After the ruling by the state Supreme Court this month limiting UC Berkeley admissions and allowing for a temporary suspension, many business groups, housing advocates, legislators and others have rallied around to support reforms to an outdated environmental law that had been slowing down growth.
But will the national attention generated by the case Cal students as environmental hazard cases make it more popular? Finally, will lawmakers finally overhaul 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 groups continue to resist 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.
Two bills were also proposed Friday by the State Assembly. They retroactively give higher education leaders 18 month to address CEQA concerns, before courts can ordain enrollment growth cuts. 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.
Labor groups and unions are still fierce opponents of wholesale changes. Two years ago, the building trades clashed fiercely with reform-minded lawmakers who opposed a variety of proposals to streamline the development process.
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. To increase labor bargaining power on a project, unions often file CEQA cases.
Lehane argues that the slow pace in home building in the State is due to developers making unreasonable profits on their projects. “CEQA is a scapegoat,” Lehane said. “It’s something people like to blame.”
Wiener said that it is unlikely that a special legislative session will be convened to address broad CEQA reform. He and other lawmakers have instead focused 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 co-authored Senate Bill 886, which was sponsored by the building trades. This bill was intended to streamline campus housing development and prevent another Berkeley decision. The bill was being prepared before the decision was made and is scheduled for hearings in committee this session.
Other exemptions have been provided by lawmakers, including housing projects for the poor, sporting venues, as well as small residential infill developments.
Livable California is another important slow-growth group that has not yet taken a position. Keith Gurnee is a spokesperson for the group. He is a former city planner and said that it was unlikely that a new bill would force universities to provide enough housing for 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 concerned about future challenges.
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 advocate for a renewed focus on reforms from all parts the state government. Governor. However, Gov.
Michael Lane, regional think tank SPUR, stated that CEQA has been a major obstacle to development. Comprehensive reform requires a concerted effort from the governor and legislative leaders. “It takes tremendous political will.”