A pro-housing group sued Gov. Newsom on Wednesday over his decision to restrict SB 9, a housing law that allows owners to parcel up their properties, in the wake of the January fires.
YIMBY Law, a San Francisco-based organization, alleges that Newsom’s executive order over the summer allowing cities to suspend SB 9 is a constitutional overreach and violates the California Emergency Services Act, which states that emergency powers can only be used to mitigate ongoing disasters, not potential ones.
It’s the latest chapter in the fight over how much density should be allowed in the rebuilding of fire-stricken communities such as Altadena and Pacific Palisades.
Proponents of SB 9, a 2021 state law that allows homeowners to split single-family lots into as many as four properties, claim it’s a valuable tool to address the housing crisis by adding density. They also claim it’s a resource for fire victims hoping to sell their properties, since land that can be subdivided is more valuable than a single-family lot.
Critics claim that the density afforded by SB 9 would destroy the character of single-family neighborhoods, while also slowing down evacuations in fire-prone areas by packing in more homes and residents.
Newsom sided with the critics in July, signing an executive order allowing L.A.-area governments to suspend SB 9. Many took him up on the offer immediately, including Mayor Bass, as well as officials in Pasadena, Malibu and L.A. County. All are named in the lawsuit along with Gov. Newsom.
“SB 9 adds housing and flexibility,” said YIMBY Law executive director Sonja Trauss. “We want everyone to be able to rebuild, but suspending SB 9 devalues those properties.”
Trauss said many fire victims are underinsured and currently deciding whether it’s financially possible to rebuild. For many, a helpful option would be to use SB 9 to divide the lot into two, then sell one and use the money to build on the other.
She added that the move seemed out of step with Gov. Newsom’s other initiatives in the wake of the fires, including streamlining the permitting process for single-family homes and ADUs.
“If you want to build a 3,000-square-foot house and a 700-square-foot ADU, it’s easier. But if you want to build two homes as a duplex, it’s harder,” Trauss said. “It’s baffling.”
A spokesperson for Newsom defended the move in a statement.
“We will not allow outside groups — even longstanding allies — to attack the Palisades, and communities in the highest fire risk areas throughout L.A. County, or undermine local flexibility after the horror of these fires,” said spokesperson Tara Gallegos. “Our obligation is to survivors, full stop. We will not negotiate that away. If defending them requires drawing firm lines, we will draw them.”
The suit was originally supposed to be filed on Monday, Dec. 8, but was delayed after potential movement from Newsom’s office to restore SB 9 in fire areas, a spokesperson for YIMBY Law said.
An agreement was never reached, and the suit was filed on Wednesday.
California is quickly becoming a national leader in figuring out how families, educators, and lawmakers should adapt to life with artificial intelligence. From new classroom conversations to the state’s first major chatbot regulations, many are grappling with how to keep up with technology that moves faster than ever.Families Navigating AI at HomeRemember the dial-up days? Today, technology evolves in an instant—and many parents are struggling to keep pace.David and Rachelle Young have set strict rules for their 7-year-old daughter Dyllan’s online use.“Kids have a lot of access to the internet, and they can be shown something that we wouldn’t normally approve of, and that’s really scary,” Rachelle Young said.David says his daughter’s world looks nothing like what he had at her age—making parental guidance more important than ever.Lawmakers Respond: A New Chatbot CrackdownConcerns about children talking to AI-powered chatbots have reached the state Capitol.Senator Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson co-authored SB 243, signed into law this fall, marking California’s first major attempt at regulating chatbot interactions.The new law requires companies to: Report safety concerns—such as when a user expresses thoughts of self-harm Clearly notify users that they are talking to a computer, not a person“They don’t want you to turn your phone off. They want you to think that you’re talking to a real friend, but they don’t have that same level of morality,” she said. Her concerns stem from real-world consequences: last year, a 14-year-old in Florida took his own life after forming what his family described as a “relationship” with a chatbot.Inside the Classroom: Understanding AI’s InfluenceAt UC Davis, Associate Professor Jingwen Zhang is tackling these issues head-on. She created a course examining how social media, artificial intelligence and chatbots shape human behavior.”Children used to form social relationships by talking in person or texting. Now they’re having similar levels of conversations with chatbots,” she said.Zhang says SB 243 is a strong first step but believes more protections are needed—especially for minors.She recommends future regulations that: Create stricter guardrails for what topics children can discuss with AI Limit exposure to sensitive or harmful content Add tighter controls for minor accountsA Rapidly Changing LandscapeParents, educators, and policymakers all agree: keeping up with AI will require constant learning.“We have to get to a place where companies are rolling out things that will not hurt the future generation,” Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson said.What’s Changing NextParents told KCRA 3 they want schools to start teaching more about AI safety and digital literacy.Starting this month, the popular Character AI platform is rolling out several major changes: Users under 18 will no longer be able to participate in open-ended chat Younger users will face a two-hour daily limit See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
California is quickly becoming a national leader in figuring out how families, educators, and lawmakers should adapt to life with artificial intelligence.
From new classroom conversations to the state’s first major chatbot regulations, many are grappling with how to keep up with technology that moves faster than ever.
Families Navigating AI at Home
Remember the dial-up days? Today, technology evolves in an instant—and many parents are struggling to keep pace.
David and Rachelle Young have set strict rules for their 7-year-old daughter Dyllan’s online use.
“Kids have a lot of access to the internet, and they can be shown something that we wouldn’t normally approve of, and that’s really scary,” Rachelle Young said.
David says his daughter’s world looks nothing like what he had at her age—making parental guidance more important than ever.
Lawmakers Respond: A New Chatbot Crackdown
Concerns about children talking to AI-powered chatbots have reached the state Capitol.
Senator Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson co-authored SB 243, signed into law this fall, marking California’s first major attempt at regulating chatbot interactions.
The new law requires companies to:
Report safety concerns—such as when a user expresses thoughts of self-harm
Clearly notify users that they are talking to a computer, not a person
“They don’t want you to turn your phone off. They want you to think that you’re talking to a real friend, but they don’t have that same level of morality,” she said.
Her concerns stem from real-world consequences: last year, a 14-year-old in Florida took his own life after forming what his family described as a “relationship” with a chatbot.
Inside the Classroom: Understanding AI’s Influence
At UC Davis, Associate Professor Jingwen Zhang is tackling these issues head-on.
She created a course examining how social media, artificial intelligence and chatbots shape human behavior.
“Children used to form social relationships by talking in person or texting. Now they’re having similar levels of conversations with chatbots,” she said.
Zhang says SB 243 is a strong first step but believes more protections are needed—especially for minors.
She recommends future regulations that:
Create stricter guardrails for what topics children can discuss with AI
Limit exposure to sensitive or harmful content
Add tighter controls for minor accounts
A Rapidly Changing Landscape
Parents, educators, and policymakers all agree: keeping up with AI will require constant learning.
“We have to get to a place where companies are rolling out things that will not hurt the future generation,” Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson said.
What’s Changing Next
Parents told KCRA 3 they want schools to start teaching more about AI safety and digital literacy.
Starting this month, the popular Character AI platform is rolling out several major changes:
Users under 18 will no longer be able to participate in open-ended chat
California lawmakers just paved the way for a whole lot more housing in the Golden State.
In the waning hours of the 2025 legislative session, the state Senate voted 21 to 8 to approve Senate Bill 79, a landmark housing bill that overrides local zoning laws to expand high-density housing near transit hubs. The controversial bill received a final concurrence vote from the Senate on Friday, a day after passing in the California assembly with a vote of 41 to 17.
The bill had already squeaked through the state Senate by a narrow margin earlier this year, but since it was amended in the following months, it required a second approval. It will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk in October.
One of the more ambitious state-imposed efforts to increase housing density in recent years, the bill was introduced in March by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who stresses that the state needs to take immediate action to address California’s housing shortage. It opens the door for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.
Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.
Height limits are based on tiers. Tier 1 zoning, which includes heavy rail lines such as the L.A. Metro B and D lines, allows for six- to nine-story buildings, depending on proximity to the transit hub. Tier 2 zoning — which includes light rail lines such as the A, C, E and K lines, as well as bus routes with dedicated lanes — allows for five- to eight-story buildings.
An amateur map released by a cartographer and fact-checked by YIMBY Action, a housing non-profit that helped push the bill through, gives an idea of the areas around L.A. that would be eligible for development under SB 79. Tier 1 zones include hubs along Wilshire Blvd., Vermont Ave., and Hollywood Blvd., as well as a handful of spots in Downtown L.A. and the San Fernando Valley.
Tier 2 zones are more spread out, dotting Exposition Blvd. along the E line, stretching toward Inglewood along the K line, and running from Long Beach into the San Gabriel Valley along the A line.
Assembly members debated the bill for around 40 minutes on Thursday evening and cheered after it was passed.
“Over the last five years, housing affordability and homelessness have consistently been among the top priorities in California. The smartest place to build new housing is within existing communities, near the state’s major transit investments that connect people to jobs, schools and essential services,” said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Orange County) in support of the bill.
Other assembly members, including Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) voiced their support.
Proponents say drastic measures are necessary given the state’s affordability crisis.
“SB 79 is what we’ve been working towards for a decade – new housing next to our most frequently used train stations. This bill has the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of new multi-family homes,” said YIMBY Action California director Leora Tanjuatco Ross.
Critics claim the blanket mandate is an overreach, stripping local authorities of their ability to promote responsible growth.
Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-West Hollywood) argued against the bill, claiming it will affect lower-priced neighborhoods more than wealthy ones since land prices are cheaper for housing developers.
Councilmember Traci Park, who co-authored the resolution with Councilmember John Lee, called SB 79 a “one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento.” Lee called it “chaos.”
The resolution called for L.A. to be exempt from the upzoning since it already has a state-approved housing plan.
The bill has spurred multiple protests in Southern California communities, including Pacific Palisades and San Diego. Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.
However, support for SB 79 surged in recent days after the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a powerful labor group that represents union construction workers, agreed to reverse their opposition in exchange for amendments that add union hiring to certain projects.
In a statement after the deal was struck, the trades council president Chris Hannan said the amendments would provide good jobs and training to California’s skilled construction workforce.
Wiener, who has unsuccessfully tried to pass similar legislation twice before, said the deal boosted the bill’s chances.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that aimed to make it easier for farmworkers to make a workers’ compensation claim for heat illness.
SB 1299 would have changed the burden of proof in workers’ compensation claims when a farmworker develops a heat-related injury after laboring outdoors for an employer who fails to comply with the state’s heat safety standards. Instead of the farmworker having to prove the injury occurred on the job, as is typical in workers’ compensation cases, it would have been the employer’s responsibility to prove the illness was not work-related.
Under the bill’s provisions, if an employer failed to comply with the rules, any resulting heat-related injury to an employee would be “presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.” It would have created a “rebuttable presumption,” which is more commonly used for law enforcement officers and firefighters who develop certain injuries that could arise from the risks inherent to their jobs.
In a veto message issued Saturday, Newsom said there is “no doubt” that California farmworkers need strong protections from the risk of heat-related illness, especially as climate change drives an increase in extreme temperatures.
“However, the creation of a heat-illness presumption in the workers’ compensation system is not an effective way to accomplish this goal,” he said. Newsom said heat safety rules are currently enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, which is better equipped to enforce those worker protections.
Newsom also noted that Cal/OSHA is establishing an agricultural unit that specializes in worker protections and hazards found at agricultural worksites, and opening new district office locations in Fresno, Santa Barbara and Riverside.
“This dedicated unit will increase Cal/OSHA’s reach to farmworker communities throughout the Central Valley, where the largest number of farmworkers and their families reside,” Newsom said.
The legislation came as many farmworkers continue to labor in unsafe conditions and Cal/OSHA confronts a severe staffing shortage that is hampering its ability to enforce heat regulations for outdoor workers.
First enacted in 2005, the state’s heat illness prevention rules require employers to provide outdoor workers with fresh water, access to shade at 80 degrees and warmer, and cool-down breaks whenever a worker requests one. Employers must also maintain a heat illness prevention plan with effective training for supervisors to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat illness.
But nearly two decades after the rules were first enacted, ensuring compliance has remained challenging.
In 2009 and 2012, the United Farm Workers sued Cal/OSHA, accusing the agency of failing to enforce the regulations.
A 2022 study by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found many farmworkers were still laboring without the protections. Of more than 1,200 workers surveyed, 43% reported their employers had not provided a heat illness prevention plan and 15% said they had not received heat illness prevention training.
The bill’s author, Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), previously described SB 1299 as a “creative work-around” that was “taking the tools that we do have available and trying to cobble together an approach that will hopefully spur greater compliance.”
“The employers hate the workers’ comp presumptions so much that it makes me feel like it might actually work,” Cortese previously told The Times. “The avoidance factor is so high with them that they’ll say, ‘My God, it’s actually easier for us to provide shade and water than to have to deal with a proliferation of expedited workers’ comp claims.’”
“We’re trying to take something that they view as kind of a thorn in their side and use it as a disincentive for the kind of behavior we’re seeing,” he said.
The UFW backed SB 1299.
“Despite the Governor’s veto of SB 1299, the UFW will continue to work to save farm worker lives,” UFW President Teresa Romero said in a statement Saturday.
Opponents of the bill, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau, acknowledged the importance of protecting farmworkers from heat illness, but had argued the issue should not be addressed through the workers’ compensation system.
This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative,funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to addressCalifornia’s economic divide.
Those 3, 5 and 20% fees at the bottom of your menu could be here to stay. With little time to spare, a new law will allow restaurants and bars to continue charging service fees, healthcare costs and other surcharges when listed clearly for diners to see. The practice was set to be outlawed beginning Monday.
On Saturday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1524, an emergency measure to exempt California food and beverage vendors from Senate Bill 478 — a law that goes into effect in July and targets ticket sellers, hotel and travel websites and other businesses that charge “hidden” or “junk” fees.
Before Newsom signed SB 1524, which was introduced in early June, restaurants and bars were included in the affected businesses, and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta had advised that the food and beverage vendors roll such fees into listed menu prices to avoid the possibility of legal action.
“These deceptive fees prevent us from knowing how much we will be charged at the outset,” the attorney general, who co-sponsored SB 478, said in a statement the day it was signed. Bonta could not be reached for comment regarding the exemptions allowed by SB 1524.
Numerous business operators in the service industry have been vocal against SB 478, which passed in October. They said they feared that raising list prices during a tumultuous year marked by closures and inflation would cost them more customers and support. Multiple restaurateurs told the Los Angeles Times that the process of revising or entirely overhauling their tipping and surcharge system could result in the loss of staff benefits or all-out closures. SB 1524’s rules allowing such surcharges could affect tens of thousands of restaurants throughout the state.
“We’re the most regulated of any business out there, and we are struggling to survive in the broken system that has been handed to us throughout many, many decades,” said Eddie Navarrette, a co-founder of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, a restaurant advocacy group. “When you add more regulations, whatever it may be, it makes things more difficult. Things are already difficult … there is a mass exodus of our small-restaurant community. I think it’s a huge relief, just to have one less thing being thrown at them right now.”
Navarrette spent weeks campaigning for SB 1524’s passage, writing letters, meeting with upwards of 35 policy advisors, legislators or their representatives, knocking on doors at the state Capitol, and explaining the usage of service fees within the restaurant industry, whose tip-based employee earnings make it different from most fields that will be affected by SB 478.
Surcharges, health fees and service charges are regularly used within the industry to stabilize wages across dining rooms and kitchens — where servers often receive tips but cooks and dishwashers do not — and to help offset the cost of benefits such as healthcare. Businesses with larger service fees, such as 18% or 20%, often note that tips are not expected.
“It’s confusing why the restaurants are claiming that they need to do things differently, because it just feels like they’re saying that they need to hide the cost of their food for us, and that doesn’t feel right,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of the California affiliate of the Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) a nonprofit organization that advocates for consumer interests and protections.
“It feels like you’re being duped,” she said. “That’s what it feels like: that they’re trying to trick you.”
Some local restaurants have come under fire on accusations of misusing service fees or other surcharges, though multiple chefs and restaurateurs told The Times that these “bad actors” are few and far between.
“Every restaurateur that I know who cares in this industry is using it in a way that is so immensely appropriate and responsible and forward-thinking that if it was to go away, it would be really crippling to everybody,” Kato restaurateur Ryan Bailey told The Times earlier this year.
The new bill, which passed unanimously in the state Assembly and Senate in late June, was co-written by Sen. Bill Dodd (D-Napa) — who also co-wrote SB 478 — as well as Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymembers Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) and Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters).
It is supported by the California Restaurant Assn. and the labor union Unite Here, both of which represent thousands of hospitality workers in California.
SB 1524 “will enable restaurants to continue to support increased pay equity and to make contributions to worker health care and other employee benefits,” Matthew Sutton of the California Restaurant Assn. said in a statement. “And, importantly, consumers will remain empowered to make informed choices about where they choose to dine out.”
While some restaurateurs and bar operators are breathing a sigh of relief over the continuation of service fees, others are frustrated with the government’s quick change in tack.
In April, ahead of SB 478’s July 1 start date — but before the new carve-out for restaurants and bars — L&E Oyster Bar and sibling restaurant El Condor rolled their 4% service fees into listed menu prices.
(Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times)
Following the attorney general’s guidance for SB 478, in April restaurateur Dustin Lancaster rolled a 4% surcharge into the menu list prices of two of his L.A. restaurants, L&E Oyster Bar and El Condor. He said that SB 1524 would not prompt him to revert to a service-fee model, at least for the foreseeable future, and that it wasn’t “so simple to just unbake the cake.”
“This is, sadly, all too familiar territory for restaurants in California,” Lancaster told the L.A. Times this week. “Just like in COVID, they jerk us around and expect us to pivot and change our model repeatedly as if it’s no big deal to small businesses. Restaurants continue to shutter [at] an alarming rate in L.A., and this sort of unnecessary about-face is why California continues to be the least small-business-friendly state in America.”
At Bell’s, a Michelin-starred restaurant in Santa Barbara County’s Los Alamos, owners diligently tracked the progress of both state Senate bills and awaited final word before determining whether to remove their 20% service charge, which benefits all nonmanagerial staff.
And even before SB 1524’s passage, Bell’s listed the charge on its the lunch and dinner menus, on its web page for frequently asked questions, and on its homepage section on takeout orders. The new law will allow the restaurant to continue its practice without reconfiguring its business model.
Greg Ryan, an owner of Bell’s, told The Times that he had been listening to and was understanding of customers, legislators and his team, and that he wanted to do what was best for his staff.
For months, the practice has felt like a balancing act.
As SB 1524 made its way through California’s Assembly and Senate, outcry on social media and in public forums such as Reddit was swift and vocal, with multiple anonymous posters commenting that to retaliate for the exemption, they would stop leaving tips. Another Reddit user created a spreadsheet that tracks surcharges and service fees in restaurants across the state.
An L.A. restaurateur, speaking anonymously for fear of customer retribution, told The Times that they’d seen an increase in tips of $1, 0% or other low amounts over the course of the month, possibly in response to the 3-4% service fees their restaurant was charging.
“I’m not thrilled with the bill,” CALPIRG’s Engstrom said of SB 1524. “I think it was better when restaurants and bars also had to have really clear upfront pricing, so that consumers could do easy comparison shopping. When I decide to go out to a restaurant with my family, I check the prices first, on the menu, online.”
That SB 1524 requires clear posting of fees is a benefit, she said, but it’s not as strong as SB 478 with the attorney general’s initial guidance that called for rolling service fees into listed prices. Engstrom called SB 478 “a great model bill,” saying she would love to see similar consumer-protection legislation in other states, or federally — without many carve-outs for industries, regardless of how service fees factor into their business plans.
“I think [SB 1524] is unfortunately kind of a step backwards, but it’s still transparent,” she said. “You can still see it; you just have to do the math.”
Sam Andreano is currently putting the finishing touches on his split-lot property in Whittier. He’s a guinea pig for state Senate Bill 9, a housing law that allows homeowners to divvy up their properties and build two or even four units on a once-single-family lot.
Andreano, 59, was one of SB 9’s earliest adopters. He bought a single-family home for $790,000 in 2021, split the property in half and sold the existing home on half of the original lot for $777,777 in 2023 — essentially coming out with an empty lot for a little over $12,000, around what it would have cost in the 1970s.
Then, Andreano spent around $400,000 building a home onto the back half of the original lot. He estimates it’ll be worth around $850,000 when it’s finished next month.
The project was an absolute success; Andreano added density to a single-family lot and came out well financially.
Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin determined that SB 9 is unconstitutional because it doesn’t provide housing restricted for low-income residents, which he said was the law’s stated purpose. For now, it affects five cities: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar. But the ruling clears the way for the law — one of many designed to alleviate California’s housing crisis — to be invalidated in cities across the state.
Few took advantage of the law, especially compared with other state laws created to increase density. A study from Bay Area NPR affiliate KQED-FM found that 16 California cities — including San José, San Francisco, Long Beach and Sacramento — approved just 75 split-lot applications and 112 applications for new units under SB 9 from 2022 to 2023, while approving 8,800 accessory dwelling units during the same stretch.
Andreano thinks he knows why. He said some property owners he spoke to were hesitant to build SB 9 projects because they were afraid it would be overturned, and now their fears have come true. His project is fine because the property has already been divided, but he said others still applying will surely lose money due to the ruling.
“You have to pay the architect, the engineer and others. Then the ruling comes down saying it’s overturned, and you’re out $50,000,” he said.
Andreano was able to push his project through before the court decision because he moved quickly. He bought the Whittier property in December 2021 with the intention to split it up under SB 9 and officially started his application four months later.
The process took two years, hundreds of phone calls and tens of thousands of dollars.
The law allows a single-family-zoned lot to be split into two, and owners can build either a single-family home or a duplex on each lot, for a total of up to four units. But it requires the two lots to be split somewhat evenly, with a maximum difference of 60-40, and also requires each new lot to be at least 1,200 square feet.
Under these restrictions, the ideal properties for SB 9 are big lots with small houses. So Andreano specifically bought a property that would work well under the guidelines: a 1,200-square-foot house on a 6,232-square-foot lot. Big(ish) lot, small house.
Then he brought in an architect, which cost about $20,000; a grading engineer, which cost around $15,000; a soil engineer, which cost around $8,000; and a surveyor, which cost around $5,000. The L.A. County Fire Department did three inspections, which cost around $1,500 each, and he also spent around $3,000 on application fees.
“It was a lot of back-and-forth,” he said. “I’d submit my application, and the city would ask for revisions on A, B and C. Then I’d submit the revisions, and they’d ask for revisions on D, E and F.”
He’s in the final stages of finishing the back house, bringing the timeline of the project to roughly two years. He said it’s definitely been worth it.
The property now features two single-family homes separated by a fence: a 1,200-square-foot front house with three bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms on a 3,349-square-foot lot, and an 1,100-square-foot back house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms on a 2,893-square-foot lot, where he plans to live. The lot-size split is 53.65% to 46.35%, well within the 60-40 restrictions.
“People want to buy houses, and this is a way to increase density while also letting people work out the details on their own,” he said.
Andreano hired Dennis Robinson, owner of Custom ADU Builder, to build the back house. Robinson has constructed seven SB 9 projects, and he’s completing seven more.
Robinson handles both ADUs and SB 9 projects and said each type has it own perks.
“ADUs are faster and cheaper, and you save around $20,000 in the permitting process alone,” he said. “But if you want to add multiple units to your property, SB 9 is better.”
Robinson was surprised when the law was overturned. He was about to break ground on a project in Long Beach, where a family wanted to expand its garage into a 1,000-square-foot home and add a unit above, but now it’s in jeopardy.
If the ruling is appealed and upheld, it would expand to affect California’s 121 charter cities, including Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The law was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn’t provide housing for low-income residents, but Andreano said that if he had to sell or rent the home as low-income, he would’ve lost money.
“That affordability factor makes sense for a 100-unit condo, where a developer can set a few units aside for low income, but it doesn’t work for an individual home,” he said. “The goal for SB 9 should be to add housing in order to make the market more affordable in general.”
If the coast of California is a state asset worth trillions of dollars — and it is — why is the state agency that has successfully protected that asset for 50 years under assault? The answer — “unnecessary permitting delays” — is unfounded. Yet California’s exceptional history of coastal protection is in greater jeopardy today in the halls of our state Capitol than it has been for generations.
Like water flowing downhill, California’s incomparable coast has always been a magnet for development. In 1972, with this in mind, the voters of California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 20, a ballot initiative that set in motion the 1976 California Coastal Act. Unlike South Florida, the Jersey Shore or other coastal regions devoured by privatization, the California coast was by law given special protection: The coastal zone would be developed not as an enclave for the wealthy but for everyone’s use, with provisions for protecting its natural resources and its breathtaking beauty.
The California Coastal Commission was created to enforce the act with a specific charge to balance the needs of the ecosystem with the need for public access and economic development, including affordable housing. It works like this: Local jurisdictions come up with coastal plans that the commission must approve. Once a plan is in place, development permits are handled by the city, town or county, although those decisions can be appealed to and by the commission.
Over the years, the Coastal Commission has successfully defended public access to the beach in Malibu, Half Moon Bay, Carlsbad and other towns. It has helped preserve state parks, open space along the coast and the beach itself — denying permits for oil drilling, more than one luxury resort, an LNG port (in Oxnard) and a toll road (at San Onofre Beach). In 2019, it fined a developer nearly $15.6 million for replacing, without a permit, two low-cost hotels along Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica with a boutique hotel.
Predictably, this process has often been in the bull’s-eye of Coastal Act critics, and while the rationale may vary with the moment, their goal remains the same: To weaken oversight by the commission and return land-use control entirely to local governments.
Today, low affordable housing supply along the coast is the basis for attack. In legislation introduced in January, with a purpose of “resolving unnecessary permitting delays in the disproportionately low-housing Coastal Zone,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has proposed an unprecedented carve out of 23.5% of the coastal zone in San Francisco. Specifically, Senate Bill 951 would delete from commission oversight residential areas on the city’s western edge, as well as a piece of Golden Gate Park. As the first significant coastal zone reduction in more than 40 years, this attack on the commission could set a dangerous precedent that would invite similar carve outs from San Diego to Santa Monica to Crescent City.
Last month, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted overwhelmingly to oppose SB 951, and, one day later, the Coastal Commission, by unanimous vote, did the same.
The existential threat that this legislation poses to the Coastal Act and the entire California coast is undeniable. Among numerous commission responsibilities affected, SB 951 ignores the agency’s essential role in planning for sea-level rise adaptation along San Francisco’s increasingly vulnerable coast. And it seems no mere coincidence that the excluded area includes land proposed for a controversial 50-story condominium and commercial project in the flats of the Outer Sunset neighborhood north of the San Francisco Zoo.
The claim that the Coastal Commission is responsible for housing inequity in the coastal zone, though long on rhetoric, is belied by the historical record. Indeed, when the Coastal Act became law in 1976, it required that “housing for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.” The commission actively complied, approving or protecting from demolition more than 7,100 affordable units between 1977 and 1981 and collecting an estimated $2 million in “in lieu” fees to support affordable housing.
But in 1981, the state Legislature amended the Coastal Act to remove the commission’s affordable housing authority. Contrary to the claim of “unnecessary permitting delays” on which SB 951 is based — only two coastal development permits in San Francisco have been appealed to the commission in 38 years — it is this amendment, and the fact that developers prefer to build high-end projects, that has produced today’s affordable housing deficit in the coastal zone. As then-Coastal Commission Chair Leonard Grote warned in 1981, “The passage of this bill would make sure that the ability to live near the coast is reserved for the wealthy.” And so it has.
If increasing the supply of affordable housing near California’s coast is actually the goal of SB 951, then restoring, not reducing, the commission’s authority is needed. It was a mistake in 1981 to remove the commission’s power to require that projects it approved included affordable housing, and it’s a mistake in 2024 to expect that diminishing the coastal zone will right that wrong.
The California Coastal Commission has an extraordinary record of success in protecting California’s most valuable environmental and economic resource, and its regulatory role is as essential today as it has ever been. SB 951 would weaken, not promote, equal access to that resource, and it threatens to erode, perhaps irrevocably, the most successful coastal management program in the country.
Joel Reynolds is western director and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. Tom Soto is a former alternate member of the California Coastal Commission and a Natural Resources Defense Council board member.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to delay the implementation of Senate Bill 43, the landmark legislation that expands the criteria by which people can be detained against their wills by police, crisis teams and mental health providers.
The motion to delay, proposed by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, was passed on a 4-1 vote. L.A. County now joins 45 other counties that have formally declared their intention to hold off implementation. Supervisor Janice Hahn cast the lone dissenting vote.
“I know there are people on our streets who are not going to survive and maybe would have a chance if we implemented this sooner to help them get the treatment that they need,” Hahn said to her colleagues.
SB 43 gave counties the option to implement the law either at the start of 2024 or not until Jan. 1, 2026. In her motion, Horvath cited “the immense amount of work” required to implement the law, which adds severe substance use disorder to the longstanding definition of gravely disabled.
“We cannot afford the liability cases and the risk of civil right violations and risk getting this wrong,” Horvath said at the board meeting.
Passed by state legislators in September and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October, SB 43 represents the first major revision of the state’s 1967 conservatorship law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.
It is intended to address not only the epidemic of mental illness among homeless populations in the state but also the proliferation of highly addictive drugs, such as fentanyl and methamphetamine, which researchers say exacerbate psychotic disorders.
However, according to the motion, the size of the crisis presents logistical problems for counties responsible for administering involuntary holds that proceed conservatorship hearings. Adding severe substance use disorder to the definition of gravely disabled could lead to a 10% increase of those involuntarily detained, according to the supervisor’s motion.
Los Angeles County joins a majority of counties across the state tapping the brakes on what Newsom considers crucial legislation for transforming California’s behavioral health landscape. Last week, he lambasted those who chose to wait.
“You have a crisis out there,” he said at a news conference. “There is a crisis on the streets, and people are talking about delaying the conservatorship efforts until 2026. We can’t afford to wait. The state has done its job. It’s time for the counties to do their job … with a deeper sense of urgency. They have to recognize that people are dying on their watch. People are literally losing their lives, and we can’t waste another day.”
The supervisors’ decision to delay comes three weeks after the county Department of Mental Health issued a report on the feasibility of implementing SB 43 at the start of the new year. Written in conjunction with the county Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control, the report recommended holding off on implementation.
Among the reasons was the need to increase training to ensure appropriate and consistent understanding of the definition of “grave disability” among those qualified to initiate an involuntary hold and perhaps most crucially, to address a shortage of treatment facilities for those with medical, substance use and mental health treatment needs.
The county currently has no locked facilities for treating substance use disorder.
“Our mental health service system, while larger than it was in the 1960s, is still under-resourced and under-staffed,” according to Horvath’s motion, which references the “disastrous results” of not developing community services following the closure of state psychiatric hospitals in the 1970s. “This board cannot afford to make the same mistakes that our state leaders did decades ago.”
Prior to the vote, Hahn had expressed disappointment with efforts to stall SB 43.
“We have a drug addiction and mental health crisis on our streets, and I want to see a sense of urgency from our county departments,” she said in a statement. “I think we can get this done sooner, and I want to see us try.”
In a letter of support for the motion, the Hospital Assn. of Southern California, representing 170 hospitals in six counties, recommended waiting.
“The current behavioral health system is not prepared to support the influx of new patients meant to be served by this law and our hospital emergency departments are not prepared to hold and care for these patients until we can identify appropriate treatment,” wrote Adena Tessler, a regional vice president with the group. “A rushed implementation of this expanded definition, without proper preparation, is not in the best interest of the very patients it is intended to help.”
San Francisco and San Luis Obispo counties have indicated that they will implement SB 43 at the start of the new year, and last week by a vote of 3 to 2, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors agreed to delay implementation until January 2025, when it will reevaluate its readiness to adapt the new criteria ahead of the 2026 deadline.
But “the expectation is that it will be implemented within a year,” said Luke Bergmann, director of behavioral health services for San Diego County.
While logistical constraints have led to the decision to delay implementation, there is also concern that SB 43 might be challenged in court as an impingement upon civil liberties. Soon after the CARE Act was passed in 2022, three civil rights groups challenged the law in court. Their petition was ultimately dismissed.
Although no lawsuit has been filed against SB 43, Disability Rights California, which opposed the legislation, argued against a hurried roll-out.
“It’s really disheartening to hear the governor criticize counties for exercising an option — deferral — he agreed to in SB 43,” said Deb Roth, a senior legislative advocate. “It seems very short-sighted not to want county-readiness before implementing such major changes.”
When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that set a first-in-the-nation minimum wage for healthcare workers, three words in a bill analysis foretold potential concerns about its cost: “Fiscal impact unknown.”
Now, three weeks after Newsom signed SB 525 into law — giving medical employees at least $25 an hour, including support staff such as cleaners and security guards — his administration has an estimated price tag: $4 billion in the 2024-25 fiscal year alone.
Half of that will come directly from the state’s general fund, while the other half will be paid for by federal funds designated for providers of Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, according to Newsom’s Department of Finance.
SB 525 is one of the most expensive laws California has seen in years and comes as the state faces a $14-billion budget deficit that could grow larger, if revenue projections continue to fall short.
The costly legislation — promoted by unions as a way to curb the healthcare worker shortage and in turn improve patient care — was signed into law even as Newsom has warned about the state’s shaky financial future, vetoing dozens of bills last month in the name of cost savings.
“With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure,” Newsom said repeatedly in veto messages, rejecting some bills that had far lower cost projections than SB 525.
Newsom officials declined to give The Times a cost estimate reflecting those amendments when the governor signed the bill last month. But the amendments were expected to significantly soften the immediate financial impact to the state and hospitals, since gradual wage schedules were introduced in lieu of an instantaneous increase for all.
Despite the unknowns, Democrats in the state Legislature — including some who were first hesitant about potential costs — were quick to pass the legislation after a deal was made between powerful interest groups.
The bill originally aimed to increase the minimum wage to $25 per hour for all healthcare employees starting Jan. 1. The opposition estimated that would have cost up to $8 billion annually.
While leaders of appropriations committees killed bills based on cost in September, rejecting measures that cost millions less than SB 525, the healthcare minimum wage bill cleared that key fiscal hurdle even as the Department of Finance opposed it, citing “significant economic impacts.”
It’s unclear whether other state programs will be cut to make room for the wage hikes, but expect state lawmakers to rush to write bills when the Legislature returns in January to try to address some financial concerns.
Unlike a law passed in 2016 that mandated a $15-per-hour minimum wage statewide, the healthcare worker bill does not currently include any mechanism that allows the state to delay wage hikes during economic downturns.
“This is an important law to ensure California has a robust healthcare workforce. We’re working with legislative leadership and stakeholders on accompanying legislation to account for state budget conditions and revenues,” Newsom spokesperson Alex Stack said on Friday when asked about cost concerns surrounding the bill.
The $4-billion estimate could change when the Legislative Analyst’s Office releases its annual fiscal outlook expected later this month. The cost is only expected to grow in the future, as more groups of workers become eligible for raises.
The latest estimated cost to the state reflects pay raises expected to go to half a million healthcare workers who provide services to Medi-Cal patients, plus 26,000 employees at state-owned facilities.
But the cost to the state could decrease if hospitals pay a bigger share of labor costs, said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, who was involved in shaping the policy. She pointed to billions already set aside for Medi-cal providers through revenue from a tax on managed healthcare organizations as one way to “help manage the impact of increased labor costs.”
“SEIU California has committed to working with the administration and the Legislature to ensure safeguards are in place to guarantee that this critical measure is taken in a way that preserves California’s fiscal health, just as we did when negotiating the last statewide minimum wage increase,” Orr said. “This is how you make progress — through flexibility and compromise in achieving shared goals.”
In a statement, David Simon, spokesperson for the California Hospital Association, which ultimately supported the bill, called the plan that Newsom signed a “better, more measured” approach to raising wages than past efforts, which the organization worried would hurt rural hospitals already struggling financially and potentially pass costs onto patients.
Like Orr, Simon signaled more work to come.
“As far as any future work related to this issue, we are committed to working with the Legislature and the governor to advance the joint goals of SB 525: investing in our state’s healthcare workforce and preserving access to healthcare,” Simon said.
Under the law, workers at large healthcare facilities will earn $23 an hour starting in June, $24 an hour in 2025 and $25 in 2026. That applies to all staff, including launderers and hospital gift shop workers.
Employees at independent rural hospitals and facilities that serve high rates of Medicare and Medi-Cal patients will see $18 an hour next year and won’t reach $25 an hour until 2033. Other smaller workplaces are required to pay employees $21 an hour next year, reaching $25 an hour in 2028.
Newsom supporters see the legislation as bold national leadership amid labor unrest and worker strikes across industries, and as a more organized way to address local demands for $25 per hour already moving ahead in cities across California. His critics question if he approved it too soon without a concrete plan in order to gain political favor.
Labor unions have long held outsize power in the California Legislature, but their wins this year were remarkable. Their influence in state politics is undeniable: the Service Employees International Union pumped nearly $4 million into eight independent expenditures alone to get their Democrats of choice elected to the Legislature this year.
Michael Genest, founder of Capitol Matrix Consulting who served as a budget director for former Gov. Arnorld Schwarzenegger, pointed to union power — and pressure — as one reason why Newsom may have moved too soon.
“This is no time to start adding really major costs to the state budget when it’s very possible we could go deeply in the wrong direction,” he said, noting the state’s economic uncertainty. “There’s always a reason to spend money, but some people care more about the reason than they do about what’s in the bank account.”
H.D. Palmer, Newom’s Department of Finance spokesperson, has also acknowledged the state’s financial unknowns but was confident in the governor’s budgeting.
“The governor is required under the state Constitution to present a balanced budget by Jan. 10 of next year, which he will do,” he said. “There are any number of actions that can be done to balance a budget. Obviously the major thing right now is: where are revenues going to go?”
California hospitals and clinics were slow to carry out mandated training intended to combat unconscious bias among workers who care for pregnant patients, the state Department of Justice found in a newly released investigation.
Less than 17% of facilities that provided information to the state agency had initiated “implicit bias training” in the year after California started requiring it for pregnancy and childbirth professionals, according to the report unveiled Friday by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.
The numbers shot up after Bonta prodded healthcare providers about their training plans: As of summer 2022, more than 93% of medical facilities that responded had trained at least some of their staff, according to the state investigation. By that time, an average of 81% of staff in responding facilities had finished the required training, the investigation found.
Nearly a third of health facilities contacted by the Department of Justice launched their training programs only after the agency reached out to them, the report found.
The state law went into effect just weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic erupted, but Bonta and other state officials rejected that as an explanation or excuse for delays, saying the required training could be accomplished through an online video.
“It was doable then, “ Bonta said at a news conference Friday in Leimert Park. “It’s doable now.”
The training mandate was prompted by concerns that implicit bias — unconsciously held attitudes about members of a specific group — can steer the decisions of medical providers, undermining patient care.
SB 464, which was passed four years ago, required California hospitals, clinics and birthing centers that care for patients in pregnancy and childbirth to confront that problem by rolling out implicit bias programs for their staff. “Refresher” trainings for healthcare providers are also required every two years.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who authored SB 464 as a state senator, said that while drafting the law, she and others were appalled to learn about persistent misconceptions about Black women among medical students. Mitchell said surveys showed that “they thought our threshold for pain was higher, that our skin was thicker and more difficult to penetrate to receive medication.”
To think that such attitudes persisted in 2019 “literally took our breath away,” she said.
SB 464 spelled out specific requirements for the training content, including identification of unconscious biases; corrective measures to reduce such bias at both the interpersonal and institutional levels; and information on the effects of historical and contemporary exclusion and oppression of minority communities.
State officials said such training is urgent due to the crisis facing Black patients in childbirth. Across the country, Black women have been about 2½ times more likely than their white and Latina counterparts to die during pregnancy, childbirth and its aftermath, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a national survey, 30% of Black women reported mistreatment during maternity care and 40% reported discrimination; both rates were much higher than among white or Asian American women.
California has reduced its rates of maternal death over time, but they have remained more than three times higher for Black patients than for those of many other racial and ethnic backgrounds.
“Far too many Black women are dying during and post-childbirth in L.A. County, in the state of California, and across the country,” Mitchell said Friday. “And what’s so deeply offensive about that is it’s within our power to change that.”
In L.A. County this year, family and friends called for justice after the deaths of April Valentine and BridgetteCromer, also known as Bridgette Burks. Both were Black women who lost their lives after childbirth at local hospitals. Bothhospitals were faulted by state investigators in the aftermath of their deaths.
Mitchell said it was painful to see that women in her county district had “died unnecessarily because they weren’t listened to, they weren’t attended to, they were in hospitals who should and must do better.”
A spokesperson for the California Hospital Assn., which supported the legislation, said hospitals in the state are committed to reducing health disparities and “still working toward full compliance despite the challenges created by the COVID pandemic that surfaced just a few months after” SB 464 passed.
Californians can check how far their local hospitals had gone toward training staff as of last year: The report released Friday includes a list of facilities that provide pregnancy care and the percentage of their covered staff that had finished the required training by July 2022. Across the state, those figures ranged from 0 to 100%.
Bonta said deadlines for finishing the required trainings, clear mechanisms for state enforcement, and consequences for hospitals that flout the California law are needed to improve compliance. He said he was committing to working with state lawmakers “to address these issues with future legislation.”
