Category Archives: CEQA

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

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.

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.

 

 

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) 

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

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.