Transcript SB-350_SB-32-BY-Jennifer-Hernandezx

Strategic Issues Conference: Greenhouse Gas Redoux
» Defeat (Deferral) of SB 32 and Removal of Transportation Fuels
Component of SB 350 Creates Opportunity for Continued Momentum
» Challenge: Embrace an Environmental Leadership Role for all of
California - not just wealthy coastal enclaves and radical climate activists
» Opportunity: Own a Proactive Environmental Agenda
1. I support CEQA: help me end CEQA litigation abuse
2. I agree California should be a climate change leader: let’s implement proven
strategies to reduce greenhouse gases while creating a net increase in quality
California jobs – and end CEQA litigation abuse against climate projects
3. I support the Delta; help me expedite water recycling, transfer and storage
solutions by ending CEQA litigation abuse
4. I support transportation infrastructure; help me expedite transit, safety, and
highway solutions by ending CEQA litigation abuse
5. I support making housing more affordable; help me get more housing built
more quickly where it’s most needed by ending CEQA litigation abuse
1
Figure 1
CEQA Lawsuits Targeting Taxpayer-Funded and Privately-Funded Projects
PUBLIC AGENCY/
TAXPAYER-FUNDED
PROJECTS
Other Public
Services &
Infrastructure
17%
Parks
4%
BUSINESS/INDIVIDUAL
PRIVATELY-FUNDED
PROJECTS
Residential
21%
Schools
5%
Retail
10%
Commercial
5%
Entertainment
2%
Industrial
4%
Water
7%
Mining
5%
Agency Plans and
Regulations
15%
Agency Property
>1%
Energy
4%
Agricultural &
Forestry
1%
Figure 2
CEQA Lawsuits Targeting Greenfield Versus Infill Projects
(Select Project Types Shown – See Tables 2B through 2D for all Project Types)
Greenfield Commercial
1%
Greenfield - Schools
1%
Greenfield - Industrial
1%
Greenfield - Park
2%
Greenfield - Retail
1%
Greenfield - Residential
9%
Greenfield Entertainment
>1%
Greenfield - Energy
4%
Infill - Public Service &
Infrastructure
22%
Greenfield - Public
Service & Infrastructure
1%
Infill - Energy
2%
Infill - Entertainment
2%
Infill - Industrial
4%
Infill - Residential
20%
Infill - Park
5%
Infill - Commercial
6%
Infill - Schools
6%
Infill - Retail
13%
Figure 3
CEQA Lawsuits Targeting Infill Projects
Infill - Entertainment
2%
Infill - Industrial
5%
Infill - Energy
2%
Infill - Public Service &
Infrastructure
28%
Infill - Park
7%
Infill - Commercial
7%
Infill - Schools
8%
Infill - Retail
16%
Infill - Residential
25%
Figure 4
CEQA Lawsuits Targeting Infill Housing
Small Subdivision
9%
Mobile Home
Conversion (Rent to
Own)
1%
Master Planned Community
12%
Multifamily/ Mixed Use
45%
Single Family Home/
Second Unit
17%
Large Subdivision/
Mixed Use
16%
Figure 6: Types of Petitioners Filing CEQA Lawsuits
Established Environmental
Advocacy Organization
13%
Tribe
2%
Other Organization or
Association
45%
Agency
11%
Private Companies/Trade
Associations/Competitors
8%
Labor Union
2%
Individual/Family
19%
Bar Graph 2: Percent Decline in Rate of Private Construction Union Membership
1983-2012
Decline 1983-2014
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
California
USA (all states)
New York
New Jersey
Illinois
Figure 7: Distribution of CEQA Lawsuits in California Regions
Figure 8: CEQA Compliance Tracks Targeted by CEQA Lawsuits
Negative Declarations
23%
Certified Regulatory
Program (Substitute
CEQA Documents)
1%
Statutory Exemptions
5%
Categorical Exemptions
12%
CEQA Not Applicable
7%
Environmental Impact
Reports
52%
Figure 9: CEQA Petitions Targeting Taxpayer/Ratepayer Projects
Schools/ Colleges/
Workforce Training
10%
Parks
9%
Public Services/
Infrastructure
35%
Agency Property
Management
1%
Water
14%
Agency Plans/
Regulations
31%
Figure 10: CEQA Petitions Targeting Private Sector Projects
Retail
19%
Residential
41%
Commercial
9%
Energy
8%
Entertainment
5%
Mining
9%
Industrial
7%
Agricultural/Forestr
y…
CEQA was not etched onto stone tablets or
penned with a feather quill centuries ago. Over
the past four decades the courts have issued
hundreds of judicial interpretations of CEQA that
have morphed this great environmental law into a
“blob” of contradictions and uncertainty – often
misshapen, misused, mismanaged and, as
shown by this study, used to thwart important
environmental policies like climate change.
Editorialists United:
“As an environmentalist, I am ashamed that environmental
regulation is preventing low-income housing from being built, is
significantly increasing the cost of building in California, is
allowing groups to blackmail developers into a variety of
concessions and is wasting government resources to negotiate
an out-of-control process.”
Governor Brown – who has called CEQA reform “the Lord’s
work” – has also expressed exasperation about it. “I’ve always
said about CEQA, it’s like a vampire. Unless you strike to put a
silver stake through it, there’s always a law somewhere that’s
brought into the process, and the exemptions are more
illusory.”
Solution 1: Litigation Transparency:
disclosure of non-environmental
interests of CEQA petitioners
Solution 2: End Duplicative CEQA
Lawsuits for the same plan or project
Solution 3: Fix It, Don’t Derail It: The
appropriate remedy for the vast
majority of CEQA lawsuits is to fix the
technical study gap, not derail the
project approval.
CEQA’s litigation abuse status quo
defenders have been politically agile in
periodically enacting illusory CEQA
“reforms” that have no effect – and even
expand – abuse of CEQA for nonenvironmental reasons.
CEQA litigation abuse is real, it is harming people
(especially the poor, the working class, and the
young), and it is obstructing rather than
advancing critical environmental priorities.
If there was any “non-environmental” law that had
these kinds of disparate impacts against the poor,
it would have long ago been consigned to the
dustbin of history.
Climate Change Leadership Opportunities
» Support Environmental Policy Transparency
˗
Net effect on jobs (elimination and creation)?
˗
Net effect on housing affordability (more or less costly homes, more or fewer
homes?)
˗
Net effect on infrastructure investment (water/sewer/transportation)?
˗
Net effect on public services (schools, pubic safety, education) and the social
security safety net (health care, etc.)?
˗
Net effect (time, cost, litigation risk) on achieving already-enacted policies and
effective deployment of already-approved bonds?
˗
Will this proposal result in a net decrease in global GHG emissions?
˗
Will this proposal have a disparate adverse impact on stressed California
communities and populations (poor, undereducated, outside major
metropolitan coastal communities)?
˗
What is the ongoing legislative accountability mechanism for assuring effective
implementation and avoiding unintended adverse consequences?
18
Support Climate Change Leadership Opportunities
» Support Proven Environmental Policies that Move Markets
» Proposition 65 Disclosure: Disclose rate of GHG emissions per capita
and per unit of production.
˗
GHG per gallon of milk, pound of almond – California does a great job!
˗
GHG per product (including products imported to California) – mass GHG
reduction mandate designed to export jobs/production even if higher global
GHG impacts
» Clean Air Act “Best Available Control Technology” to reduce rate of GHG
emissions per unit of production:
˗
Streamline approvals and provide financial incentives/regulatory assurances
for lower-GHG/product manufacturing that creates jobs in Central Valley/Inland
Empire communities, and coastal metropolitan communities, with significant
adult population levels that have HS (or less) educations.
19
California’s Climate Change Leadership
» Renewed investment in energy efficient/reduced GHG manufacturing
» Will lower poverty and increase employment (especially for those with
HS education or less)
» Will move jobs to California communities where housing remains more
affordable
» Will provide meaningful new public revenues to help support education,
health and infrastructure
» Will make globally available lower-GHG products that can be imported
by other climate change leadership jurisdictions
» Will be far more likely to inspire others to follow California’s climate lead
What is really “futile” is reducing California’s 1% of global GHG emissions
by 80%, further exacerbating our social inequality and increasing housing
and transportation costs while moving more jobs and economic activity to
higher- per capita GHG states and countries, and claiming this outcome
makes California a “climate leader”
20
CONTACTS
Jennifer L. Hernandez
Holland & Knight LLP
Partner
Leader, West Coast Land Use and
Environmental Group
Co-Chair, National Environmental Team
415.743.6927 | San Francisco
213.896.2400 | Los Angeles
[email protected]
David Friedman
Holland & Knight LLP
Of Counsel
213.896.2431 | Los Angeles
[email protected]
Stephanie DeHerrera
Holland & Knight LLP
Law Clerk
415.743.6971 | San Francisco
[email protected]