I can tell you that your two articles that intended to refute the semiconductor fabrication stuff fail to do so. Both sites were existing facilities and would therefore fall under the granfathered in point in the site.

▲

burkaman 12 hours ago | parent [-]

That's true they are not new buildings. Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl...

The Infinera one is described as a "new fab" though (https://www.nist.gov/chips/infinera-california-san-jose) and the Bosch one is adding a new type of fabrication to an existing site. If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business. I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.

	▲	creddit 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl... This might be a refutation but it's not super clear. It's definitely not a commercial semiconductor fab but it might do all of or some subset of what a commercial fab does at R&D scale. Hard to know for sure how this jives with the claim in the main website. > If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business. Being able to retool under original zoning/permitting is specifically lenient? That's extremely basic. If you're a co-Californian with me, though, it does help to understand that many people think that anyone doing anything without a permit is "lenient". > I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though. Well, that makes it really easy to be "right". I should try this more.