Connect with us

California

Will this bill be the end of California’s housing vs environment wars?

Published

on

Will this bill be the end of California’s housing vs environment wars?


By Ben Christopher, CalMatters

New housing construction in a neighborhood in Elk Grove on July 8, 2022. Photo by Rahul Lal, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

For years California has been stuck in a recurring fight between legislators who want the state to turbocharge new home construction and legislators determined to defend a landmark environmental protection law.

Advertisement

The final showdown in that long-standing battle may have just arrived. 

A new bill by Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks would exempt most urban housing developments from the 55-year-old California Environmental Quality Act.

If it passes — a big if, even in today’s ascendent pro-building political environment — it would mean no more environmental lawsuits over proposed apartment buildings, no more legislative debates over which projects should be favored with exemptions and no more use of the law by environmental justice advocates, construction unions and anti-development homeowners to wrest concessions from developers or delay them indefinitely.

In short, it would spell the end of California’s Housing-CEQA Wars. 

“If we’re able to get it to the governor’s desk, I think it’s probably one of the most significant changes to CEQA we will have seen since the law’s inception,” said Wicks.

Advertisement

Wicks’ broadside at CEQA (pronounced “see-kwah”) is one of 22 housing bills that she and a bipartisan group of legislators are parading out Thursday as a unified “Fast Track Housing Package.” Wicks teed up the legislative blitz earlier this month when she released a report, based on the findings of the select committee she chaired last year, that identified slow, uncertain and costly regulatory approval processes as among the main culprits behind California’s housing crisis. 

The nearly two dozen bills are a deregulatory barrage meant to blast away at every possible choke point in the housing approval pipeline. 

Most are eye-glazingly deep in the weeds.

There are bills to standardize municipal forms and speed up big city application processes. One bill would assign state and regional regulatory agencies strict timelines to approve or reject projects and another would let developers hire outside reviewers if cities blow the deadlines. Different bills take aim at different institutions identified as obstructionist: the California Coastal Commission, investor-owned utilities and local governments throwing up roadblocks to the construction of duplexes.

Wicks’ bill stands out. It’s simple: No more environmental lawsuits for “infill” housing. It’s also likely to draw the most controversy.

Advertisement

“It’s trying something that legislators have not been willing to try in the past,” said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor and frequent critic of CEQA. “And the reason they have not been willing to try in the past is because there are a constellation of interest groups that benefit from the status quo.  The question now is whether those interest groups will kill this or there’s a change in the zeitgeist.”

A spokesperson for CEQA Works, a coalition of dozens of environmental, conservation, and preservation advocacy organizations, said the members of the group needed more time to review the new legislation before being interviewed for this story.

A spokesperson for the State Building and Construction Trades Council, which advocates on behalf of tens of thousands of unionized construction workers in California, said the organization was still “digging into” the details of the bill.

What’s the big deal?

The California Environmental Quality Act has been on the books since 1971, but its power as a potential check on development has ebbed and flowed with various court rulings and state legislative sessions. The act doesn’t ban or restrict anything outright. It requires government agencies to study the environmental impact of any decisions they make — including the approval of new housing — and to make those studies public.

In practice, these studies can take years to complete and can be challenged in court, sometimes repeatedly. 

Advertisement

Defenders of how the law applies to new housing argue that CEQA lawsuits are, in fact, relatively rare. Critics counter that the mere threat of litigation is often enough to pare down or entirely dissuade potential development. 

As state lawmakers have come around to the idea that the state’s shortage of homes is the main driver of California’s punishingly high cost of living — and a major political vulnerability for Democrats — CEQA has been a frequent target. 

Until now, attacks on the law have generally come in the form of selective carve-outs, conditioned exemptions and narrow loopholes.

“If we’re able to get it to the governor’s desk, I think it’s probably one of the most significant changes to CEQA we will have seen since the law’s inception.”

Buffy Wicks, Assemblymember, Democrat, Oakland

There’s the law that lets apartment developers ignore the act — but only so long as they set aside some of the units at a discount and pay their workers union-level wages.

Advertisement

A spate of bills from two years ago waived the act for most homes, but only if they are reserved exclusively for low-income tenants. 

There was the time a CEQA lawsuit held up a UC Berkeley student housing project over its presumptively noisy future tenants and the Legislature clapped back with a hyper-specific exemption.

Wicks’ new bill is different, in that the exemption is broad and comes with no strings attached. It would apply to any “infill” housing project, a general term for homes in already built-up urban areas, as opposed to fresh subdivisions on the suburban fringes.

That echoes a suggestion from the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, which made a series of “targeted reform” proposals to the environmental law last year.

“California will never achieve its housing goals as long as CEQA has the potential to turn housing development into something akin to urban warfare—contested block by block, building by building,” the report said. “The Commission recommends that the state exempt all infill housing from CEQA review— without additional conditions or qualifications.” 

Advertisement

Wicks bill defines “infill” broadly as any housing in an urban area that’s either been previously developed or surrounded by developed lots and doesn’t sit on a wetland, a farm field, a hazardous waste site or a conservation area. 

The site also has to be less than 20 acres to qualify for the exemption, but at roughly the size of 15 football fields, that’s not likely to be a limiting factor for most housing projects.

One possible rub: When a housing project varies from what is allowed under local zoning rules and requires special approval — a common requirement even for small housing projects — the exemption would not apply.

Enter another bill in the housing package, Senate Bill 607. Authored by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, that bill would also exempt those rezonings from CEQA if the project is consistent with the city’s state-mandated housing plan.

“Put the two bills together and it’s really a dramatic raising of the ante in terms of what the pro-housing legislators are willing to put on the table and ask their colleagues to vote for,” said Elmendorf.

Advertisement

An environmental case against the Environmental Quality Act?

Environmental justice advocates regularly use the law to block or extract changes from developments that they argue will negatively affect low-income communities. Developers and lawyers regularly claim that organized labor groups defend the law to preserve it as a hard-nosed labor negotiation tool. Well-to-do homeowners who oppose local development projects for any reason may turn to CEQA to stall a project that otherwise passes muster on paper. 

All these groups have pull in the California capitol. That may be one reason why this kind of bill hasn’t been introduced in recent memory.

Wicks said she thinks California’s Legislature may be ready to take up the cause. The severity of the housing crisis, Democratic electoral losses over the issue of unaffordability, and the urgency to rebuild in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires all have created a “moment” for this argument, she said.  

She, and other supporters of the bill, also insist that the cause of the environment is on their side too. 

“I don’t view building infill housing for our working class communities in need as on par with drilling more oil wells in our communities, yet CEQA is applied in the same way,” she said.

Advertisement

Researchers have found that packing more homes into already-dense urban areas is a good way to cut down carbon emissions. That’s because living closer to shops, schools, jobs and restaurants mean more walking and biking and less driving, and also because downtown apartments, which tend to be smaller, require less energy to heat and cool. 

Even if infill is, in general, more ecologically friendly than sprawl development, that doesn’t mean that a particular project can’t produce a wide array of environmental harms. In a letter to the Little Hoover Commission, the California Environmental Justice Alliance, a nonprofit member of CEQA Works, highlighted the 2007 Miraflores Senior Housing project in Richmond. 

A final environmental impact report for the project “added strategies to mitigate the poor air quality, water quality, and noise impacts” associated with the development and “included plans to preserve the historic character of buildings, added key sustainability strategies, and improved the process for site clean up.” That report was certified by the city in 2009.

Jennifer Hernandez, a land-use attorney and one of the state’s most prolific critics of CEQA, said local permit requirements and public nuisance rules should be up to the task of addressing those problems, no outside litigation required.

“The whole construct of using CEQA to allow the dissenting ‘no’ vote, a community member with resources, to hold up a project for five years is just ridiculous,” she said. “It’s like making the mere act of inhabiting a city for the people who live there a harm to the existing environment.”

Advertisement

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.



Source link

California

Gavin Newsom proposes $350B California budget — kicks the can on debt

Published

on

Gavin Newsom proposes 0B California budget — kicks the can on debt


California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a record-high $350 billion state budget Friday that makes “historic” investments in areas like education — but kicks the can on paying down federal debt, foisting costs onto struggling employers.

Newsom’s budget incorporates a $43 billion windfall tied to the stock market that he touted in his State of the State speech Thursday, bringing his office’s estimated deficit down to $3 billion — the state’s fourth deficit in a row. The budget plows billions into maintaining education, health care, and other programs but ignores a $20 billion federal loan for Covid unemployment payments — a situation one legislator called “alarming.”

Ignoring the loan means small businesses are on the hook for the state’s debt, said state Sen. Roger Niello of Fair Oaks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a record-high $350 billion state budget Friday REUTERS

“We already have the highest unemployment in the nation and we’re putting this additional burden on our employers. It makes absolutely no sense,” Niello said.

Advertisement

The budget includes $662.2 million in mandatory interest payments, but there is no money going towards the principal.

Since July, the total balance has ballooned to $21.3 billion, and private employers in California pick up the tab under federal rules. Employers pay an $42 extra per employee this year and growing, per KCRA

Every state expect California has paid off the Covid-era loans.

“That is an alarming thing because [Newsom is] basically saying that businesses and employment are not a priority to him and that’s troubling,” Niello added.

At 5.5%, California’s unemployment rate was the highest in the country as of November.

Advertisement

Newsom’s $350 billion budget proposal is about $30 billion higher than this year’s budget, thanks largely to federal healthcare cuts that forced costs onto the state and mandatory set-asides in areas like education.

Newsom’s finance director Joe Stephenshaw highlighted record spending on education. California Governor Gavin Newsom

At a budget briefing Friday, Newsom’s finance director Joe Stephenshaw highlighted record spending on education— amounting to a record $27,418 per K-12 student, $5.3 billion for the University of California system, $15.4 billion to community colleges, and $1 billion to needy schools — along with $500 million towards local homelessness prevention, $195 million in new public safety spending, $3 billion for the state’s rainy day fund and $4 billion for school reserve funds.

The budget includes some cuts to climate-related spending and housing and homelessness, per Calmatters. And it does not include any direct funding for Prop. 36, the anti-crime measure supported by nearly 70% of voters in 2024 — a move Republicans blasted.

But even with Newsom’s unexpected windfall, analysts expect deficits to grow to as high as $35 billion in the coming years as expenditures outpace even optimistic revenue projections.

Newsom and the state Legislative Analyst create separate budget projections, and the governor’s has historically been far rosier on the revenue side. The legislative analyst projected a $18 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year, while the governor calculated $3 billion.

Advertisement

Under Newsom, the state’s general fund spending has increased by 77% partly owing to new programs spun up when the state was flush with cash, according to Republican legislators.

Newsom’s $350 billion budget — the last before he leaves office next year — does little to confront ballooning expenses, dumping the problem on the future governor and Legislature, according to Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones.

“This is more of the same from a lame-duck governor content on leaving the rest of us to pick up the financial pieces when he leaves office,” Jones said in a statement.  

Democrats in the legislature were more measured in their responses.

Advertisement
Newsom’s $350 billion budget proposal is about $30 billion higher than this year’s budget, thanks largely to federal healthcare cuts. California Governor Gavin Newsom

“During these times of uncertainty, we must craft a responsible budget that prioritizes the safety and fiscal stability of California families,” said State Senate Leader Monique Limón in a statement.

Newsom and legislators will refine the budget in the coming months towards a final proposal in May.

One major unknown is how California will handle a loss of about $1.4 billion in funding due toTrump administration changes to low-income health care and food programs.

Last year, Newsom was force to scale back a controversial plan to provide Medicaid coverage for illegal immigrants after costs spiked, forcing California was forced to borrow $3.4 billion, Politico reported.

Newsom’s budget didn’t fully explain what would happen to immigrant health care under federal cuts, and Stephenshaw struggled to answer detailed questions from reporters — saying Newsom’s office was still awaiting guidance from the feds.

Advertisement

“As we work through the May revision, this is something we’ll be well aware of and we’ll make those decision at that time,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 

Published

on

How Trump’s tariffs ricochet through a Southern California business park 


  • Tariffs impact businesses in Rye Canyon differently
  • Supreme Court may rule on Trump’s emergency tariffs soon
  • Some businesses adapt, others struggle with tariff costs

VALENCIA, California, Jan 9 (Reuters) – America’s trade wars forced Robert Luna to hike prices on the rustic wooden Mexican furniture he sells from a crowded warehouse here, while down the street, Eddie Cole scrambled to design new products to make up for lost sales on his Chinese-made motorcycle accessories.

Farther down the block, Luis Ruiz curbed plans to add two imported molding machines to his small plastics factory.

Sign up here.

“I voted for him,” said Ruiz, CEO of Valencia Plastics, referring to President Donald Trump. “But I didn’t vote for this.”

All three businesses are nestled in the epitome of a globalized American economy: A lushly landscaped California business park called Rye Canyon. Tariffs are a hot topic here – but experiences vary as much as the businesses that fill the 3.1 million square feet of offices, warehouses, and factories.

Advertisement

Tenants include a company that provides specially equipped cars to film crews for movies and commercials, a dance school, and a company that sells Chinese-made LED lights. There’s even a Walmart Supercenter. Some have lost business while others have flourished under the tariff regime.

Rye Canyon is roughly an hour-and-a-half drive from the sprawling Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And until now, it was a prime locale for globally connected businesses like these. But these days, sitting on the frontlines of global trade is precarious.

The average effective tariff rate on imports to the U.S. now stands at almost 17%–up from 2.5% before Trump took office and the highest level since 1935. Few countries have been spared from the onslaught, such as Cuba, but mainly because existing barriers make meaningful trade with them unlikely.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said President Trump was leveling the playing field for large and small businesses by addressing unfair trading practices through tariffs and reducing cumbersome regulations.

‘WE HAD TO GET CREATIVE’ TO OFFSET TRUMP’S TARIFFS

Rye Canyon’s tenants may receive some clarity soon. The U.S. Supreme Court could rule as early as Friday on the constitutionality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs. The U.S. has so far taken in nearly $150 billion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If struck down, the administration may be forced to refund all or part of that to importers.

Advertisement

For some, the impact of tariffs was painful – but mercifully short. Harlan Kirschner, who imports about 30% of the beauty products he distributes to salons and retailers from an office here, said prices spiked during the first months of the Trump administration’s push to levy the taxes.

“It’s now baked into the cake,” he said. “The price increases went through when the tariffs were being done.” No one talks about those price increases any more, he said.

For Ruiz, the plastics manufacturer, the impact of tariffs is more drawn out. Valencia makes large-mouth containers for protein powders sold at health food stores across the U.S. and Canada. Before Trump’s trade war, Ruiz planned to add two machines costing over half a million dollars to allow him to churn out more containers and new sizes.

But the machines are made in China and tariffs suddenly made them unaffordable. He’s spent the last few months negotiating with the Chinese machine maker—settling on a plan that offsets the added tariff cost by substituting smaller machines and a discount based on his willingness to let the Chinese producer use his factory as an occasional showcase for their products.

“We had to get creative,” he said. “We can’t wait for (Trump) to leave. I’m not going to let the guy decide how we’re going to grow.”

Advertisement

‘I’M MAD AT HIM NOW’

To be sure, there are winners in these trade battles. Ruiz’s former next-door neighbor, Greg Waugh, said tariffs are helping his small padlock factory. He was already planning to move before the trade war erupted, as Rye Canyon wanted his space for the expansion of another larger tenant, a backlot repair shop for Universal Studios. But he’s now glad he moved into a much larger space about two miles away outside the park, because as his competitors announced price increases on imported locks, he’s started getting more inquiries from U.S. buyers looking to buy domestic.

“I think tariffs give us a cushion we need to finally grow and compete,” said Waugh, president and CEO of Pacific Lock.

For Cole, a former pro motorcycle racer turned entrepreneur, there have only been downsides to the new taxes.

He started his motorcycle accessories company in his garage in 1976 and built a factory in the area in the early 1980s. He later sold that business and – as many industries shifted to cheaper production from Asia – reestablished himself later as an importer of motorcycle gear with Chinese business partners, with an office and warehouse in Rye Canyon.

“Ninety-five percent of our products come from China,” he said. Cole estimates he’s paid “hundreds of thousands” in tariffs so far. He declined to disclose his sales.

Advertisement

Cole said he voted for Trump three times in a row, “but I’m mad at him now.”

Cole even wrote to the White House, asking for more consideration of how tariffs disrupt small businesses. He included a photo of a motorcycle stand the company had made for Eric Trump’s family, which has an interest in motorcycles.

“I said, ‘Look Donald, I’m sure there’s a lot of reasons you think tariffs are good for America,” but as a small business owner he doesn’t have the ability to suddenly shift production around the world to contain costs like big corporations. He’s created new products, such as branded tents, to make up for some of the business he’s lost in his traditional lines as prices spiked.

He pulls out his phone to show the response he got back from the White House, via email. “It’s a form letter,” he said, noting that it talks about how the taxes make sense.

Meanwhile, Robert Luna isn’t waiting to see if tariffs will go away or be refunded. His company, DeMejico, started by his Mexican immigrant parents, makes traditional-style furniture including hefty dining tables that sell for up to $8,000. He’s paying 25% tariffs on wooden furniture and 50% on steel accents like hinges, made in his own plant in Mexico. He’s raised prices on some items by 20%.

Advertisement

Fearing further price hikes from tariffs and other rising costs will continue to curb demand, he’s working with a Vietnamese producer on a new line of inexpensive furniture he can sell under a different brand name. Vietnam has tariffs, he said, but also a much lower cost base.

“My thing is mere survival,” he said, “that’s the goal.”

Reporting by Timothy Aeppel; additional reporting by David Lawder
Editing by Anna Driver and Dan Burns

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video

Published

on

Up to 20 billionaires may leave California over tax threat | Fox Business Video




Source link

Continue Reading

Trending