Laura Friedman (D-CA)
To exempt Federal actions related to the construction of infill housing from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 10 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.R. 5085 exempts Federal actions related to infill housing from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The bill defines infill housing as residential housing on sites that are vacant or underutilized, previously developed with an urban use, no larger than 20 acres, and meeting specific surrounding development and environmental assessment criteria. It also ensures that these sites are not located in census tracts designated as very high or relatively high risk for wildfire, coastal flooding, and riverine flooding under FEMA's National Risk Index. Infill housing activities covered include acquiring land, demolishing non-historic structures, constructing or rehabilitating housing, and converting non-residential buildings. Additionally, the bill updates the requirement for natural hazard risk assessment updates from every 5 years to every 3 years.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +6
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill explicitly promotes and streamlines the construction and development of infill housing.
- Scored +5
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The bill targets urban infill development, directly impacting urban residential infrastructure.
- Scored +4
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults often struggle with housing affordability and benefit from increased housing supply.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Exempting infill housing federal actions from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reduces environmental review requirements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 1(a) exempts Federal actions related to infill housing activities from being considered major Federal actions under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which could benefit individuals and groups by streamlining the process for developing residential housing on vacant or underutilized sites.
-
Section 1(b)(2)(A)(v) requires sites to undergo Phase I and, if necessary, Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, or be properly remediated, which can benefit people by ensuring that hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or petroleum releases are checked and addressed before housing is built.
-
Section 1(b)(2)(B) ensures that infill housing sites are not located in census tracts designated as very high or relatively high risk for wildfire, coastal flooding, and riverine flooding, protecting individuals from building homes in areas identified with these specific natural hazard risks.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions outlining negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill targets urban infill development, directly impacting urban residential infrastructure. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Expanding the housing supply can help alleviate severe housing cost burdens for low-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Additional housing stock helps moderate housing cost pressures for middle-class families. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults often struggle with housing affordability and benefit from increased housing supply. Would business owners be better off under this? — Real estate developers and local business owners benefit from streamlined housing development. Would children be better off under this? — Stable housing options benefit families and children. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increased housing availability helps middle-aged households looking to buy or rent. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — More diverse housing choices in urban areas can benefit seniors seeking accessible or downsized homes. Would students be better off under this? — More residential units in urban areas can improve housing options for students. Would union members be better off under this? — Construction and building trades can see increased project opportunities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Access to affordable housing improvements benefits minority communities facing housing disparities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General market additions have minor positive effects across housing markets. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Access to affordable housing improvements benefits minority communities facing housing disparities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — New housing supply aids newcomers looking to establish residency in urban areas. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees looking for accessible infill housing options can benefit. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans seeking affordable residential options benefit from increased housing availability. Would women be better off under this? — Expanded housing availability benefits single-parent households and women seeking affordable housing options.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill explicitly promotes and streamlines the construction and development of infill housing. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increasing the overall housing supply through infill projects can help address broader housing shortages.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining infill housing development can spur construction and development jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Facilitating housing construction can contribute positively to local economic activity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Easier residential development processes can support small-scale builders and developers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Updating natural hazard risk assessments every 3 years instead of 5 improves disaster preparedness information. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promoting urban infill housing can encourage more sustainable, transit-accessible development patterns. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Exempting infill housing federal actions from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reduces environmental review requirements.
- 8/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/11/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/3/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 9/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
- 9/2/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Jake AuchinclossDemocrat · Massachusetts
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Josh HarderDemocrat · California
Pablo HernándezDemocrat · Puerto Rico
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Seth MagazinerDemocrat · Rhode Island
Scott PetersDemocrat · California
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Ritchie TorresDemocrat · New York