California Lawmakers Have Solved Berkeley’s Problem. Is CEQA Next?

However suppose from a statewide perspective in regards to the common environmental footprint of an individual in California. Nearly definitely, somebody in Berkeley — a metropolis with nice public transit, in a temperate local weather with minimal heating and cooling prices — goes to have much less of an environmental footprint than in the event that they have been residing elsewhere in California.

If U.C. Berkeley welcomes extra college students to campus or if town of Berkeley approves a housing undertaking or revises its ordinances or common plan in a manner that enables extra individuals to dwell in Berkeley, that’s an environmental win, from a statewide perspective. However CEQA pretends that if these individuals weren’t residing in Berkeley they wouldn’t be residing on planet Earth, the place they’ll be driving or making trash or noise or beginning wildfires or bulldozing habitat.

So what ought to be the following step?

The Legislature ought to revisit CEQA. Or the governor’s Workplace of Planning and Analysis, which writes CEQA tips, ought to revisit what counts as an environmental affect, significantly in urbanized areas. This could make sense particularly if the governor is severe about facilitating housing growth in downtown places, as a result of the state’s environmental legal guidelines are thwarting these very initiatives.

The state additionally must make it doable for supporters of a undertaking to sue a metropolis for requiring extreme environmental overview or taking too lengthy to certify a CEQA research, simply as opponents might problem town for doing too little. It is a particular drawback for housing.

The state’s Housing Accountability Act prevents cities from denying or downsizing most initiatives that adjust to relevant requirements. But it surely’s not clear whether or not this legislation or another gives a treatment if a metropolis tries to ice a undertaking with make-work calls for for extra “environmental” research, reasonably than denying it outright.

What ought to be dropped from CEQA?

Native impacts related to inhabitants progress in city areas shouldn’t be CEQA points. Many of the issues recognized within the Berkeley case — noise, site visitors, trash — these are all issues metropolis elected officers have an incentive to deal with. We don’t want a statewide environmental legislation for that.

As for the worth of housing, that’s an issue native officers don’t deal with properly as a result of the burden of upper costs falls totally on individuals who don’t but dwell — and vote — within the metropolis. However the answer to excessive housing costs and displacement is to not trend CEQA into an much more formidable barrier to growth.