The California legislature produced many bills related to housing, CEQA , and other related topics, all designed to streamline housing production even faster, by allowing rebuilds in burn zones with less environmental oversight, and allowing developers to authorize their own projects . Of all the legislation, two bills by Senator Wiener stood out, SB 607 and SB 79.

SB 79 STILL A THREAT   It overrules  local zoning to allow up to seven stories near transit. More by me  here: SB 79 is more than streamlining, it’s a takeover

It passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee 4-2 and will go to a floor vote. Letters to our state senators before the floor vote (June 2-6) are essential.,

OPPOSE SB 79 because:

• It undermines affordable housing goals
• It undermines the housing element process
• It alters the Surplus Lands Act by eliminating public process and priorities for housing. 

As a transit-oriented development bill, SB 79 creates an ever-expanding top-down zoning overlay that is a complete erosion of local land use authority, and a giveaway to for-profit developers. 

SB 79 makes unacceptable changes to the Surplus Public Lands Act that allow public lands to be leveraged for profit, not offered for “public benefit uses,” including affordable housing. 

SB 79 is yet another streamlining law that won’t work to stimulate housing — especially affordable housing. So far, the result of hundreds of these laws are 81% market rate housing. With no affordability requirements, SB 79 will only  make things worse. 

 
MORE ON SB 79 AND STREAMLINING BILLS IN BLOG POST BELOW 

SB 607 (Wiener): GOOD NEWS!

Would have  exempted almost any type of development from  the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but with major revisions that neutered it.  

From Vanguard News Group:

SB 607 Amended to Prevent Environmental Law Rollbacks - Davis Vanguard

“The amended bill deletes the original substantive content and replaces it with intent language signaling continued legislative discussions around CEQA reform, effectively tabling the most controversial provisions.”

Many housing laws already exempt multifamily housing from CEQA and other impact studies.   

2.5 MILLION UNITS  STATEWIDE  DOES NOT REFLECT THESE REALITIES: 

• FLAT GROWTH PREDICTED THROUGH 2060
• NO MAJOR INSURERS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
• climate change related natural disasters
• drought (with lack of water storage, even in wet years)
• fire hazards
• limited evacuation routes
• FEMA Flood zones
• Areas subject to  sea level rise
• sensitive environmental areas
• huge population outflow and Covid deaths
• Covid related changes in the way we work 
• huge tech sector job losses (over 30,000 in the Bay Area as of 3/23)
• unstable power grid
• high cost of labor, materials, and interest
• low availability of labor and materials
• supply chain issues
• impact on cities 
• PGEs inability to connect all current and planned development 

The statistics used to create the RHNA failed a state audit.  California is not, and should not, be growing at 15%. The state knows that growth is predicted to be practically flat. 

Since state redevelopment agencies closed in 2012, there has been a growing disparity in expensive to lower priced housing.  Why? The free market prefers profitable development. The success of the tech market increased demand for high end housing; small houses were snatched up and flipped at high prices, often as larger remodels. Neighborhoods started changing.

Salaries for teachers and other essential workers did not increase, and they had to compete for scarcer housing  — considered affordable if rent was 30% of their income.

Those at the lower end were left in desperate straits with the rising costs of living and were displaced by what used to be the middle class.  Gentrification continues to displace those at the lower ends. 

Even when cities try to assist low-income housing projects, money does not go far: costs are now $850,000 to $1 million per unit.

Instead of creating policy to help those in need, state policy and laws have come together under the lobbying influence of YIMBY to create a for-profit solution — a vehicle to allow dense, unfettered, high-end development. 

This started in 2017, ramped up in 2019, and then the pace of legislation really took off during Covid.   There over 100 laws now, and they all do the same thing: strip away the ability of localities to plan for growth and give all the power to the developers who have been salivating over suburban, semi-rural, and coastal land that has been kept at low, livable densities. 

State overreach in law and policy has created dangerous precedents that undermine democracy without focus on providing affordable housing. 

This has all been aided by the lobbying strength of YIMBY — Yes in My Backyard — a "nonprofit " megalith that has driven housing policy in California since its initial heavy funding by the tech industry. 

There was no city-state discussion to adjust zoning and land use policy to encourage development where it could be safely and reasonably accommodated. Policy switched from a lackadaisical state response to a severe, overarching punishment-based system of compliance.