Category Archives: CEQA

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.

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?

 

 

 

 

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 ApprovalRequires 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 RequirementsRemoves the mandate for applicants to reside in one of the units, facilitating broader participation in housing development. ​LegiScan

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

  • Increased Minimum Unit SizeRaises 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 SplitsRemoves 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 ExemptionsProhibits 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 RequirementLowers 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 AssessmentsChanges 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 ProofPlaces 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 ConsiderationsClarifies 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 OrdinancesMandates 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?

     

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

Latest CEQA reform effort a ‘major needle-mover,’ some housing advocates say

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio)

Which way are they going now?

Some San Francisco housing advocates are cheering the latest push to reform California’s environmental review standards.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, has put forward a bill — SB 607 — that would make a number of highly technical changes aimed at narrowing the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act, a decades-old environmental law that critics say has been harnessed to block all manner of projects throughout the state…

Wiener’s bill targets the rollback of CEQA’s reviews only to cover “environmentally friendly and environmentally neutral projects,” according to a press release from his office…

“It rips the heart out of CEQA,” said Richard Drury, an Oakland-based environmental lawyer who has litigated CEQA cases for decades.

The law — first passed in 1970 — requires studies to determine the potential environmental impact from projects, including how they could affect air quality, waterways and noise pollution…

“I’m not one of these people who wants to get rid of CEQA,” said Wiener in an interview with The Examiner. “But I want it to be very focused on actually protecting the environment without preventing California from building all of the things that we need to succeed.”… (more)

HOW CAN WE TRUST EITHER PARTY WHEN THEY ARE GOING IN THE SAME CIRCULAR DIRECTION? IS UT A SEE SAW OR MUSICAL CHAIRS?

 

Fwd: San Francisco looks to boost housing after another year of slow growth

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt

San Francisco’s housing growth remained sluggish in 2024, with the number of newly completed homes likely the lowest of any year in at least the past 10 years, according to preliminary figures from city housing officials.
Those numbers seem to continue a yearslong trend of declining housing construction that has persisted despite a furious effort to reform San Francisco’s housing rules and make The City — infamous for its marathon permitting processes that can leave developments in limbo for years — a more hospitable place to build homes.
In the face of continued anemic housing growth, city housing officials, developers and advocates say that they will continue to push for further measures to support new construction
As for when those efforts will spur the long-hoped for development boom, they acknowledged, it remains impossible to say.
“I think I’m going to be cautiously pessimistic” of what 2025 might bring, said Corey Smith, executive director of the San Francisco-based Housing Action Coalition. It’s one of many pro-development groups that have been making the case that The City must dramatically ramp up its home building efforts if it ever hopes to turn the corner on its affordability crisis.
That measured pessimism is a stark turnaround from Smith’s outlook at the start of 2024, when he said he had hoped new streamlining laws would be enough to help San Francisco’s flagging housing sector overcome the economic disruptions unleashed by the pandemic, including spiraling construction costs and stubbornly high interest rates…

“It costs more to build the building than the building is then worth when it’s completed,” Babsin said.(more)

This is old news for the most part. Did not realize the value of the finished building is not worth the cost to build it No wonder insurance companies are fleeing. There is no reason to build when businesses are closing and thousands of recently constructed units sit empty. Add the high cost of capital, labor and materials and you have no reason to invest in San Francisco development projects at the moment. No reason for Smith or anyone else to be too hopeful that things will turn around any time soon. Now if people would just quit pretending and lying we could put the constant pressure to produce more housing that no one wants to live in.

Sloat Street Quickbuild gives neighbors another reason to Recall Engardio

Who dreamed up this Sloat project and when was it first announced to the neighbors? The lack of transparency is one of the reasons Engardio is being recalled.

This project was sprung on us at the very last minute and passed by the SFMTA Board at a meeting under questionable  procedures. Director Heminger who voted to oppose the approval, questioned the wisdom of rushing this through.

Isn’t Sloat the preferred route for the cars to take to get to the beach and zoo now the Great Highway is going to be off-limits? Or is the plan to limit public access to Ocean Beach to bikers and walkers? No more families loading up the beach and picnic supplies for a beach day?

LA rezoning could displace tenants from rent-controlled units

By  TRD Staff : therealdeal – excerpt

New building incentives would put rent-stabilized buildings at risk of demolition…

ACT-LA coalition’s Laura Raymond; mayor Karen Bass

A Los Angeles plan to rezone multifamily housing could put tenants in rent-controlled apartments on the curb.

A Citywide Housing Incentive Program ordinance to be heard by the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday would supercharge building incentives for developers while displacing tenants in older units, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The proposed legislation would give builders a break on height and parking if they include a certain percentage of affordable units and the property is near transit, a major street and jobs and schools.

Projects that are 100 percent affordable would be eligible for incentives across a wider part of the city.

The incentives would apply in single-family zones only if a property is owned by a public agency or a faith-based organization, which accounts for 1 percent of the city’s single-family lots, according to the Times.

Instead, most of the parcels that fall under the proposed development incentives are in residential neighborhoods zoned for apartments(more)

RELATED:

Audit finds flaws in state’s housing allocation goals
SANDAG Board of Diretors Meeting (March 22, 2024)

Push to build more homes on California coast stifled after lawmakers derail housing bills

By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt

Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…

Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.

In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.

The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.

Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)

Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production

Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production

San Francisco Has Implemented Key Actions Required by HCD’s Housing Policy and Practice Review

In response to last year’s release of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review (PPR), San Francisco has implemented significant reforms that will make it easier to build housing at all income levels.

The PPR – a first of its kind investigation into a local government’s barriers to housing production – required San Francisco to implement 18 required actions beginning immediately and through 2026 that resolve inconsistencies with state law, accelerate housing production, and reduce barriers beyond the strong commitments already being made through San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Since the release of the PPR, HCD has continuously monitored San Francisco’s progress. As a result of this technical assistance from HCD and San Francisco’s actions, they are currently up to date on required actions and, in some cases, implementing actions ahead of schedule. The PPR accelerated the passage of reforms already underway and supported the early completion of several actions proposed in San Francisco’s Housing Element.

These policy and practice changes can now begin to translate into real impact and results for development in San Francisco.

Some of the most significant reforms San Francisco has made to address their required actions include:

  • Approving the Constraints Reduction Ordinance, which was proposed shortly after the adoption of the Housing Element and was passed following HCD technical assistance
  • Prohibiting subjectivity in planning approval
  • Reforming CEQA processes to give a clear determination within 30 days of a complete application
  • Increasing objectivity and transparency in the construction permittingprocess
  • Restructuring processes so that developments that already received planning approval cannot be subject to subsequent building permit appeals
  • Reducing procedural hurdles for code-compliant projects
  • Removing hearing requirements for most State Density Bonus Law requests.

Together, these actions help cut red tape and uncertainty, clarify opaque processes, and ensure compliance with state housing laws. For a more detailed summary of these actions, click here.

These changes represent important steps in the right direction and reflect a commitment to achieving a new status quo in San Francisco. Nevertheless, to ensure full implementation of the actions in both the PPR and the housing element – and to achieve housing production in San Francisco that truly meets the need – HCD will continue to provide ongoing support and monitor San Francisco’s progress on their 6 remaining PPR actions as they come due.

By staying on track with these remaining items, San Francisco will continue to demonstrate its commitment to facilitating housing production at all income levels and ensure compliance with its obligations.

Questions? Email PPR@hcd.ca.gov.