SACRAMENTO, CA – Governor Gavin Newsom’s May Revision budget proposal included sweeping new reforms to California’s landmark environmental law, CEQA, drawing praise from county leaders for cutting bureaucratic red tape on housing development. But the budget’s glaring omission of additional homelessness funding has left county officials frustrated and concerned, especially as they grapple with surging homelessness and strained local resources.
While the governor’s May Revision aims to expand access to judicial CEQA streamlining for large housing developments and introduce climate-smart housing incentives, county leaders say the state has once again failed to provide the reliable funding and structural clarity needed to make a real impact on homelessness.
“We stand by every word of our previous statement: The state has not done everything it can to address homelessness in California,” said CSAC President, Inyo County Supervisor Jeff Griffiths. “Because it hasn’t addressed the two state-imposed barriers to progress—unclear responsibilities and unreliable funding.”
The tension escalated after Governor Newsom publicly criticized CSAC for suggesting the state had not done enough. One day later, county leaders reiterated their position, emphasizing a disconnect between the state’s rhetoric and its fiscal commitment.
“We’re hugely disappointed with the governor’s choice to abandon local efforts to fight homelessness,” said Tuolumne County Supervisor Ryan Campbell. “We in rural counties took a risk by investing heavily toward alleviating homelessness. The state implied we’d get funded for the long run. Now, we feel the rug has been pulled out from underneath us.”
At the heart of the counties’ frustration is the lack of new homelessness funding in the May Revision. Despite repeated calls for sustained, flexible funding to support local reentry, emergency shelter, and permanent supportive housing programs, the revised budget offers no new allocations dedicated to homelessness services.
This omission comes as counties face rising pressure to manage complex reentry and behavioral health populations under recent criminal justice reforms. Earlier this week, CSAC released a funding analysis showing that while the state has allocated $29 billion toward housing and homelessness over the past six years, the vast majority of that funding went to housing production, not homelessness services.
According to CSAC’s breakdown, over half of the money supported general housing programs, with nearly half going directly to developers. Just one-quarter of the funds reached counties—and even then, it came piecemeal, often restricted to one-year allocations that undermine long-term planning.
“We need the state to be a true partner,” said Campbell. “California must enshrine clear responsibilities for each level of government into law and provide reliable resources so that successful local efforts don’t wither on the vine.”
Counties argue that without stable, ongoing investment from the state, their ability to reduce homelessness is fundamentally hamstrung—even as they are increasingly tasked with front-line response.
In contrast, counties welcomed the CEQA-related proposals outlined in the May Revision. The administration’s plan to fold two CEQA streamlining bills into the budget package received strong support from local governments, who say the reforms reflect the types of practical, actionable solutions they’ve long advocated for.
“California counties support both CEQA-streamlining bills that the state may fold into its budget package,” said Santa Clara County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, who also serves as CSAC First Vice President. “Counties would also like to see streamlined development processes for transitional and permanent supportive housing projects so people experiencing homelessness can more quickly get into long-term housing and receive any needed support.”
The CEQA reform package would expand judicial streamlining to housing developments over $100 million, allowing them to utilize the same expedited review process currently available to smaller projects. It also introduces a new alternative compliance option for environmental review—allowing applicants to show alignment with the California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan instead of completing a full net-zero greenhouse gas analysis.
According to the governor’s office, these changes aim to increase clarity and consistency, while advancing infill and transit-oriented housing development aligned with the state’s climate goals.
The May Revision also seeks to harmonize Coastal Commission permitting timelines with those of other regulatory agencies, so that housing in coastal areas—often delayed by unique permitting constraints—can advance more quickly. Another proposal links vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions to innovative developer financing strategies, further incentivizing housing production in low-emission, high-opportunity areas.
“These reforms are essential,” Ellenberg added. “But they must be paired with efforts to remove barriers to supportive and transitional housing development. Otherwise, we risk streamlining market-rate and luxury projects while homelessness continues to grow unchecked.”
As the state pushes forward on CEQA modernization, counties are urging the administration not to treat environmental reform and homelessness investment as separate issues. Local officials say the two must be tackled together if California hopes to meet its housing and equity goals.
Governor Newsom has framed his CEQA reform efforts as part of a broader campaign to “remove barriers to progress” and deliver more housing, faster. His administration says it remains committed to planning for over 2.5 million new homes during the current housing cycle—more than double the previous cycle—including at least one million affordable homes. Since taking office, Newsom has signed 42 CEQA-related housing reforms and established new accountability measures to push local governments toward their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.
Still, counties say that while the governor’s focus on housing supply is laudable, it must be matched with an equal commitment to meeting the service and shelter needs of the state’s most vulnerable residents—especially those exiting jail, dealing with behavioral health conditions, or living unsheltered in encampments.
“The CEQA reforms are an important step,” said one county official. “But CEQA isn’t what’s stopping us from sheltering people tonight. What’s stopping us is a lack of flexible funding, a lack of support for ongoing operations, and a lack of clear roles across levels of government.”
As the Legislature prepares to negotiate the final state budget in the coming weeks, county leaders are calling for a renewed partnership grounded in shared responsibility. They argue that just as the state needs counties to help build and permit housing, counties need the state to support long-term homelessness interventions.
CSAC continues to advocate for three key principles: clear legal responsibilities across jurisdictions, reliable multi-year funding streams, and more flexibility in how homelessness dollars are used. County officials say these reforms are essential if California wants to end its reliance on one-time grants and avoid the boom-and-bust cycle of homelessness investments.
With the May Revision now under review in the Legislature, counties are watching closely to see whether the final budget will reflect a more balanced approach—one that supports both housing production and critical homelessness services.
“Ultimately, we need the state to match its ambition on housing with equal resolve to reduce homelessness,” Ellenberg said. “We’re ready to do our part. But we can’t do it alone.”
“the budget’s glaring omission of additional homelessness funding has left county officials frustrated and concerned”
Because past spending on homeless issues has gone so swimmingly. We must spend more!
“also seeks to harmonize Coastal Commission permitting timelines with those of other regulatory agencies, so that housing in coastal areas—often delayed by unique permitting constraints—can advance more quickly.”
Unique permitting constraints, like not destroying the beauty of the California coast.
“Another proposal links vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions to innovative developer financing strategies, further incentivizing housing production in low-emission, high-opportunity areas.”
So giving money to developers, instead of investing in alternatives to highways.
It sounds like our state’s lefties aren’t going to be happy until they have destroyed much of California’s beauty.
SB 609 just passed the Assembly 63-0, guess it’s not just the lefties
Probably need to see “who” voted for it, since there’s 60 Democrats in the Assembly (out of 80 seats). Did the Republicans not even bother to vote?
In any case, Republicans like CEQA even less than Democrats do. So it puts Republicans in a bind if they oppose weakening of CEQA.
Reminds me of the situation at Pt. Reyes, where some ranchers (who don’t want to leave the park) are engaging in legal arguments on behalf of their “undocumented” workers who live in the park. (Puts both “sides” in a real bind. Trump, for example, normally hates public land – but also hates illegal immigration. While those who support public land are generally more-supportive of undocumented workers, but also don’t want to see public land privatized and environmentally-damaged. The latter group is also more-generally concerned with the welfare of animals on ranches.)
In any case, the bill that you’re referring to is not focused on the coast.
Housing is not necessarily a partisan issue. In this particular case, it’s often the “non-lefties” fighting the state. Cities like Huntington Beach, Carmel, Encinitas, etc.
For example: the pro-development council was swept out of office in Encinatas, and replaced with people like this (the new mayor):
“Ehlers is no stranger to the fight against state housing mandates and has previously taken different approaches.”
“He was the author of Proposition A, a growth-control initiative approved by voters in 2013 that requires a vote by Encinitas residents for any major zoning and density changes.”
“During his time on the Planning Commission, Ehlers regularly pushed back against proposed housing projects leading to him being removed from the Planning Commission in 2022 by the then-City Council, who said Ehlers had a record of opposing the city’s efforts to stay compliant with state housing laws and an inability to remain unbiased and objective when considering housing projects.”
“Now, he believes the answer lies at the top.”
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/02/20/encinitas-mayor-push-to-regain-local-control-must-start-at-the-state/
Admittedly, I don’t know anything about the “other” political views of the new mayor of Encinitas. But I’m going to guess he’s no “leftie”.