Every legislative session brings new attempts to weaken environmental laws and regulations. This year has been especially dismal. At a time when we are witnessing the erosion of environmental protections at the federal level (Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.), CCCR tracks legislation that threatens existing environmental protections at the state level as well.
SB 607 now SB 131
This senate bill has garnered the most attention during the 2025 legislative season. SB 607, now SB 131 was incorporated into the Budget Trailer Bill – SB 607/131 has been described by CEQA Works as “fundamentally eroding CEQA,” an environmental law that has been in place for over fifty years. CEQA requires that a lead agency conduct an environmental review of proposed projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. During the review process, project significant impacts on the environment must be identified, analyzed, and more serious impacts avoided or minimized to a level that is less than significant to ensure that people and the environment will not be put at risk by any proposed development. Effects run the gamut from public safety, hazardous materials, flood risk, water supply, geotechnical concerns (earthquakes, liquefaction, etc.) and air quality to effects on biological resources. The level of review is commensurate with the severity of the impacts a from a proposed project. According to CEQA Works, SB 607 would “essentially eliminate in-depth environmental review for a long list of polluting development projects.”
Sadly, the Legislature failed to “clean-up” amendments to address concerns about a CEQA exemption for vague “advanced manufacturing facilities”, and the need for a broader definition of “natural and protected lands,” as had been promised. On September 12, 2025, Assemblymember Damon Connolly and twenty Senate and Assembly Principal Co-authors introduced Assembly Bill 1083 to ensure cleanup legislation of SB 131 occurs.
SB 71
CCCR expressed grave concerns regarding the proposed CEQA exemption (no required CEQA environmental review) for the construction of new ferry terminals that is included in the bill language. CCCR does not oppose ferries as a mode of public transportation, nor would we oppose a CEQA exemption for the rehabilitation of existing facilities. However, new ferry terminal construction and operations, or the expansion of existing ferry terminals have the potential to result in significant harm to environmentally sensitive aquatic habitats and wildlife, and therefore warrant full CEQA environmental review to ensure harm will be avoided or mitigated.
With SB 71, consideration of the likely significant and unmitigated impacts from construction of landings and docks, dredging, and the operation of high-speed ferries to the waters and sensitive habitats and wildlife of the state would be exempt from the existing requirement for environmental review. San Francisco Bay would be most at risk of harm since the Bay Area by far has more ferry operations than any other location in California, and the San Francisco Bay Estuary is one of the most environmentally sensitive marine resources in California. The waters, tidal marshes and mudflats of San Francisco Bay, and its tidal creeks, rivers and wetlands have been documented to be one of the most important habitats for providing climate resilience and protection for biodiversity. Sensitive areas that could be affected by the removal of CEQA protections include designated state marine parks and protected areas, and certain units of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Impacts from ferry terminal construction and ferry operations can be serious. Tidal marshes can be eroded by wakes from high-speed ferries, decreasing habitat for the endangered Ridgway’s Rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. Bay intertidal mudflats can be damaged from dredging, destroying invertebrate fauna that provide food for foraging migratory shorebirds. Eelgrass beds, which provide important habitat for spawning herring can be damaged by vessel wakes, and Essential Fish Habitat throughout the estuary is sensitive to disturbance and potential pollutants and contaminants from construction. Many species of ducks and other waterfowl and harbor seals can be harmed by frequent disturbance or impediments to accessing foraging areas, and new ferry operations could increase vessel-strike and noise impacts to the growing number of whales that are visiting the Bay.
Although CCCR advocated for amending the bill’s language to limit the CEQA exemption to the rehabilitation and improvement of existing ferry terminals only, our proposed change was not accepted and the bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 17, 2025.
SB 79
This bill would create a state mandate for housing to be an allowed use on sites zoned for residential, mixed or commercial development within a ½ or ¼ mile radius of certain transit-oriented development stops including ferry terminals. Requiring local governments to build housing in coastal and Bay shoreline areas vulnerable to sea level rise complicates, and may eliminate, future options for local jurisdictions to plan for sea level rise, and could result in future displacement risks for residents as sea levels continue to get higher.
Just as we have recognized that building homes in high wildfire risk areas and designated FEMA flood zones is not sustainable or healthy for communities, cities and counties along the California coast and shoreline of San Francisco Bay are beginning to work together to address the significant risks to communities posed by predicted sea level rise (SLR). With the enactment of SB 272 in 2023, many jurisdictions have already initiated SLR vulnerability assessments and other planning efforts towards completion of their state-mandated sea level rise adaptation plans (Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans).
To assist local governments in the Bay Area with these planning efforts, in December 2024 the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) released the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) Guidelines for local governments to develop and implement SLR adaptation strategies. The RSAP’s Element E: Land Use and Policy Plan advises that “Jurisdictions will need to balance the trade-offs…while deciding where to focus or reduce certain land uses, and how to mitigate risk when placing new development in areas that may be at risk of hazards.” Undeveloped parcels and responsible redevelopment along the coast and San Francisco Bay shorelines and tidal creeks offer opportunities for creating areas for nature-based flood protection such as sloped ecotone levees. Shoreline areas of aging commercial, retail or light industry that are vulnerable to flood inundation provide space where sea level rise adaptation strategies can be implemented, if ultimately necessary. The RSAP advices local governments to “Avoid constraining future opportunities for managed retreat if that is the only option.”
Removal of aging, shoreline, non-residential buildings and associated infrastructure would be much more economical and significantly less disruptive to the community than involuntary displacement of families from their homes. The RSAP requires local governments to “Describe and map any proposed land use changes necessary to achieve the selected adaptation strategies…”, stating that “Land use changes may include changes to zoning types, shifts in density, overlay zones, easements, or other planning tools.”
Cities, counties and local agencies statewide will be bearing a large part of the burden of the overwhelming costs associated with SLR protective measures, either by raising taxes/special assessments on residents and businesses or trying to secure grants. Local jurisdictions must retain the ability to control this future economic burden by determining the most cost effective interventions for sea level rise protections, even if this results in cities not maximizing new housing in certain high-risk areas near the shoreline.
A September 2, 2025 amendment to the bill language removed ferry terminals as a Tier 3 “transit-oriented development stop” and added language that recognizes potential vulnerability of shorelines to sea level rise:
“ Prior to the seventh revision of the housing element, Section 65912.157 shall not apply to any of the following for which the local government has adopted an
ordinance in accordance with Section 65912.160 indicating the site’s
exclusion:
(F) Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as
determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States
Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local
government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment.”
[Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code 65912.61
(b)(1)(F)]
The bill was enrolled September 12, 2025.
CCCR was very pleased to see that our efforts paid off with the inclusion of this important language in the bill. The successful amendment to the bill was possible through CCCR’s identification of the issue and proposal for a solution, and the strong political advocacy for the amended language by our partner, Greenbelt Alliance, and especially Jordan Grimes, their Resilience Manager.