Recent headlines about CEQA reform often characterized housing affordability and environmental protection as diametrically opposed values. This framing may grab attention, but it’s outdated: promoting housing on urban infill sites will have a net environmental benefit.
We can use the help. Not only is the Trump administration openly hostile to the State’s environmental policy priorities, but California is falling far short of its carbon emission reduction goals. Fortunately, two housing bills proposed this year in the California state legislature—Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130—can positively transform the state’s environmental policy. AB 130, a bill that was folded into addenda to Governor Gavin Newsom’s state budget and became law this month, exempts urban infill housing from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The second one, SB 79, which has been passed by the Senate but not yet by the Assembly, would legalize mid-sized apartment buildings near transit.
Why are these bills so critical? Because smarter land use policy is climate policy. For decades, California has focused on regulating emissions from cars, buildings, and power plants while neglecting the underlying systems that drive these emissions: where and how we build housing. As we have demonstrated before, allowing more walkable and transit-accessible housing is one of the most powerful tools we have to fix our state’s housing shortage and reduce carbon emissions. A joint report by UC Berkeley and the State of California found that the only pathway to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 involves building far more housing in our cities.
Historically, CEQA lawsuits filed to delay or block construction have been one of the most significant barriers to new housing in urban areas. Consider Lorena Plaza, a 44-unit affordable housing complex adjacent to transit in Los Angeles, which opened in April. The development is a home run for the environment, allowing working-class families to rely on clean, low-carbon transportation. Yet, this project took 18 years to actually get built due to bureaucratic red tape and a prolonged CEQA lawsuit filed by a neighboring business. Ultimately dismissed by the court, the lawsuit aimed to halt the project by incurring high legal fees.
This story is far from unique; CEQA is California’s primary environmental law, designed to give the public information about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. CEQA has a clear rationale in cases involving new homes being built in fire-prone areas, industrial polluters, and large-scale projects with considerable risks. But its application to modest urban apartment buildings is redundant at best and obstructive at worst, especially considering that cities already conduct environmental impact analyses on plans that direct future housing growth. Both CEQA’s strongest critics and supporters agree that the intention of the law is not to block infill housing; these lawsuits are simply a tool for NIMBYs.
AB 130 has addressed this by streamlining CEQA review for infill housing aligned with existing zoning, removing duplicative red tape while preserving environmental oversight. It’s an overdue reform to ensure that CEQA serves its intended purpose: protecting the environment, not standing in the way of solutions to save it.
However, this reform is only half the battle – reforming CEQA cannot change the fact that townhomes and apartment buildings are still illegal to build on much of the land within our cities. Consider SB 79, which would legalize apartment buildings around transit stops. Despite LA Metro’s ambitious $400 billion investment in public transit, many stations are surrounded by land-use rules that discourage ridership. In the L.A. neighborhood of Rancho Park, a new E Line station is encircled by single-family homes, priced over $2 million each, making it inaccessible to most Angelenos. These residents are also far less likely to use transit at all.
SB 79 would change that by simply legalizing walkable, multi-family housing around transit stops. Data shows that residents living within a half-mile of transit are four times more likely to use transit, and 52% of automobile commuters switch to public transit when it becomes accessible. In Virginia, Arlington County legalized ambitious transit-oriented development and now has one of America’s highest rates of public transit use. SB 79 would also boost ridership by giving more Angelenos the option to live near transit, drive less, and reduce their carbon footprint.
This time has come for environmentalists not simply to add regulations to prevent harm, but also to embrace removing barriers to doing good.
AB 130 was an excellent start by the state in adopting this new mindset, and now it’s time for legislators to pass SB 79 as well. Together, they would unlock robust climate solutions: slashing emissions, curbing habitat loss from sprawl, and enabling sustainable cities, all without incurring new taxpayer costs in a time of budget shortfalls.
It’s time to expand our collective definition of environmentalism to include building toward a more sustainable future, faster and smarter.
Thomas Irwin is an economic development professional and the lead organizer with Eastside Housing for All, a group advocating for economic opportunity through housing.
Awoenam Mauna-Woanya is a building decarbonization engineer at the California Air Resources Board and the lead organizer with Urban Environmentalists LA, a group advocating for a more sustainable Los Angeles.
Chris Rhie is a climate change and urban planning consultant and he co-leads Urban Environmentalists LA.
Chris Tokita is an ecologist and data scientist who sits on the Board of Directors for Abundant Housing LA, a pro-housing advocacy nonprofit.