Latest news with #CoastalCommission
The Hill
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Newsom signs sweeping rollbacks of key California environmental review law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday signed legislation paring down the state's landmark environmental review laws in a bid to cut red tape and make housing more accessible. As part of his 2025-2026 state budget, the governor gave his stamp of approval to two bills — AB 130 and SB 131 — his office described as 'the most significant overhaul of California's housing and environmental review laws in decades.' 'Today's bill is a game changer, which will be felt for generations to come,' Newsom said in a statement. The two 'budget trailer bills' — measures that essentially serve as revisions to the state budget — include a streamlining package that remove certain development barriers, update review procedures for critical housing and infrastructure and create new tools for accelerating production. Garnering bipartisan support, the legislation involves implementing major reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This pivotal statute, signed into law in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan (R), required state and local agencies to disclose the potential environmental effects of all their decisions, including on housing-related initiatives. 'I just enacted the most game-changing housing reforms in recent California history,' Newsom wrote in a post on X late Monday. 'We're urgently embracing an abundance agenda by tearing down the barriers that have delayed new affordable housing and infrastructure for decades,' the governor added, calling upon Californians to 'get building.' Among the reforms included in the new bills are measures to speed up housing and infrastructure projects by streamlining their environmental review. Some such projects are infill housing — residences built in unused urban lots, high-speed rail, utilities, broadband — community centers, farmworker housing and wildfire prevention structures. Although the new rules maintain protections for natural and sensitive lands, they exempt local government rezoning procedures from CEQA requirements. The legislation also expands the Permit Streamlining Act, by restricting certain Coastal Commission housing appeals and accelerating permitting in coastal areas. Also within the bills are measures to freeze new residential building standards through 2031, with exceptions granted to emergency, fire and conservation-related updates. Sustainable financing tools, such as a revolving fund to reinvest equity from stabilized affordable housing into new developments, will also be made available through the laws. The approved actions also entail strengthening oversight of local homeless shelters via annual city and county inspections and authorizing the withholding of state funding if agencies fail to comply. The legislation also more than doubles the existing Renters Tax Credit by increasing credit to support renters up to $500 for qualified filers. State Sen. Scott Wiener (D), whose previous bill proposals provided the foundation for much of the new legislation, described the CEQA reforms in a Monday statement as 'a bold step forward toward tackling the root causes of California's affordability crisis.' He touted the CEQA exemptions for streamlining approvals for housing, childcare centers, clean water infrastructure, climate adaptation projects and advanced manufacturing: processes that improve or create entirely new materials and products. 'These bills get red tape and major process hurdles out of the way, allowing us to finally start addressing these shortages and securing an affordable California and a brighter future,' Wiener said. Despite earning support from both sides of the aisle, the bills have gotten pushback from environmental groups. A day before the legislation became law, Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California, accused the state legislature of 'using backroom deals to undermine' California's 'bedrock environmental law.' 'Leaders are abusing the budget process to push these anti-environmental policies, slipping language that was formerly in AB 306 and SB 607, two bills that faced massive opposition from environmental groups, into trailer bills to bypass public input and subvert democratic accountability,' Miguel wrote in a last-ditch call for opposition to the bills. Meanwhile, as late as Monday morning, labor unions were appealing to Newsom and state legislators to reconsider a CEQA exemption on advanced manufacturing included in the bills. 'We know that exempting 'advanced manufacturing' industries from CEQA would expose us, our members, and colleagues to grave harm in our workplaces and communities,' the unions wrote in a collective letter. Among their specific concerns cited was the semiconductor industry's extensive use of toxic 'forever chemicals,' also known as PFAS, in their production processes. Citing previous usages of other contaminants from the 1960 to the 1990s, the writers stressed that pollutants harmed not only workers, but also neighboring communities. The unions also warned that the legislation 'would give carte blanche to companies like Tesla to expand without any environmental oversight.' But other groups celebrated the CEQA reforms as critical to solving California's looming housing and infrastructure crises. 'No longer will CEQA be leveraged to stall critical county wildfire, water and housing projects,' Jeff Griffiths, president of the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. 'This legislation will make California more affordable for families by helping to alleviate our housing crisis and, in turn, reducing homelessness,' Griffiths added. Chris Elmendorf, a property law expert at University of California Davis, marveled in a post-signing analysis on X just how quickly Newsom's 'triumph over CEQA…went down' and the remarkable shift in the politics of reform that has taken foot in the past few years. He noted that just since the two trailer bills went public over the past week, one of the most powerful opponents — the California Building Trades Council — went from rejecting the legislation to expressing neutrality. 'The law that untold numbers of project opponents have leveraged for year after year after year of delays went from untouchable to demolished almost overnight,' Elmendorf stated.
Los Angeles Times
27-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Laguna Beach City Council adopts $162-million budget for new fiscal year
The Laguna Beach City Council this week adopted the city's budget for the upcoming fiscal year, with city officials presenting a balanced budget for the year ahead. The general fund, the city's primary operating budget, has $98.2 million in planned expenditures, while the estimated revenue and associated transfers combine to amount to $96.8 million. A balance sheet provided in the staff report also shows the city will have a carry-over balance of approximately $1.4 million in the general fund on July 1. It's the bulk of a $162-million budget for operating costs and capital improvement funds. City staffers have appropriated $63.9 million for all other funds, including nearly $25 million for wastewater projects, $9.7 million to the parking fund and $8.7 million for transit matters. There is also a general fund reserve of 20%, or $17.3 million, city staff said. The city has set aside $3.9 million for wildfire mitigation and fire safety. While the future use of those funds is yet to be determined, a portion of it is expected to be put toward fuel modification efforts in Bluebird Canyon. Public Works Department priorities include the waste master plan, preparation for Fire Station No. 4 in South Laguna and improvements to Promenade on Forest. Mayor Pro Tem Mark Orgill and Councilman Bob Whalen have also been serving on a revenue enhancement ad hoc committee. 'It's really to identify revenue enhancement strategies, including a potential ballot measure for November of 2026 to support general city services and programs,' Assistant City Manager Gavin Curran said. Beneficiaries of those efforts, Curran added, could include the community and environmental stewardship program, wildfire mitigation and fire safety, projects in the facilities masters plan, and the continued undergrounding of utility lines. Curran named some revenue enhancements the council has implemented that have not required voter approval, including the formation of the tourism marketing district, parking and traffic enforcement measures and an increase in community development fees. Raising parking rates and putting in additional metered parking spots around town is being explored, although exercising either option would require Coastal Commission approval. 'The ad hoc [committee] looks at all of those strategies but also is looking at a potential voter-approved revenue measure that could include a sales tax measure, a transient occupancy tax measure, a business license tax measure, so those things are also being looked at,' Curran added. City staff also plan to survey the community in September to gauge residents' priorities and willingness to entertain new taxes. A 15-month agreement with the Municipal Employees' Assn. also received approval, providing miscellaneous staff with a 3.5% salary increase that goes into effect next month and a 1.5% salary increase in July 2026. The negotiations also included three days of holiday closure between Christmas and New Year's Day. Salary schedules were also updated. The city manager received a 3.3% salary adjustment, while police captains and lieutenants saw a 5% adjustment in their salary range. The council also gave the city manager the authority to purchase vehicles within the budget that have been competitively bid without returning to the panel for approval.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation
Just days after a Texas oil firm shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the resumption of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, a court has ordered the company to cease further construction or repairs until they obtain official approvals. For months, Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission's authority to oversee and approve upgrades to a network of oil pipelines that were shuttered after a major 2015 spill. The company argues that it doesn't need any new permits because it is only repairing and maintaining existing pipelines — as opposed to constructing a new line — meaning the Coastal Commission doesn't have a say in the matter. Sable sued the commission in February, claiming overreach of its authority. But on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and ordered Sable to abide by a preliminary injunction, upholding a cease and desist order commissioners issued in April. That action requires Sable to stop any further coastal work until the company obtains necessary permits from the Coastal Commission or the ongoing lawsuit is settled. "The Commission has presented credible evidence of violation of the Coastal Act," Anderle wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work Sable performed "fall squarely within the definition of 'development' in the Coastal Act," he found. Read more: Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws? Sable insists that it is still operating within original permits from the 1980s. The commission disagrees however, and has ordered the company to seek new permits. 'It's a significant win not only for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, for the state, for the people and, frankly, the rule of law," said Alex Helperin, assistant chief counsel for the Coastal Commission. 'We've never seen someone just completely ignore one of our orders before. ... This is unprecedented for us and [the judge's ruling is] a really important indication of the rule of law and the idea that our orders have to be taken seriously.' Although commission officials have hailed the judge's decision as a victory, it remains unclear how it will impact the oil operation. Sable has already finished much —if not all — of the work commissioners have protested. Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge's ruling. "We look forward to overturning today's decision, though it has no bearing on Sable's plans to recommence oil sales by July," read a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. "Sable will continue to aggressively defend our vested rights to pursue low carbon California oil and natural gas sorely needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gasoline prices.' In April, the California Coastal Commission found that Sable had repeatedly violated the Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines without necessary permits or approvals. The company was fined $18 million, issued a cease and desist order and directed to restore areas that saw environmental damage. Sable has ignored those findings, and filed the lawsuit against the the commission. The preliminary injunction issued Wednesday doesn't resolve that case, but may be an indication of how the court may lean in a final decision — which is likely still months, if not years, away. Read more: Offshore oil operation near Santa Barbara resumes production after 10 years Sable outraged environmentalists and officials last week when it announced that it had resumed oil production at one of its offshore platforms — located in federal waters — at a rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, with plans to quickly increase extraction. The company said the oil is being sent to the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility for storage, but was clear that full use of the onshore pipelines had yet to begin. But among those who were taken aback by the announcement was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who serves as chair of the California State Lands Commission and has oversight of offshore oil pipelines. Sable was required to update the State Lands Commission on any oil flow and failed to do so, she said. "Sable's failure to clearly and timely communicate these activities to the commission undermines trust of Sable's motives, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significant concerns held by many regarding the resumption of activities, and raises serious questions about Sable's willingness to be a transparent operator," Kounalakis wrote in a May 23 letter to Sable that was reviewed by The Times. Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that lands commission staff told her that the new oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. "These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart ... Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate — particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations," she wrote. She said that the company needs to resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before any attempt to fully restart commercial operations in order to remain in compliance with its offshore pipeline leases. Sheri Pemberton, a spokesperson for the commission, said Sable has not yet responded to the lieutenant governor's letter. Sable representatives did not respond to questions about the letter or the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission chair. Environmental activists argued that the judge's ruling and Kounalakis' letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely run an operation that previously failed. 'This just shows, again, that this is not a company we can trust to follow the law in California or responsibly operate equipment that already caused one of the worst spills in our state history," said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation
Just days after a Texas oil firm shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the resumption of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, a court has ordered the company to cease further construction or repairs until they obtain official approvals. For months, Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission's authority to oversee and approve upgrades to a network of oil pipelines that were shuttered after a major 2015 spill. The company argues that it doesn't need any new permits because it is only repairing and maintaining existing pipelines — as opposed to constructing a new line — meaning the Coastal Commission doesn't have a say in the matter. Sable sued the commission in February, claiming overreach of its authority. But on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and ordered Sable to abide by a preliminary injunction, upholding a cease and desist order commissioners issued in April. That action requires Sable to stop any further coastal work until the company obtains necessary permits from the Coastal Commission or the ongoing lawsuit is settled. 'The Commission has presented credible evidence of violation of the Coastal Act,' Anderle wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work Sable performed 'fall squarely within the definition of 'development' in the Coastal Act,' he found. Sable insists that it is still operating within original permits from the 1980s. The commission disagrees however, and has ordered the company to seek new permits. 'It's a significant win not only for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, for the state, for the people and, frankly, the rule of law,' said Alex Helperin, assistant chief counsel for the Coastal Commission. 'We've never seen someone just completely ignore one of our orders before. ... This is unprecedented for us and [the judge's ruling is] a really important indication of the rule of law and the idea that our orders have to be taken seriously.' Although commission officials have hailed the judge's decision as a victory, it remains unclear how it will impact the oil operation. Sable has already finished much —if not all — of the work commissioners have protested. Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge's ruling. 'We look forward to overturning today's decision, though it has no bearing on Sable's plans to recommence oil sales by July,' read a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. 'Sable will continue to aggressively defend our vested rights to pursue low carbon California oil and natural gas sorely needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gasoline prices.' In April, the California Coastal Commission found that Sable had repeatedly violated the Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines without necessary permits or approvals. The company was fined $18 million, issued a cease and desist order and directed to restore areas that saw environmental damage. Sable has ignored those findings, and filed the lawsuit against the the commission. The preliminary injunction issued Wednesday doesn't resolve that case, but may be an indication of how the court may lean in a final decision — which is likely still months, if not years, away. Sable outraged environmentalists and officials last week when it announced that it had resumed oil production at one of its offshore platforms — located in federal waters — at a rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, with plans to quickly increase extraction. The company said the oil is being sent to the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility for storage, but was clear that full use of the onshore pipelines had yet to begin. But among those who were taken aback by the announcement was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who serves as chair of the California State Lands Commission and has oversight of offshore oil pipelines. Sable was required to update the State Lands Commission on any oil flow and failed to do so, she said. 'Sable's failure to clearly and timely communicate these activities to the commission undermines trust of Sable's motives, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significant concerns held by many regarding the resumption of activities, and raises serious questions about Sable's willingness to be a transparent operator,' Kounalakis wrote in a May 23 letter to Sable that was reviewed by The Times. Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that lands commission staff told her that the new oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. 'These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart ... Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate — particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations,' she wrote. She said that the company needs to resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before any attempt to fully restart commercial operations in order to remain in compliance with its offshore pipeline leases. Sheri Pemberton, a spokesperson for the commission, said Sable has not yet responded to the lieutenant governor's letter. Sable representatives did not respond to questions about the letter or the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission chair. Environmental activists argued that the judge's ruling and Kounalakis' letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely run an operation that previously failed. 'This just shows, again, that this is not a company we can trust to follow the law in California or responsibly operate equipment that already caused one of the worst spills in our state history,' said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center.
Los Angeles Times
24-05-2025
- General
- Los Angeles Times
After 27 years fighting to change oil field into massive Orange County nature preserve, initial plans released
Conservationists and people of coastal Orange County communities have been working for nearly three decades to transform a former 387-acre oil field into at the border of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach into one of the largest protected green spaces in the county. Now, the coalition of agencies setting the foundation to transform that dream into a reality have published initial plans describing what Randall Park will eventually look like, and are asking for more input from the public. Those documents and additional resources are available at They lay out how how the collaborating agencies intend to balance the restoration of habitats for the 18 unique sensitive or threatened species that live there, the reclamation of culturally significant sites located on the property by native tribal government of the Tongva as well as access to the general public. The plans contain details about what kind of work must be done and what facilities and amenities will eventually be available. The planning process for the preserve is currently in a public input phase that ends July 16. Those interested in helping shape the future of Randall Preserve have until then to formally submit questions, comments and suggestions. 'We've literally waited 27 years for this day, in terms of those who fought this battle,' said Melanie Schlotterbeck, stewardship consultant for the Coastal Corridor Alliance. 'This is an opportunity for them to realize the vision, the dream they had, the reason they showed up to the Coastal Commission and held the signs up saying 'Save Banning Ranch,' this is how it has payed off.' She said the conservancy had already received hundreds of responses before plans were released. Since then, many community members have taken the opportunity to go over the documents, which are hundreds of pages long, and returned with well-informed followup comments. About two dozen people showed up to an open house in Costa Mesa showcasing the progress that has been made to date. Attendees examined where proposed trails and entrances would go, as well as photos of what it looked like in the past and graphics describing what might be there in the future. They also filled out comment cards, watched a presentation available on the corridor alliance's website and got to know those involved in planning the preserve. One person attending Tuesday's open house was Bridget Gleason. Her father was among those who pleaded before the Coastal Commission for the preservation of what was formerly known as Banning Ranch, and she eventually wound up buying a home nearby. 'I've been aware since it was the Banning Ranch effort, and my dad was going to Coastal Commission meetings and helping with that effort,' Gleason said. 'It's kind of come full circle now that I've bought on that side of town and it's in my backyard and evolved into the actual restoration part of it. Doing it right truly does take time.' Two more open houses are scheduled. One will be held Monday, June 2, at the Norma Hertzog Center in Costa Mesa, and the other one is set for Saturday, June 21 at the Newport Beach Civic Center. Those who turn out are eligible for $25 gift cards. And transportation as well as Spanish translation services may be available for people who RSVP ahead of time. 'We realize maybe they have to take time off of work,' Schlotterbeck said. 'Maybe they work two jobs, and we wanted to help somewhat make it worth their while.' How and where people will be able to gain entry to the park has been one of the most popular topics among comments received since plans were released, Schlotterbeck said. The preserve will be opened to the public in phases. The first portion that people will be able to step foot on will feature a 1-mile hiking loop with an entrance at eastern edge of the preserve, near 17th Street and Whittier Avenue. Open house attendee Maria Irma Hernandez told the Daily Pilot she lives around the corner from the first proposed entrance of the preserve. Once it opens, she'll be able to take her morning walks surrounded by nature, rather than pounding pavement alongside the din of passing traffic. 'The infrastructure does not exist there right now,' Schlotterbeck said. 'We need to get it up there because it wouldn't be prudent to open a property without having trash cans and restrooms, things like that.' But before that can happen, the former owners of the property must cleanup after decades of use as an oil field. That means the removal of chemical deposits and decommissioning of old access roads. That work should allow for large uninterrupted patches of restored green space. Planners looking ahead at the impacts of climate change intend to reshape parts of the acreage to allow water to flow into what will hopefully become habitats for saltwater and freshwater species. 'The lowland will be impacted in 100 years with 4.9 feet of sea level rise; all of it will be under water,' Schlotterbeck said. Planners expect the cleanup process to end in 2026, with the formal decommissioning of oil wells by 2027. That's the earliest it might be feasibly possible to start opening the Randall Preserve to the public. Once it's open it will be managed by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. The agency handles maintenance, security and a wide variety of other services at dozens of preservation sites across Southern California, including a wildlife crossing over the 101 Freeway. Randall Preserve will be the first property they manage in Orange County. 'It is a big lift to open a new park [and] this is a significant property,' the conservation authority's deputy executive officer Brian Balduf said. 'It is in a new territory that MRCA hasn't been operating, so we're going to be learning a lot working in Orange County. But also, we're a park agency. We manage parks. We have a great team. This is what we do.'
