Category Archives: CEQA

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Politics, water

Iconic Calif. cannery bankruptcy leaves hundreds laid off and $550M in farm losses

Leave a comment

By Susan Guerrero : sfgate – excerpt (audio)

California peach farmers are expected to take a multimillion-dollar financial hit and lose vast quantities of crops after Del Monte Foods plans to permanently close two state plants.

Del Monte-owned plants in Modesto and Hughson will permanently close and leave hundreds of workers unemployed by April 7, according to a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification that was filed earlier and obtained by SFGATE. Hundreds of employees will lose their jobs, including 571 general laborers at the Modesto plant alone.

But the California farmers who grow fruit for the factory are also taking a financial blow. Farmers in the Central Valley, as well as Yuba and Sutter counties, face a $550 million revenue loss from 20-year contracts to grow peaches with Del Monte, according to the Sacramento Bee. Many farmers haven’t made substantial profits from the orchards that Del Monte asked them to plant just a few years ago. Now, about 75,000 tons of peaches will likely go to waste, lcoathe outlet added.

“Two-thirds of the growers are going to be, basically, just left out to dry,” Sarb Johl, a farmer in Yuba County, told the Sacramento Bee… (more)

If you failed to notice the negative effects of re-zoning all of California yet, this may catch your attention. Food shortages may be coming as farmers leave their farms. If re-zoning farmland and raising taxes on farmers to get them to leave their farms for AI power production and housing concerns you, please make that an important conversation to have with your state and federal representatives and the candidates who are running to replace them. NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT !

Pending 2026 bills: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
Find yorr state representatives:
California State Senators: https://www.senate.ca.gov/senators
California State  Assemblymembers:
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Robert Rivas Announces First-Of-Its-Kind ‘Outcomes Review’ Legislative Oversight Tool to Enhance Impac t of Laws

Press Release

Set for launch in 2026, this new approach empowers lawmakers, staff and the public, underscores the Speaker’s ongoing commitment to listening to Californians, and refines solutions for greater impact

SACRAMENTO — On Thursday, Speaker Robert Rivas announced a first-of-its-kind legislative oversight tool that empowers Assembly members to assess, review and improve implementation of enacted laws that they’ve authored or championed — aiming for elevated community engagement, better outcomes, and lasting benefits for Californians.

Set to launch in January, this new approach underscores the Speaker’s ongoing commitment to strong accountability and transparency in government.

What Speaker Robert Rivas Says – “Passing laws is only the first step. The real test is ensuring they work. Gone are the days when laws can be signed and forgotten. The Outcomes Review tool empowers Assembly members to evaluate real-world outcomes, engage directly with residents, and refine our solutions for greater impact. It’s a forward-looking approach to oversight that every 21st century Legislature should adopt.”

‘Outcomes Reviews’ Continue Assembly Commitment to Oversight – Under Speaker Rivas’ leadership, the Assembly has consistently prioritized impact, oversight and accountability.

From the formation of new committees that make sure taxpayer dollars are implemented effectively and efficiently to special affordability-focused hearings on energy prices and the top cost drivers for working families, the Assembly has prioritized robust oversight of state spending and new legislation with real impact — especially in lowering the cost of living in California.

In 2025, Speaker Rivas also lowered the number of bills legislators can introduce from 50 to 35, so that every leader in the Assembly has the greatest possible bandwidth to focus on making sure California’s laws uplift prosperity.

Now in 2026, the Speaker is empowering members to emphasize collaborative review of enacted legislation by introducing an “Outcomes Review” oversight tool, which government policy author Jennifer Pahlka described as a “bold” and “intentional, structured process for evaluating whether the laws lawmakers pass actually do what they’re supposed to do” on her Eating Policy Substack.

With this work, Members will undergo three key steps, including:

  1. Announce laws to evaluate and review as part of an Outcomes Review, in coordination with policy committees, and identify partners for collaboration at the start of the legislative session
  2. Work with policy staff and stakeholders to host Outcomes Review-related committee hearings and community meetings starting in the spring, empowering Californians directly impacted by enacted laws to have a strong voice in this public process
  3. At the end of the legislative year, highlight Outcomes Review findings, actions and solutions that will improve implementation of laws

Speaker Rivas Invites Members to Utilize ‘Outcomes Review’ Oversight Tool – The Speaker’s office is working with Members and inviting lawmakers to participate in the new “Outcomes Review” legislative tool. In January, a first cohort of Assembly members will be announced. So far, the following lawmakers are already scheduled to begin Outcomes Review work at the start of 2026:

  • Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry will continue her work on health care access for California families by reviewing implementation of Assembly Bill 744, which was enacted into law in 2019 and delivers telehealth solutions that improve care for all residents
  • Assembly Bill 2011 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, also known as the Middle Class Housing Act. It was enacted in 2022 to make it easier to build affordable and mixed-income housing projects in cities and metro areas where shops or offices are already allowed. Assembly member Wicks will review the enacted law to make sure it is having a meaningful impact.
  • Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin enacted Assembly Bill 488 in 2021 to make sure charitable donations have their intended impact. She will look closely at how this law is being implemented and the experience of victims of the Los Angeles firestorms.
  • Assembly Bill 457 by Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria was enacted in 2025 with the goal of building more affordable farmworker housing within 15 miles of farm or grazing land in the Central Valley. The Assembly member will take a close look at outcomes and review whether the law is resulting in more homes for California’s farmworkers.

What Assembly Members are Saying About Outcomes Reviews…(more)

Rivas District Map: https://speaker.asmdc.org/district-map

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

From John Crabtree, who read the entire Upzoning Plan

Read The Fine Print
Upzoning & Ocean Beach
True Clarity on page 818

https://crabtreej.substack.com/p/readthefineprint?utm_medium=email

…I read it [The Mayor’s Upzoning Plan] Mayor Lurie. And now my readers are going to read about it too. With any luck they will share this with others as others have shared it with me. The jig, as they say Mayor Lurie, is definitely up.

There are manifold examples of horrible development and redevelopment concepts in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan, too many to detail in one essay. So, I will focus on the one that is most steeped in deception and betrayal — the Western Shoreline Area Plan amendments.

 

That image is just the first 9 lines; it goes on after that and there are more specifics elsewhere in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan. Honestly though, there is little reason to go any further than the page that I included above.

The Western Area Shoreline Plan policy objectives, as amended, would read — “ENSURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE ADVANCES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION OF EACH PARCEL.”

I have already heard pushback from Mayor Lurie’s office saying, “no, no, that does not mean ‘ensure development,’ that is not why that is in there.” Oh, really? Then why the hell is it in there? It fails every credibility test to say that this amending language will not actually change coastal protections. Opening the door to coastal zone development is unpopular, frighteningly so. I get why your wrecking-ball planning office would try to hide it on page 818.

Remember that Engardio kept telling us this was all, “Fake News!”

It is not “Fake News!” Moreover, now that it is no longer hidden, please do not insult me and, more importantly, do not insult my friends, my neighbors and my community by saying you want to make this change, but the change would have no impact. It is patently absurd to risk the political fallout from such a move if the underlying amendments lacked real-world impact, insultingly absurd.

Mayor Lurie, take out the changes to the Western Area Shoreline plan that begin on page 818 and all of the other amendment provisions that emanate from it.

While I am at it, here are some other line-in-the-sand issues for me and a lot of other people, in The Sunset and beyond:

  • Open The Great Highway, reinstate the compromise!
  • Protect the Coastal Zone and Western Shoreline from upzoning and development!
  • Infrastructure before density — utilities, sewer, transit, water, public safety & local schools.
  • Small business stability — preserve and encourage a diversity of retail spaces and other small businesses, including older and more affordable storefronts.
  • Stop with the blanket upzoning that look for all the world like someone took a highlighter to a map in the Western neighborhoods. Upzoning and redevelopment needs to look like it was done with a fine tip brush and not a paint roller.

Mayor Lurie, we can do better than this, we must do better than this… john

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Guest Opinion: To build housing, we need to fix RHNA

Image

By Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) : paloaltoonline – excerpt

A case for reforming California’s housing allocation process

As my colleagues and I enter the final weeks of the legislative session, housing is rightly at the center of our attention. But as high-profile bills move across the floor, I keep returning to an elephant in the room: our broken Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. It is the very mechanism meant to drive housing production, but it is too costly and confusing to do the job we ask of it.

RHNA is how the state tells cities how much and what kind of housing to plan for. In theory, it should be a pragmatic, data-driven way to match housing supply with demand. In practice it has become a logistical nightmare for many communities on the Peninsula. Smaller cities are being forced to overhaul complex land-use and zoning codes through consultant-driven processes that are expensive in both dollars and staff time.

Across my district, expenditures on consultants and related implementation work have run into the millions. Local governments here have spent roughly $25 million on the sixth RHNA cycle alone, and individual cities have diverted as much as 10–15% of constrained local budgets to compliance rather than construction. That’s money that could have gone to shovel-ready projects, infrastructure improvements, or the services residents rely on every day…. (more)

Continue reading Guest Opinion: To build housing, we need to fix RHNA →

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

San Francisco mayor’s ‘Family Zoning Plan’ met with strong opposition

Video 1 Comment

By Sergio Quintana : nbcbayarea – excerpt

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them.

What was supposed to be a rally for Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing in San Francisco turned into a shouting match on Thursday.

A well organized group of opponents hurled insults at nearly every speaker at Lurie’s event, much to the surprise and dismay of the mayor.

Lurie had scheduled an event on the steps of San Francisco City Hall to rally support for his “Family Zoning Plan.”

While about half the crowd came to support the mayor, the other half appeared bent on shouting him down over the proposal.

The mayor’s plan, if approved, would make multi-family homes like duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings in parts of the city that are currently zoned only for single family homes.

The plan also reforms the city’s permitting process with the goal of green lighting about 36,000 new homes by 2031.

Lurie’s proposal could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them… (more)

The Planning Commissioners vote 3 nays and 4 ayes so the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors to approve.

And the Democrats wonder why they lost the election? They better start  listening  to the voters and quit telling people how to live. All the upzonoing and car removal bills have not lowered  rents or added riders to the public transit system. The draconian laws are driving people out of the state. They are losing seats in congress.

All those claims of how the future is going to unravel have not panned out as predicted and there has been very little recognition of this or flexibility on dealing with the new reality.

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.

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?