiencing homelessness.

“Putting a lot of documentation requirements in place would be very onerous for people who are in really difficult circumstances,” said Donna Sneeringer, president of the Child Care Resource Center, which serves about 2,000 kids in its Head Start programs in northern L.A. County. The program opened up a Head Start center at a family homeless shelter last year.

The administration’s proposal also sets a 5% cap on administrative costs, down from the current 15%, which Sneeringer said will be hard for nonprofits to implement.

“I think many Head Start operators are really going to struggle to even keep their programs open,” she said.

Many California college students struggle to find affordable housing. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of four bills on Wednesday meant to speed up the process of building student housing and reduce the cost for developers.

Newsom also signed a law earlier this month giving former foster youth and unhoused students priority for student housing. The law also allows those students to defer their student housing payment until they receive their financial aid.

“It’s really about a package of laws to try and handle the demand that exists for students,” said Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat from Chula Vista and author of one of the laws, Assembly Bill 1732, the marquee bill of the package that exempts student housing projects from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Additionally, the laws include incentives for developers to build affordable housing. They also reduce obstacles to student housing projects by exempting them from local ordinances and blocking frivolous lawsuits.

Shaun Chilton, president of the Associated Students of Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo, said he’s heard from students who say it’s difficult to find housing, and they sometimes cram themselves together four to a room.

With the limited housing, San Luis Obispo can be an expensive place to live. A five bedroom, 2,400-square-foot house near Cuesta College costs $12,000 a month to rent, according to rent.com, which also lists one-bedroom studios for $1,900 to $2,600 a month.

“We see a lot of uncomfortable housing situations at ridiculously high price points,” Chilton said.

All five laws were sponsored by the Student Housing Coalition. Four of them help developers overcome barriers to building more affordable student housing units. The coalition started in 2022 by what outgoing coalition chair Kate Rodgers described as a group of student “housing nerds” who saw a need for a pro-housing movement.

Student housing is “kinda seen as small potatoes” compared to larger statewide development problems, according to Rodgers, who is now the legislative director of California YIMBY in Sacramento.

“Our counterpoint as an organization to that is, the University of California and the California State University are far and away the largest public institutions that house people,” Rodgers said.

Laws from 2025 are moving housing projects along

Both on- and off-campus student housing projects have faced multiple delays in the past due to zoning restrictions and lawsuits. Rodgers identified several projects where new laws have helped developments avoid similar issues.

According to Rodgers, a UC Santa Barbara development that is underway did not have to meet California Coastal Commission minimum parking requirements due to a law signed in 2025 compelling the commission to defer to state or private colleges and universities when determining parking needs for residents of their housing projects.

Construction began in June and the university plans to move students in by fall 2028.

In another example, Santa Monica College and the Student Homes Coalition co-sponsored a successful bill in 2025 exempting California community colleges from local zoning requirements for student housing projects on land owned or leased by the college.

Now the college is moving forward with a project to house 750 students. It will be developed through a public-private partnership between Santa Monica Community College District and Michael’s Student Living.

Additionally, the San Bernardino Community College District utilized the same new law when it filed for exemption from local zoning laws for its Legacy Village housing development. The project includes 452 student beds, 180 workforce housing units, and retail space.

Rodgers said Student Homes Coalition’s core strategy is to work with developers every step of the way when putting together bills to address developer-side construction costs and delays. “We do not want to be spending our time on something that is not going to produce units,” she said.

Student housing now exempt from CEQA review

As part of the latest round of new laws, the Student and Faculty Housing Opportunity Act adds public colleges and universities to a law passed last year allowing CEQA exemptions for affordable housing developments. However, because public university properties are under the jurisdiction of the state, they didn’t qualify for the exemption under that law.

CEQA requires local and state agencies to provide a report assessing the potential impacts of a large project on the environment and take steps to lessen those impacts. Developers can be sued over allegedly inadequate findings or mitigation measures in these reports, which can slow down or halt projects entirely. The exemption aims to streamline affordable housing projects.

Alvarez told CalMatters that this bill in particular is intended to apply to on-campus housing projects at universities with adequate capacity.

“But some universities don’t have on-campus capacity, so they will be allowed to utilize this tool to streamline the construction of [housing] off campus,” he said.

Numerous organizations and individuals supported the bill, including California YIMBY, Student Homes Coalition and the University of California Student Association.

Kai Wang, a first-year political science major at UC Davis, spoke in support of the bill before members of the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development on April 13.

“Higher education should be opening doors, not leaving students searching for one,” Wang said.

Even with the CEQA exemption, developments remain open to litigation that can slow or stop them. Democratic state Sen. Angelique Ashby of Sacramento wrote Senate Bill 916, which will help prevent bad-faith lawsuits against student housing developments.

Current law allows courts to require a plaintiff to put up bond money for lawsuits against low- or moderate-income housing projects when a court finds the lawsuit frivolous or meant solely to slow or stop a project. The new law extends this same protection for student housing projects.

One new law, Assembly Bill 2118, streamlines the approval process for building mixed-income housing along commercial corridors. Another new law, Assembly Bill 2480, adds incentives for developers when they set aside part of their projects for affordable housing.

Currently, off-campus housing developments that set aside 20% of their units for low-income students qualify for these incentives, which include the ability to add more units and reduce parking. The new law gives even more incentives for dedicating at least 24% of the units for low-income students.

Foster youth, unhoused students get priority housing 

Some of California’s most vulnerable college students, those who are unhoused or in the foster system, now have priority for on-campus student housing. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2766 on Sept. 14, adding the state’s community colleges to the list of campuses required to give priority housing to those students.

The bill also requires community colleges and California State University campuses to identify eligible students via housing applications, advertise housing benefits on their websites, and defer fees and housing deposits until students receive their full financial aid.

They must also prioritize eligible students for the NextUp foster youth support program, which provides them support and can include housing.

The University of California campuses are requested to do the same, but cannot be required due to their being constitutionally independent.

Diana Karageozian, lead clinical case manager at Fresno State’s Center for Essential Needs, said she’s looking forward to this law.

“I think people kind of forget about college students and how hard it is,” Karageozian said.

More funding for affordable student housing will be on the California ballot this November. Proposition 1 would allow the state to borrow $11.25 billion in bonds to fund housing projects across California. Some of that would go to efforts like student housing, tribal housing and farmworker housing.

Aaron Friesen and Anahid Valencia are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.