Sacramento cannot allow abuse of California environmental laws to stall new jobs, housing

The first phase of the $1.1 billion UC Davis Aggie Square project will bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of new housing units to the Stockton Boulevard corridor that splits Sacramento’s Oak Park and Tahoe Park neighborhoods. The 25-acre development will also transform the university’s empty lots into research labs, classrooms, a transit hub and retail shops.

The project anchors a long-awaited revitalization of the boulevard that includes plans for over 750 new housing units, most of them affordable. Aggie Square will also benefit from a $30 million tax break to fund additional low-income housing, as well as pay for infrastructure improvements over the next four decades.

Naturally, some activists and labor groups have filed lawsuits against it.

A group calling itself Sacramento Investment Without Displacement — also known as SIWD (“sued”) — is using the landmark California Environmental Quality Act to stall the project. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299, one of the largest unions in the University of California system, has also embraced the CEQA lawsuit tactic. Both groups claim the project will harm the environment, displace residents and increase social inequality.

The lawsuits were filed while the city was negotiating a so-called “community benefits partnership agreement” with UC Davis and developer Wexford Science and Technology to address the potential dangers of gentrification and to fund solutions. On March 26, city leaders and UC Davis unveiled their strategy.

“The agreement calls for the city and Aggie Square developers to invest at least $50 million to be used to build affordable housing and to set up programs that assure at least 20% of (the 3,500) jobs created by future businesses in the proposed tech and research center be filled by residents of nearby ZIP codes,” The Sacramento Bee’s Tony Bizjak reported.

Under the agreement, at least $5 million will be used on rental and mortgage assistance for Oak Park and Tahoe Park residents struggling to keep their homes. It would also help nearby property owners pay for building repairs and upkeep.

Despite the $50 million win, some of the project’s legal opponents remain skeptical. Erica Jaramillo of SIWD told The Bee that “their CBPA does not prioritize nor does it specifically or meaningfully address prevention of displacement. These are aspirational figures, we need to make sure that they’re binding and tied to helping the residents in immediate proximity to the project.”

On Tuesday, the Sacramento City Council will vote to make the agreement binding. The Aggie Square deal also includes the creation of a website to track progress on local hiring and regular reporting to maintain accountability.

The City Council should approve the agreement and move forward with the project. Those exploiting CEQA to file lawsuits should drop their specious arguments and stop holding Sacramento’s economic development for ransom.

CEQA IS TOO EASY TO ABUSE

The lawsuits against Aggie Square provide yet another example of why CEQA needs more reform. The law arms NIMBY activists and others with a powerful tool to misuse the state’s court system and stall progress on infill projects that create more jobs and housing.

CEQA is simply too easy to abuse. One midtown property owner, R. Michael West, filed a CEQA lawsuit against the city in January to block a six-unit apartment project because it would “disrupt the architectural character” of the neighborhood. He also claimed that rental housing is not “much needed” in Sacramento.

When Gov. Ronald Reagan signed CEQA in 1970, it was supposed to require developers to disclose how a project could affect air quality, noise or sensitive land near the site. UCLA researcher M. Nolan Gray said CEQA abuse has utterly changed development in California ever since. A Chapman University study found that multi-family housing now accounts for 60% of CEQA lawsuits. Industrial projects make up less than one-fifth.

“A CEQA suit is now so terrifying to developers — the delays so long, the legal fees so excessive — that the mere threat of one is enough to force a developer to the table,” Gray wrote in a recent essay in The Atlantic. “As with so much about California’s environmental-review law, this might sound great in theory. But in practice, it has given rise to the phenomenon of ‘greenmailing,’ whereby special interests as varied as construction unions, neighborhood groups, and business associations can force concessions from a project before the public review even starts. At times, this can end up looking a lot like extortion.”

Sound familiar?

DROP THE LAWSUITS

Last month, the City of Sacramento filed motions to become a party of interest and help stave off the legal challenges to Aggie Square. Mayor Darrell Steinberg said the benefits agreement is “responsive to the concerns expressed by the coalition in every way.” He vowed to make this type of deal a requirement for future projects.

AFSCME 3299 executive director Liz Perlman said the union would continue with the legal process, however, the agreement “is a step forward that acknowledges the project’s many shortcomings and valid concerns raised by our members and the community coalition.” Jaramillo was skeptical of a deal that lacked citizen oversight, and said SIWD would decide next steps after seeing the agreement in writing.

Come on. If you’re going to use flimsy CEQA lawsuits to successfully squeeze $50 million out of UC Davis, you ought to at least extort in good faith. Both groups should drop their lawsuits and respect the community agreement. Their litigious tactics are an act of deliberate sabotage that makes a mockery of the legal system.

Aggie Square is exactly the kind of project Sacramento needs to create jobs, affordable housing and new opportunities as we emerge from COVID-19’s economic turmoil. Anyone blocking this project is hurting, not helping, the Sacramento community.