Suspending CEQA for fire-scarred Santa Rosa gets mixed reviews in Sacramento

A plan to suspend bedrock state environmental regulations to help speed the construction of new housing in fire-ravaged Sonoma County received a sympathetic hearing in Sacramento last week, but also skepticism about whether relaxing environmental regulations was the best way to help the region recover.

Assemblyman Jim Wood and Santa Rosa Mayor Chris Coursey told a Senate committee that AB 2267 was crucial to help Santa Rosa stave off the “impending economic crisis” the city faces if it doesn’t build new housing quickly.

“In the aftermath of this tragedy, the data suggests that unless the region can replace these homes and expand the supply of housing in the next couple of years, we will lose residents, businesses and huge pieces of our community forever,” Wood, D-Santa Rosa, testified Wednesday.

In the wake of the fires, which destroyed more than 5,300 homes in the county, Coursey said rents are “going through the roof,” businesses are losing employees, and schools are losing students as families who can’t afford to rebuild or are priced out of the market move away.

He noted the committee previously approved exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act to fast-track new sports stadiums in Oakland and Inglewood, and suggested Santa Rosa’s request was more vital.

“Earlier today, you heard from cities hoping to avoid losing their sports teams,” Coursey said. “In Santa Rosa, we are losing the lifeblood of our community.”

If approved, AB 2267 would do three things. It would make it easier for Santa Rosa to raise the height limit on downtown buildings from 10 stories to something higher. The city is preparing to update its main downtown planning document to lift that cap, and it doesn’t want a legal challenge to hold the process up.

“All we’re trying to do is make these buildings taller,” Wood said. “That’s the heart of this bill.”

The bill would also create “judicial streamlining” that would limit how long CEQA reviews for planning documents in the transit-focused areas of the city could be held up in court. This includes the business park area around the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport. The bill seeks to limit such reviews to 270 days.

Lastly, the bill would exempt from environmental review certain types of housing projects on city and county properties within city limits. The original bill was far broader but was narrowed to publicly owned parcels after environmental groups objected. These so-called leadership development projects are envisioned for properties such as downtown parking lots and the county administration complex. The county and the city are proposing to form a joint housing agency to make it easier to build in a so-called renewal enterprise district.

Such public-private partnerships promise fast-tracked review in exchange for the type of transit-oriented housing projects the city has long sought for its downtown. Qualifying projects would have to be 20 percent affordable housing, pay prevailing wages, and must not create any “net additional emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Coursey argued that loosening CEQA’s grip made sense if it helped produce the type of environmentally friendly housing the city sought.

“We realize that this is not a small ask,” Coursey said. “You take CEQA seriously. We do too.”

But state Sen. Bob Wieckowski, chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, took issue with the request.

“I don’t like CEQA carve-outs,” said Wieckowski, D-Fremont, wondering aloud whether Santa Barbara and Los Angeles would be next up to ask for similar exemptions to the state’s landmark 1970 environmental law.

He noted that any home anywhere in the state that was destroyed by fire can be rebuilt without environmental review. He also noted that downtown Santa Rosa was spared in the fires, suggesting its request for fire-related regulatory relief was opportunistic.

But Wood said many people are unlikely to rebuild in burned areas, an assessment that has not been widely voiced, if at all, by local lawmakers. Much of the area burned in the Tubbs fire followed a similar footprint to the 1964 Hanly fire.

Encouraging more homes to be built in infill areas of the city and away from the wildland only made sense, Wood said

“This is a response to a natural disaster, and we’re trying to be as smart as we can in how we rebuild our city,” he said. “Time is of essence.”

David Guhin, the city’s director of economic development and housing, said the city had a “true displacement issue going on.” The CEQA request is one of many streamlining tools the city has implemented in recent months, but it needs more, he said.

The bill would grant the CEQA waiver for five years beginning Jan. 1, 2019.

While Coursey claimed the bill had “unprecedented” support of the environmental community, that didn’t seem to be the case.

Kyle Jones, a public policy advocacy for the Sierra Club of California, wondered whether limiting CEQA review would give residents the information they needed to understand the impacts of such major projects in their community.

“We don’t feel that this bill is really getting at the root of the issue. We don’t think CEQA is the problem for rebuilding in Santa Rosa,” Jones said.

The bill does enjoy the support of environmental groups such as the Greenbelt Alliance and the Sonoma County Conservation Action. It is likely, however, to face tough questions at an upcoming Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

“We still have some work to do,” Coursey said following the hearing.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 707-521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.