One camp says CEQA litigation stifles housing production and reinforces the status quo. The other camps says CEQA litigation isn't all that frequent and leads to better projects. But what if they're both right?
Davis situation highlights the growing tension between local ballot measures requiring voter approval and the Housing Accountability Act's restrictions on project denial.
History would suggest that the answer is no. It's more likely that the Legislature will punch a couple of holes in the law and plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to figure out how to get around the holes.
Still, some jurists still focus on expanding the law, creating a kind of schism in the appellate courts. Will the Legislature step in to clarify? Not likely.
AB 2097 was celebrated as a pro-housing victory. But debate over the bill highlighted the growing gap between those who believe the market can solve the housing problem and those who don't.
The City Councilmembers appointed themselves the final arbiter of whether a project met SB 35 requirements. Then they overruled their own staff. But in the end, it was really just about vagueness and inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
In response to the Berkeley enrollment case, the Legislature is likely to do something. Exempting student and faculty housing would weaken CEQA -- but Justice Goodwin Liu laid out another path that could truly reform it.
The University of California tried to finesse the fact that Berkeley had blown past its enrollment target without doing additional CEQA analysis. And maybe the judge didn't have to "go nuclear" on this case. But the question of whether population growth in and of itself demands lengthy environmental analysis holds major implications for general plans in cities and counties throughout California.
As a recent San Diego ruling reveals, cities have no choice but to defend their decisions to abide by statutes like the Density Bonus Law. At the same time, they are trying to "thread a needle" to challenge those laws in court.
