The Lodi District Chamber of Commerce's Lobby Force is already active in 2024 fighting against bills labeled as 'Job Killers' by Cal Chamber. This time we are joining a coalition with 60+ other organizations across the state to fight the AB1000 Warehouse Ban. 

Opposition to AB 1000: Implications for Jobs, Housing, and Economic Competitiveness

The Lodi District Chamber, along with various organizations, strongly opposes AB 1000 (Reyes), even after recent amendments. This opposition is grounded in concerns that the bill inadequately addresses issues raised in previous committee hearings. The primary arguments against AB 1000 include its perceived threat to jobs, hindrance of housing development, impact on the goods movement system, promotion of frivolous litigation, and exacerbation of supply chain issues. We will be monitoring this bill closely, and asking you, our members, to help us take action to stop it if that time comes. 

Why We Oppose AB1000:

Prescriptive Nature:

• The bill is criticized for its one-size-fits-all approach, stripping local governments of their autonomy in land use decisions.
• Amendments failed to provide flexibility to address the unique needs of local governments.
• The requirement of a 1,000-foot setback from "sensitive receptors" is maintained, potentially leading to a de facto ban on warehouses.
   

Job Loss Concerns:

• AB 1000 is accused of jeopardizing over 1.6 million trade-related jobs in Southern California associated with the state's ports.
• Competition from other ports and the bill's restrictions on logistics facilities are seen as threats to California's economic competitiveness.
   

Impact on Housing Construction:

• The bill is argued to hinder mixed-use developments, particularly those combining housing with commercial and logistics uses.
• Examples like the District at Jurupa Valley project, which integrates housing with commercial facilities, might become infeasible under AB 1000.
   

Ineffectiveness of Setback Measures:

• The setback requirement of 1,000 feet is criticized as arbitrary and outdated, ignoring existing regulations and advancements in emissions reduction technologies.
• Mitigation measures proposed in the bill are deemed infeasible or prohibitively expensive, rendering the alternative 500-foot buffer illusory.

Failure to Consider Existing Regulations:

• AB 1000 is accused of overlooking existing laws and regulations addressing emissions, including those by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
• The bill's reliance on a 1,000-foot buffer is deemed unnecessary and potentially damaging to economic development.

Disregard for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

• The bill is criticized for introducing arbitrary buffers instead of relying on the comprehensive analysis mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• Existing laws and regulations, including CEQA, are deemed sufficient to address environmental concerns associated with logistics facilities.

Creation of a New Private Right of Action:

• AB 1000's introduction of a new private right of action is viewed as a potential source of frivolous lawsuits.
• Concerns are raised about unintended consequences, increased litigation, and potential delays in project approvals.

Impact on Goods Movement and Supply Chain:

• AB 1000 is predicted to exacerbate supply chain issues, increasing the costs of moving goods and, consequently, the cost of living for Californians.
• The bill's potential to drive up development costs and hinder the goods movement system is considered detrimental to the state's economic health.