San Luis Obispo County could see a few more urban builds in the near future now that the state’s environmental rules—aka the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—are more permissive.
CEQA has been an invisible force for decades over California lands. It’s required public agencies and developers to consider the environmental consequences of a proposed project to prevent and mitigate for environmental impacts.
But on June 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills into law adjusting CEQA’s hold over development, giving developers fewer hoops to jump through when building on the Central Coast. While some view the change as a removed barrier, others are concerned about what the moves could mean for habitats and species that have had protection since CEQA was established in 1970.
Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) told New Times she saw it as an opportunity to expand the Central Coast’s housing market amid a housing crisis.
“We need to make sure that we’re increasing housing for seniors, increasing housing for students, increasing housing for middle and low-income workers,” she said.
A statement released by Newsom’s office the day he signed the bills said that CEQA restrictions have been a barrier to addressing the state’s housing scarcity and affordability issues and that Assembly Bills 130 and 131 would allow for faster housing permitting and approvals. AB 130 is focused on urban areas while 131 targets the tech industry.
Right now, SLO County cities are waiting to see how the bills will impact them, but Community Development Director Timothea Tway said SLO city already has its eye on what could change.
“The city is aware of the recent changes made to CEQA and is analyzing them to fully understand how they may impact development in the community,” Tway said via email. “In general, it appears that the changes may expedite the CEQA process for certain developments in the community, especially infill projects.”
Development projects that are currently in the works wouldn’t be affected, she said.
“Many of the projects in process have already addressed their CEQA requirements and/or can use existing infill exemptions in the state law,” Tway said.
Paso Robles City Manager Chris Huot said that, generally speaking, the CEQA changes are a positive thing. New projects would still get a proper vetting, he said.
“It does not mean a project that now has a CEQA exemption under the new laws is rubber-stamped for immediate construction,” he said via email. “The merits of individual projects still need to be reviewed, vetted, and approved at the city level to ensure consistency with local zoning code, the city’s general plan, and ensure service and infrastructure capacity.”
When it comes to new builds in Paso Robles, he said it’s also too early to tell the impact.
“These revisions are predominately focused on urban cores of cities where the majority of properties are developed and where infrastructure is in place. How it will specifically impact Paso Robles will be a wait-and-see game. How the law reads and how it will be applied is still to be determined,” he said. “Furthermore, some of these changes to CEQA may be challenged in court. It truly is too early to tell what the specific impacts will be within Paso Robles.”
Assemblymember Addis voted in favor of the bill for housing but told New Times she decided against voting in favor of the other bill.
“The crisis that we’re experiencing is really around housing and making sure that we build the housing we need in California, that we do it in the right places, so that we are decreasing vehicle miles traveled and decreasing costs for California, creating more affordability,” she said. “And 131 just was not about that.”
Addis was initially concerned about aspects of labor provisions and tribal interests included in the urban housing bill. Eventually, those were addressed and she voted in favor of expanding CEQA laws to allow more builds in urban areas.
However, those exemptions, she said, only apply to very specific areas.
“It’s not what you would think of as spread, where you start to build housing away from urban centers and increase vehicle miles traveled,” she said. “It’s housing that is in what’s called the infill development, and that still has labor protections and tribal consultation.”
When it came to expanding the high-tech industry’s ability to build, she said she felt it was less of an issue. The bill was “too far reaching” and not transparent enough.
Environmental organizations like the Sierra Club have outwardly opposed the new bills in recent weeks.
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club Coordinator Gianna Patchen told New Times via email that relaxing CEQA is not just an environmental concern. It’s also a transparency issue.
“SLO communities rely on CEQA as a means to know what’s happening in our communities and to ensure environmental and public health are considered,” she said. “We are disappointed to see this move by the California Legislature at a time when the Trump administration is simultaneously taking a sledgehammer to environmental protections at the federal level. We need California to stand strong in defense of environmental and public health.”
The group’s Facebook page encouraged its followers to contact state legislators and ask that the bills be amended to address future industry pollutants and include specific wording to protect habitat for species protected under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the state’s Native Plant Protection Act.
“The fight over this dangerous bill is not over,” the post said. Δ
Reach Staff Writer Libbey Hanson at lhanson@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Jul 17-27, 2025.
