Podcasts about ceqa

In March, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a 22-bill package aimed at reforming the building permitting process in California, an effort to fast-track housing development statewide. Wicks described the package as an effort to “slash red tape, remove uncertainty and to drastically reduce the time it takes to get new housing approved and built” in California. Asm. Wicks joined us to talk about the bills, why they are needed, and what it will take to get the package to the governor's desk this year.Next up, we're joined by Port of Long Beach CEO Mario Cordero to talk about the impact of the new Trump tariffs on the nation's busiest port. Long Beach has already seen a significant reduction in shipping traffic this month; now, with zero container ships leaving China destined for California ports, empty shelves - and job losses - are likely not for behind.Plus, as always, we tell you Who Had the Worst Week in California Politics1:33 Insurance2:43 Gubernatorial candidates4:29 "I wrote my Master's thesis on the Recall"5:14 Obligatory Alex Vassar reference5:55 New Capitol Weekly Insiders survey6:38 California Journal7:43 Asm. Buffy Wicks9:18 "People Want Change"10:25 The need for CEQA reform11:43 "A coalition of the willing"14:36 A streamlined housing package on the governor's desk in September14:47 BCTC and the Carpenters16:49 "In California we make it too damn hard to build"18:08 Permitting reform20:24 "Government has to deliver for people"21:58 Housing and Transportation Policy is Climate Policy24:17 "As someone who grew up in a trailer, and dreamt of a wooden house someday..."24:36 Where does the package go next?25:28 $10 Billion affordable housing bill26:01 Shout out to Asm. Joe Patterson27:33 Two things to solve the Housing Crisis28:04 Crisis Fatigue32:49 Mario Cordero33:22 Impact of the tariffs34:40 The timing36:43 May 2025 numbers vs. past39:38 Are ships sitting offshore, waiting to come in?42:29 "China plus one"43:24 State of the wareshouses at the Port46:02 How many workers are impacted?48:01 The Green Port Policy54:01 "When I was about 10 years old I wanted to be the Mexican-American Leonard Bernstein"56:24 #WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang"#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

In this episode, we meet in person with Lesley Owning, a seasoned Principal Planner and Environmental Planning Group Manager at Helix Environmental Planning. With over 13 years of experience, Lesley manages CEQA and NEPA requirements for diverse projects, from infrastructure to renewable energy. Lesley highlights her career journey and key transitions that led her to her current leadership role. She emphasizes the importance of mentorship and flexibility in nurturing her team, sharing her approach to career development and project management. Listeners will be inspired by Lesley's enthusiasm for projects like aquifer storage and groundwater recharge. She also discusses the evolving nature of the environmental industry and how leaders can support their teams in balancing personal and professional growth.

This episode is a brief 2025 AEP Conference Recap for our podcast listeners and viewers! This year's gathering brought environmental professionals together at Zachari Dunes in Oxnard, California, in early April. Centered around the theme “Seeds of Change, Waves of Progress,” the conference offered a blend of insightful keynotes, dynamic breakout sessions, and meaningful networking opportunities. Attendees explored everything from emerging CEQA trends and climate resilience to cutting-edge tools and AI in environmental planning. To capture the spirit of the event, we spoke with attendees from across the profession—here's what they had to say about their experience at this year's conference.

Today on AirTalk, LA County strips hundreds of millions from LAHSA, what's next? We have councilmembers, a reporter, and Mayor Bass on the show to talk about the vote. A new bill targets CEQA requirements for infill housing projects. Unrest grows in Central Valley communities due to fear surrounding ICE presence. The Rose Bowl has announced that it will opt for drones this Fourth of July in place of fireworks. What do you think? American Jazz pianist Emmet Cohen talks tour. LA County strips hundreds of millions from LAHSA (00:17) New bill targets CEQA housing requirements (27:29) Supervisor Lindsey Horvath on LAHSA vote (41:04) ICE unrest in Central Valley communities (50:58) Rose Bowl opts for 4th of July drones (1:11:05) Jazz pianist Emmet Cohen (1:30:10) Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency!

Governor Gavin Newsom issues another executive order to speed up rebuilding -- this one applies to electric, gas and other utility companies. We check in on "Altadena Not For Sale" rally at Fair Oaks Burger today. An art gallery reopens after the Palisades fire. And, an artist talks to 100 local leaders to capture the zeitgeist of L.A. Plus more. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.com Support the show: https://laist.com

The Law of Rebuilding LA Episode 17: CEQA and Coastal Act challenges by

In Part 2 of this three-part podcast series, host Sloan Simmons is back with Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Partners Megan Macy and Anne Collins, and special guest Sue Bell, Chief Facilities Officer for the Elk Grove Unified School District. The group covers team building, planning with and for consultants, tips and tricks, and how to best utilize your legal team to get your project off the ground. Stay tuned for Part 3: Implementation, and visit www.lozanosmith.com/podcast to access upcoming episodes upon immediate release. Show Notes & References 1:55 – Building your team of construction professionals 3:07 – FAQ – Construction Professional Selection 5:42 – Planning for consultants on the team 6:41 – When to involve a CEQA consultant 8:11 – Starting your project (mapping, calendars, etc.) 10:29 – Interplay with Facilities Master Plan work 11:49 – Tips and tricks for procuring consultants 14:21 – The value of site visits 16:20 – Interacting with your legal team

The 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire has underscored the challenges of building in California’s complex regulatory landscape. In response, Governor Newsom issued an executive order suspending CEQA and Coastal Act requirements to expedite reconstruction, raising important questions about the future of development in the state. In this podcast, experts Jeremy Talcott and Donald Kochan examine California's regulatory environment before the disaster and the broader implications of its permitting processes in the effort to rebuild. Join us for an in-depth discussion on balancing efficient recovery with long-term regulatory considerations.

On this week's What in the World, A'ndre chatted with Tahra Jirari, Director of Economic Analysis at the Chamber of Progress, on the devastating 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles and the urgent need for systemic reform. A'ndre and Tahra talked about the unprecedented scale of destruction caused by the wildfires, and why Tahra believes they have been exacerbated by regulatory hurdles, housing policies, and insufficient wildfire prevention efforts. Tahra explained how frameworks like the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other regulations have inadvertently slowed crucial wildfire prevention projects, contributing to the crisis. Tahra outlined some of her policy recommendations, emphasizing the need for reforms to CEQA, fire-resistant construction mandates, and proactive wildfire prevention programs to address the growing risks. She also explored why urban neighborhoods tend to be more fire-resistant than suburban areas, the role of housing policy in pushing development into high-risk zones, and the implications of Proposition 103 for California's insurance market. Tahra advocated for an Operation Warp Speed-style initiative to tackle the wildfire crisis in Los Angeles, integrating innovative solutions and regulatory reforms to build long-term resilience.You can read Tahra's Medium op-ed, where she outlines her recommendations, here.

Wes, Eneasz, and David keep the rationalist community informed about what's going on outside of the rationalist communitySupport us on Substack!News discussed:Early signs look like congestion pricing is reducing traffic in ManhattanTrump sentenced to “unconditional discharge”Dockworkers union has a tentative dealFIRE to defend pollster in Trump lawsuit over outlier election pollSome accounts criticized H1B visas and Elon retaliated by removing their verificationAt least 24 people killed in LA firesOver 12,000 homes and businesses burnedNewsome executive order waives CEQA and Coastal Act requirements for rebuildingThere will be no post-blitz boomMayor of LA ensures very little rebuilding will happenThe state of California got 6 month's advance warning from the best risk-assessment professionalsEvery time an insurance company wants to raise rates for automobiles or homes, they have to have a public hearing and an elected insurance commissioner has to approve.1600 policies cancelled in the Palisades over the summer (major devastation area).FAIR testified it only had about $385 million, LA fires could have up to $24B of exposureNewsome bans insurance companies from not renewing policiesBiden blocked sale of US Steel to Nippon SteelBlinken, Yellen, and many other advisors against the blockNippon Steel and US Steel filing suit to challengeFederal judge found that requiring teachers to use preferred pronouns violates 1AAlso struck down the Biden administration's unconstitutional Title IX rulesTrudeau is donezoCFPB banned medical debt from lowering credit scoresMeta going based for Trump yearsFired chief diversity officer, ended diversity goals, stopped prioritizing minority-owned businessesRemoved tampons from mens bathroomsThe Sadam Statues are falling - HananiaPretty good Nate Silver piece on thisTik Tok is probably going to shut down on January 19thNews You Can Ignore“Grooming Gangs”?. (counter: Free Press?)Elon Musk bought his Path of Exile account and his ranking in Diablo 4 is out of under 1000 players (Trace called it)Happy News!Amazon moving forward with WarHammer 40K series starring and lead by Henry Cavil.WarHammer is For RomanticsUS govt funding bird flu vaccine research and stocking up on vaccinesThe Bukele Administration has turned the country from the most murderous in Latin America to the safestWeather nerds found out where the water went during California's drought!Minnesota Summer Camp for HIV-Positive Kids Closes Down–Because There Aren't Any MoreScientists drilled a 1.2M year old ice core out of AntarcticaTroop DeploymentEneasz - I have just released a short story collection titled Dear GromGot something to say? Come chat with us on the Bayesian Conspiracy Discord or email us at themindkillerpodcast@gmail.com. Say something smart and we'll mention you on the next show!Follow us!RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/themindkillerGoogle: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Iqs7r7t6cdxw465zdulvwikhekmPocket Casts: https://pca.st/vvcmifu6Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-mind-killerApple: Intro/outro music: On Sale by Golden Duck Orchestra This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mindkiller.substack.com/subscribe

I had a blast chatting with Jennifer before, during, and after our recording! I have known her for years, but this is the first time we got to sit and chat live! I guarantee we will have a part II to our conversation! I hope you enjoy this episode! And be sure to check out all of Pando PR's services. About Jennifer, APRFounder & CEO of Pando Public Relations Jennifer has worked in education technology since the early days when teachers were first learning how to use PowerPoint in the classroom. Back then, she drove the highways of California in a modified bus stocked with hardware and software from dozens of companies. That's where she learned the ins and outs of education and gained first-hand experience working with teachers. From there, she took over as public relations manager for PowerSchool, which was a darling of its time and has since grown to be one the largest and most respected companies in education. Jennifer launched her consulting business with her first major education client, Holt McDougal, and a handful of government agencies needing help with public outreach, CEQA, and rate hikes. Today, Pando PR has grown to be a full-service agency specializing in public relations for companies in the K-12 and higher education space. Pando's staff also works with companies, institutions, and organizations engaged in workforce development and training, particularly in healthcare and technology. Jennifer holds a B.S. in animal science and reproductive physiology from the University of California, Davis, and an M.A. in public affairs and issues management from California State University, Sacramento. The Public Relations Society of America honored her with a coveted and difficult to earn credential recognizing her expertise in the public relations field: the Accreditation in Public Relations (APR). Learn more about Pando PR ⁠here.⁠ Connect with ⁠Jennifer on LinkedIn⁠ Be sure to subscribe to my podcast and ⁠newsletter⁠ to keep on learning! Need a speaker for your event or consultant? ⁠Contact me ⁠for more information.

Welcome to the Environmental Leadership Chronicles, brought to you by the California Association of Environmental Professionals. In this episode, we are thrilled to feature Cameron Lukos, a GIS analyst and biologist at GPA Consulting, who is pioneering the integration of technology and biology in environmental science. Cameron discusses his dual role in providing GIS support across various departments, including biology, architectural history, and CEQA compliance, while also engaging in fieldwork such as biological surveys and habitat assessments. He shares insights into how his family's legacy in the environmental industry has shaped his career path, drawing inspiration from his father's work as an aquatic biologist. As the student liaison for AEP's Orange County chapter, Cameron is passionate about mentoring the next generation of environmental leaders. He offers valuable advice to students on networking, gaining industry experience, and the importance of internships. Join hosts Jessa and Corinne as they delve into Cameron's journey, exploring the intersection of GIS technology and biology, and how Cameron's dedication is creating a positive ripple effect in the environmental sector. Listen in to discover how Cameron navigates the challenges of a rapidly changing industry, his vision for the future, and his commitment to fostering new talent in environmental science.

In this episode, we feature Joan Valle, the Chief of Regulatory for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. With over 20 years of experience in environmental planning, Joan shares her expertise in managing teams and programs related to key environmental regulations such as CEQA, NEPA, and the Clean Water Act. Joan discusses her passion for finding win-win solutions with resource agencies and stakeholders, as well as her active role in lobbying state and federal decision-makers for policies that benefit Riverside County and beyond. She also talks about her involvement with the AEP Legislative Committee and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Join hosts Jessa and Corinne as they dive into Joan's leadership journey, her career path from environmental analyst to division chief, and her insights into the challenges and rewards of working in flood control and water conservation. Joan also shares her thoughts on the importance of effective environmental laws and policies, and her vision for the future of the environmental profession. Listen in to learn more about Joan's experiences, her favorite projects, and what drives her dedication to protecting communities through innovative environmental solutions.

Just last week, the legislative session for the year ended in Sacramento meaning a batch of legislation was passed that, if signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, would change the way the state conducts its transportation business. In this episode of SGV Connect, co-host Damien Newton goes it alone, interviewing Streetsblog California editor Melanie Curry. As an aside, both Newton and Curry will be at the Streetsblog San Francisco/Streetsblog California anniversary party next week at Manny's in the Mission on Thursday, September 12, at 6:00 p.m. along with a bevy of transportation reform superstars including mayors, transit board chairs and Senator Scott Wiener. If you happen to be in the area, drop by and join us. Reserve your ticket, here. But for now, buckle in and enjoy today's podcast. A full transcript can be found beneath the audio player below. Damien   Before we get into the podcast, let me remind everyone that SGV Connect is supported by Foothill Transit, offering car-free travel throughout the San Gabriel Valley with connections to the new Gold Line Stations across the Foothills and Commuter Express lines traveling into the heart of downtown L.A. To plan your trip, visit Foothill Transit. “Foothill Transit. Going Good Places.”   Hello, welcome to SGV Connect episode 127. My name's Damien Newton. We have a bit of a throwback episode here in that I am doing it on my own - or well, I'm not on my own, I have a guest: Melanie Curry, the editor of Streetsblog California, who's going to give us an update on legislation that has been passed and is awaiting the signature of the governor…hopefully.   We timed this episode to coincide with our Streetsblog San Francisco/California anniversary dinner next Thursday. If you'd like to join us on September 12, click here for more details.   And a link with all the information is in the email, excuse me, in the text of the story that accompanies this podcast. Boy, I'm struggling today, Melanie. I hope you're on your A game.    …and she gave a thumbs up. You guys can't see that because we're not recording the video.   All right. So it just so happens that the first couple pieces of legislation we want to talk about were authored and introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, who happens to be one of our guests of honor next week.   Isn't that an amazing coincidence? So why don't you start off by telling us a little bit about these two pieces of legislation? And again, these are passed by the legislature, but awaiting signature or possibly something worse from the governor.   Melanie Oh, we don't want it to be worse.    This is one of the reasons that we are giving a Streetsie to Senator Scott Wiener - because he got SB 960, a complete streets bill, passed… again. He's tried three times with this bill and last time it was vetoed by the governor. So we're crossing our fingers that that doesn't happen again.   It's a little bit different this time around. Caltrans pushed just as hard against it as it had in the past. They keep saying, “we're already making complete streets a priority.”   Damien …um…are they already making complete streets a priority?   Melanie It's hard to say. At the headquarters level, their talk is good, but how it comes out on the ground is a different story. CalBike is working on a report about that very issue, which they're not quite ready to release, but we'll find out soon what they have to say.    At any rate, Caltrans says they have a complete streets policy. But they're not really doing it. So what happened with SB 960 is Caltrans pushed back. They got language that they are more comfortable with, which is kind of similar to what they already have: they'll make complete streets when they are working on maintenance projects where feasible, which still gives them kind of a lot of outs.    However, the bill is a lot stronger than last time around. It specifically includes a requirement to create a transit priority policy at Caltrans - which is a huge difference. It requires better transparency, so Caltrans has to report on their complete streets and how much money they're putting into it.    It also requires them to come up with a shorter encroachment permit process - which sounds really wonky and kind of is - but it makes it easier for cities to make their own changes on their streets if they want to build a bike lane or something like that without having to go through  the onerous process that Caltrans makes them do..    Anyway, it's been passed. We've got our fingers crossed. It's not the solution, but it's a really good step in the right direction for making Caltrans make complete streets on all of their facilities when they are repairing them..Not freeways, but all the other ones.   Damien If this is a stronger piece of legislation than last time, doesn't it seem less likely that Governor Newsom will sign it?   Melanie Well, it's interesting. It's stronger in ways that are outside of the when and where. It's stronger because it has transit priority, which it didn't before. It's stronger because it calls for better transparency and a shorter permit process. But in terms of requiring when and where complete streets are to be incorporated into Caltrans projects, it's really similar to what the current Caltrans policy is.    It's kind of an interesting argument. [Newsom] said “give Caltrans a chance” when he vetoed a similar bill in the past. But at that time, there was a new Caltrans director. So they got a chance. That was four years ago. They had their chance. We haven't seen any results. So we're back with this bill.   I think it will take something to get the governor to sign it, but it might not be as onerous as it would have been four years ago. I mean, weigh in, call the governor! I don't know. It definitely needed support to get passed by the legislature, but I think it has a better chance than the last one did.   Damien But that's not the only thing that Senator Wiener's done that has him on our list of “legislation to talk about today.” He's also done something with passive speed enforcement. You might need to explain this one a little bit.   I know you just did a story on it, and I read the story. I could totally talk about this if I had to, but, you know, people would rather hear you talk about it than me.   Melanie Are you sure?   Damien I assume.   Melanie I don't know. My voice can get a little whiny. No, it's not enforcement. It's assist. So it's in-car technology that tells people, hey, you've gone over the speed limit. And it does that with, like, a beep.    So this one was going to be a great bill. We were excited about it when Wiener first [introduced it] because he was looking for something more active - which is also a, technology that exists where … it prevents you from going over the speed limit. But that was just too crazy. So - not too crazy, it's a known and used technology. European cars have it. But there was too much pushback. So he said, “OK, passive speed limit assist technology in all new cars starting in 2030.”   And that passed. And you know it's better than nothing. A lot of new cars already have this technology…   Damien …almost every rental car too   Melanie It would be very surprising if it didn't get passed. It's a help. There's actually surveys that show that drivers like it.   And what's really strange to me is that about six or seven Republican legislators in California wrote this strongly worded letter to Governor Newsom telling him to veto it because enforcement is a better way to [handle this issue]. And they said it puts an “undue burden on the majority of responsible drivers,” which, uh, wait a minute.   Damien Wait, but they're speeding, right?   Melanie Yeah. Yet it's an “undue burden.” Like it's going to beep at you. Like one beep. It's only a one-time notification. So I don't know where they get any of that, “Undue burden on responsible drivers?”    If you're going over the speed limit, wouldn't you want [your car] to tell you? I don't know. I really don't know where this comes from. I imagine all of them just want to speed like crazy for as long as they want to.   Damien These are the people that obviously rent rental cars and then speed in them.   Melanie And they don't like that one beep.   Damien They don't like that beep…Not that I know from my recent road trip what that sounds like.   Melanie Does it continue or is it just one [sound]?   Damien I think it depends. The car that we had, it beeped every time you went 10 miles over the speed limit. So, we obviously heard it once and then adjusted our driving for the rest of the drive across the country because, yeah.   Melanie Yeah. Right. Which is what people want. You know, like what if you're in a place that you don't know? What if you're driving in Oregon and there might be a cop that's going to pull you over?   Damien Or what if the speed limit drops and you miss the sign?   Melanie Exactly.   Damien If we drove through a county and you know at the speed limit dropped 10 miles an hour, and then all of a sudden we went from driving roughly the speed limit to driving 10 miles over the speed limit…that's where we were.   Melanie And that's where you're likely to get a ticket, too. So it's really helpful to be told by your car.   Damien Was it the ticket lobby that was against this?   Melanie You know, I don't know who those people are. I don't know if they're a lobby. They're just Republicans. I could find the letter and read you their names if you want, but they're Republican legislators who just hated it.   Damien I'm just flashing back, as I always do, to the efforts to set the speed limit…legislation that we fought for for so long and finally got passed by Laura Friedman a couple of years ago, and the dumb arguments we would hear about it.   Melanie Yeah, it's weird to me…. I'm looking at some of the names of the people that signed it, and I have to say some of them say some really dumb things in the hearings.   So I don't want to say they're dumb, but they're not very well informed.   Damien We can say that if you want to.   Melanie And this letter proves that…And they have an agenda that doesn't make a lot of sense.    Just the idea there, they are law-and-order Republicans and for some reason they really love the idea of giving people tickets to enforce this [issue]. I don't understand their thinking. I have the feeling that's not going to have much sway with Governor Newsom. Who knows?   Damien I mean, you never know these days. And he's been… he's been more conservative in the past year than I would have thought.   Melanie Yeah.  I'm not a politician for a reason. I don't understand the way you think about things when you're a politician. It's not always logical.   Damien Speaking of not always logical, let's talk about a bill that had to do with when you can and can't paint sharrows that was passed, but without the support of its initial sponsor, Streets for All…So what happened there?   Melanie Gosh, who knows. So, this is SB 1216 from Catherine Blakespear.   This was also a[similar]  provision in another bill from Laura Friedman, AB 2290, but that one was just held back. It didn't go anywhere.    So what this was trying to do was limit the use of Class III bike routes, which are, you know, they are signs and sharrows painted in the street, at most. They might just be signs, but they were really trying to get away from calling those even bike routes. People like Caltrans will put them down and say, “look, we made you a bike route.” But they don't really have any kind of good standards for when they use them, so the legislature tried to limit their use..    Plus, [the sponsors] wanted to eliminate funding for those projects. And actually, they sort of succeeded. When it was in the Assembly [Transportation} Committee, the bill was amended to restrict sharrows to roads that are 30 miles an hour or slower.    Imagine riding your bike at, what, 10 miles an hour on a 30 mile an hour road, and there's a sharrow there telling you to go ahead and use it. So whoever decided that 30 miles an hour or slower made sense is not a bike rider. And [the committee] would not remove any limitation on using bike route signs, so they can mark a bike route wherever they want, which doesn't also doesn't make sense.    Thinking of fast streets in the San Fernando Valley, for example, they could just call those bike routes. So when you look on Google Maps, it's going to tell you to go that way…and you get out there and you're like, “ah, I don't want to ride this road.”    It was so bad that the sponsor, Streets for All, just gave up. But! One good thing about that bill is it does have a provision that says that … Active Transportation Program projects can no longer use [ATP funds] for Class III bike routes, after January 2026.    I have a feeling that it doesn't really do that much anymore because the people who run the program are pretty aware of what makes a good bike route or a good bike project, and Class III doesn't really count. However, Caltrans is still going to use class III bike routes and claim credit for creating bike facilities. We have to keep our eye on that.   Damien One piece of legislation that we covered in our Santa Monica publication is Malibu would now be able to put speed cameras on the PCH as part of the pilot program.   There's a lot of reasons this is interesting.    A) that so many communities want to get in on a pilot program. There were three cities in Senator Ben Allen's district, but only Malibu made it on this piece of legislation.  B) is the need for this extremely complicated pilot program that a year after the legislation was passed, no cities actually have speed cameras up. Yet they're allowing other cities - and yet we [already] know from the entire rest of the world that speed cameras work - to join this complicated pilot program.   Do you want to talk at all about this legislation, what it actually does, and if maybe I took all of the thunder away on the interesting things, tell me to be a better interviewer. But if I did not, then fill in some other interesting things about this.   Melanie SB 1297 from Senator Ben Allen adds the city of Malibu to the speed camera pilot program that was created by AB 645 last year. That was from assemblymember Laura Friedman that allowed Glendale, LA, Long Beach, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco to do pilot programs with a limited number of cameras under all these really tight restrictions about where they could be, how they could be deployed, how they collected information from them, how they gave tickets, and they had to keep the the tickets out of the court system, and the fines had to be low and all kinds of really really tight restrictions.   None of those cities, as far as I can tell, have put up any cameras yet.   San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose have chosen locations for them, but they're not going to install them until next year. I can't find out about the other cities. At any rate, the city of Malibu will be able to add five cameras along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu [under this bill].   So what do we do about all the other cities like Santa Monica that might also want to put up speed cameras? They're all gonna have to wait. There's so much pushback from privacy groups and law enforcement, all these people who object to these programs. For law enforcement, this will make their life easier, but okay, whatever.   Damien The whole thing baffles me. Allen introduced this after there was a high profile crash that killed a bunch of Pepperdine students standing on the side of the road late last year. The PCH in Malibu has always been a safety disaster for bicyclists, for pedestrians, for car drivers, for everyone. Allen tried to address this - there are several different project programs that are going on, educational programs, enforcement programs…this effort was sort of added on to those.   But as soon as he announced it, all the other cities in his district were like, “ooh, us too, us too.”   Because cities want these. It just feels weird to me that the state is making it so hard, with a cumbersome pilot program and only certain cities.   This feels like an effort to keep them out, not an effort to promote them.   Melanie Yeah. What's fascinating to me about it is one of the arguments - which is a valid argument - against this was that street design is a more [effective] way to slow people down.   Yes, it's true. So one of the provisions in the original bill is that other street design changes had to be made. And especially if they put up a camera and it didn't slow speeds, then they had to make those street design changes.    Well, PCH really needs some design changes. And the ones – the responses that they have [had] to that crash are just pathetic. I'm sorry, they put up speed feedback signs and they put up signs. Education, enforcement, those are fine, but those are not the kinds of things that make people slow down or actually change the street so that people have to drive slow.   We just have so much resistance to creating calm streets. And because the PCH is such a heavily used thruway, people want to zoom on it. It doesn't make sense for people to be zooming on it. But it's just part of our speed culture that we just can't change [yet]. It's a bummer.   Damien I say romantic, I don't necessarily mean romance; but how many pop culture references over the years feature the hero or heroine in their convertible speeding up the PCH?   Melanie Absolutely. It's glamorized for sure.   I say people who want to go fast and feel the wind in their hair should roll their windows down and stick their heads out the window while they drive and feel the wind that way because it feels like you're going fast even if you're going like 20 miles an hour.   Damien Is it a little weird to hear the argument that it's road design that really slows streets down so we can't…we shouldn't do speed cameras 10 minutes after we were just discussing how Caltrans doesn't want to be mandated to do safe road design.   Melanie Yeah, we're in a very strange tangle trying to make sense out of all of this.   I mean, we can see it, advocates can see it. But the arguments can be complicated. I maintain hope that we will prevail sooner or later. And it's partly because we have super smart people working on these issues. But man, it's not easy. It's not easy.   Damien There was one more piece of major legislation we wanted to talk about before we might run down some of the other pieces, and that was what's been going on with e-bikes. It doesn't appear like there's much of an effort to make statewide e-bike policy. Instead, it's an effort to define what different communities can and can't do.   Melanie Yeah, and I wouldn't even call these major legislation.   Both of the authors of these two e-bike bills, [Assemblymembers] Tasha Boerner and Damon Connolly, had started off with bills that were going to require a license to ride e-bikes, at least class 2 or class 3 e-bikes. I'll go over the classifications in a minute. They're all about speed and throttle and stuff like that. But it became pretty clear those bills were not going anywhere. So both of them changed them.    In Boerners case San Diego and in Donnelly's case Marin County - they allow local jurisdictions to create e-bike restrictions.    Borners would allow San Diego to pass an ordinance banning children under 12 and from riding class 1 or 2 e-bikes. You have to be 18 to ride a class three e-bike [already]. What is a class 3 e-bike? Let's see, [it's] a little complicated: You have to use the pedals. You can't use just the motor, but it can go up to like 28 miles per hour using pedals.   You have to be 18 to ride that kind of bike. So Boerner wants it to change it so no one under 12 can ride a class 1 e-bike, which has a little bit of pedal assist up to 20 miles an hour at the most, or class 2, which has a throttle assist up to 20 miles per hour. And then after that, you would have to use your pedals, but [a class 2] could go 28 miles per hour.   Connelly has a similar bill, but he doesn't want anyone under 16 [to ride]. So [his bill would] allow Marin to pass an ordinance to require people to be at least 16 to ride a class 2 e-bike. And they could, if they wanted to, [also] pass an ordinance requiring any e-bike rider to wear a helmet. Even adults.    So it's a problem because they're inconsistent. They're local ordinances. Local helmet ordinances from the get-go are a bad idea. There's a lot of people from Berkeley who ride into Marin. So like, what are they going to do suddenly? There's a different law for them over there?   Damien I remember down here when one city was talking about banning scooters and others weren't, and it was like, well, what's gonna happen to someone riding on a scooter when they cross a border…Is it just gonna, like, stop?   Melanie Yeah. Well, yeah, actually they can. They do put speed limiters on scooters! Not cars…not cars where they could really do some good.    Those [bills] are like mostly annoying. They both passed, though. They're on the governor's desk. He may well sign them. Whether San Diego and Marin County passed those ordinances is a different question.   Another e-bike bill was from Senator Dave Min, which is kind of [an] interesting [one]. First it says that any e-bike sold in California has to have an e-bike battery that is certified to be safe, either the UL or the EU certification [or the like]. People are worried about battery fires and that would prevent that.   It's not without its controversy because when they were talking battery standards for the e-bike incentive program, there were a lot of bike sellers who were mad about that. They were selling bikes that didn't have that certification. And they were like, “they're fine!    But anyway, that passed. So if he signs it, they'd have to be certified.   And then the other thing that [the bill] did was clarify the definition of e-bikes. The reason that was an issue was because there is at least one manufacturer that makes these bikes that they sell as class 2 ebikes.    So class 2 has a throttle assist and you can go with the throttle up to 20. With pedaling you can go up to 28 miles an hour. So they were selling these as class 2 e-bikes, but they had a switch on them that would allow them to go “off-road.” [That would allow them to] go way faster with just the throttle, which means they're basically mopeds. Min's bill made those illegal. If  you sell something that's switchable, it's not an e-bike.   Wait, it's not illegal. It's a moped, which means, you know, age restriction and helmet restriction, etc. Because if you can go over 28 with a throttle, it…Yeah, that's not an e-bike.   And the thing is, like, how do you enforce that?   Can a cop tell from looking at it whether a bike is an actual class 2 e-bike or is it something else?   Damien So let's try and run down the rest of the legislation we had that we were going to at least touch on today.   Melanie Just a few things…One thing that passed that I think is really important because it makes me nervous is Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry worked really hard to get a bill passed that said you could not have any autonomous vehicle big rigs being tested on California roads unless there was a human operator present.   It was amazing how hard she had to argue for this.   Newsom had vetoed a similar bill last year, so he may veto this again. But meanwhile, the DMV is already … starting to put out draft regulations… for autonomous big rigs.   Isn't that fun to think about: driving on a road like Highway 5 and knowing the truck next to you has nobody in it?   If he signs this, there will have to at least be a person in the vehicle.   Damien Yeah, he's not, he's not signing that, I bet.   Melanie Maybe I can just like curl up in a ball and stay home for the rest of my life. Or they hurry up with that train so I don't ever have to get on a highway again.   Damien You saw the video? I mean, it looks like it's just about finished.   Melanie Uh no… but okay it's happening.   I would say one more more [bill] that's kind of cool is AB 2503 which gives a CEQA exemption for zero emission trains. There's a problem with that, of course, as it's another way that they're poking holes in CEQA instead of just reforming CEQA, and also it specifically says zero emission trains and people are still calling hydrogen trains zero-emission trains, and they don't understand why I refuse to do that. So, okay…a CEQA exemption for clean energy trains.   We need that, but still it's not great.   Senator Blakespear had got passed SB 689 so that you would not need to conduct a study to convert a vehicle lane into a bike or a transit lane in coastal areas. That was specifically to overcome problems with the Coastal Commission process.    And then there's another one, AB 3177. Streets for All sponsored it, and it's a little wonky. It says that you cannot require a new housing project to pay a mitigation fee to be used towiden a road. So that's big. And then there's one more, AB 2086, which calls for more transparency from Caltrans -  they have to create a dashboard that shows their funding which is very complicated   None of these have been signed, however.   Damien Right. None of these have been signed. Based on previous years, some of them might not be slam dunks, but if people have heard anything today that they want to weigh in on - again, you can contact your governor. Sorry. It's a little play of words off the, you know, contact your representative today. Contact your governor. It's the same governor I have. I think he's in state right now. So it's a good time to get him   So again, if you want to talk to us about this in person, we will be in San Francisco next week at Manny's in the Mission at 6 PM on Thursday. Feel free to stop by. Feel free to buy a ticket. Feel free to say hello. More information on that event is on Streetsblog California and Streetsblog  San Francisco, and of course, links to all of that are included with the text that accompanies this podcast.    Thank you for your time today, Melanie, and we will talk to you again probably at the end of the year. We'll talk about which of these bills have been signed and not signed and what we're looking forward to in 2025, which is getting closer.

Podcast Show Notes In this episode of Right to Life Radio, host John Gerardi is joined by Jonathan Keller from California Family Council to dive into the hot-button issue of abortion legislation in California. They discuss the latest bill, AB 2085, which aims to streamline the approval process for abortion clinics by stripping local municipalities of their decision-making power. The duo explores the implications of this bill for communities in the San Joaquin Valley, particularly Tulare County, which has been targeted by abortion providers.   Key topics include: • Overview of AB 2085 and its potential impact on local zoning laws. • Historical context of abortion clinic proposals in Tulare and Visalia. • The role of local pro-life activists in opposing these clinics. • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its exclusion for abortion clinics under the new bill. • The Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of California Family Council as a “hate group” and its broader implications for conservative organizations.   Join John and Jonathan as they unravel the complex legal and social battles surrounding abortion access and local governance in California.

CA lawmakers are urged to exempt new urban housing from environmental reviews. LA County's Rent Relief Program application reopens Monday for landlords. The region's oldest independent bookstore closes its Hastings Ranch location.   Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.com.  Support the show: https://laist.com

In this episode, Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Chairman of the Board Bob Mendez talks with students from the UC Riverside School of Public Policy about policies that impact middle income families, and how we can alter existing policies to create a better environment for them to thrive.   About Bob Mendez:A former member of the US Navy, Bob Mendez has had a decorate career in finance, having worked at Merrill Lynch Smith Barney, and Morgan Stanley. He also is actively involved in his community as Chairman of the Board for the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, Chairperson on Budget Engagement Commission for the City of Riverside, and a member of the Honorary Commanders - a civilian organization that supports the March Air Reserve Base.Learn more about Bob Mendez via https://www.raymondjames.com/rlmwealthgroup/about-us/bio?_=bob.mendez  Podcast Highlights:  “When we look at middle-income families as a whole in our society, they provide us with a source of economic stability in that they generally make up the largest portion of the workforce. They can provide a steady stream of local income and taxes as well. And it's critical, especially for any local economy like here in Riverside, which [needs to be able to demonstrate they have a stable workforce] in order to be able to effectively borrow. Plus, they provide consumer spending, which is critical for our local businesses…” -       Bob Mendez on the topic of the value middle income families bring to local families.  “The California Environmental Quality Act, is designed to protect our environment. So, I understand the need for CEQA and I like some aspects of it, but there are certain things that could easily be tweaked in order to help, especially suffering middle income families. It's my understanding that, when a developer is looking to build a housing unit, there is approximately $40,000 to $50,000 of cost associated with just regulations that go into the building of just one unit. And we could make simple, I think, adjustments there [so that middle income families can have access to housing they can afford].“ -       Bob Mendez on the unintended consequences policies such as CEQA bring forth, despite good intentions. “I always say it comes down to three things, and it's jobs, jobs, and jobs. You know, we really need to come together, you know, in terms of being able to all move in the right direction to produce good paying jobs for individuals. You know, we just really have to break down all these silos between the city, the county, even our institutions of higher education, and the chamber, you know, where we all work collectively together for the betterment of our community." -      Bob Mendez on the importance of collaboration between sectors to create jobs and effective change.  Guest: Bob Mendez (Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Chairman of the Board )  Interviewers: Rachel Strausman (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Vice Chief Ambassador) Pia Prashanth (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Ambassador)  Watch the video version here: https://youtu.be/AoX6HO_K8AY?si=aH7l4IouhnzmuSkt Music by: C Codainehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Xylo-Ziko/Minimal_1625https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Xylo-Ziko/PhaseCommercial Links:https://spp.ucr.edu/ba-mpphttps://spp.ucr.edu/mpp  This is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: https://spp.ucr.edu/  Subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes via https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast. 

In this episode, we discuss why Nikki Haley is still in the race and how the Independents and Republicans truly feel about Nikki Haley. Haley clearly has no chance of winning, and I discuss how this affects the future of the presidential race and what could happen if Trump does get convicted in his current cases. Next, I discuss how housing costs are the #1 reason why Californians are leaving the state, which has a trickle-down effect on other state issues. California's environmental laws are a massive part of the housing crisis in California, I discuss how my initiative is helping combat these issues and take on the CEQA laws. If you want to help fix California's housing crisis, help us get this on the ballot at CalHomesNow.com and click “Help Us Get This On the Ballot” and we will mail you a ballot if it qualifies!  I am also joined by Jennifer Horn to discuss California Corner and our first point of discussion is the debate for the Federal Office to replace Feinstein and our thoughts and who we are excited to see in the state race. We also get into California's crazy proposed laws and headlines, including a proposed law that says cars made or sold in California would not be able to go 10mph over the speed limit. Californians are very obviously fed up with the crime rates in the state, and all eyes will be on the Los Angeles District Attorney race.  Lastly, I am joined by Alex Villanueva who is running for LA County Supervisor. Alex has a people-first initiative and understands the needs of the people in Los Angeles, such as affordable housing, accessible mental healthcare, hard-on-crime policies, and successful substance abuse treatment.  This is a packed episode you won't want to miss!

Co-host Corinne Lytle Bonine joins the podcast as we feature Jenny Vick, West Coast Offshore Wind Lead for HDR.  As an established environmental consultant, Jenny has over 18 years of environmental and project management experience preparing CEQA and NEPA documents for a wide range of marine and coastal projects, including renewable energy, substations, transmission, and ports.   Jenny discusses the exciting opportunities and challenges in developing offshore wind in the Pacific Ocean – and keeping on the cutting edge of this rapidly evolving industry.   She earned a bachelor's degree in Biological Sciences from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a Master's degree in Marine Biology from James Cook University in Australia.   Join us as we learn about Jenny's approach to mentorship and carving your professional pathway. Thanks for listening, we hope you enjoy! 

This episode is a feature in our CEQA Series where I'm joined by co-host, Corinne Lytle Bonine and we feature Andrew Saba, Managing Director at Stockdale Capital Partners.  Andrew is responsible for asset management with a focus on healthcare real estate at Stockdale Capital Partners – a real estate investment firm based in Los Angeles. Andrew discusses how commercial developers approach CEQA in project planning, and considerations for streamlining development for healthcare and housing needs.  Join us as we learn about from a developer's perspective on engaging with environmental processes. Thanks for listening, we hope you enjoy! 

This episode is a feature in our CEQA Series; our host Konnie Dobreva speaks with guests Tim Haile, Executive Director at Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Meghan Macias, Director of Technical Services at EPD Solutions  Konnie, Meghan, and Tim discuss the impacts of SB 743 on VMT mitigation and TDM programs designed to reduce emissions, urban sprawl and promote use of alternative transportation.  Tim Haile, an award-winning transportation expert, emphasizes the importance of innovative transit programs and the need for sustainable, equitable, and accessible transportation solutions. He discusses his leadership in connected and autonomous vehicles, including the deployment of shared autonomous vehicles in the Bay Area.  Meghan Macias brings over two decades of experience in transportation planning to the conversation. She leads a team focused on comprehensive technical analyses for land development projects across California. Meghan's expertise includes traffic engineering and a deep understanding CEQA.  Join Tim, Meghan, and Konnie as they discuss challenges and strategies surrounding VMT mitigation and its impact on transportation planning and development in California.

In this episode of our Environmental Law series, host Craig Williams is once again joined by Alisha M. Winterswyk, an attorney from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, as they continue their discussion on NEPA & CEQA. The conversation moves into the specifics of how courts deal with decisions by city councils that dealing with environmental consequences, and on the other side, how citizens deal with this whole process by filing lawsuits.

In this episode of our Environmental Law series, host Craig Williams is once again joined by Alisha M. Winterswyk, an attorney from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, as they continue their discussion on NEPA & CEQA. The conversation moves into the specifics of how courts deal with decisions by city councils that dealing with environmental consequences, and on the other side, how citizens deal with this whole process by filing lawsuits.

What do you know about CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1970 and signed into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan? For more than 50 years, CEQA has been used to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects but, in recent years, it has been applied in situations for which it was not designed, especially new housing development.  In response, both Governor Newsom and the State Legislature are seeking to amend the law to prevent various activists and opponents from obstructing new housing.  Not so fast, say the law's supporters.  They point to a recent report by the Rose Foundations that CEQA has had little, if any, impact on housing projects across the state. So, who is correct? Join host Ronnie Lipschutz for a conversation with Professor Deborah Sivas of the Stanford Law School. She teaches environmental law, directs the environmental law clinic and has represented various environmental organizations in the courts.  We will talk about CEQA and whether it is really standing in the way of more housing in California.

The California Homeownership Affordability Act will accomplish three objectives:1. Restore CEQA: The biggest barrier to building the new homes we need is the abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to file nuisance lawsuits on bogus environmental grounds. When it was passed, CEQA did not even cover housing, and yet California finds itself in a situation where just between 2019 and 2021, around one million new homes that had been approved for construction by state and local government were blocked by bogus CEQA lawsuits.  This Initiative would eliminate CEQA abuse by ending the "private right of action" - only county DAs or the state Attorney General would be able to file CEQA lawsuits.Why should anyone be able to sue to stop housing being built, if it has already been approved and complies with all existing environmental regulations? 2. Cap Impact Fees: One of the main drivers of astronomical housing costs is the explosion in so-called "Impact Fees" being charged on new housing construction. These are effectively a tax on house-building and create an incentive for only expensive homes to be built. For example, the fees charged for building an apartment in San Francisco have been as high as $300,000 - even before the cost of land, labor, materials, etc. This Initiative will cap fees at 3% of the combined construction and labor cost of a new home. The cap would not include fees for schools, or to connect to utilities. The 3% cap would comprise state agency compliance fees capped at 1% and local fees at 2%. This would dramatically reduce the cost of new housing and incentivize the building of genuinely affordable homes through the market.  3. Construction Worker Housing Fund: To address the shortage of construction workers, which also contributes to rising costs, our proposal includes a new fund, financed by a small portion of Impact Fees, to create a down payment assistance program to help construction workers buy their own home if they commit to staying in the industry in California.

0:08 — Tim Redmond is a long-time San Francisco investigative reporter and founder of 48Hills.org. 0:20 — Doug Carstens is managing partner at Carstern, Black & Minteer, where's he's a CEQA practitioner and advisor to the CEQA Works coalition of environmental organizations. 0:33 — Sarah Moser, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography at McGill University. The post New Amazon Distribution Center in Bay View, CEQA bill AB 1307 May Greenlight People's Park development; Plus, California Forever: Building Utopian Cities from Scratch appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project shares a progressive vision for permitting reform and the factors that could speed up the US clean-energy buildout.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsTo achieve its Paris climate targets, the US is going to have to build out an enormous amount of clean energy and clean-energy infrastructure in coming years. But that buildout is going slowly — painfully, excruciatingly slowly — relative to the pace that is necessary.This has given rise to considerable debate on the left over what, exactly, is slowing things down. Much of that debate has come to focus on permitting, and more specifically, on permitting under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA.A deal that would have put some restrictions on NEPA in exchange for reforms to transmission planning was effectively killed by progressives toward the end of the last congressional session, leading many people inside and outside the climate movement to accuse progressives of being The Problem. They are so attached to slowing down fossil fuel development with NEPA, the accusation goes, that they are willing to live with it slowing clean energy. And that's a bad trade.Progressives, not surprisingly, disagree! Their take on the whole permitting debate is summarized in a new paper from the Roosevelt Institute and the Climate and Community Project: “A Progressive Vision for Permitting Reform.”The title is slightly misleading, since one of the central points of the paper is that permitting under NEPA is only a small piece of the puzzle — there are many other factors that play a role in slowing clean energy, and many other reforms that could do more to speed it up. I called up one of the paper's co-authors, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project, to ask her about those other reforms, the larger political debate, and the progressive community's take on speed. All right, then. With no further ado, Johanna Bozuwa from the Climate and Community Project. Welcome to Volts, and thank you so much for coming.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me, David.David RobertsThis is a hot topic, as you're well aware, permitting and the larger issues around it. And so, before we jump into specifics, I wanted to start with a few sort of broad, call them philosophical, questions.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsAs you know, progressives have been under quite a bit of fire lately, not only from their typical opponents on the right and in the fossil fuel industry, but from a lot of sort of centrists and even a lot of sort of allies in the climate movement. For — I think the general idea is they are too attached to stopping fossil fuels and not yet supportive enough of building out renewable energy. And the mechanisms that they rely on to slow and stop fossil fuels are also slowing and stopping renewable energy. And so I think the general critique is that they ought to swing around and be more pro-building and loosen these requirements, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure you've heard all this.Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsSo I guess I'd just start with this question. Is, do you think the progressive — and by the way, I meant to say this by way of a caveat, I'm going to be sort of using you as a spokesperson for progressivism, which I think we both realize is ridiculous.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly.David RobertsProgressives are heterogeneous just like anybody else. There's no official progressive position. But as a crude, let's just say as a crude instrument here, we're going to ask you to speak for that perspective as you see it.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsSo in your opinion, do you think progressives have taken it into their heart that things are moving too slowly and they desperately need to move faster?Johanna BozuwaMy answer to that question is that I think speed is progressive. You know, David, I don't need to tell this to you or any of the people that listen to this podcast or even progressives. We're dealing with the existential threat of the climate crisis and lives are on the line. And so I think that as progressives, we do need to take the speed question seriously. And I think what I would push back on is the fact that people have this myopic focus on permitting as the thing that's slowing everything down. And especially when I'm talking about permitting, NEPA permitting.David RobertsRight. We're going to definitely get to that.Johanna BozuwaYeah. And I just think that when it comes to this question of "Do progressives believe in speed?" I think that they actually very much do. And one of the things that I get frustrated with sometimes, when I hear these arguments like "Oh, progressives don't want to build anything," I think what progressives are interested in is building the right thing. And if we think about the United States and how our energy system rolls out today, we have a real issue that fossil fuels can expand at the same time as renewable energy is expanding. Like when it comes to fossil fuels, we can actually export that.We are now the biggest net exporter of LNG and crude oil. And I think that progressives are particularly aware that if we do the wrong thing on permitting then we're actually not only expanding renewable energy — and maybe poorly done renewable energy — but also the fossil fuel industry knows how to use these tools so much better than our renewable energy developers. And we are going to see just a massive expansion that we absolutely don't need right now. If we think the climate crisis matters.David RobertsWhat about the argument which goes like this: Fossil fuels are reaching sort of a structural peak and decline. Renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. It's on the rise. So if you just, all things being equal, make it easier to build everything across the board, renewable energy will win that race and so it's worth doing.Johanna BozuwaI just don't think that argument is true, look at how much power the fossil fuel industry still has in making these decisions. Like if we look at who is behind the recent push for permitting reform: It was largely the oil and gas industry. There's definitely some more nuance that's there, but they have significant power to move things and move them faster than the clean energy world. It's a question of when you're rolling back some of these bedrock environmental laws that the pie — it's not that the part of renewable energy in the pie is getting bigger. It's that even if we are getting more renewable energy, the pie itself has expanded so that we're having fossil fuels and renewables expanding at the same time.And it's not fully pushing out the power of the fossil fuel industry.David RobertsWell, then, how about this? And this is the final philosophical question before we get down to some nuts and bolts. Do you agree that there are going to be trade-offs as we pursue speed? This is, of course, the big discussion right now is that if you really double down on speed, if you really pursue speed with everything you've got, there are inevitably going to be some trade-offs, some other progressive values that have to take a backseat. And that might be other environmental impacts. It might be impacts on communities. It might be, you know, name it. It might be that we have to loosen up a little bit on those other things.Do you think that there are those trade-offs?Johanna BozuwaI think that there are some trade-offs. You, I think, had my colleague, Thea Riofrancos, on the pod some time ago talking about lithium extraction, right? And the fact that if we are going to decarbonize our transportation sector, it is going to take extraction in order to accomplish that. Right. And there are substantial and significant impacts that has in terms of water contamination in some of the most drought-impacted parts of the United States, that is something that we need to be thinking about. And I think what my hesitation is when it comes to so much of this conversation is that we're talking about deregulation as the way to do speed instead of actually talking about planning and coordination.And from my perspective, it's the planning and coordination that allows us to think through the decisions we're making with a far better sense of what's happening instead of a "get government out of the way, we'll figure it out" project that — it didn't really do great things for the planet. Are we going to do that again and trying to fix it? That seems like a silly mistake to make.David RobertsYeah, that's a really important distinction. I'm glad we get that out up front. Because I hate when we go from, "Yes, there are trade-offs" to therefore "Let it rip, let everything go." As Thea said on the podcast, we can acknowledge those trade-offs and thoughtfully try to minimize them through planning.Johanna BozuwaExactly.David RobertsSo let's start with this. As you say, there's this sort of what we're calling the permitting debate, quote unquote. Permitting debate is actually a bunch of debates and they're all kind of getting squished together under this notion of permitting. But in fact, there's a lot of things going on here other than permitting. So maybe talk just a little bit about all the disparate things that are now sort of getting lumped together under that rubric.Johanna BozuwaExactly. So I think just to put a point on it, often when people are talking about permitting, they're talking about this unfocused conversation about cutting red tape. But really what it comes down to is where the fight is right now in particular on the national stage is around NEPA. So the National Environmental Policy Act, but wrapped up into all of their arguments are all these other pieces that actually are maybe more of the problem than particularly NEPA. So, you know, four of them, just to start us off, obviously we do have NEPA. That's part of the permitting process.We have local and state zoning permits, approvals, things like that. You know, going to Georgia County to make sure that you can put something through. Then you have third, these contracts or arrangements that are actually between private organizations. David, I know you had folks talking about internet connection queues — that often is part of the permitting debate, but it's actually about who gets to go onto the transmission that's being built.David RobertsLet me pause there because I want to make a point that I'm not sure everybody understands and I'm not even sure we made it in that pod. But the ISOs, the ...Johanna BozuwaIndependent service operators. I know I always mess it up. RTOs. ISOs.David RobertsYes, I know. ISOs and RTOs. I could never call that to mind. But anyway, the ones who are sort of running the transmission systems and running these queues are not public organizations. Those are not state organizations. They are private consortia of transmission organizations and utilities and things like that. So it's not something that the state can come in and just directly change. I just think that's worth sort of putting on the record.Johanna BozuwaI think that's a really important point and I think we'll probably dig into this further. But the idea that and I think you talked about this on the pod last time, but there are so many different kind of private actors that are operating within the RTOs and ISOs with not actually a huge amount of oversight, as it currently stands.David RobertsYes, or transparency.Johanna BozuwaOr transparency.David RobertsOr accountability, really.Johanna BozuwaYeah, exactly. And it turns out if we're looking at what's really miring the buildout of renewable energy, a solid amount of it is right there. Is in the interconnection queues. I think it was Southwest PowerPool — takes like eight years sometimes to get the developer to get their project through. And those are for projects that already have their offtaker and have all their permitting in place. So it just feels quite misguided for us to spend all of this time talking about permitting when we could be actually diagnosing the problem —David RobertsAnd you said there was a fourth.Johanna Bozuwa— and there's a fourth. The fourth one, I would say, is just operation and construction permits, like some of the pollution discharge stuff that is at some of these more local levels. And those four don't even include some of the other things that stop things, which is like access to capital, utility squabbles, supply chain slowdowns, these whole host of other issues that are just being swept under the rug because it's very alluring to say, guess what? I have the one quick fix to make sure that renewable energy gets built in the United States.David RobertsAnd local NIMBYism. I'd throw that in.Johanna BozuwaYeah, yeah, local NIMBYism, absolutely. Add it to the pile, exactly. So and NEPA's not going to do things about local NIMBYism in the same way that's the local and state zoning stuff.David RobertsYeah, I think people really want, for obvious reasons, they're frustrated by everything going so slowly and everybody wants there to be sort of like something to cut the Gordian knot, sort of one, as you said, one weird trick. And that's, I think, why people are grasping onto NEPA because it seems like that's one big thing we can argue about and change. But as you say, the reasons here are very disparate. But let's just take a second to talk about NEPA. I go back and forth on this, but is it, do you think the progressive position that NEPA is okay "as is" and doesn't need any changes?Like, do you think there are problems with NEPA and how it's administered?Johanna BozuwaOkay. My feeling on this is that the case about NEPA is overstated, especially as we describe so many other things, even outside of the permitting process that matters. But if we're going to talk about NEPA, I think overall the projects are going through pretty quickly. There was a new study, actually, this month by, I think, David Adelman that did a really comprehensive look at wind and solar NEPA reviews over the past ten years, and he found that less than 5% of Wind and solar projects required. The EIS, like the Environmental Impact Statement, which is the one that takes the most time usually, can be two and a half years or whatever, but they're going through with categorical exclusions or some of these faster ways to move wind and solar projects through, or just projects in general.And he found that there was very little litigation involved, which is often like the dog whistle, I feel like, of some of these folks who are calling for permitting.David RobertsYeah, I was surprised when I looked at that study. It's a relatively low percentage of those projects that get litigated after they're done.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly. And I think if I were to make any improvements to NEPA, the thing I would do is bulk up the administrative state. Jamie Gibbs Pleune wrote a kind of corresponding piece of research to our permitting report where she investigated and talked about NEPA in particular with Roosevelt. But she was looking at another paper and found of 40,000 NEPA decisions that the US Forest Service looked at, the biggest causes of delays were actually from a lack of experienced staff, budget instability, and honestly, delays from the applicants themselves not getting their stuff in on time. So I just feel as if we're going to do anything to make NEPA better, give the BLM, give US Forest Service, give EPA far more funds, training, staff empowerment that's going to actually move these projects even faster through the pipeline when they're actually moving relatively quickly.And these places have experienced chronic understaffing and lack of empowerment. So there is work to be done there. I don't want to understate that, but I think that it's a reasonable thing for us to accomplish without rolling back and applying a very neoliberal frame to how we get this job done.David RobertsYeah, I would say it does seem like NEPA has sprawled a bit since it was passed. Originally, it was supposed to be major projects that came under NEPA review, and the court basically decided that all projects were under NEPA review. And so there's just thousands and thousands now that just have these little sort of not very long delays because they get these categorical exemptions. But there's just a lot of — it's very sprawling, it seems like, and unfocused. This is one of those areas where I feel like there are procedures of the administrative state that could work better and more effectively.But at this point, liberals, they've just been under assault for so long. And liberals just know if you open this can of worms, if you open it up to review, there's just a pool of piranhas that want to go in and strip it bare. And so they just don't open it for review. Like, there's so many things like this. Like, if we could have a good faith process of actually trying to do what NEPA is supposed to do better than NEPA does it, I feel like, yeah, there's stuff we could improve, but Joe Manchin doesn't want to improve it.Johanna BozuwaWe don't want Joe Manchin in charge of what NEPA looks like and what's the more muscular version that takes into consideration the real-life climate impacts. Because I don't know when you're talking there, David, a thing that comes up for me is the reality that we will have more things happening on the ground. Like, let's say you put transmission in, we have a wildfire crisis. Now all of a sudden, the stakes are higher when it comes to these things like environmental review that are very material that I think also aren't talked about as much as they should be. And so, yeah, I can imagine things being shifted and changed within NEPA so that it works better for the current context.But I think that, as you describe it, could be a real political problem for us to do that type of work right now. And we have other mechanisms that can move us much more quickly in the interim. Like, is this really the thing we want to be spending our time on as progressives? The answer is no.David RobertsAnd I also think if you look at the reforms that were sort of ended up getting jammed through, like of all the thoughtful things you could do to NEPA to make it work better, just a sort of — page limit, like a page limit on reviews: Seems like it's such a blunt instrument. It's such a crude way of approaching this.Johanna BozuwaOh, and I think it's going to get them into serious trouble. If you want a thing that is going to increase litigation, try adding an arbitrary deadline and page limit to something with no administrative capacity.David RobertsOkay. We could do a whole pod on NEPA, but I don't want to get too — our whole point is it's not the sole or even main impediment here. So at a slightly more granular level, let's talk about what you think is actually slowing down clean energy infrastructure build out. And there's a few categories your report covers starting with transmission, which is, I think, the big one.Johanna BozuwaYeah, totally. And I would agree with you. I mean, transmission planning is kind of in shambles in this country. It's not up to the job.David RobertsYeah, I don't think literally anybody on any side of anything would disagree with you about that.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that multistate transmission buildouts are incredibly hard to do in a federalized system. We just have so many different actors that are vying to hold on to their particular part of the market, especially with our vertically integrated utilities that don't have much interest in allowing other utilities into their service territory. And in deregulated states, utilities are kind of out of the picture for deciding where new generation is being built. So there's not a lot of efficiencies that are built into that. So we just get this really haphazard development, if development at all, of our transmission system, which I think is just quite a failure.There are so many clear opportunities to do much more clear planning around this.David RobertsYes. And then what about big large-scale renewable energy projects like big solar, wind, geothermal, what is in practice, slowing down their build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so I think that when it comes to some of these larger scale projects around solar or wind, you're running again into projects that aren't thinking strategically about where they're being placed. So if we're looking at the amount of land that we're going to need with the energy transition right. Wind and solar take more space up than one natural gas plant. And I think that there's just like a clear lack of land use planning when it comes to these larger scale projects when we could be doing it far better. Right. And thinking about what are the areas that make sense and are going to limit the amount of impact on our landscape and on communities and actually deploy it in those areas.And I actually think there are answers to that question.David RobertsWell, we're not to answers yet. We're dwelling on problems.Johanna BozuwaOkay, all right —David RobertsSo how does that slow down? I mean, what does that manifest as? How does that slow down the build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, well, the way that that manifests is that you're putting big renewable energy projects in tension with things like agriculture. You're putting big renewable projects in tension with our biodiversity goals. And so those are the things that are going to potentially mire the development and deployment of these larger scale projects — in addition to getting them attached to the transmission and making sure that it's colocated with the transmission we need.David RobertsYes, the aforementioned interconnection queue issue, which alone is like, "That's a lot of years," which as you say, that's a lot of years tacked on the end of all the other stuff they have to go through. Like once they have to go through all that other stuff, then they get in the interconnection queue and wait and wither, etc. And then another thing you take on here is a big piece of the clean energy buildout, which I think a lot of people don't really think about as much, maybe don't enjoy thinking about as much, which is the sort of minerals and metals aspect of it. A big part of IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, is an attempt to onshore supply chains so that China does not dominate them.But that means onshoring some mines and some minerals processing which are not necessarily environmentally friendly, not necessarily things people like having in their backyard. So what's slowing those things down?Johanna BozuwaI guess I would say there are two pieces that are happening. One is just that this is a pretty new area and there are so many price fluctuations that are happening. There's all of these big mining companies that are shifting ownership, trying to figure out financing. Right? So there's a lot that's happening there. And mining companies are not the best known for having perfect environmental impact statements or anything like that, that's going to get them mired right. And then you add in the fact that as we talked about earlier, a lot of where these lithium reserves are is also in extremely — like the likelihood for drought is a lot higher if you're looking, for instance, at the Salton Sea in California or, you know, over in Nevada, these are places that we actually have to be extremely careful about. And also it just takes a really long time to build a mine like this isn't something that happens the next day. Right. It's like 10 to 15 years in the future type thing. So it is a longer time frame that's going to be even longer if we aren't thinking, again, about who is impacted, how they are going to be impacted by the mining itself. What is that going to do to air quality, water quality, all of these different things?It's a really big part of the permitting discussion, or of the transition discussion in particular that is being discounted in the United States.David RobertsAnd one more bit on problems, before we transition to recommendations. I noticed that one thing you don't get into a lot in the report is the expression of those state and local level permitting issues. And a lot of those I think, are tied to environmental review. And a lot — like, for instance, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is just sort of like legendarily at this point, a tool for local NIMBYs to stop things happening. Like we just read a story that was bouncing around Twitter a few days ago about these wealthy people — I forget what county they were in — but they were suing because someone had moved a playground closer to their house.They didn't like the sound of the kids playing and so they sued. And part of it was that the city had not done a proper environmental review under CEQA of moving the playground. And you hear stories like that all the time. Do you think you said that NEPA is not as big a problem as people say? Do you think state level environmental review is a serious problem, a serious barrier, at least in some places?Johanna BozuwaI think it just really depends on the place. And I think that's part of why as we were writing a national paper, being able to dig into the detail and differentiations between all of these different places seemed like a big haul for a small paper. So yeah, I think that there are these pieces at the local level, the zoning things, right? People are historic preservation boards that are saying like, "No rooftop solar because we don't like the look of it." Yeah, that's some BS in my mind and I think we do need to figure out how to manage that.And I think what this comes into conversation with is a little bit of like, what is the community review process? What does that look like and how do we manage that?David RobertsContemplating the variety and number of those instruments at the state and local level is really overwhelming and really does make the problem feel so intractable because it's just like, as you say in a federalist system, it's like every bit of reform is not just one bit, it's 50 bits. Every bit is 50 fights.Johanna BozuwaTotally agree. And I think that's why we get stuck in these gridlocks sometimes. And also when we get to solutions, I think there are some examples that we can draw on and utilize our little multi tool of ideas of how to move this forward.David RobertsFinal thing before that, because I forgot about this bit, but actually it's worth making a note that it's actually easier for fossil fuel infrastructure to get NEPA permits than it is for clean energy projects. It's something you note in the paper. If anything, NEPA is easier on these pipelines and stuff. Even though Joe Manchin is complaining ceaselessly about it.Johanna BozuwaYes, and I mean, I think that's why in particular, people who have been fighting the fossil fuel industry for so long, look to this group of folks, more center left folks, that are saying "Repeal NEPA, let's do it, we want to build." They're saying, "Oh my gosh. What you're doing by saying that is saying that the West Virginian that I have been fighting alongside is going to be decimated by this pipeline that's being passed now." So there are really high stakes and in a lot of the permitting process that we saw at the federal level, it also implicated the Mountain Valley pipeline.Right. And that type of infrastructure getting a pass when it couldn't even get some of its permits at the state level to just go forth is a really, I think, scary potential because that locks us into decades of extraction.David RobertsYeah, I feel like that was not covered well when this whole thing happened. You know, the Mountain Valley Pipeline: It's not that it was like stuck unfairly in a bureaucratic tangle. It just sort of straightforwardly was polluting and so it couldn't get the permits, the permits were rejected. It wasn't like stuck in some queue or something. It was just straightforwardly a polluting project that could not qualify under US law to go on. And it was just like jammed through. So I feel like the outrage of that didn't really penetrate partially because everybody's on this like "everything needs to go faster tip" and so they just kind of slotted it under there.But we don't want things that straightforwardly fail environmental review going forward do we?Johanna BozuwaExactly, like, I would like, that the Cuyahoga River does not catch on fire again. And that's the reason we have environmental review and NEPA. And also I would like it to be able to stop more fossil fuel infrastructure.David RobertsYeah, I know. And this is the other thing too, as though we're supposed to have some sort of content neutral opinions about permitting as such. I'm just like, "Well, I want more good stuff and less bad stuff. Can I have that opinion?"Johanna BozuwaExactly. That's so crucial too, where there are ways for us to stop permitting new fossil fuel infrastructure and permit the hell out of good renewable energy projects. That's a political possibility that Biden actually had signed up for and now is stepping back on.David RobertsYeah, I mean, it's politically tough, but let's be positive here. You have a lot of recommendations in here, all of which are juicy, all of which could probably have a podcast of their own on them. There's no way we can cover them all. But you sort of have your principles and recommendations grouped under three headings. And the first one, which I think is the one that is most directly germane to the speed question, is enabling more coordination and planning. And I think this is a huge thing. This is one of my soapboxes I get on all the time.I really want the climate movement to take this up is that we've had decades and decades of for lack of a better term, neoliberalism and this sort of instinctive free market stuff. And it's not like any major developed economy actually stops planning. What happens when you claim you're not planning and you claim you're being a free market is you just move planning behind closed doors or bury it in the tax code where no one can see it or understand what's happening. And then that results in whoever has the most power and money winning the planning fights.So I'm done with my soapbox. Let's talk about restoring our ability to do public, transparent, cooperative planning. Let's talk about a few of the items under here. And first is just land use planning. What do you mean by that and what would it look like?Johanna BozuwaSo, land use planning, as we talked about earlier, it turns out that one fossil fuel plant is a lot smaller than the types of assets that we need to build. That's just a reality of what we're working with. And so that necessitates far more land use planning to think about how do we get the most out of the least amount of space that is going to do the best for keeping the lights on. And so there are examples of how we can do this type of land planning. And one example I want to bring up actually is in California.So there was the Desert Renewable Energy Plan that was basically where states and federal agencies came together and they were looking at the Mojave and Colorado desert area. It's like 22 million acres.David RobertsVery sunny.Johanna BozuwaYeah, very sunny, exactly. Very sunny, very good for some solar. And what they did is that they coordinated a plan for this entire region so that it was prescreened for issues. So they said, okay, we're going to look at the biodiversity impacts of things being put here. We're going to look at the cultural or tribal impacts, the environmental potential impacts. And so after they did that kind of, what's called often like a programmatic study, that meant that the developers that came in to build the stuff there don't have to go through some more involved environmental impact assessment or study because it's already done.And so that meant that because they had done all of that work ahead of time, projects are getting approved so much faster. They're getting approved in less than ten months. And have, I think it's been now this zone has been around for about ten years and I don't think there is one litigation case. So that is just such a good example of land use planning where it's like thinking ahead of what we need and how we're going to do it. And that still does allow for private developers to come in, even though I might even argue that we could do even more planning and fill in the gaps with some public transmission or public renewable energy.But we can get into that later.David RobertsAnd we did an example from California, so I think now we're constitutionally obliged to do one from Texas too.Johanna BozuwaAbsolutely. Well, exactly. Thank you for setting me up so neatly, David, for the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones of Texas, which was such a success. So this is a very similar situation where the legislature directed the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission to plan where new generation and transmission was going to be located, routed, all of this. And so by doing so, they allowed for this proliferation of wind in Texas, a place where you might not expect a massive amount of wind to be. And I was reading a study the other day that said that in the past ten years, the CREZ line, so the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, represents 23% of all new high voltage lines in the US.David RobertsGood grief.Johanna BozuwaRight?David RobertsYeah. They're actually building I mean, I don't know if people know this, they're actually building transmission in Texas. I'll just talk about how transmission never gets built. They're building it there because —Johanna BozuwaThey had a plan.David RobertsThey planned in advance. Yes, they had zones where it got approved and so you didn't have to then go there and do the entire like a transmission developer didn't have to go somewhere and then do the entire thing. Right. Do the entire review, do the entire land use review and the environmental review. They didn't have to start over every time that stuff was done in advance.Okay, point made. There more land use coordination and planning. That's the states doing it. But you could imagine the feds getting into that somewhat. You have these jurisdictional issues and federalism issues that are a bit of a tangle, but it does seem like the feds at the very least could do some informational, advisory planning and assessment on a bigger level, don't you think?Johanna BozuwaOh, absolutely. Actually, we do have a lot of private land in this country. Absolutely. But there is a lot of land that is owned by the federal government. So they're actually implicating a lot of this already. And it makes far more sense for an actor that has that kind of meso level understanding of what we need to build to be involved in those processes and be doing kind of a national assessment of where should those zones be. Like CREZ that's going to have all of these benefits and is going to allow for the most kind of efficient way for us to be deploying renewable energy while also taking into consideration these biodiversity, tribal nation relations and all of these things.That's a good role for the federal government to actually play.David RobertsOkay, we're going to pass quickly by two of these since I've done pods on them. But as you say, one is the interconnection process, which is probably the biggest thing right now, slowing down renewable energy getting built. I did a whole pod on that with RMI's Chaz Teplin a few weeks ago.Johanna BozuwaA fantastic one.David RobertsReally encourage everybody to go listen to that. There's a lot of recommendations in there for how to improve the interconnection process, how to improve things in batches. To return to a theme here, a lot of that has to do with just more and better planning on the ISO's parts.Once again, like, think in advance a little bit and you can skip some of this case by case stuff, but I encourage people to go listen to that pod. Another one, which we've touched on slightly, which I also did a pod on, is just and I think this is so important is just the capacity of the agencies that are doing these reviews. These are at the state level and at the federal level. These agencies have been cut to the bone. They're all, all understaffed, desperately behind, and that, of course, makes things go slower. So all these people who are whinging about reviews, if they're not talking about bulking up agency capacity, I just have trouble taking them seriously because that is the lowest hanging fruit you could do.But I did a whole pod on that several weeks ago about government capacity and about some of the provisions in the IRA that are meant to bulk up capacity at these agencies. It's just a matter of money and hiring. So we're going to check that one off the list. Let's talk a little bit about this next recommendation, which is about more publicly owned energy and transmission. What do you mean by that? What would that look like?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so this is kind of trying to answer the question of building where private companies will not, right? Like, we do have this problem of not having the long-range solution in the mind's eye, right? And we have this system in which there isn't a lot of this coordination that's in the mind's eye of a developer, right? Like, they're focused on their development, whereas the state government, federal government, has a little bit more of like, "Okay, what are we trying to accomplish? We are trying to handle the climate crisis. And that means we need to move as quickly as possible to deploy as much renewable energy as possible.And it turns out we actually do have some capacity and to actually build this ourselves." And we've done this in the past, admittedly, in a much less dense energy system. But the New Deal is a really good example of this, where the U.S. either directly financed or built itself a massive amount of transmission and energy infrastructure, like the Rural Electrification Administration that FDR put in place. It electrified 80% of the United States land mass in ten years. And when we're talking about the climate crisis, I would like to go at that clip. So I think if there are ways for us where we have a standstill where things aren't getting built fast enough, where can the federal government, the state government come in with a little political muscle and do that building?And I think that there are additional kind of benefits to doing this too, which include the fact that if you're building public renewables, for instance, you're also probably going to value having higher and better-paid jobs. You are probably going to, in comparison to a private developer, probably thinking a little bit more about some of those community benefits. And I think that there's a real win there that actually kind of creates a baseline for the rest of the private industry in a good way too.David RobertsInstead of just nudging and incentivizing private developers to do these things, we could just do them.Johanna BozuwaWe could just do them and we can also show them the way a little bit too. Right. Like right now, right. We just have the Inflation Reduction Act. Fabulous. We love the climate investments. It's so great. And also it just largely relies on tax incentives, right. And in those it's like you get a little bit more if you use local steel and if you have high wage jobs, all these things. And we could also just do that, build some public renewables and make it happen ourselves. And also when you have, particularly from a job perspective, right, like a public renewables entity that's building these developments with high wage work, that means that the private developers are afraid that they're going to lose all of their workers.So then they have to raise their wages too, which is a good thing.David RobertsRace to the top, I think they call that.Johanna BozuwaI would love a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom in our renewable energy world.David RobertsYes. Okay, we got to keep moving here. There's a long list. The next one is something we covered, I think, on the Thea Riofrancos post, which is just we know we have to build a lot of stuff, but that's not a fixed quantity of stuff we have to build. Right. We can be more efficient with how we use materials. We can try to build in a less material intensive way. So, you know, what Theo was talking about is encourage more walking and biking and multimodal transportation rather than cars, cars, cars. Like that's a choice. And there are other choices we could make to build a clean, but the less material intensive version of clean.There's a lot of different ways we can guide things in that direction.Johanna BozuwaOh yeah, absolutely.David RobertsEveryone should go listen to that podcast, too. This pod is like an advertisement for all my other pods.Johanna BozuwaI love it, I love it. Yeah. And just to kind of emphasize, the more that we can invest in efficiency, the fewer transmission lines we might have to build, right? Like if we have a bunch of houses that aggressively go in on multi units. Like, we're having more people housed in multi units. We're creating urban density. We're making the houses that we already have more efficient. All of those things accumulate and make it so that we actually don't have to do the same level of massive deployment, which is a huge win. So we have to — I think it's like questioning some of the assumptions, too, of how much do we need to build.David RobertsRight. Maybe not all our private vehicles need to be the size of military tanks and weigh three tons. This segues perfectly into the next one, which I feel like is underappreciated, which is supporting distributed energy resources. Talk about why that's part of going faster here. How does that fit into this picture?Johanna BozuwaSo let's say we're able to add rooftop solar to a lot of the rooftops that are around and implement microgrids and put in storage. These are all, again, things that are going to be a lot easier probably to deploy because they're smaller. There's less of this zoning permitting etc. that has to happen when it comes to some of the bigger stuff, where you're going to maybe need environmental review. And so by making those investments in distributed energy resources, you're actually lightening the load again on transmission development.David RobertsRight. It's kind of a piece of the previous one, really.Johanna BozuwaTotally.David RobertsIt's about being less material intensive.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I also think the added benefit of doing that, of course, is the fact that we live in unreliable times and it adds additional reliability potential by having things like microgrids deployed.David RobertsYes, many future pods on that particular subject are in the works, are cooking in the Volts oven. Let's go to the second big category here, and this is where I have a little bit of skepticism. So this category is "Enhance community participation and consent." So this is what I want to talk about: You say, let's bring communities in more and earlier. And of course, I think most people, at least most people in my world, when they hear "more community involvement," their palms start sweating. They envision these local zoning meetings with old people shouting at city officials.They envision nothing ever getting done, everything getting blocked, NIMBY's everywhere. You have this sentence where it says, "Strengthening community participation early in the process will likely move projects forward faster without as much community opposition." Do we know that to be true? I want that to be true. I like the idea of it. Do we know that?Johanna BozuwaGreat question. It's worth interrogating. I'm going to borrow a little bit from my colleague that we've already referenced today, Thea Riofrancos, that she often says which is "Sometimes going fast isn't actually fast." So, you know, if we streamline, right, or NEPA gets streamlined or many of these other permitting processes, you cut the red tape and therefore you are steamrolling communities affected by the infrastructure. You're potentially hardening them against the project. And when they feel mad or disenfranchised, chances are they're going to throw the book at you. They're going to throw the book to stop the project. We talked about these arbitrary dates set by some of the permitting system.You're actually putting yourself up for far more potential litigation and drawn out legal battles because you actually haven't done the work that's necessary to bring that group on side, nor do you have all of your ducks in a row. So I think that there is a justification for defraying conflict and making our odds better at doing that. I'm not saying that we're not going to run into problems and there isn't going to be this annoying mob of Karens that's going to show up every once in a while. But I do think that our odds do look better when we do involve community.David RobertsThere's a cynical point of view here which says communities are always going to have their Karens. There's always going to be somebody who objects, no matter how early, no matter how much you consult, there's always going to be somebody who doesn't want something near them. The only way in the end to overcome this problem is to take those instruments of delay out of their hands, including the litigation tool, including the environmental review tool, including the community review tool, and just get a little bit more Chinese about the whole thing. Just go do stuff, even if — bulldoze, basically.I know we want to resist that conclusion, but I wish we knew better. I wish we had better models of moving quickly.Johanna BozuwaSo I think actually, since you mentioned the Chinese, I'm going to mention the Danish. And I think that part of this is actually like — we have this problem, right, that we know that deploying renewable energy, deploying clean energy is just incredibly important for the climate crisis. But the benefits are diffuse where the potential negative is pretty concentrated when it comes to these things. And so I think one question we can ask or the permit reviewers or whatever it is, or how we're thinking about developing these projects, is getting in their shoes and asking, what is in it for me?We can pay people to have some of this stuff, right? So the Danish government in the 1990s was building out a bunch of wind. And so one of the ways that they incentivized this wind development was by incentivizing that part of it is owned by the local government to give them a revenue stream. And that actually helped to limit the controversy. And you'll see that in Denmark, people have kind of higher concepts or like the polling is better for wind. And I was talking with this professor, Nick Pevzner from University of Pennsylvania, who was discussing this really interesting particular instance in which in one of these towns where they were going to be around the offshore wind, they actually brought in landscape architects to design the offshore wind. So that it would be aesthetically pleasing.David RobertsThe Danes give a shi-, give a dang, about how things look like. What a thought.Johanna BozuwaHuge difference.David RobertsYes, I know. You look at what's the one waste incineration plant in the middle of the town that's like gorgeous. It's got a laser display, I think it's got a ski hill on it. All these kind of things. It seems like we don't care here in the US. How ugly things are. Witness any sort of midsize town or strip mall or the periphery of any city. Everything's just like plain and ugly. Like what if we made things look nice that might improve community —Johanna BozuwaWe deserve nice things. Communities deserve nice things.David RobertsWe can have nice things. And you talk about we should do what's called a "Cumulative impact analysis."Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsAgain, to me on first blush that sounds like oh, bigger and more analysis: Surely that's going to slow things down. So how do you see that working?Johanna BozuwaWell, again, this kind of takes us to our planning. Right. Like cumulative impact analysis which New Jersey and New York have put in place is this way to discern not just the impact of the project but the accumulated impact of that project and what's already come to date. And I think what you would find in cumulative impact in these places, is that actually it's doing some of what we were talking about before, which is trying to fight off the bad and build more of the good. So that's a way to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure but maybe see benefit around solar or something like that.These are actually tools that, yes, as you say, at first glance you might think, "Oh my gosh, more? Really?" But what it's doing is assuring some of that larger meso level discerning and also in a lot of ways these are environmental justice tools too. Right. The reason that they're doing that is because it has so consistently been the same community that has had to shoulder the coal plant, then the gas plant, then the pipeline, then another cement factory. Right. And so they're trying to say, "Okay wait, this is out of control. Let's think about where we're putting this and how that's going to burden people."David RobertsSo the last category here is "Empower a just transition." And I don't think we need to go piece by piece through here since these are very familiar asks from progressive climate people, which is just stop permitting new fossil fuel facilities. Protect the communities that are getting hurt by fossil fuel pollution and set emission reduction targets that will phase out fossil fuels. I think those are all pretty straightforward. I do think the point here, though the larger point you're making with this section is worth underlining because it seems obvious to me, but also frequently left out of this debate, which is if you want to get renewable energy built faster: One way you could do that is through statute and regulation forcing fossil fuel out. Like, nothing's going to speed up renewable energy more than forcing fossil fuels out. Right. It seems so obvious, but it's weirdly left out here.Johanna BozuwaVery weirdly left out. It's a bizarre kind of development that we've seen in the climate realm, right? The IRA, for instance, that is a bill that is great. It creates a lot of carrots, but basically no sticks. And the reality is we need sticks if we're actually going to do this, right, as we were talking about at the kind of outset of the show, we can't let just the entire pie keep on getting bigger and bigger. We actually need to get rid of the fossil fuels. That's the point of what we're doing here. They're the reason that we have the climate crisis.And so, the best way to get rid of them is to just regulate them out of existence, like eliminate them. And I also think there's a certain amount of private industry hates regulation, but they do love certainty. So what is more certain than a decarbonization mandate that says, like, well, you need to be done by this date? And that actually gets us to more of the displacement than when we just say "Build, build, build just hopefully build the right thing for us, please please."David RobertsYes, I think that's true on several micro levels and it's true on a macro level too. One thing that would help us go faster is if we could just clearly articulate our goals. But we're sort of just hampered by having to beg Joe Manchin for his vote. And to get Joe Manchin's vote, you have to pretend that the whole pie is going to get bigger, that everything's going to grow. That's explicitly the grounds upon which he voted yes on Iraq. He sets it outright. He's like, I voted yes because I thought it was going to grow renewable energy and fossil fuels.In some sense, politically, we can't just come out and say the goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. That's where we're headed. It would just help everybody, private developers, state and local governments, if we were just on the same friggin page. Instead of sort of like backing into this, we're just backing into everything we do. Trying to sort of like wink wink at one another. Like we know what we're doing, they don't know what we're doing. It's just a bunch of confusion.Johanna BozuwaRight? And I think that it's also a little bit laughable because they obviously know what we're trying to do, right? Like, we're not really hiding the bag. And I think that this speaks to the need for us to be like, this is a 20-year fight, we're not done with the fight the progressive left needs to keep — we can't just have IRA and think that we're done and can wipe our hands. I mean, even this conversation that has come up on permitting shows that people are hungry and need more. And the question is okay, how do we build the actual political power so that Manchin isn't the one that's in the driver's seat?David RobertsYes.Johanna BozuwaI think one kind of last thing on this kind of community consent piece or community engagement that makes me really nervous to tie us back to the permitting realm, right. Is that the people who are potentially going to be railroaded by infrastructure that they don't want is rural America. And if you are pissing off rural parts of the United States right now, that's a very short-sighted game to be playing, right. Because you are potentially taking these rural folk who have just been beaten back again and again, and you're turning them to the right, to a growing fascist right, and giving away a massive voting bloc that is going to be crucial for us to continue to win and win again and keep winning until we actually solve the climate crisis.So I think when it comes to this kind of larger political project that we're doing on from a progressive perspective, we have to be wary of this idea that this is — not a get it fixed quick scheme.David RobertsYes. We do not want to tick off these particular communities any more than they're ticked off. I think if you talk to Biden administration officials sort of behind the scenes, they will tell you that part of the design of IRA, part of the thinking behind it is we need to flood these areas of the country that were hollowed out by neoliberalism, hollowed out by globalism. We need to flood them with new economic activity and new development or else our democracy is screwed. But it is also the case that you can't just go stomping things down here and there, willy-nilly, without community consent.They need to have a feeling that they're involved in where and how this is done.Johanna BozuwaYeah, we're trying to bring them into the fight for a populist amazing future, and shoving this down their throats I just don't think is the most effective tactic. And if you look back to the New Deal, right, so much of it was workers. It was people that were in more of rural America. There were so many of these folks who were standing up and fighting. And if we're not setting ourselves up for that same kind of sea change, then I'm afraid we're not going to be able to win this thing.David RobertsOkay. We are just about out of time. So just to kind of review, this is just, I think the point of your report, point of all this is to say the question of speed is not the same as the question of permitting. Technically speaking, permitting is a relatively small piece of the puzzle here. There's lots of other things we could be doing to speed things up that have nothing technically to do with NEPA or even technically to do with permitting. And we've reviewed a lot of them here, and I would commend people to your report to get a fuller picture of them and to think about them.But let me finish, I guess with, this is all a vision. I love this vision, but politics are politics and we live in a fallen world, et cetera, et cetera. So toward the end of last session, there was this chance to have a permitting deal, and basically it was these sort of arbitrary caps on NEPA reviews, the length of NEPA reviews and the Mountain Valley pipeline in exchange for some pretty substantial transmission stuff, some pretty substantial stuff on transmission, federal transmission planning. The progressive movement rallied to kill that. They called it Manchin's dirty deal. They rallied, they killed it.And what ended up happening was the NEPA stuff squeezed through somewhere else. The Mountain Valley pipeline squeezed through somewhere else, and the transmission stuff died. Looking back on that, do you think that was the right political move for the progressive movement to fight that bill? And more broadly, do you think the progressive movement is prepared to sort of make the political trade-offs which are going to be necessary since a lot of this stuff that you list in your report is just going to be very difficult with today's current political distribution of power?Johanna BozuwaYeah, great question, and I think my answer is that the progressive movement still did the right thing. We needed to fight — or the progressive movement folks who were in those fights needed to fight off and make very clear the MVP is not something that we can have — this permitting that's going to expand. It was a big toad to swallow. And I think if we look at some of the transmission stuff, like, sure, it was fine. Was it the things that we were fully looking for? I think it was Hickenlooper's bill, big wires that was in some of those kind of final fights, right.With the Fiscal Responsibility Act, his bill included something like a 30% interregional transfer. The DOE says we need a 120% increase in interregional transfer. That's just not even at the scale that we need, and we'd be giving up so much for it. So, yeah, we didn't fully win that fight, but I think that from what I'm hearing, kind of at the congressional level, there is the potential for another bite at the apple on transmission. There is still some, as we said earlier, right, everyone agrees that transmission is a boondoggle right now and a hot mess. So I think that should be one of the things that we're thinking about as the progressive movement.How do we do that? Right? But I don't think I would go back in time and say "Eh, we should just accept Manchin's deal." I think that it was an important political flag to stamp in the ground that, no, we actually don't believe that we should be expanding fossil fuels and renewable energy at the same time because that's not what we need to do. Saying all that, I do think there are things that we can be doing right now to advance transmission. For instance, FERC is looking at some of these interconnection issues right now. Biden should not rest on his laurels until he gets someone approved and appointed to the FERC board.David RobertsHey, there's Joe Manchin again being a jerk.Johanna BozuwaI know, it's so true. But there are things and again, we've already talked on this pod about stuff that can be done at the state level, too. We still have some cards to play in our hand to accelerate and prove our case increasingly and build the case for more federal implementation, too.David RobertsJohanna, thanks so much for coming on. I feel like lately the progressive environmental left has appeared in mainstream media and social media more as a weird caricature viewed from a distance than been able to speak for itself. So I'm glad to be able to have you on so we can talk through a little bit about how progressives see this and the larger issues at play and their specific recommendations, all of which I think are great. So people should check out your report. And thanks for sharing your time with us.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me today, David. It's lovely.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

CA profile.pdf (freedominthe50states.org) Solving California's Homeless Crisis | Cato Institute Don't Confuse 'Local Control' With Small Government (reason.com) California's Builders, YIMBYs at Odds Over 'Unchecked Sprawl' Crack Down (reason.com) California Lawmakers' New Building Plans Held Up by CEQA, the Law They Refuse To Fix (reason.com)

In this episode of our Environmental Law series, host Craig Williams is joined by Alisha M. Winterswyk, an attorney from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, as they spotlight NEPA and CEQA, their impact, and purpose.

In this episode of our Environmental Law series, host Craig Williams is joined by Alisha M. Winterswyk, an attorney from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, as they spotlight NEPA and CEQA, their impact, and purpose.

Offshore wind energy can be thought of as three distinct projects: the construction of offshore wind turbines, the actual operation and generation of electricity, and the transmission of that electricity across California. The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District is poised to play a major role in offshore wind turbine construction and is planning improvements to create a port designed specifically to build these large floating turbines. The Harbor District has released a "Notice of Preparation"—the initial step in the CEQA process for analyzing environmental impacts from the port redevelopment. Luis Neuner of EPIC, Jen Kalt of Humboldt Baykeeper, and Caroline Griffith of the Northcoast Environmental Center join the show to discuss their thoughts on the initial designs. More info:The Harbor District's Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report is the earliest phase of environmental review in which the public can raise issues to be analyzed. Written comments are due by 5 pm on Aug. 3. Submit via email to Rob Holmlund at districtplanner@humboldtbay.org.Humboldt Harbor District Officials Talk Port Development As Offshore Wind Efforts Ramp Up by Isabella Vanderheiden, Lost Coast OutpostSupport the show

Facing the first deficit in a decade, legislators finished hammering out a Budget deal with the governor this week. While the final document (as it stands now, trailer bills and tweaks notwithstanding) does not feature the catastrophic cuts some had feared, funding for some of Gov. Newsom's high priority projects did see reductions, including funds aimed at reducing homelessness and supporting the transition to clean energy.In a win for the administration, legislators agreed to include some of the governor's CEQA reform proposals - reversing the Sen. Budget Committee's earlier rejection of the proposals. The Delta Tunnel project was not included in the deal, a setback for Central and Southern Water Districts and agriculture interests, who have seen a series of defeats on the issue since the end of the Brown Administration.But, what does it all mean?Our guest today is Chris Hoene, Executive Director of the California Budget & Policy Center, a nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit committed to "advancing public policies that improve the lives of Californians who are denied opportunities to share in the state's wealth and deserve the dignity and support to lead thriving lives in our communities." Hoene has been a Budget-watcher for decades, and helps us dig into the new Budget Deal.And, he joins hosts Rich Ehisen and Tim Foster to look at Who Had the Worst Week in California Politics.1:02 Let's talk about the Budget2:48 CEQA and the Delta Tunnel4:17 Winners6:36 Losers8:52 "A budget for the future"10:35 Rainy Day Fund11:47 The Speakership Transition14:38 What issues remain unresolved?17:56 Reviving the Industrial Relations Board20:17 CA's Budget compared to other states23:39 #WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang "#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

On May 19, Governor Newsom offered a series of proposals to revise the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). The 1970 law was intended to limit unintended consequences of development, but has increasingly been used to slow or derail environmentally-positive projects ranging from infill development to solar installations. Reforming CEQA has long been a priority in Sacramento, and Newsom's proposals were hailed by many in both the business and environmental communities.Legislative leaders were less impressed - especially with the lighting fast timeline -  and a Senate budget committee sidelined the proposals a week later. However, we all know that nothing ever dies in Sacramento, so the Governor's plan is more likely than not to be revisited - the question is when.Many of the ideas in these reform proposals were contained in a California Forward report that detailed a set of actions that would accelerate infrastructure projects, and "promote equity, environmental sustainability and economic growth in the state." The report was the culmination of a partnership between Governor Newsom's office, former Los Angeles Mayor and and State Infrastructure Advisor Antonio Villaraigosa, CA FWD and the Boston Consulting Group, a strategic advisor on delivering new infrastructure ecosystems.On this episode of the Capitol Weekly Podcast we are joined by Mayor Villaraigosa and CA FWD CEO Micah Weinberg, who detail the results of the report and discuss why CEQA reform is - in their view - sorely needed.And, as always we tell you who had the worst week in California Politics.Notes:2:21 The report, and the governor's take on it7:11 Met with over 1000 shareholders7:55 What about CEQA's defenders11:01 The Green Bank financing system12:51 Workforce?16:50 Where are the disparate labor groups on this?17:44 "A once in a generation opportunity"20:35 What next?24:26 "No state would be so stupid as to have environmental exceptions for sports stadiums but not for climate adaptive infrastructure"31:05 WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang "#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io 

Marisa and Guy Marzorati discuss the legislature's budget agreement and Governor Gavin Newsom's interview with Sean Hannity. Then, Assemblywoman Liz Ortega joins to talk about her journey to America, interpreting for family members and neighbors as a kid, her career in organized labor, her reaction to the budget deal to aid public transit and her thoughts on labor disputes over CEQA and housing.  PLUS: Take our Political Breakdown newsletter survey. 

In this episode, I am joined by a guest co-host, Corinne Lytle Bonine and we feature Kevin Cunningham.  Kevin is an environmental practitioner with a strong background in managing the preparation of various CEQA compliant documents for public infrastructure and land development projects. He also has expertise in navigating the regulatory landscape through developing and overseeing the permitting process for projects involving jurisdictional waters.  Kevin is actively engaged in mitigation negotiation where he focuses his efforts on looking for opportunities to strike a balance between project goals and environmental preservation.  Kevin holds the position of Environmental Project Manager at the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.  He and his team of Assistant and Associate Planners are responsible for providing comprehensive CEQA compliance and permitting services required to deliver stormwater infrastructure projects in accordance with legal requirements and environmental best practices to support implementation of the District's Capital Improvement Plan.  Listen in on our conversation with Kevin as he details his journey to where he is now and shares his thoughts on how to increase diversity within the environmental profession. Thanks for listening, we hope you enjoy this episode! 

In this episode, we feature Michael Brandman, former President & CEO of Michael Brandman Associates. Michael is a pioneer in the environmental industry; in 1974, Michael was one of the original founders of the Association of Environmental Professionals and served as the California AEP State President in 1983. His journey closely aligned with the environmental movement, witnessing the establishment of crucial policies such as CEQA, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. In 1982, Michael started Michael Brandman Associates, a consulting firm that provided expertise in environmental compliance at the local, state, and federal level. Over the course of 30 years in business, they successfully completed over 8,000 projects and employed a team of 65 individuals. In 2012, Michael Brandman Associates was acquired by First Carbon Solutions, cementing their impact in the industry.  During this conversation, Michael shares his insights on the opportunities AEP provides for leadership, training, and mentorship, as well as the driving force behind the establishment of AEP's Code of Ethics. While he has retired, Michael remains engaged with AEP, continuing to contribute his wisdom and expertise to the field he helped shape.  It was a true pleasure to speak with Michael, we hope you enjoy this episode! 

Got a two-fer this week: First we speak with Rhonda Smith, the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network. We spoke with Smith about the state of Black health in California, including a look at how the Fentanyl crisis is impacting the Black community.Next up, we bring you an expanded "Suspense File" edition of our Who Had the Worst Week in California Politics feature. We were joined by Mackenzie Mays, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who covered last week's Suspense drama in real time and offered a closeup  view of some of the bills that failed to make it out of Appropriations.1:32 Rhonda Smith- What is the mission of CBHN?3:01 The Black Health Agenda5:49 What is the state of Black health?6:58 "Black Californians live about five and a half years less than the state average"7:57 The Fentanyl crisis11:00 Social Determinants of health12:32 Looking at the governor's Master Plan15:37 The plan for National Guard and CHP involvement17:29 Is this a problem that can be solved with money?21:28 "You have to acknowledge the big elephant in the room"22:50 Disparities in prescribing opioids?27:33 WWCA Suspense File edtion, with Mackenzie Mays31:57 #AB71034:38 Cost cutoff37:28 CEQA reform39:32 Sen. Dianne FeinsteinWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang "#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

Phil and Camille bring you the latest discussions in California politics and do their best to crack through the insanity. On this episode, we discuss the controversial law called the California Environmental Quality Act, aka "CEQA" and discuss how far it has strayed from it's original purpose and has been used to halt all progress in California. This episode was recorded on 5.9.23 *The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.* Links Mentioned in Show CEQA 101 https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/getting-started/#:~:text=The%20California%20Environmental%20Quality%20Act%20(CEQA)%20generally%20requires%20state%20and,impacts%20to%20the%20extent%20feasible  CEQA https://califaep.org/ceqa_flowchart.php CEQA agencies https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Lead%20Agency%20Responsible%20Trustee%202020%20Update.pdf CEQA fraud? https://calmatters.org/economy/2019/05/weakling-or-bully-ceqa-environmental-law-california-development-battles/ Law reform needed https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/04/california-future-environmental-law-reform/  https://www.ocregister.com/2023/03/23/abuses-of-ceqa-continue-to-mount-the-time-for-ceqa-reform-is-now/  https://www.ocregister.com/2023/03/02/will-californias-misused-environmental-law-finally-be-reformed CEQA Hurting Housing https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/  Unions Hijacking CEQA https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/california-unions-environmental-law-17279821.php How To Make Overdue Reforms to California Environmental Quality Act https://reason.org/commentary/how-to-make-overdue-reforms-to-the-california-environmental-quality-act/ Video: How the Abuse of CEQA Contributes to the Housing Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4WQArhbr0g Video: CEQA is the law that swallowed California https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luZFhpwFtS8 Support California Underground on Patreon at www.patreon.com/CaliforniaUnderground Follow California Underground on Social Media  Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA Substack: https://substack.com/profile/72986149-ca_underground Shop California Underground Merchandise: https://california-underground.creator-spring.com Review the Anchor.Fm Privacy Policy: Anchor - The easiest way to make a podcast --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/californiaunderground/message

On today's episode of The Edge of Excellence, Matt talks with Athena Merage, Director of Development at Merage Investment Group.When her family fell apart, Athena had to learn to fend for herself at a young age. While attending school and working nights, she had to find her escapism, and art was her safe place. Also, since her father worked in construction, she spent a lot of time on building sites, which nurtured her creative side. Each of these experiences prepared her for a career in design and development. Athena has worked on $200 million worth of real estate projects.She'll talk about tapping into nature for work-life balance. You'll learn more about her career path, which took her from receptionist at a civil engineering firm to project manager at Beazer. Her next job was with Royal Investors Group, where she met her colleague who introduced her to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, in which she specialized.Learning to live frugally at an early age, she was able to change her lifestyle at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. She'll talk about how the financial crisis affected the real estate market and the crucial lessons she learned that she continues to implement today. You'll learn about her operations as the director of development and what gives her fulfillment in her work.On a personal note, she talks about her passion for running, parenthood, and why Sacagawea, the interpreter and guide for Lewis and Clark's 1804-06 expedition, is an inspiration to her.Join Matt and Athena for a fascinating discussion about real estate and how to incorporate your passion into work.Enjoy! What You Will Learn In This Show:Athena's definition of excellence.The importance of having a mentor. Why she did not complete her degree. The difference between land development and building development.How to hone your people skills in the workplace. Why she wants to pursue a nutrition degree.And so much more...Resources:The Edge of Excellence

This episode is a panel featuring Bill Halligan, Matt Klopfenstein, and Kristin Blackson discussing their work with the AEP Legislative Review Committee.  Bill Halligan is Senior Director and Senior Environmental Counsel with Harris + Associates. Bill has prepared hundreds of environmental documents for a diverse range of projects throughout California. As a member (and former chair) of AEP's Legislative Review Committee, Bill works directly with the State Legislature and AEP's lobbyist on proposed legislation related to CEQA.   Matt Klopfenstein is a partner at CalAdvisors and represents clients in legislative and regulatory arenas. He specializes in technology, energy, environment, water, transportation, and local government policymaking. Matt serves as the Legislative Policy Director and Lobbyist for AEP.  We welcome back Kristin Blackson, Vice President of Environmental Planning with WSP and co-chair of the AEP Legislative Committee. Kristin has successfully advocated for revising and creating CEQA legislation that benefits practitioners—and the public—throughout California. She shares her expertise as a professor for the UCSD Extension CEQA Certificate Program.   The Legislative Committee provides analysis, prepares comment letters, and conducts direct lobbying on legislative bills relating to CEQA. Bill, Matt, and Kristin discuss CEQA policy related to topics such as housing, noise ordinance, and sports.

UC, Berkeley's plans for housing and amenities at People's Park has run afoul of a core environmental law, but Carol Denney says the fault lies with UC, not the law.

On December 6, 2022, SPUR and UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf stopped by our the Living Room for a conversation about San Francisco's notorious “Nordstrom's parking lot” housing development and the implications for future housing policy around the state. In 2021, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal for a 495 unit building on the site of a Nordstrom's valet parking lot. Even though the city's Planning Department had completed its review and approved the project, supervisors rejected the recommendation, sending the project back with dubious demands for additional environmental review. Prof. Elmendorf discusses the relationship between the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the state's Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the 469 Stevenson fallout and potential solutions. If you want to understand why San Francisco's housing landscape is so frustrating, be sure to check out this episode. About SPUR: SPUR — the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association — is a nonprofit public policy organization. SPUR brings people together from across the political spectrum to develop solutions to the big problems cities face. Based in San Francisco, San José and Oakland, it is recognized as a leading civic planning organization and respected for an independent and holistic approach to urban issues. Follow SPUR's channel @theurbanistchannelspur2461. About Prof. Elmendorf: Chris Elmendorf is the Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis and a leading scholar of land use and housing issues. He has published widely in top law reviews and political science journals. He is the author (with Tim Duncheon) of “When Super-statutes Collide: CEQA, the Housing Accountability Act, and Tectonic Change in Land Use Law,” forthcoming in the Ecology Law Quarterly. Last year, he advised SPUR on a bill, AB 2656, that addressed the CEQA-HAA conflict. He provides commentary on California housing issues via Twitter @CSElmendorf. About us: Manny's is the space where the community comes together to take part in civic and political life. Our community extends from our neighbors in the Mission, to all of San Francisco, the Bay Area, California, the United States and the world. We are the modern day town hall or village square, where anyone can meet and engage with civic leaders, elected officials, artists, activists, change makers and each other. Come here for a great cup of coffee, a new book and great conversations and events. Follow us at @welcometomannys on all social platforms.

Welcome to Episode 13 of Offshoot with Ms. Jennifer Hernandez, a land use attorney from Holland and Knight. Jennifer is truly remarkable. She expertly and fluidly draws connections between the flaws of California's Environmental Quality Act and the rights of its citizenry to have attainable shelter. Jennifer reveals that CEQA is no longer utilized to protect the environment from pollutants, nor to protect open space.

Welcome to Episode 13 of Offshoot with Ms. Jennifer Hernandez, a land use attorney from Holland and Knight. Jennifer is truly remarkable. She expertly and fluidly draws connections between the flaws of California's Environmental Quality Act and the rights of its citizenry to have attainable shelter. Jennifer reveals that CEQA is no longer utilized to protect the environment from pollutants, nor to protect open space.

Land use attorney Dave Rand joins the Oy Vey L.A. podcast to talk about all things housing and housing law in California, including "the Builder's Remedy". Don't know what that is? Tune in! About Dave: Dave Rand specializes in land use law and governmental regulatory matters. His expertise includes various aspects of the planning and entitlement process and navigating residential, industrial and commercial clients through the often difficult and cumbersome local land use approval and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) compliance process. Dave's practice has grown in recent years with a strong focus on mixed use and multi-family housing development. Dave has used his knowledge of constantly changing state and local housing regulations, including density bonus law, SB 35, SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, and the City of Los Angeles' Transit Oriented Communities program, to lead his clients' housing projects through the dense regulatory thicket. Dave has obtained governmental approvals for thousands of market rate and affordable housing units throughout Southern California. Dave can be reached at www.rpnllp.com

December 7, 2022, Sarah Reith — Supervisor Ted Williams asked County Counsel for advice on limiting public comment related to agendized cannabis issues, leading to a swift warning from a leading cannabis attorney. The query follows close on the heels of the Board approving a controversial ordinance approving a fee schedule for public records requests. In health-related topics that arose at the regular December 6 Board of Supervisors meeting: Representatives from SEIU 2015, the caregivers union, advocated for higher pay, claiming that fast-food workers make more than those who take care of disabled, poverty-stricken people. Caregiver Priscilla Tarver was among the speakers arguing that low pay makes it difficult to hire enough caregivers. “We just want to be recognized as a serious profession,” she told the Board. “That's what it is. You know that we came in in diapers, we're going out in diapers. Somebody's going to be taking care of you at some point. You're going to want that person to like to do their job. And if they get paid well enough, they're going to like to come to work, and take care of you.” Public Health Officer Dr. Andy Coren urged people to get up to date on their flu and covid vaccines, and to take other precautions against infection. “Since our community risk level worsened last week, I strongly recommend masking now in all indoor public spaces,” he said. “Yes, they are uncomfortable, but not nearly as uncomfortable as a hospital bed or a ventilator, or even caring for yourself for weeks at home.” Coren said the local medical system is so strained by the spate of respiratory illnesses that recently a sick child had to be transported out of state. Children are hit especially hard by the flu and RSV. This week, Adventist Health Ukiah Valley announced that it is offering an after-hours pediatric clinic on Mondays and Thursdays from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., primarily for established pediatric patients exhibiting respiratory symptoms. Same-day appointments for sick children can be made by calling the Pediatric clinic at 707-463-7459. Much of yesterday's morning discussion revolved around cannabis items that were on the consent calendar. One was a retroactive contract for $185,000 with Elevate Impact, the contractor administering the cannabis equity grant program. Department Director Kristin Nevedal said that was due to a missing invoice. But the item that got the most attention was a recommendation to approve the manual for the Local Jurisdiction Assistance Grant Program. The county received an $18 million allotment from the state to help cultivators satisfy environmental requirements as they struggle to comply with state regulations. That item came before Supervisors Maureen Mulheren and Dan Gjerde at the General Government Committee meeting in October. The Mendocino Cannabis Alliance urged the Board not to approve the manual, arguing that too much money will be used for administration and that they believe the guidelines are more restrictive than those allowed by the state. Williams asked County Counsel Christian Curtis if the Board is obliged to hear the public. “I think it was our understanding that public comment would be heard at the General Government Committee, not there and then again at a Board of Supervisors session,” he said. “What is proper?” Curtis told him that, “The Brown Act doesn't require public comment at the full Board meeting if the item was previously heard at a standing committee. That's specifically a committee exclusively of members of this Board, meeting in a Brown Act-compliant manner. So as long as there's opportunity for the public to comment there, you don't essentially have to repeat the public comment at the Board level itself, unless the legislative body, which would be the Board, determines there's been a substantial change in the item between when it was at the committee and when it came to the full Board.” Long-time cannabis attorney Hannah Nelson called in with a rebuttal, saying, “Just because the Brown Act potentially allows for that process to be utilized, to restrict public comment on agenda items heard specifically in standing committees in the past, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good or responsible thing to do.” Nelson argued that the full Board could benefit from public comment on items that are agendized just 72 hours before public meetings, and that often more nuance is available when people have more time to absorb the material. And cannabis is not the only topic that is subject to multiple rounds of discussion. Nelson added that she believes, “It's going to be very important to apply any rule of this sort across every single standing committee. And I'm sure that the citizens and press will be interested to see if the Board would be applying any such rule equally across all issues and all committees. I hope this Board considers the limited time spent on public expression is valuable, from their constituents, and will not suppress the voice of the people.” Private environmental consultant Chantal Simonpietri said she was “concerned about the conversation that's happened today, where it's as if the cannabis community is being silenced again…what I see happening is this impatience, or boredom, with cannabis being advocated for, and an assumption that it's being heard and addressed in other departments or in other meetings. That simply is not happening in a robust way.” Simonpietri also delivered a stinging critique of the manual under discussion, saying it's not ready to be implemented without clearly established procedures and protocols. “It goes into archaeological and cultural surveys, traffic studies, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions studies, and Appendix G preparation,” she said, brandishing a printout. “Phase one cultivators don't need the top three of these. They don't need to do arch(aeological) and cultural, traffic studies, and they don't need to do air quality and greenhouse gas emissions studies. The only thing they need to have developed, one of the things that everybody needs, is a biological study. And that's one thing that is explicitly not included in this manual…this manual and this program are not ready to go out and to be launched. The sensitive species impact portion of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) document relies on the biological study. And that is one that is explicitly not included here…there are other gaps in the thinking that created this manual to demonstrate that it's not ready for release.” She requested that the manual go back to the General Government Committee for further consideration. But Nevedal told the Board that writing out a document specifying how the department will review each grant application would be “a pretty hard piece to put into writing, as we will be analyzing each application on a project specific basis, because this is a grant related to CEQA.” She added that bringing more materials before the General Government Committee and then the full Board could have serious consequences for applicants, who are on a tight timeline. “Bringing an item to GGC (General Government Committee) in January means that the earliest it could come forward to the Board, if that is the will of the Board, is going to be February,” she explained. “Which means we would not then be able to put a grant application out, if everything went well, until March. So we would miss a full grant cycle. The goal, again, is to try to get two grant award cycles in, so that folks can take advantage of this work season, which is going to be critically important for folks who are needing to conduct their projects to complete their lake and streambed alteration agreements.” The Board agreed to approve the manual without a separate document establishing procedures and protocols, but to continue fine-tuning it.

November 23, 2022, Sarah Reith — The cannabis department is moving from the county administrative campus on Low Gap Road in Ukiah to the Justice Center in Willits. The new office will open Monday, with counter service. But the department is still short-staffed. At last week's cannabis department meeting, Director Kristin Nevedal said the majority of permits were issued without environmental review, which might not be completed until 2024. “CEQA is not occurring,” she said. “And it will not occur until we have contract planning staff trained and working through permits. Depending on what that timing looks like, and how quickly we can move through applications, we may not fully review CEQA documents until 2024.” Nevedal calculated that each application review takes 200 hours of staff time, though the hours have not been tracked by software. With the ability to track the time more precisely, fees are likely to go up. “Two hundred hours is an estimate, largely because there have not been time studies conducted,” she conceded. “So we're estimating it will take 200 hours to do an application review, a CEQA review, and potentially conduct any necessary inspection…we will be billing $600 and some odd change…to the permit holder.” When the department moves to another system, she added, “We will be doing time tracking. And then if time starts to run over, we will be billing applicants and permit holders directly based on the weighted hourly rate, which right now is $90 an hour, but may be more for consultants that have your application. So until we have time tracking software in place (which is not currently the case) we will not be billing extra hours, although I can say that we are hemorrhaging funds because our permit fees do not cover the extensive review that's occurring by the department.” The department's plan for prioritizing review of license applications starts with provisional licenses that will be subject for renewal in July of next year, and places those that are subject to renewal later in the year further back in the line. As to whether or not CEQA review can take place concurrently with renewing the provisional licenses, Nevedal revisited the need for more help. “Our goal is to meet the deadlines for folks who are renewing those provisional licenses on or after July first,” Nevedal said. “A lot of it really depends on if we can get a full twenty or more contract planners in place by early January and really start moving through these applications. We are not willing to jeopardize applicants' renewals by taking on CEQA review that doesn't need to happen. I know folks are anxious. I'm anxious to get into those CEQA document reviews as well.” The county had a contract with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for just over $230,000 to conduct site specific habitat reviews for sensitive species. That contract expired on November second. Details about arrangements for upcoming reviews are sparse. “The contract with CDFW and the contract I mentioned earlier,” Nevedal said before offering an update; “we have some meetings scheduled to square away all of those items including invoicing and restarting the referral process, so I cannot give you a timeline for when the new contract will come forward to the Board of Supervisors until we have been able to meet whe (C)DFW on next steps on reinstating reviews and receiving the invoice for the reviews that have already occurred.” Long-time cannabis advocate Paul Hansbury laid out a key component of the entire situation. “I'm a little bit confused,” he began. “It seems to me that we're looking at things to renew the provisional, instead of moving forward to an annual. So I guess what you're doing by July first is saying that you have a complete submission but no review. But if you had a review you could submit that to them, and then we could just skip the renewal of the provisional, and go directly to the annual, if it were already reviewed. So I'm just wondering what's holding up the review process.” Nevedal told him it was a combination of staffing, direction from the Board of Supervisors, and state requirements. “I have limited staff,” she said. “We're working on these contractors. And we are prioritizing keeping as many people in this program as possible. Which means we have to do our best and make sure that we have a strategy in place to ensure that folks are eligible for provisional license renewal. Folks cannot cultivate without both local authorization and a state license. So in order to meet the Board's directive of keeping as many people in this program as possible, we must ensure folks are eligible for provisional license renewal. If folks fall out of those provisional licenses, it's going to be really hard for them to stay in the program because they'll lose their ability to cultivate. I know folks are anxious to transition into an annual. You have until the end of 2025 to transition from your provisional to your annual…so we are eating this elephant, so to speak, one bite at a time.”