Wiener bill | Discoveryink

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?

By Zelda Bronstein : 48hills – excerpt

Mitts-Off

If cities don’t meet the state’s impossible housing goals, unelected bureaucrats could be approving development projects with no oversight.

State Sen. Scott Wiener just introduced a new bill, SB 423, that extends the absurd provisions of his 2017 bill SB 35. That law forces cities to approve—that is, “streamline”—certain housing projects if the number of building permits they’ve issued halfway in the eight-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle falls short of their respective allocations.

The mandate is absurd, because cities can approve projects, but they can’t compel developers to pull building permits on projects that have been approved. Builders are not going to build if they can’t make a profit; that’s why in San Francisco right now, tens of thousands of approved housing units are not getting built.

In a further absurdity, the allocations themselves, especially the low-income numbers, are so enormous as to be unrealizable. SB 35 sets up cities to fail.

Now comes SB 423. The mainstream press has focused on two controversial aspects of Wiener’s new bill: it adds Builder’s Remedy to SB 35’s penalties, and it loosens SB 35’s requirements for employing union labor.

My focus here is on another problematic aspect of SB 423…

Here’s the relevant passage in SB 423: Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:

…. (c) (1) If a local government government’s planning director or any equivalent local government staff, including all relevant planning and permitting departments, determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) and pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision, it shall approve the development. …(more)

Homeowners and would-be homeowners take exception to Wiener’s claims that single family homes are immoral. The more you know about the plans to limit your lifestyle the less you like it.