I am increasingly of the opinion that the environmentalist movement's opposition to modernizing environmental laws for climate change and the housing crisis is an existential issue for Californians. This week I am extremely worried this problem can't be solved. 🧵
Yesterday, a coalition of environmental organizations successfully defeated two proposals by Senator Blakespear, which would have streamlined ADUs in the coast and established the first timelines and process for the Coastal Commission when they overturn a project approval.
You know we have a housing crisis but may not know that there is really no academic debate the Coastal Act makes the crisis worse. A large body of research finds that to be true and has for decades, even papers that hate developers. Here's one such paper bren.ucsb.edu/news/californi…
The Coastal Act can overturn the approval of almost any housing project in its jurisdiction for any reason. It can do this at almost any point after a local gov approves it, and it doesn't need to cite concerns during local reviews. It canNOT overturn a housing denial.
SB 1092 would have established a timeline for reviewing this. The timelines are a joke and the process is intentionally hostile to "change" on the theory development is itself the only cause of "change." Reviews can take years, decades in theory
To solve this problem, the Coastal Commission/Act can and have created exemptions from the Coastal Act. For example, are you so rich you have a coastal mansion and would like to add a pool? Exempt! Want to enlarge your house? Also exempt!
Apr 10, 2024 · 3:18 PM UTC
SB 1077 would have added ATTACHED ADUs outside of wetlands/other areas in the Act that are regarded as sensitive AND it would have allowed the Coastal Commission by regulation to actually create exceptions to exemptions.
Currently, the Coastal Commission's highest priority under the Coastal Act is defending views. That's why they denied this ADU - and click through to see the actual view being "harmed"
Check out this ADU that @TheCACoast rejected for blocking views. That tiny little sliver of a structure behind the trees in the 2nd photo? That's the problem.
Completely insane.
documents.coastal.ca.gov/rep…
These processes and and laws discourage all residential development, increasing home values and rents. At the hearing yesterday, the Coastal Commission had the confidence to say that developing there was easy and one of the senators most supportive of that even laughed that off.
In meetings with me, the Coastal Commission has called all developers liars, mocked me for trusting developers' advice about how to incentivize development, and they will also honestly try to tell me they are a "prohousing jurisdiction" and that development is easy there.
In attacking the ADU bill, the Coastal Commission and its allies consistently said that millionaires and billionaires would just use the exemption to make their houses larger. Ignoring that is already exempt, they were unable to explain to me why that was an environmental issue.
This reminds me a lot of lobbying AB 1633 last year, when almost every enviro opponent came out to oppose a law that said you cannot use CEQA to do bad faith denials of infill housing projects and escape a fine. That bill passed the Senate with 21 of the needed 21 votes
All of these experiences make me wonder about the degree to which the housing crisis is actually a cause for concern for the environmental community. One of the major coastal groups, Surfrider, was insensitive enough to proudly publish this line.
But even if they don't care - and surely, some must - about the harrowing suffering our housing policies cause, they should care about the climate crisis. Making it harder to build infill housing as the Coastal Act and CEQA do, inarguably do, is bad for the climate.
We desperately need environmental leadership that is willing to modernize CEQA, written in 1970 and signed by Governor Regan, and the Coastal Act, first passed in 1972, when the same electorate gave President Nixon 55 percent of the vote here. (The CA was re-passed in 1977)
We need to modernize California's environmental laws to respond to the changing climate and the suffering they and our housing laws cause. The latter *should be* reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that's not what we're proposing! We're proposing infill!
To solve climate change and the housing crisis we need environmental leadership that is prepared to abandon the environmentalism of the 1970s. I don't know if we will ever get that. Today the housing crisis is worse than at any point since the Depression. It will get worse. ###
Here's their advocacy and messaging in their own words:
Come along for the campaign to Defend the Coastal Act this year! We're opposing SB 951, SB 1077 and SB 1092 unless amended. More at our blog. shorturl.at/gmCK6
@SenDaveMin
In a post this morning that seems to have been deleted after I started this thread, the environmental groups celebrate the defeat of these measures to accelerate infill housing.
If you're Mr Min's constituent, please consider calling his office today to support the original version of SB 1077 (ADU streamlining) and SB 1092 (timelines for coastal review) and say you're disappointed with the amendments he forced. (949.223.5472) x.com/guy_public/status/1778…