What Went Down in Sacramento Last Month… Was CEQA
CEQA is not a perfect law. But the concept of mandating public review and tribal consultation is essential in a democracy.
Note: This article is based on an email distributed by Climate Action California CEO and Condor publisher Janet Cox on July 8.
By now most of you are aware of the wrenchingly sad and infuriating Senate Budget Committee hearing on June 30, which resulted in the passage of the budget trailer bills AB/SB 130 and AB/SB 131. You may have read some of the press coverage—this CalMatters article is especially good, I think, although it lays the blame for the anti-democratic power play on Governor Newsom, and I think he had plenty of help!
I want to share my take and also reinforce our invitation to join CAC's webinar on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on Wednesday, July 16, which was planned in advance of the budget debacle but now is sure to explain what we've lost, what was saved, and where we can try to go from here as we work to reverse some of the damage.
CEQA is California's bedrock environmental law, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970 and assuring extensive environmental review, public participation, and agency responsiveness to environmental concerns when projects affect any of a long list of environmental and public values. It is a stronger, more action-forcing version of the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969), now in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
As you've gleaned if you’ve had the opportunity to read my earlier writing on this subject, CAC has been working for months, in coalitions, to oppose what seem to me to be the worst bills of the year. AB 306 (Schultz and Rivas) would have frozen most building code updates at every level of government for nine years; and SB 607 (Wiener), was set up to "reform" CEQA by dismantling some of the law's essential mechanics designed to ensure public input and agency consideration of those views.
Both bills were advertised as addressing California's housing shortage, but those arguments never really made sense to me. (Keeping up the drumbeat against building codes as the obstacles to housing construction, Governor Newsom released an executive order on July 7 rolling back 2025 state building code updates and solar/battery requirements for reconstruction of homes and schools affected by the January fires in Los Angeles.)
Both AB 306 and SB 607 passed their houses of origin mainly due to the undeniable power of their authors: Robert Rivas is the Speaker of the Assembly, and Scott Wiener is the chair of both the Senate Budget and Joint Legislative Budget committees. Both bills were awaiting hearing dates in the second house; CAC and the coalitions were in high gear preparing to see them amended or killed in the second house.
And then the leadership (one presumes Rivas, Wiener, and the Governor, with the assent of Senate pro Tempore Mike McGuire) pulled a switcheroo a few days before the deadline for Newsom to sign the budget. They moved to abandon the regular oversight process, and folded the bills' language into "budget trailer bills." Trailer bills can include instructions for spending the money in budget line items, but they generally do not incorporate major policy changes. What is worse, the same leadership conditioned passage of the 2025 budget (fiscal year starting July 1 just past) on passage of both trailers with no amendments.
There were two Senate Budget Committee hearings on the trailer bills: The first one, on AB/SB 130, a huge housing package that included key elements of the Speaker's freeze on building codes from AB 306, was so contentious that Chair Wiener delayed the vote to the following Monday, June 30. AB/SB 131, the trailer bill that incorporated the anti-CEQA elements of Wiener's SB 607, wasn't even in print until late Friday June 27; it was the main focus of that second hearing.
And the hearing was painfully reminiscent of the Assembly Natural Resources review of AB 306, when each and every committee member raised major objections to the bill and then voted unanimously to pass it, so as not to cross the Speaker. This time, in the discussion of both the process and the substance of the trailer bills, the Chair Wiener responded to his colleagues' concerns with deflections and whataboutism—entertaining no amendments because of the "three-party agreement" but cheerfully praising the "robust discussion."
A few of the key points that were raised by Senators from the public about AB 131:
Among the raft of new categorical exemptions to CEQA (meaning projects in these categories do not have to undergo environmental review), "advanced manufacturing" shows up on a list that includes day care centers, rural health clinics, and nonprofit food pantries. The statutory definition of "advanced manufacturing" is extremely broad. Senators and public commenters were in agreement that advanced manufacturing facilities, even in areas zoned for manufacturing, are bound to create problems that should be daylighted in advance.
A project's administrative record, essential for litigation based on CEQA findings, will no longer need to include internal communications within the governmental agency responsible for approving a project subject to CEQA (the "lead agency"). This is a major change that could make it harder to win a lawsuit challenging project approval.
The new exemptions from CEQA also preclude consultation with tribes that is otherwise required in all cases where tribal sites or artifacts are affected or present.
Protection of threatened or endangered species is not a value addressed in the bill, or grounds for a project's loss of exemption status.
What Senator Wiener describes as "the near miss provision" says that if only one of CEQA's interest areas is impacted by a project, a full environmental review is not required — only a review of the one category of impacts.
And then the Committee voted to send trailer bill AB 131 on to the full Senate, with two Republicans, Niello and Seyarto, voting NO, and two Democrats, Allen and Blakespear, not voting along with Republican Steven Choi. Before the end of the day both trailers had passed, with Republicans and a couple of handfuls of Democrats daring to vote NO.
So now we're scrambling for fixes. Petitions are circulating to reverse the exemption for "advanced manufacturing." CAC volunteers are looking for an author for another trailer bill, clarifying that endangered/threatened species and their habitat will continue to be protected. The tribal consultation issue is tougher, as it is CEQA review that triggers the consultation requirement. But more to come, I hope.
CEQA is not a perfect law. For going on 55 years, legislatures have been voting holes in it—the list of exemptions is absurdly long. It is true that project opponents have been able to game the law to delay projects until funding dried up or developers moved on to something else. But the concept of mandating public review and tribal consultation is essential in a democracy, and requiring permitting agencies to respond to those comments can make all the difference in a capitalist system where many laws and policies favor development.
In an ideal world, the public angst over building codes disputes and CEQA "reforms" would spur real reform, and improvements to our systems that would make quality housing more available and development projects of all kinds safer for people, easy on the planet, and climate-resilient. But we've got a lot of work to do to bring about that ideal.
"This is a continuing story. It will be updated."
In the meantime, please join our CEQA webinar on July 16!
Janet Cox, CEO
Climate Action California