For decades the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has required public agencies to consider the environmental consequences of a proposed project to prevent avoidable environmental damage. But those rules are a bit more lenient now.
On June 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the 2025-26 state budget amid an estimated $2 billion deficit, according to the state’s fiscal outlook report. Within that bill, Newsom also signed into law two others that would overhaul the environmental protection rules established in 1970.
A statement released by Newsom’s office said that CEQA restrictions have been a barrier to addressing the state’s housing scarcity and affordability issues and relieving some of the rules would allow faster housing permitting and approvals.
Assembly Bills 130 and 131 were directly aimed at lifting CEQA restrictions for urban housing development and high-tech industry.
Under AB 130, CEQA exemptions specific to urbanized areas would apply to builds in places that are already built up, also called infill housing projects.
Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) told New Times she initially wasn’t in favor of AB 130 because it originally lacked any labor provisions or tribal interests. But as the bill progressed, her concerns were addressed, so she voted in favor of it.
“I felt like it was something that I could support, given the scale of California’s housing crisis and how urgently we need to act. We know that California’s cost of living has just risen astronomically and is one of the biggest causes of people falling into homelessness. It’s not because they don’t want to work,” Addis said.
Addis said that it’s difficult for people to make ends meet when housing costs so much—due to a constricted housing supply because it’s so expensive to build.
“It’s a very, very delicate balance,” she said. “It’s hugely important to me protecting the environment, … and we also need to get people housed where they are and be able to construct the kind of housing that California needs.”
When it came to the other bill, AB 131, Addis said she didn’t vote in favor of it because she took more issue with the environmental implications it could have.
“[AB] 131 was less about housing and more about large industrial projects that really could have an impact on our environment. It also posed greater dangers to endangered species,” she said. Δ
This article appears in Jul 3-13, 2025.
