Following the recent state Supreme Court ruling that UC Berkeley admissions were limited, lawmakers, housing advocates, and business groups rallied to support reforms of an environmental law that has been used to slow down growth for many years.
But will the national publicity generated by the case Cal students naming environmental hazards as environmental hazards lead to a change in policy? Legislators should finally reform the California Environmental Quality Act.
It’s doubtful, experts say, meaning the law will remain a strong obstacle to new development for years to come.
Neighborhood activists and labor organizations continue to oppose environmental law reform. More groups opposed to development could adopt tactics similar to Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods. To prove that the university was failing to address rising student enrollment, the neighborhood group used the California Environmental Quality Act to win.
The California Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision that found UC Berkeley must limit admissions for the 2022-23 class by about 3,000 students because it hadn’t properly followed state environmental law. To lessen the impact of this decision, the university will offer remote-only admissions to many incoming students.
State Assembly leaders also submitted two bills Friday retroactively, giving higher education leaders an additional 18 months to address CEQA issues before courts can cut enrollment growth. These bills are intended to allow UC Berkeley resume its enrollment plans for this year.
“The Berkeley trainwreck has raised public awareness for the need for reform not to get rid of CEQA,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat chairing the Senate housing committee. “It needs to be refocused to actually be a climate action law.”
Business groups, including the Bay Area Council (BAC), along with universities and colleges fear the latest ruling will encourage more suits and harm the region’s long-term growth.
The BAC this week announced its support for broad CEQA reform, saying the environmental suit brought by the Berkeley neighborhood organization was “abusive and shameful.”
“Our members have long been waiting for this because they’ve seen how harmful CEQA (suits) have become,” BAC president and CEO Jim Wunderman said. “What happened at Berkeley underscored just how bad things have become.”
The organization, representing many of the region’s largest companies, supports strong environmental laws, he said. But the steady filing of legal challenges to public and private projects, he said, “has become an albatross for California.”
Proponents of reform point to any number of recent projects delayed by environmental challenges — an affordable housing development in Livermore, a West Oakland apartment tower across from a BART station, as well as bike lanes and solar farms aimed at lowering carbon emissions.
However, unions and labor groups remain staunch opponents to wholesale changes. Two years ago, the building trades clashed against reform-minded legislators who opposed a wide range of proposals to streamline development.
Erin Lehane, legislative director for the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, said there’s still no appetite from the group for widespread CEQA reform. The law serves to protect community values and fair wages for workers. Unions frequently file CEQA cases to increase labor bargaining on a particular project.
Lehane attributes the slow pace in home building in the state to developers who seek unreasonable profits from projects. “CEQA is a scapegoat,” Lehane said. “It’s something people like to blame.”
Wiener stated that a special legislative session to address broad CEQA Reform is unlikely and that he and other legislators have focused their efforts only on smaller changes.
In a proposal to ease restrictions on colleges building new on-campus housing, lawmakers and labor unions have come to an agreement this year. Wiener wrote Senate Bill 886 with sponsorship by the building trades in order to streamline campus housing development. This was in preparation for another Berkeley decision. The bill was being written before the decision, and is scheduled to be heard by committee members this session.
Other exemptions have been created by lawmakers, including affordable housing projects, sporting venues, and small residential in-fill developments.
Livable California, another key slow-growth organization, has not yet made a position on this bill. However, Keith Gurnee (a spokesperson for the group, and a former city planner) said that it is unlikely that a new law will force universities to build enough housing to accommodate their growing student population.
He is a planner by training and believes that changes to state environmental law could prove beneficial. “Unfortunately, too many have seen the law as a weapon,” he said.
Universities and colleges are worried about similar challenges in the future.
Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, said that although the decision did not directly impact the state’s private schools, it raised questions about ensuring safe student housing. “We also know that students and families already face anxiety when deciding on a college.” Soares said, “and we need to take this time to assure them that they do have a place and home at a college in California.”
Some housing advocates call for a renewed focus from all levels of the state government on reform. Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t mention the issue in his most recent state of the states address.
Michael Lane from regional think tank SPUR stated that CEQA has always been a problem for development. Comprehensive reform requires a concerted effort from the governor and legislative leaders. “It takes tremendous political will.”
