Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to quickly sign the bill.

The change comes after allegations became public last week that Chavez had sexually abused girls and women during his days building a major farmworker labor rights movement in the 1960s in California’s agricultural heartland. Among those who accused him was Dolores Huerta, who co-led the movement that eventually became the United Farm Workers.

The state’s effort to rename the holiday is part of a wave of other moves to alter memorials honoring the man who, in the 1960s and 1970s, helped secure better wages and working conditions for farmworkers and had been admired by many Democratic leaders. The swift and sweeping effort to erase Chavez’s name from public life was previously unthinkable, as his status had only grown more iconic since his death in 1993.

Republican Sen. Suzette Valladares said Thursday that her family built a life in California by working the fields and that the movement brought together workers from different backgrounds.

“This is not about one person. This is not about one narrative,” she said. “It’s about honoring generations of sacrifice, of resilience and hope.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limon said honoring farmworkers is especially important in the face of a series of federal raids across the state last year. A worker in her district died after being chased by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent last summer, Limon said.

“His death is a reminder of how much farmworkers risk every day to put food on our table,” she said before the vote. “Our farmworkers remind us that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.”

California was the first state to designate Chavez’s birthday, March 31, as a holiday to honor the civil rights leader nearly 30 years ago. The Legislature then, in 2000, passed a bill to make it an official paid day off for state employees and require that students learn about his legacy and his role in the labor movement in California. The legislation passed Thursday didn’t address the curriculum requirement. State leaders said they’re in conversation with school officials to adjust lesson plans.

The California bill also passed in the Assembly with bipartisan support on Monday.

“We cannot ignore wrongdoing and we should not continue to celebrate a single person when the movement itself is so much bigger,” Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry said before the vote Monday.

Since the allegations came to light, California State University, Fresno, has covered up Chavez’s statue on campus, while cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento have taken steps to erase his name from public landmarks. Some advocated for Huerta’s name to replace Chavez’s, and several states already said they won’t observe the day.

As his birthday approaches, cities across the country have remade or canceled annual celebrations to honor him. In Tucson last weekend, the annual César Chavez and Dolores Huerta March and Rally were scaled back and rebranded. There was no march or car show, and it was billed instead as the Comunidad y Labor Unity Fair to focus more broadly on labor rights without mentioning Chavez.

In Grand Junction, Colorado, the organizers of the annual event in Mesa County had already printed flyers and T-shirts, all bearing Chavez’s name. There has been a flurry of social media posts in recent days to let people know the event will go on Saturday as the Sí, Se Puede Celebration instead.

In El Paso, Texas, March 31 will be celebrated as the Community and Labor Heritage Day.

The post California lawmakers pass bill to rename César Chavez Day following sexual abuse allegations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Democratic governor, a fierce critic of President-elect Donald Trump, is positioning California to once again be the center of a resistance effort against the conservative agenda. He is asking his Democratic allies in the Legislature, who hold supermajorities in both chambers, to approve additional funding to the attorney general’s office to prepare for a robust legal fight against anticipated federal challenges.

Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel on Monday introduced legislation to set aside $25 million for legal fees to respond to potential attacks by the Trump administration on state policies regarding civil rights, climate change, immigration and abortion access.

“While we always hope to collaborate with our federal partners, California will be ready to vigorously defend our interests and values from any unlawful action by the incoming Trump Administration,” Gabriel said in a statement.

California sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times to various levels of success.

“We’re not going to be caught flat-footed,” Newsom said at a recent news conference.

Trump often depicts California as representing all he sees wrong in America. Democrats, which hold every statewide office in California and have commanding margins in the Legislature and congressional delegation, outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 statewide.

Trump called the Democratic governor “Newscum” during a campaign stop in Southern California and has relentlessly lambasted the Democratic stronghold over its large number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, homeless population and thicket of regulations.

Trump also waded into a water rights battle over the endangered delta smelt, a tiny fish that has pitted environmentalists against farmers and threatened to withhold federal aid to a state increasingly under threat from wildfires. He also vowed to follow through with his campaign promise of carrying out the mass deportation of immigrants without legal status and prosecuting his political enemies.

Before the special session began, state lawmakers swore in more than two dozen new members and elect leaders for the 2025 legislative session. Lawmakers voted to convene the special session largely along party lines.

“This special session is about sticking up for Californians and for California values,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco. “It is about ensuring that the president of the United States and his administration actually follow the law.”

Hundreds of people also demonstrated around the Capitol on Monday to urge the Legislature to try to stop Trump’s mass deportation plans. They carried banners that said “Not one cent for mass deportation” and “MAGA out of California.”

“With the results of the presidential election, we need our state elected officials to use every tool and every resource they have available to them to protect our immigrant Californians,” protester Deborah Lee said.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office will protect the state’s immigration population, while Newsom last week unveiled a proposal to revive a rebate program for electric vehicle purchases if the incoming Trump administration eliminates a federal tax credit for people who buy electric cars. Newsom is also considering creating a backup disaster relief fund for the wildfire-prone state after Trump’s threats.

Bonta announced legislation Monday aimed at bolstering reproductive rights in the state, including by allowing the attorney general to seek monetary penalties against local governments that infringe on those rights. The proposals are part of the state’s efforts to safeguard against threats to abortion access after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Republican lawmakers blasted Newsom and his Democratic allies over the special session. State Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Republican representing Murrieta in Southern California, said the special session proposal would make California have a more adversarial relationship with the federal government.

“What we’re doing today is sending that exact message — that we are going to fight tooth and nail for everything. And you know what? That means they’re going to fight us tooth and nail for everything,” Seyarto said of the incoming Trump administration if the legislation gets approved.

Legislators also are expected to spend the year discussing ways to protect dozens of laws expected to be targeted by the Trump administration, including one that has made the state a sanctuary for people seeking abortions who live in states where such practices have been severely limited.

California, the nation’s most populous state, was the first to mandate that by 2035 all new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs sold in California be electric, hydrogen-powered or plug-in hybrids. The state also extends state-funded health care to all low-income residents regardless of their immigration status.

Newsom hasn’t provided details about what actions the lawmakers will consider but said he wanted funding in place before Trump’s inauguration day, Jan. 20. The state spent roughly $42 million in litigation costs during the first Trump administration, officials said.

California is projected to face a $2 billion budget deficit next year, with bigger shortfalls ahead. Gabriel, who sued the first Trump administration in 2017 when it tried to end a program to shield young immigrants from being deported, said lining up the funding now is “a wise investment.”

California successfully clawed back $57 million between 2017 and 2018 after prevailing in a lawsuit to block the Trump administration from putting immigration enforcement conditions on certain federal law enforcement grants. Another legal victory over the citizenship question in the 2020 census forced the federal government to return $850,000 to the state, according to the attorney general’s office.

During Trump’s first presidency, Democratic attorneys general banded together to file lawsuits over immigration, Trump’s travel ban for residents of Muslim countries, the environment, immigration and other topics. But Trump has one possible advantage this time around: He was aggressive in nominating conservative jurists to federal courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court.

The post California lawmakers begin special session to protect state laws from second Trump presidency appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ADUs are one of the few bright spots for the state’s housing market at a time of rising construction costs, high interest rates, and continued local resistance to greater housing density. These unassuming units, often basement apartments, backyard cottages, and converted garages, are far more affordable to build than other housing options and have become a politically palatable infill alternative to apartment complexes.

With median construction costs of about $150,000 in California, ADUs cost less than a third of traditional, federally subsidized affordable housing. As a result, the median ADU in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast is affordable (costs less than 30% of income) for a low income family, 31% of ADUs in Los Angeles County are affordable, and large numbers of ADUs are affordable in other regions, as well.

Over the past eight years, ADU construction has skyrocketed. California went from about 1,000 ADU permits in 2016 to 5,000 in 2017 to 25,000 in 2022.

This boom did not come easily. Many local governments have resisted ADUs, fearing they would overcrowd single-family neighborhoods. While some of these concerns are legitimate, the state’s housing crisis has persuaded state lawmakers that cities must allow more housing construction, even in built-out areas — and ADUs are one way to achieve that.

California lawmakers have worked for decades to limit local governments’ authority to block construction of these units. The effort began in 1982 when the legislature prohibited cities from categorically barring ADUs. Local governments responded by placing what a report from the Furman Center at New York University called “cumbersome and unpredictable discretionary  review requirements on applications for ADUs.”

Local resistance prompted the state in 2002 to mandate ministerial (rather than discretionary) local approval of ADU permits. Yet ADU production remained low.

Reforms in 2016 finally made inroads. That year, the legislature adopted two bills, AB 2299 and SB 1069. These required cities to allow ADUs on single-family lots. They also prohibited them from requiring design features such as direct pathways to the street and setbacks for garages converted into ADUs. These laws also eliminated parking requirements for ADUs near transit stops and for ADUs attached to existing houses; prohibited cities from requiring new water, sewer or utility connections for ADUs, or from charging utility fees for ADUs; and required ministerial permitting of ADUs to occur within 120 days.

More state laws followed, as legislators and advocates identified and removed other barriers to ADU construction.

Suddenly, ADU production surged across the state. According to the California Department of  Housing and Community Development, ADUs will meet 3% of the state’s housing needs for the period from 2021-2028.

Yet this growth has been uneven. In a recent study, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government analyzed differences in ADU production in Long Beach, San Diego, Anaheim, Pomona, Ontario, and Corona in light of the state’s assessment of these cities’ housing needs. In  Long Beach, the state’s per capita ADU leader, these units have met 5% of housing needs. By  contrast, ADUs make up only 2.6% in Anaheim. Within the Inland Empire, only 1% of housing needs are met in Ontario, 1.1% in Corona, and 2.2% in Pomona.

The report found that variations in ADU production can result from several factors, including the local housing market. For example, Ontario, like other cities in the Inland Empire, is still developing outward into greenfield sites, potentially reducing the demand for ADUs due to the availability of new single-family homes.

Familiarity with ADUs also matters. Planners in Long Beach, a leading producer of ADUs, describe these units as part of the fabric of their city, and say the knowledge they have gained processing ADU applications helps them approve permits faster than in some other cities. By contrast, other cities have less experience with this form of housing.

Local policies can affect ADU production, as well. Although the state has limited local control over ADUs, standards can still vary on several important dimensions. This is where local governments can most make a difference.

To help meet housing production goals, cities should assess where their regulations may be holding back ADU production and consider loosening standards in those areas. In particular, local lawmakers should look closely at three factors: parking requirements, structural setback requirements, and fees.

Parking requirements can add significant costs to new development, making them infeasible for homeowners without access to large capital flows. Structural setbacks can make larger ADUs geometrically infeasible, limiting the variety of options available to would-be buyers and renters. Finally, fees place high up-front costs on ADU developers, who often are individual homeowners,  further dissuading them from realizing their property’s potential.

Giving homeowners a little more wiggle room in how they build their ADUs could make the difference between catching up to statewide ADU production levels and missing out on a powerful tool to meet housing needs.

The post ADUs can help the Inland Empire meet housing needs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.