Skip to content

CEQA finally brought to its knees by California’s severe housing crisis

July 8, 2025

Originally enacted in 1970, the objective of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was to review projects to assess potential impacts on the environment, disclose those impacts to the public, and mitigate those impacts to the extent possible. However, over the years, CEQA has become the gatekeeper for the final approval of every significant development project in California. After a rigorous review of a development project by the local planning commission and the local city council, which both had the input of an environmental assessment, CEQA has taken on a life of its own. In many cases, lawsuits were filed to block approved projects, but those lawsuits were procedurally or legally flawed, or the plaintiffs had a personal or political agenda to pursue, but in any event, they could delay projects by an additional three years after their initial approval. No wonder that housing has become so expensive in California, and no wonder that major corporations have picked up stakes and moved to friendlier environments such as Texas or Florida.

While there have been limited workarounds to CEQA for those who had political clout to get the legislature to exempt their projects from CEQA, such as major sports facilities, or even the renovation of the state capitol building itself, CEQA has remained the single largest hurdle for developers in the Golden State. However, this past week, the legislature finally passed two major reforms to CEQA. Assembly Bill 130 exempts all residential, infill construction, except projects over 85 feet tall, from CEQA, exempts those projects from so-called prevailing wage requirements, exempts those projects from affordability requirements and mandates a 30-day deadline for local agencies to approve or disapprove qualifying projects.

Senate Bill 131 states that housing projects that fail to meet the CEQA requirements to qualify for the AB130 “but for a single condition,” the CEQA review of the housing project is limited to the environmental effects of that single condition. On the commercial side, the exemptions of SB 131 are even broader, and exempt such projects as the high-speed rail project, projects geared towards wildfire mitigation, water infrastructure, and electric vehicle production.

Signaling the importance of both measures, the two bills immediately took effect on July 1, and they were both tied to the passage of the state budget. The effects of the changes in CEQA on housing production in the state of California will be visible almost immediately, although the effects of the commercial aspects of SB131 will take more time to materialize.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

In today’s digital world, trademark infringement is a significant concern for businesses aiming to protect their brand identity. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to implement a multifaceted online enforcement strategy to protect their intellectual property rights. Among the various legal avenues available to combat counterfeit goods and unauthorized use of trademarks, “Schedule A” lawsuits, which are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have emerged as a powerful tool. As intellectual property attorneys at Clark Hill, we regularly help businesses secure and enforce their IP rights. Here, we will explore what Schedule A trademark infringement litigation entails, how it works, and why it’s essential for companies to understand this avenue for enforcing their legal rights.

Explore more