Is Local Vs. State Battle Brewing in Latest CEQA Exemptions?

Gov. Gavin Newsom got all the accolades when two budget trailer bills passed last month that create new exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act. Some local governments sighed in response.

That’s because the task of actually implementing and adhering to the latest exemptions to CEQA fall squarely on the shoulders of city councils and counties.

Lake Forest Mayor Scott Voigts said during a panel discussion Wednesday it hasn’t been long enough to really gauge what the CEQA exemptions mean for housing development in cities.

“We’re hopeful, but not real optimistic,” Voigts said.

The mayor was one of four government officials from Orange County who offered their thoughts on CEQA as part of a wide-ranging panel conversation held Wednesday around housing in their respective cities. The panel was hosted by the California Association of Realtor’s Center for California Real Estate.

CEQA, a 1970 statute, requires cities to take into account a proposed development’s impact on the environment. However, over the decades the CEQA review process has added time to the development approval process. It’s also become a handy tool used by a project’s opposition when filing legal battles. Those issues are not addressed with the latest exemptions.

Instead, the recent changes to CEQA is a housing development story. They come courtesy of Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which the governor signed into law at the end of June and were met largely with cheers by housing advocates.

AB-130 grants a CEQA exemption for infill housing projects as large as 20 acres, with those no more than 85 feet tall allowed to bypass prevailing wage requirements. Meanwhile, SB-131 tacks on a limited number of commercial uses into the more streamlined process, including advanced manufacturing, childcare centers and high-speed rail projects.

Those on Wednesday’s panel seemed wary of what the new bills will require of local government agencies.

“CEQA’s needed to be revised for a number of years but like with everything in California, it gives you a little bit and then it just kind of creates some other issues,” Tustin Mayor Pro Tem John Nielsen said during the panel.

While Nielsen called the expedited processing “nice,” he said the way in which the state’s allowing that means some local control is lost due to less time allotted to consider a project.

“It’s very convoluted,” Nielsen said. “My staff is taking big, deep breaths going, ‘Oh, this timeframe is, wow, ok.’”

City of Brea Mayor Pro Tem Cecilia Hupp held a similar stance.

“Some of it’s good. I agree,” Hupp said. “Local control is a huge issue for us. All of us. And the problem that we have is when these bills pass, they pass on a one-size-fits-all basis. And we all know that it doesn’t apply to a lot of our cities. Much of what passes in Sacramento applies to the Bay Area. It doesn’t apply to our communities here.”

What Hupp and Nielsen were largely referring to is a finer point in the new exemptions around deadlines for local governments to process development applications.

The local agency handling a project application must consult Native American tribes considered to be affiliated with the proposed project site within 14 days of an application being completed. Tribes then have 60 days to request a consultation with the city. Once that’s done, a 30-day clock begins ticking for a city to either approve or deny an application. This differs from the previous requirement that a city agency must make a decision only after it has agreed the CEQA review is done.

Ultimately, Westminster Mayor Chi Charlie Nguyen said “more responsibility” is now on local governments.

However, Nguyen fancies his city in the driver’s seat when it comes to any possible hurdles around the latest exemptions.

“For the city of Westminster, we are built out,” he said, “so we would not need to worry about that. But, for the city that’s not built out, there’s a lot to worry about.”