State Agency Says Getting New Housing Built Will Be 'Urban Warfare' If Environmental Reviews Don't Change

Under a California law created more than 50 years ago, housing projects large and small across the state have been required to undergo environmental review.

The process outlined by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (widely known as CEQA) is intended to push developers to mitigate potential environmental harms. It can also delay projects for years, cost developers millions of dollars and even kill projects in wealthy neighborhoods that rarely build new housing.

Now, an independent state agency is recommending that lawmakers broadly exempt new urban housing from these reviews in the interest of moving the needle on the state’s intractable housing crisis.

“California will never achieve its housing goals as long as CEQA has the potential to turn housing development into something akin to urban warfare — contested block by block, building by building,” concludes the report, published last week by the Little Hoover Commission.

Why it matters

The report, one year in the making, finds that CEQA has in many ways made good on its intent to protect California’s environment. For example, it’s been instrumental in blocking oil wells in residential areas and protecting old-growth redwoods in Northern California.

At the same time, the authors found the law is most often used to challenge new housing — often apartment buildings located in already developed urban areas, known as “infill” housing. Those challenges make up about 25% of all CEQA lawsuits.

“The commission was motivated by a belief that California needs to do something to address housing,” said Ethan Rarick, the commission’s executive director. “Infill housing is the kind of housing that will most allow the state to meet its environmental goals.”

Elected officials around the state are under pressure to greatly accelerate the pace of new housing. In the city of L.A. alone, officials must plan for close to half a million new homes by 2029 under state law. So far L.A. and many other cities are far off that pace, hobbled by high costs and numerous hurdles, including environmental challenges and pushback from existing residents.

When housing is constrained in the cities where people work and hope to live, the report notes, developers will instead build housing in exurban areas, forcing Californians into long, polluting commutes and placing new homes at heightened risk of wildfires.

That’s motivated state officials to take steps to encourage more housing in existing urban cores. They’ve already exempted certain housing projects from environmental review, they’ve slashed parking requirements near public transit hubs and they’ve cracked down on cities attempting to limit new construction. In Southern California, planning officials have shifted the burden of new housing production goals away from the Inland Empire and toward coastal areas.

A broad definition of environmental harm

Despite these steps, L.A. housing developers continue to face environmental challenges that can be expensive and time consuming.

LAist recently covered a case where an environmental challenge delayed an 100% affordable housing project in L.A.’s Sawtelle neighborhood for months, despite the city’s assurances that such projects were not subject to CEQA. The opponent who filed the challenge told LAist he did not think the project would worsen air pollution, but did think it would harm the value of his property next door.

Rarick noted that expensive land and construction costs would be huge constraints no matter what, so it’s not fair to blame the state’s lack of affordable housing entirely on CEQA. But he said the law does allow pretty much anyone to fight new housing for a wide range of reasons.

“The law specifies the kinds of environmental harm that can be considered under CEQA to include things like aesthetics, views, noise,” Rarick said. “Sometimes there are CEQA cases that many people might not consider to be related to traditional environmental concerns, even if legally, the case can proceed.”

Current CEQA process

An overview of the process. Click for a more detailed view.

(

Courtesy L.A. City Planning

)

Pushback to change cites environmental injustice

On top of broadly exempting housing in existing urban areas from environmental reviews, the commission’s report recommends limiting who can file a CEQA lawsuit to those able to articulate how a project would cause environmental, rather than purely economic, harm.

Defenders of the current process under CEQA say the law offers disadvantaged Californians one of the few avenues for challenging large projects in already crowded neighborhoods experiencing environmental injustice.

Jennifer Ganata, the legal department co-director for Communities for a Better Environment, said, “There's a difference when you're talking about somebody who's a NIMBY somewhere in Calabasas or Malibu versus somebody who has been organizing in their community, whether that's in Chinatown or Southeast L.A.”

Ganata said residents in these areas should be able to push for thorough environmental reviews of new housing. Developers should have to answer questions from residents about the steps they’re taking to ensure that housing located near existing or former industrial sites is not exposing communities to pollution, she said.

“For us, CEQA is like a deep democracy tool. We are trying to tell our members, ‘You have a seat at the table, and you're able to actually discuss real community planning solutions,’” Ganata said. “The recommendations provided in the report don't really think about that. It's more like, how do we just get these units built and not really think about it.”

Report points to model in Washington state

Efforts to reform CEQA have so far been piecemeal. Lawmakers have carved out exemptions for specific types of housing, such as deed-restricted affordable housing on church land and projects meeting certain requirements in dense commercial corridors.

But more sweeping reforms have run into dead ends. CEQA is used not only by neighborhood groups who oppose apartments in wealthy communities, but also by powerful labor unions and competing businesses. Former state senator Darrell Steinberg jokingly referred to his failed 2013 CEQA reform bill as the “How to Make No Friends Act.”

The Little Hoover Commission report identifies one potential model for California lawmakers interested in taking up the gauntlet. Washington state lawmakers recently voted to exempt projects from environmental review if they’re located inside urban growth areas.

The report says, bluntly, “California should follow this example.”

How to watchdog government

The next hearing of the Little Hoover Commission is scheduled for Thursday, May 23 at 10 a.m.

• Agenda: Artificial Intelligence and State Government 
• Note: 30 minutes of public comment is planned, 3 minute limit per speaker
• To join virtually:
  
  • URL: https://bit.ly/4buNXmu
  • Webinar ID: 991 4704 6765
  • Passcode: 472052
  • Phone: (888) 788 0099

If you care about local housing affordability

• For people who live in L.A., the Board of Supervisors and City Council have the most direct impact on housing affordability in your neighborhood.
  
  • Learn more about who influences local housing policy

• The best way to keep tabs on your own local government is by attending public meetings for your city council or local boards. Here are a few tips to get you started.

  • Find meeting schedules and agendas: City councils usually meet at least twice a month, although larger ones may meet weekly. Committees and boards tend to meet less often, typically once a month. You can find the schedule and meeting agenda on your local government’s website, or posted physically at your local city hall. Find more tips here.

    • Find L.A. City Council agendas and meeting dates
    • Find meetings for L.A. city boards and commissions
    • Find L.A. County agendas and meeting dates
  • Learn the jargon: Closed session, consent calendars and more! We have definitions for commonly used terms here.
  • How to give public comment: Every public meeting allows community members to give comment, whether or not it’s about something on the agenda. The meeting agenda will have specific instructions for giving public comment. Review more details here.