RULING A THREAT TO HOUSING, CLIMATE GOALS

In 1970, the Legislature passed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it into law, beginning a new era in the Golden State. After decades of laissez-faire policies that paid little attention to the effects of construction projects on air and water pollution, a bipartisan consensus emerged that CEQA was needed to protect California’s quality of life.

As the decades went by, that consensus disappeared as environmentalists, labor unions and notin-my-back-yard activists (NIMBYs) used CEQA challenges to stall or block projects they opposed, even if they met state standards. The resulting inability of developers to pursue projects with relative certainty that they would have a clear path after surmounting initial hurdles has restricted new housing construction for a generation — and, a decade ago, led to Gov. Jerry Brown becoming the loudest champion of the argument that state laws must be changed to spur growth. Since then, progress on actual construction has been disappointing — even though dozens of new housing reform laws have been passed by the Legislature and signed by Brown and his successor, Gavin Newsom. Some laws sought to make it easier for existing homeowners to add new units to their existing lots. Far more were crafted with the intent of reducing the ability of opponents to impede projects that met basic thresholds and that could help the state meet both housing and climate goals by boosting the building of dense communities with strong transit options.

This sort of legislative history matters because it involves lawmakers’ intent. Yes, the question of intent can be hard to discern in some cases without a reasonable doubt. But it is a relatively mainstream view that courts should construe legislative language through the prism of what values or policies the laws they detail seek to promote — or to defer to the interpretation of legislative bodies.

Which brings us to San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Frazier. His ruling this week stopping construction of the 536-unit Junipers development in Rancho Peñasquitos after construction was well under way appears to completely ignore the intentions of Brown, Newsom and state lawmakers of both parties to limit the uncertainty surrounding construction and to usher in a new era in which substantial new housing stock could be readily added. That, in turn, has the potential to stabilize California housing costs and help the nearly one-quarter of state households who live paycheck-to-paycheck because of extreme shelter costs that make the Golden State the most impoverished in the U.S.

Frazier held that the completed environmental reviews that had cleared the way for Junipers’ construction were no longer adequate because they did not consider the additional effects of two other large nearby housing projects on traffic, noise concerns and wildfire threats. But plans for the 331-unit Millennium PQ were not deemed complete by the city until 14 months after the environmental impact review of the Junipers development began and plans for the 826-unit Trails at Carmel Mountain Ranch were not deemed complete until 21 months after. Those projects should face more regulatory scrutiny — or worse — if there are substantial concerns about the effects of their approval. City Attorney Mara Elliott is right: Setting a standard that requires developers to be perpetually susceptible to out-of-left-field delays beyond their control is unfair and sets a nightmarish precedent. Since the Frazier precedent is a profound threat to the sort of transitfocused projects that are crucial to meeting climate emergency goals, the damage it could create goes beyond suppressing new housing construction.

Given the scope of some critics’ concerns, it’s clear that the fears about these projects extend beyond NIMBYism to genuine worries about developers doing enough to provide adequate wildfire evacuation corridors. The massive 2007 wildfires that torched homes on both sides of Interstate 15 north of Mira Mesa — and other communities throughout the county — have been seared into longtime residents’ collective memory. It’s also apparent that Judge Frazier believes his decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of state laws.

But the ruling must be appealed by as many parties as possible. Appellate courts by their nature look at the big picture more than trial courts. If they were to uphold this ruling and enshrine the gigantic obstacles to new housing that it creates, California’s elected officials will find it more difficult than ever to address two of the state’s most pressing problems. This is not how government is supposed to work.