Connect with us

California

‘Too damn hard to build’:  A key California Democrat’s push for speedier construction

Published

on

‘Too damn hard to build’:  A key California Democrat’s push for speedier construction

In summary

Oakland Democrat Buffy Wicks said lawmakers will soon see 20 bills to speed up housing construction, along with more on energy, water and transit.

A California legislator wants to solve the state’s housing crisis, juice its economy, fight climate change and save the Democratic Party with one “excruciatingly non-sexy” idea.

Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks sees the slow, occasionally redundant, often litigious process of getting construction projects okayed by federal, state and local governments as a chief roadblock to fixing California’s most pressing problems, from housing to water to public transportation to climate change. 

Advertisement

Last year, Wicks helmed a select committee on “permitting reform” — a catch-all term for speeding up government review at all stages of a project’s development, not just its literal permits. The committee went on a state-hopping fact-finding mission, taking testimony from experts, builders and advocates on why it takes so long to build apartment buildings, wind farms, water storage and public transit, to name a few notoriously slow and desperately needed project types.

Today, that committee released its final report. The summary, per Wicks, is that “it is too damn hard to build anything in California.”

The report stresses the need for the state to build millions of new housing units and electric vehicle chargers; thousands of miles of transit; drought, flooding and sea level rise projects; and renewable energy projects “built and interconnected at three times the historical rate.”

Though the jargon-laden technical analysis isn’t likely to go viral, the report tees up what could be one of the biggest legislative battles of the coming year. Wicks said lawmakers in both chambers are hammering out 20 bills on permitting snags for housing construction alone. Other bills to speed approvals for transit, clean energy and water projects are reportedly in the works too.

Lawmakers regularly pass one-off bills aimed at making it easier for favored projects to get built. Nearly every legislative session for the last decade has seen at least a handful of “streamlining” bills for dense housing. 

Advertisement

This political moment may be primed for something bigger, said Wicks. In the capitol, an aggressive red-tape snipping mood seems to have set in. More California officials, especially in Los Angeles and especially in the wake of January’s wildfires, want to re-examine how buildings get permitted. 

President Trump’s unambiguous, if modest, electoral victory in November, riding a wave of public anger over Biden-era inflation, has pushed many Democrats to reorient their policy platforms toward cost of living issues.  

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, kicked off this year’s legislative session by urging lawmakers to “consider every bill through the lens” of affordability. Gov. Gavin Newsom more recently acknowledged “the inability of the state of California to get out of its own way” on big, important projects. He suspended certain environmental regulations for fire prevention projects last Saturday.  

In California and across the country, concurrent housing and climate crises have convinced many lawmakers and Democratic-leaning policy commentators to prioritize building lots and lots of things: apartment buildings, EV charging stations, electric transmission lines, solar and wind farms, rail lines and bus networks. The quicker the better. 

The catastrophic Los Angeles firestorms from January highlighted just how difficult it can be to rebuild. Newsom has named cutting environmental regulations and speeding up entitlement and permitting processes in the burned areas as his top priority. 

In Sacramento, a new batch of state lawmakers, elected partly by mad-as-hell voters and unscarred by past legislative battles over permitting changes, may be newly receptive to making big changes too. 

Advertisement

“All of that combined makes, I think, a unique opportunity for us to actually have some pretty significant change,” said Wicks. 

The report itself does not offer precise recommendations, but its analysis is often tellingly specific, offering clues about the changes that lawmakers can expect to debate this spring. 

Described as “opportunities for reform,” these are, in Wicks’ words, often “excruciatingly non-sexy.” For example, the report notes that lawmakers could be more specific about when a certain type of housing application is deemed “complete” in order to shield developers from future legal changes. Another “opportunity”: Allow for third-party experts to sign off on a project’s plans. 

Current policies that could be a template for regulatory revamping, according to the report: the state’s bolstering of accessory dwelling units, electric vehicle charging stations and certain environmental restoration projects. 

But those “success stories” share a trait that points to what could be the most contentious aspect of the coming legislative package. All three are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, a 1970 law that requires governments to study and publish findings on the environmental impact of any decision they make, including the approval of new housing, transit or energy projects. 

Advertisement

The act, pronounced see-kwah, is among the most fiercely debated in California politics. Opponents contend that the law is regularly hijacked by special interest groups, such as NIMBY property owners or organized labor unions, to stall projects for decidedly non-environmental reasons. They point to high profile court battles as examples of the act’s abuse, such as the case resolved by the state Supreme Court last year in which Berkeley neighborhood groups argued that the noise predicted to come from college student housing amounted to a pollutant under the law.

“If we want to reach our climate change goals, CEQA needs to be reformed,” Wicks said. “If we want to reach our housing goals, CEQA needs to be reformed.” 

Defenders of the law say it is vital to deliberation, public input and transparency, keeping local and state governments and developers from running roughshod over vulnerable communities. 

“Sometimes, for vulnerable communities, the act is the only tool available to have a seat at the decision making table,” said J.P. Rose, a policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “To brush all of that aside to say ‘that’s just permitting,’ I think that’s a misguided lens to address this issue.”

Lawmakers often carve specific exemptions into the law, but historically, making across-the-board changes to CEQA has been a heavy lift in Sacramento. Two years ago, Newsom rolled out plans to overhaul the law in order to speed up the approval of big, infrastructure projects. Many of its most ambitious proposals were sidelined. Last year, the Legislature tried to rush through a bill aimed at getting clean energy projects up and running more quickly (it failed). 

Advertisement

“Right now, there are too many opportunities in the process to put a wrench in the gears.”Buffy Wicks, Assemblymember, Oakland

Lawmakers are likely to spend plenty of time arguing about the act, no matter what happens to the permitting package. One bill, already in print, by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, would make it easier for urban housing projects to exempt themselves from the law and for local and state governments to avoid having to conduct full environmental reviews for every aspect of each project. The senator dubbed it “the fast and focused CEQA Act.”

Rose, at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the bill “fires a shotgun at the heart of CEQA.”

Carter Rubin, a public transportation advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified to the select committee last year, said there ought to be a difference between the way regulators review projects that help achieve the state’s housing and climate goals and those that emphatically do not.

“We certainly would not support streamlining highway expansion or sprawl development that impacts ecosystems,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s really important that the Legislature focuses on shovel-worthy projects, not just shovel-ready projects.”

Wicks said she will put forward a housing bill on CEQA as part of the overall package. 

Advertisement

“Right now, there are too many opportunities in the process to put a wrench in the gears,” she said. “There will be a cost for us Democrats on the ballot in the future if we don’t fix that problem.”



Source link

California

Key California laws taking effect in 2026

Published

on

Key California laws taking effect in 2026


A raft of new legislation is set to take effect for Californians in 2026 after Governor Gavin Newsom signed hundreds of bills over the past year.

The new legislation affects a wide range of issues, such as reducing drug costs, increasing the minimum wage and possibly barring police officers and federal agents from wearing face masks.

Why It Matters

Many of the measures reflect the state’s ongoing push to address affordability, equity and transparency—often amid tension with President Donald Trump’s White House.

The changes directly affect millions of residents, employers, landlords, students and consumers in the nation’s most populous state, serving as a bellwether for legislative trends nationwide.

What To Know

Here is a breakdown of some of the key laws set to go into effect in California in 2026:

Advertisement

  1. Minimum wage increase

The minimum wage is set to increase across the state from $16.50 to $16.90 per hour for all employees.

Several local municipalities are also increasing their minimum wages further, as they are allowed to set wages higher than the state minimum.

  1. Reduction to drug costs

From January 1, Senate Bill 40 would require large state-regulated health insurers to cap insulin co-pays at $35 for a 30-day supply. The same requirement takes effect for smaller plans in 2027.

Californians would also have access to low-cost, state-branded CalRx insulin, priced at $55 for five pens.

  1. Gender-neutral restrooms in schools

Starting July 1, every California public school must provide at least one gender-neutral restroom, as mandated by SB 760.

  1. Police identification and mask ban

From January 1, local and federal law enforcement officers would generally be barred from wearing masks to conceal their identities and must display visible identification when performing enforcement duties.

These measures, codified in SB 627 and SB 805, are facing legal challenges from federal entities.

Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said the department would not comply with the law.

  1. Ban on cat declawing

Declawing cats for nonmedical reasons is set to be prohibited statewide. The practice is widely condemned as inhumane by animal welfare advocates.

  1. Combating auto scams

Consumers who buy or lease a new or used car from a dealer would have the right to return it for a full refund within three days of purchase. California is set to become the first state in the nation to offer the protection.

  1. Single-use plastic bag ban

From January 1, major changes to the state’s plastics policy go into effect, banning all plastic carryout bags—even thicker varieties previously permitted. Stores would only be allowed to distribute recycled paper bags, subject to a minimum charge.

  1. AI transparency and protections

AI operators must clearly disclose when chatbots are not real people, and companies must implement safeguards to prevent chatbots from encouraging self-harm in minors.

Additional AI regulations are set to increase transparency, ban chatbots from impersonating health care professionals and require new police reporting on AI use.

Advertisement

  1. Required appliances in rentals

Landlords would be legally required to provide working refrigerators and stoves in rental apartments from January 1.

  1. Extended window for sexual assault lawsuits

A new law, AB 250, creates a two-year window—from January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2027—for adult survivors of sexual assaults to file lawsuits alleging a cover-up. It would allow these individuals to file cases even if the usual statute of limitations lapsed.

What People Are Saying

California Governor Gavin Newsom said in October regarding the legislation on drug costs: “I am pleased to sign SB 41, a bill that will lower health care costs for all Californians. This bill, together with related efforts in the 2025 budget and CalRx, represents the most aggressive effort in the country to lower prescription drug costs. California continues to lead the way in lowering costs, increasing transparency, and ensuring that the savings are passed on to payers and consumers.”

He wrote in a letter in September regarding the ban on officers wearing masks: “Acting on behalf of an authoritarian President, federal immigration authorities are spreading fear and terror throughout California with indiscriminate raids that have rounded up American citizens, people legally in the United States, working parents, and even children.

“America should never be a country where masked ‘secret police’ grab people off the streets and throw them into unmarked vans and speed away. It is unacceptable that government agents, guns in hand, have seized our neighbors while wearing masks under the pretense of protecting themselves when they are, in fact, hiding from public accountability and sowing fear to intimidate the American people.

“For the safety of both the public and law enforcement, Californians must know they are interacting with legitimate law enforcement officers, rather than masked vigilantes.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in November in response to the measure: “Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties. California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Trump admin making good on promise to send more water to California farms

Published

on

Trump admin making good on promise to send more water to California farms


The Trump administration is making good on a promise to send more water to California farmers in the state’s crop-rich Central Valley.

The US Bureau of Reclamation on Thursday announced a new plan for operating the Central Valley Project, a vast system of pumps, dams and canals that direct water southward from the state’s wetter north.

It follows an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January calling for more water to flow to farmers, arguing the state was wasting the precious resource in the name of protecting endangered fish species.

The Trump administration has sent more water to California farmers across the Central Valley. AP

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said the plan will help the federal government “strengthen California’s water resilience.”

It takes effect Friday.

Advertisement

But California officials and environmental groups blasted the move, saying sending significantly more water to farmlands could threaten water delivery to the rest of the state and would harm salmon and other fish.

Most of the state’s water is in the north, but most of its people are in the south.

The federally-managed Central Valley Project works in tandem with the state-managed State Water Project, which sends water to cities that supply 27 million Californians.

The systems transport water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, an estuary that provides critical habitat to fish and wildlife including salmon and the delta smelt.

It is important for the two systems to work together, Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, said in a statement.

Advertisement

The action comes after an executive order President Trump signed in January, which states that more water is to flow to farmers across the state. AFP via Getty Images

She warned the Trump administration’s plan could limit the state’s ability to send water to cities and farmers.

That is because the state could be required to devote more water to species protection if the federal project sends more to farms.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director at Restore the Delta, said pumping more water out would result in more Delta smelt and juvenile salmon dying from getting stuck in the pumping system, and once the temperature warms, harmful algae blooms will develop that are dangerous to fish, wildlife, pets and people.

That could have economic impacts, she said.

“When you destroy water quality and divorce it from land, you are also destroying property values,” she said. “Nobody wants to live near a fetid, polluted backwater swamp.”

Advertisement

The Trump admin argued the state was wasting water in the name of protecting endangered fish species. AP

The Bureau of Reclamation denied the changes would harm the environment or endangered species.

The Central Valley Project primarily sends water to farms, with a much smaller amount going to cities and industrial use. Water from the Central Valley Project irrigates roughly one-third of all California agriculture, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Westlands Water District, one of the largest uses of Central Valley Project water, cheered the decision.

It “will help ensure that our growers have the water they need to support local communities and the nation’s food supply, while also protecting California’s wildlife,” Allison Febbo, general manager, said in a statement.

During Trump’s first term, he allowed more water to be directed to the Central Valley, a move Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom fought in court, saying it would push endangered delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations to extinction.

Advertisement

The Biden administration changed course, adopting its own water plan in 2024 that environmental groups said was a modest improvement. Newsom didn’t immediately comment Thursday on the new decision.

The Republican president renewed his criticism of the state’s water policies after the Los Angeles-area fires broke out in January and some fire hydrants ran dry.

The Central Valley Project does not supply water to Los Angeles.

Trump dubbed his January executive order “Putting People over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California.”



Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading

California

ShakeAlert sends false alarm about magnitude 5.9 earthquake in California, Nevada

Published

on

ShakeAlert sends false alarm about magnitude 5.9 earthquake in California, Nevada


The ShakeAlert computer system that warns about the imminent arrival of shaking from earthquakes sent out a false alarm Thursday morning for a magnitude 5.9 temblor in Carson City, Nev., that did not actually happen.

The ShakeAlert blared on both the MyShake app and the Wireless Emergency Alert system — similar to an Amber Alert — on phones across the region, including in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Sacramento area, and in eastern California, just after 8 a.m.

It wasn’t immediately clear why the ShakeAlert system was activated, or how many phones got the incorrect alerts. The earthquake report was later deleted from the MyShake app — which carries earthquake early warnings from the U.S. Geological Survey’s ShakeAlert system — and from the USGS earthquake website.

“We did not detect any earthquakes,” said Paul Caruso, a USGS geophysicist, Thursday morning.

The ShakeAlert system has previously proved effective in giving seconds of warning ahead of expected shaking coming from significant earthquakes, including from a magnitude 5.2 earthquake in San Diego County in April; earthquakes in El Sereno and the Malibu area last year; and a temblor east of San José in 2022.

Advertisement

“We’re in the process of figuring out what happened,” said Robert de Groot, an operations team leader for the U.S. Geological Survey’s ShakeAlert system.

There have been other times when earthquake early warnings have misfired.

In 2023, a scheduled drill of the MyShake app at 10:19 a.m. rang instead at 3:19 a.m., which occurred because the warning was inadvertently scheduled for 10:19 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, instead of Pacific time.

And in 2021, phone users across Northern California got a warning of a magnitude 6 earthquake in Truckee, near Lake Tahoe; but the quake that actually occurred was a far more modest magnitude 4.7. Scientists said the significant overestimation of the quake’s magnitude was in part caused by it being on the edge of the ShakeAlert seismic network sensors, and that researchers worked on reprogramming the computer system to avoid a similar issue in the future.



Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending