Tag Archives: state overreach

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?

     

Housing, Planning, Politics

State rejects Oakland’s housing plan, asks for revisions

by Natalie Orenstein : oaklandside – excerpt

Like most Bay Area cities, Oakland’s newly approved Housing Element doesn’t comply with state requirements, which could impact the city’s funding and ability to control development.

Just two days after Oakland officials adopted the city’s eight-year housing plan, the state determined it didn’t meet the requirements, state records show.

In a Feb. 2 letter, the California Housing and Community Development Department told Oakland it must make revisions to its Housing Element to be found in compliance. Without that certification, Oakland immediately loses the ability to place certain restrictions on development, and could lose out on significant state funding for housing.

The Housing Element is a significant piece of the city’s General Plan, which is undergoing an update. The section spells out how Oakland will plan to build enough housing to meet state targets over the coming eight years, and what policies and programs the city will pursue to achieve affordability and equal access to housing.

The Oakland City Council unanimously approved its Housing Element on Jan. 31, the state-imposed deadline. City planners told the council at that meeting that they’ve been in close contact with state housing authorities, and expected the element to be approved. They said that the council would still be able to make tweaks to the document in the coming days…

Where Oakland’s housing element is still out of compliance

A central piece of Oakland’s plan is the identification of specific locations where housing could be developed, so that Oakland meets targets for both affordable and market-rate construction in the coming years. The city is required to plan for 26,000 new units.

The city’s submission is missing details on why these sites are primed for redevelopment, such as whether the property owner is amenable, if the site is vacant, and analysis of recent development trends, the state said.

State planners also said Oakland’s document should include more details about how it will ensure housing access for historically excluded groups, though they noted the element “includes many meaningful policies and actions.” They also told the city that a section on neighborhood improvement shouldn’t be limited to housing plans, but also include goals around infrastructure, transportation, and parks…(more)

This is a new low for the state and or HCD, AFter demanding the cities allow development on the open space they now demand more open space? And since when did they need to see details on infrastructure, transportation and parks to meet housing goals?