Category Archives: Housing

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Van Ness Is ‘In Crisis.’ Revival Plans Hinge On Housing Towers and Chain Stores

By Adam Brinklow : thefrisc – excerpt

Empty on brand new condos on Van Ness, shot on July 11, 2-25

This main SF thoroughfare once had grand houses and auto palaces. Now there’s a great bus line, but empty storefronts. Can it again be a place to live and linger?

“ In its May letter, the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhood Coalition asked for drastic reductions of some maximum heights, especially along eight blocks that squeeze between Pacific Heights to the west and Russian Hill and Nob Hill to the east. On the five blocks between California Street and Pacific Avenue, they want to cap heights at 100 feet, down from 250 feet. (Every 10 feet is roughly one story.) On the three-block stretch between Pacific and Green Street, they want 120 feet maximum instead of 350.”… (more)
What is truly amazing abut this article, is that they admit the program they already applied is not working. Fast buses on the street are not conducive to stopping and shopping or “hanging out:” Tall buildings are not being filled with retail or residents. So what is their solution? MORE OF THE SAME THING THAT IS NOT WORKING NOW!
Do these people actually believe the snake oil they are tryin to sell the public? Are there any people who do not see the little guy behind the big mask on the screen? After all Alice did return from Wonderland back to her normal home, and Dorothy did return to Kansas after her dream ended. Not many people want to live on a fantasy AI gameboard 24/7.

Our leaders are willing to try anything other than going back to what used to work before they destroyed to improve it.
CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Sausage Making turns to Extortion over the Weekend, brought to you by the Wiener Newsom machine.

Breaking news!

Wiener’s plan to fold his bills into the budget was refused by the state parliamentarian. So… They went with option B.

Wiener pulled his bills  and is pushing them onto the state legislature while Newsom takes the strange position of threatening to withhold his signature from his own budget, if the Wiener anti-CEQA bills don’t pass if we believe the latest news.

 

 

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Democracy Falls Apart When No One is Looking

First you have the sausage making in the backroom. The word is out that multiple bills to kill California Environmental Quality Act (CEPQ) are being withdrawn from floor votes and sent to the sausage factory in Sacramento. So far we hear rumors that some of the bills in question include components of: SB 306, 607, 609, and possibly SB 681..
Then you have the threat to hold the budget captive.  The finish line is in sight for lawmakers who reached a deal this week with the governor over California’s next budget. But one crucial component remains unresolved  — and Gavin Newsom says he won’t sign the budget without it… (more)
 
Are you live Washington? No we are in Sacramento. You are watching Newsom and Wiener at work. 
 
“ But tying hundreds of billions in state spending to one bill has raised the eyebrows of some lawmakers and legislative observers. “This is a unique provision that I am not aware has been in a bill before,” veteran lobbyist and legislative process hawk Chris Micheli wrote in an email about what he called a “reverse contingency provision.”
“It is the first time I’ve ever seen the entire budget bill contingent on being enacted on two policy bills about housing,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-San Jose, during a Wednesday budget committee hearing.  “But that shows how serious we are about getting more housing built, and how dire the housing crisis is.”
Read the details in the Sacramento Bee 

Last-minute budget change brings California housing policy fight to a head

By Kate Wolffe and Nicole Nixon : sacbee – excerpt (audio)
 
Elements of California’s final budget deal are bringing to the forefront housing debates that have been simmering in the Legislature for years, forcing lawmakers to make big decisions before the new fiscal year begins July 1.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro tem Mike McGuire put out the main aspects of a three-party deal that made compromises on balancing a $321 billion budget with a $12 billion deficit.
 
However, the deal includes a few policy changes that are giving lawmakers pause. Deep in the bill outlining the budget agreement is this provision: “Notwithstanding any other law, if the Governor does not sign one of Assembly Bill 131 or Senate Bill 131 on June 30, 2025, the provisions of the Budget Act of 2025 …(read more here) 
CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

We need help stopping Senate Bill 79

If you need a visual to understand the impacts of Wiener’s SB 79
The above links to a visual explanation that illustrates the significance of the changes SB 79 could make in your neighborhood.

It took Wiener three rounds of voting to get SB 79 passed in the Senate. It’s amended and scheduled for hearings in the Assembly Housing, Local Government, and Natural Resources committees.
The Housing Committee hearing is in the first week of July;
letters are due June 25th.

If you are concerned about this, consider taking some actions:

See contact info below.  You may call or  leave a message on the phone asking the Assembly members to vote NO on S B 79.
A  spreadsheet of Assemblymembers with contact info

Or send a letter to the Assembly members listed below:

Assembly Members on the Committees 

Text version of a sample letter and speaking points.

I strongly oppose SB 79 as an assault on local control that disregards state-certified housing elements. At first glance, the amendments made by Senator Wiener might appear reasonable, but actually offer nothing of substance.

• The new “affordability” component merely reflects incentives already available.

• The new option for localities to write alternative plans are of no benefit. By requiring that the same number of units and floor area ratio be maintained, this provision is a false alternative, as it merely creates a complex balancing act.

The thrust of SB 79 remains ministerially approved market-rate density without regard to local conditions. Our housing elements have already indicated which sites best serve our communities as infill.

SB 79 is deeply flawed in both concept and consequence. It would inflict disproportionate harm on the most affordable neighborhoods in our cities.

I OPPOSE SB 79 for these reasons:

  • It undermines affordable housing goals
  • 81% of all development under new laws is already market rate
  • It encourages gentrification
  • It undermines the housing element process
  • It does not exempt fire hazard zones
  • Affordable housing near transit is the avowed goal of state policy, but it is not the goal of this bill.

Sincerely,

Individuals: Your name and address
Organizations: Your name, title, and signature; add logo at top

If you want to learn how to post to the portal, go here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/ca-legislative-process/ca-bills/posting-letters

CEQA, Housing, Politics

MIKE MCGUIRE IN THE HOT SEAT

By Dustin Gardiner and Blake Jones : politico – excerpt

HOUSES DIVIDED

When it comes to housing legislation, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire has increasingly become the outlier of the proverbial three-legged stool of state government in Sacramento.

His counterparts — Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Gov. Gavin Newsom — have made it abundantly clear this year that they want to go big on measures to accelerate housing construction, including legislation that would slash local restrictions and environmental reviews for new development.

But McGuire has been ambiguous about where he stands on the most high-profile housing legislation this session, including a landmark package of bills to overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act (commonly known as CEQA)…

The governor has also upped the pressure on McGuire in recent days. Last week, Newsom announced that he would seek to advance both major CEQA-reform bills through the state budget — a tactic that would circumvent obstacles like hostile Senate committee chairs. It was a rare foray into the legislative process from Newsom, who typically doesn’t wade into housing fights until legislation is on his desk.

McGuire’s allies in the Senate, including Housing Chair Aisha Wahab, are pushing back against the onslaught facing the pro tem. She has derided the CEQA effort as a developer giveaway that won’t make housing more affordable or stabilize rent increases for tenants…(more)

Comments on the above article:

CALIFORNIA DIVIDED

Politico does not appear to be aware that the disagreements in Sacramento are coming from a growing public outcry against state overreach, as the Sacramento politicians attack CEQA and take what little is left of the voters’ constitutional rights. It started with declaring a housing emergency to, remove local control of land use decisions and has blossomed into something much larger and more sinister.

California Resdients are waking up to a bad dream as they learn what they have lost and what Wiener and Co. plan to take next. It was easy to slip land use laws that don’t take effect for years through the state system, but when you start enforcing new parking and traffic regulations, removing access to roads and public areas, and threatening to install congestion pricing the public takes notice and objects vehemently.  When they learn about the gas taxes and plans to raise utility rates, and kill solar contracts, they become even less submissive and start to take radical actions.

Wiener is not the only problem. 2025 has been an uneasy year for a number of reasons. The focus on Washington is wearing thin, and as California residents find themselves on the hot seat for a number of supposed sins that they did not commit or condone, they are angry and seeking answers. Governor Newsom’s reaction is to blame anyone else, but, that is not working.

The governor’s erratic response to social issues is not winning any friends either, and his power plays are becoming overly aggressive and distasteful to many in his party, a fact the national press has not picked up on or ignored. The split they think they see inside the walls of Sacramento is much wider among the disenfranchised California voters.

THE CALIFORNIA LAND GRAB 

There are so many bills being written every year by outside interests that are pushed onto our state representatives that no one, including those state representatives, have  time to read them all. A few really bad bills have caught our attention. Two being heavily  opposed right now are SB 79 and SB 607, both state land grab bills that remove due process and CEQA protections. Both are bought and paid for by the corporate elite pushing the YIMBY Abundance doctrine.

Over a hundred cities have joined the effort to oppose SB 79, and the list is growing as more citizens learn about the bill. Opposition leaders are taking out all the stops to kill this bill. A grassroots effort generated thousands of emails throughout the state opposing SB 79. Some state reps have agreed to meet with voters to discuss the merits of SB79 and others have signaled they will not support it. SB 607 is becoming even less popular.

SAN FRANCISCO IS ONCE AGAIN A PIVOT POINT.

Many San Francisco residents oppose Wiener’s plan to upzone the city when they learn about it. One of Wiener’s most loyal supporters, Supervisor Joel Engardio is under threat of a recall. If Joel is taken out, more public voices will rise against Wiener’s bills and his supporters. This will not help Wiener’s case and may start the dominos falling on his Sb 79 transit argument he has run with as an excuse to upzone the state, since he dropped the original excuse that he was protecting the environment by removing cars. We don’t hear much of that lately. Now it is the tired old supply and demand argument that is gentrifying the “new” neighborhoods and resulting in higher not lower rents.

The problem goes way beyond  a split in the capital. The national press needs to do a better job at assessing the California voters’ outrage if they want to understand if they want to understand what is going on in California.

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Will The City’s plans to add more homes make housing affordable?

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio)

San Francisco city leaders are trying to add a lot of new homes to The City in the coming years.

If approved, a proposal to upzone large swaths of The City’s north and west would add enough room for the construction of roughly 36,000 new dwellings.

For upzoning supporters, the hope is that all those added homes will help to bend the housing cost curve in San Francisco, and, eventually, reduce The City’s affordability crisis.

But progressive housing advocates, who have been organizing in opposition to the effort, are pushing back with two questions: What kind of housing will get built? And who will those homes be for?…

Those who look more favorably on market-rate developments are making the case that when it comes to new housing, a rising development tide lifts all renters.

“We have both data and anecdotal evidence that shows when we have an increase in housing supply, that helps open up more opportunities,” across the income spectrum, said Jane Natoli, San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action… (more)

We have heard all the arguments on both sides, but, no one has seen any of the data or evidence that Jane Natoli claims is out there. And believe me, people have looked for it. There is some evidence that distressing commercial zones by inflicting traffic and parking limitations and allowing anti-social behavior to invade a neighborhood will take a toll on the local tax base. It is hard to miss the damage done to the Market and Van Ness neighborhoods. Those empty office and commercial buildings do not give any credence to the supply and demand in housing supply argument. Please Ms. Natoli, show us your data. Where has added housing stock of the stack and pack variety lowered rents? We see a lot of empty units but not a huge drop in rents. We also see a huge demand for reduced tax assessments and other unintended consequences.

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

This rich beachfront city is trying to launch an anti-housing insurgency in California

Bay Sara Libby : sfchronicle – excerpt (audio)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom stays famously tight-lipped about bills making their way through the state Legislature. So it was a surprise this week when he not only endorsed two bills to slash local restrictions that can hold up housing construction — he said he would leapfrog lawmakers altogether and implement them through the budget.

Newsom was not subtle about where he believes the fault for the housing crisis lies: “It is not the state of California that remains the biggest impediment. The obstacle remains at the local level.”

His comments incensed the California League of Cities, which argued, “California cities are not the obstacle.”

But just hours later, a city on the California coast set out to prove Newsom right.

Cheered on by constituents, the City Council of Encinitas, just north of San Diego, voted on Wednesday to support a prospective ballot measure that would amend California’s Constitution by handing control over housing back to localities…

On Wednesday, [Mayor Bruce] Ehlers, [Encinitas City Council Member Luke Shaffer] Shaffer and their colleagues backed the resolution to support a potential statewide ballot measure that would amend California’s Constitution and hand control over housing back to localities…(more)

RELATED:

Does building homes lead to lower housing costs? New research is roiling the debate

The question no one has answered yet, is why, if the state has been writing density bills and developers have been building dense housing for decades, why have the housing prices gone up instead of down? Where are the studies that prove building dense housing has lowered housing prices anywhere?

100’s of California cities are fighting the state’s ferocious appetite for power that has been carving out a larger role for itself while handing the local communities and their citizens the bills for increased infrastructure bills that used to go to developers.

The state claims the cities can raise the funds by raising taxes to pay for growth they demand and nobody wants. That is not a winning argument yet, the YIMBY keep peddling it.

It gets better. Newsom and Wienerites are now tipping their toes in the Maga sea of inequities by cutting off social services and tearing the safety nets they once built. How is this going to play among what is left of the Democratic Party they want to lead in Washington?

 

 

 

 

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Wiener SB 677 is dead for now. Let’s keep it buried.

via email

On April 22, 2025, SB 677 did not advance in the Senate Housing Committee, failing by a narrow 4-3 vote. Despite this setback, Senator Wiener claims he will continue working on the bill.

This is one of the two signature bills he hoped to pass this legislative cycle with SB 79 as the other.  This is not a mortal wound, but  certainly a setback to his typically unchallenged power.  Let’s keep working on SB 79 – killing that bill will cripple him further especially with his sights turning to run for another State office.

Key Provisions of SB 677

Enhancements to SB 9 (Small-Scale Housing)

  • Mandatory Ministerial Approval: Requires local governments to approve housing developments with up to two units on lots zoned for single-family or up to four units, removing discretionary review processes. ​LegiScan+2FindHOALaw+2BillTrack50+2

  • Elimination of Owner-Occupancy Requirements: Removes the mandate for applicants to reside in one of the units, facilitating broader participation in housing development. ​LegiScan

  • Override of HOA and CC&R Restrictions: Invalidates homeowners association rules and covenants that prohibit or unreasonably restrict such developments. ​Senator Scott Wiener+2FindHOALaw+2LegiScan+2

  • Increased Minimum Unit Size: Raises the minimum allowable unit size from 800 to 1,750 net habitable square feet, promoting more livable housing options. ​Terner Center+5LegiScan+5Digital Democracy | CalMatters+5

  • Simplified Urban Lot Splits: Removes previous constraints, such as the 40% minimum parcel size and limitations on prior subdivisions, to ease the process of lot splitting. ​BillTrack50+1California YIMBY+1

  • Impact Fee Exemptions: Prohibits local agencies from imposing impact fees on housing units smaller than 1,750 square feet and mandates proportional fees for larger units. ​LegiScan+1Digital Democracy | CalMatters+1

Modifications to SB 423 (Streamlined Multifamily Housing)

  • Reduced Affordable Housing Requirement: Lowers the inclusionary housing requirement from 50% to 20% for jurisdictions that have met their market-rate housing goals but not their affordable housing targets. ​Terner Center+1Senator Scott Wiener+1

  • More Frequent RHNA Assessments: Changes the evaluation frequency of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) compliance from every four years to every two years, enabling quicker identification of housing shortfalls.​BillTrack50+4Senator Scott Wiener+4LegiScan+4

  • Shifted Burden of Proof: Places the responsibility on local governments to provide evidence when denying developments based on environmental criteria, aiming to prevent misuse of environmental regulations to block housing projects. ​LegiScan+2Senator Scott Wiener+2Digital Democracy | CalMatters+2

Additional Provisions:

  • Coastal Zone Considerations: Clarifies that while developments in coastal zones must still obtain coastal development permits, local agencies are not required to hold public hearings for these applications, streamlining the approval process. ​Digital Democracy | CalMatters+1LegiScan+1

  • State Oversight of Local Ordinances: Mandates that local governments submit any new ordinances related to SB 9 to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days, allowing the department to review and ensure compliance with state housing laws. ​Terner Center 
    Is this even Constitutional or should it be?

     

CEQA, Housing, Politics, Transportation

Abundance meets resistance: Are Democrats finally ready to go all in on building housing?

By JEANNE KUANG : calmatters – excerpt

Amid a post-2024 wave of Democratic interest in the burgeoning pro-development “abundance” movement, this seemed to be an easy year for California’s yes-in-my-backyard housing development activists.
Democratic leaders in the state Legislature declared their intention to tackle affordability this year. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other politicians have since embraced the “abundance” platform, which argues that Democrats must do more to quickly deliver housing, transportation and other infrastructure projects to their constituents.
Lawmakers have introduced ambitious bills that would, for housing developments in existing neighborhoods, blow a hole through the longstanding thicket of environmental reviews and regulations that often slow down projects and add costs. One of those passed its first committee on Monday.
Still, YIMBY-ism hit a stumbling block Tuesday in the form of the Senate housing committee. The committee, led by Sen. Aisha Wahab, nearly killed a closely watched bill to require cities to allow taller, denser apartments and condo construction near public transit stations.
Wahab said she was acting on a chorus of familiar objections from progressives and others who have long delayed housing construction in California: The legislation didn’t guarantee that projects would be built with union labor. It didn’t require that the new units be affordable for low-income residents. It could infringe on local governments’ ability to block or green-light projects. It opened up the possibility of bypassing certain environmental reviews.
In the end, the committee voted 6-2 against Wahab’s objections to narrowly advance Senate Bill 79, by Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and prominent advocate for housing production. Some Democrats were absent or didn’t vote. The committee also killed a different Wiener bill that would have further loosened restrictions on property owners who want to split single-family homes into duplexes. It was a stark reversal from prior years in the Legislature, when Wiener chaired the housing committee and pushed through several bills to spur housing production…
A progressive who is focused on preserving explicitly affordable units for low-income tenants, Wahab, a Hayward Democrat, was pushing for legislation to help cities that enact rent caps compete with other municipalities for state housing and planning grants. Some studies have found rent control in San Francisco has reduced rental supply, while other economists say capping rents is still needed to help those who are housing insecure.
“The state has prioritized development, development, development,” Wahab said. “The types of development that are going up with zero parking and all these giveaways to developers have also not translated to housing that has dignity that people want to stay in and raise their families in.”
Her bill (SB 262) drew skepticism from some colleagues on the committee, who noted the state funding programs are for development and production, but nevertheless voted to advance it… (more)
 

SB 262: Housing element: prohousing designations: prohousing local policies. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb262

Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan?

By Emily Hoeven : sfchronicle – excerpt (via email)

Following their devastating losses in the 2024 election, many Democrats have eagerly aligned themselves with the burgeoning “abundance” movement, which contends that blue states like California need to focus less on sluggish bureaucratic processes and more on tangible outcomes to win back voters.

But it’s one thing to embrace a slogan and another thing entirely to take action. Here in California, we’re about to see which side of that divide our leaders stand on.

Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee
Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Appropriations Committee

 

Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is pushing one of the biggest bills in recent memory, AB609, to exempt almost all infill housing development from California Environmental Quality Act review. And it’s just one of 20 bills in an ambitious, bipartisan package that aims to streamline and simplify the state’s housing approval process and make it easier to build the estimated 2.5 million homes California needs.

Actually passing these bills, however, will require that Democrats risk alienating some of their most influential constituencies, including labor unions and environmental justice groups — some of which have already come out swinging against Wicks’ bill and others.

It’s “a moment of truth for the Legislature,” Michael Lane, state policy director for the urbanist organization SPUR, told me.

Will lawmakers move forward with bold bills, or will they revert to the failed policies of the past?

Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee
Aisha Wahab, Chair of the California State Housing Committee

One key lawmaker who will play a decisive role in answering that question is state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, whom Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, recently appointed as leader of the Senate Housing Committee.

Committee leaders have significant sway in the Legislature. Not only can their stance on a bill meaningfully influence its chance of passage, but they also can decide whether to give a bill a hearing or kill it in cold blood.

Wahab isn’t the only committee leader or legislative power broker who will determine the fate of California’s “abundance” agenda, but she may be one of the biggest wild cards. In her first hearing as housing committee chair last month, she proclaimed that it’s time for California to “move away from development, development, development” and also stated “transit-oriented development doesn’t necessarily work.”

Continue reading Meet the politician who could make or break California’s housing efforts. What’s her plan? →