(San Francisco, CA) – Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has introduced Senate Bill 677, a new measure aimed at strengthening California’s housing streamlining laws, SB 9 (Atkins, 2021) and SB 423 (Wiener, 2023). The bill seeks to accelerate housing production, remove bureaucratic obstacles, and help the state meet its ambitious housing goals amid an ongoing shortage.
“We are making real progress on housing in California, but we need to go further, faster to meet our housing goals and tackle the affordability crisis crushing families across the state,” said Senator Wiener. “By strengthening some of our landmark tools with lessons learned from the past few years, we can build on our progress and deliver a more affordable future for all Californians.”
SB 423, an extension of the widely used SB 35, has facilitated the development of tens of thousands of homes statewide. However, housing advocates argue that restrictive inclusionary requirements have limited the production of affordable housing. Additionally, the law’s assessment triggers—which determine where streamlining applies—have been too infrequent, delaying its impact.
SB 9, which aimed to legalize duplexes statewide and effectively end single-family zoning, has also faced implementation hurdles. Many local governments have introduced zoning restrictions that make it difficult for homeowners to take advantage of the law, leading to fewer applications than expected.
Key Changes Under SB 677
Improvements to SB 423:
- Expands streamlining for market-rate projects in jurisdictions that have failed to meet low-income housing targets, reducing the required inclusionary housing percentage from 50% to 20%.
- Increases the frequency of housing assessments from every four years to every two years, ensuring faster responses to housing shortages.
- Shifts the burden of proof to local governments, requiring them to provide evidence for environmental ineligibility claims.
Improvements to SB 9:
- Prevents Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and other private covenants from blocking SB 9 projects.
- Restricts owner-occupancy requirements, making it easier for property owners to build additional units.
- Aligns environmental eligibility standards with those under SB 423.
- Adds new reporting requirements for local governments and increased oversight by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
- Reduces permitting delays caused by the California Coastal Commission.
- Limits the use of local land-use rules—such as height limits, lot coverage restrictions, and excessive setback requirements—that have been used to obstruct SB 9 projects.
- Expands ministerial and streamlined approval processes to remove unnecessary bureaucratic delays.
Housing advocacy groups California YIMBY and the Housing Action Coalition (HAC), which are sponsoring SB 677, argue the bill is essential to overcoming local resistance to new housing.
“SB 677 doubles down on the pro-housing policies California desperately needs. SB 423 and SB 9 have already proven to be game-changers for housing production, and SB 677 will strengthen these reforms,” said Corey Smith, Executive Director of HAC. “We applaud Senator Wiener’s continued efforts to cut through red tape and bureaucratic delays, ensuring that homes actually get built in the communities that have long resisted growth.”
“SB 9 and SB 423 are key tools in our fight to build new homes, of all kinds, faster,” added Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY. “SB 677 ensures these vital housing laws work to their full potential, in the neighborhoods that need them the most. We’re grateful to Senator Wiener for his leadership in making California more resilient and affordable for everyone.”
With California still facing a severe housing shortage, SB 677 aims to accelerate development by streamlining regulations, reducing delays, and preventing local governments from obstructing state housing laws. The bill is expected to face opposition from cities and homeowner groups that have resisted past housing reforms, but supporters argue it is necessary to address the state’s housing affordability crisis.
From article: “SB 9, which aimed to legalize duplexes statewide and effectively end single-family zoning, has also faced implementation hurdles.”
It’s definitely experienced “implementation hurdles” – such as being determined to be “unconstitutional”.
https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/04/single-family-zoning-scores-a-win-in-court/
So it appears that Wiener and company are determined to weasel their way around this result.
“It’s definitely experienced “implementation hurdles” – such as being determined to be “unconstitutional”. ”
That’s misleading. It wasn’t ruled unconstitutional. It was ruled unconstitutional by a trial court judge with respect to five charter cities.
Right – in other words, it was declared to be unconstitutional. From the article I posted:
“And that, Judge Kin said, fails the test of whether this particular state law may override local control. “SB 9 is neither reasonably related to ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance,” he wrote. “SB 9 is therefore unconstitutional as violative of the ‘home rule’ doctrine.”
The same ruling would likely apply to the other charter cities around California if tested (and there’s something like 126 of them, including San Francisco).
Which makes at least some sense with respect to Charter Cities that are supposed to have a great level of autonomy than general law cities, but that’s not the same as saying it blanketly that it’s unconstitutional. But again, that has also not been tested at an appellate level that would be more broadly applicable to the state. At this point it’s a limited ruling and finding.
Whatever.
Wiener and company’s efforts appear to be an attempt to weasel their way around that ruling via legislation.
Bonta is the one who would try a legal challenge.
Either way, state officials are determined to force it – even when it has no connection to affordability (the underlying basis of the lawsuit which overturned it).
“Wiener and company’s efforts appear to be an attempt to weasel their way around that ruling via legislation. ”
The ruling is only binding on five communities, how are they doing anything about a ruling that doesn’t apply to them? BTW, plenty of legislation only impacts general law cities, there’s nothing unusual about it, it’s why we have charter cities in the first place.
360 General Law cities versus 120 charter cities, btw
David asks: “The ruling is only binding on five communities, how are they doing anything about a ruling that doesn’t apply to them?”
I already noted the reason – there’s 126 charter cities (including San Francisco). How would the ruling change, if those cities challenged the law?
There may also be a “public relations” aspect to Wiener’s latest efforts, since it doesn’t look good when a judge concludes that the entire reason for the law has no basis in reality (“affordability”).
It will be interesting to see if they address that underlying issue (seems unlikely, in any kind of honest manner).
That assumes a higher court would uphold and epand the ruling. They may not. You’re engaging in very speculative reasoning and trying to impugn people based on your conjecture.
David: As you’ve said to me before, there comes a point at which you’re just wasting my time.
I’ve already noted the reasons that Wiener and company would be concerned about this ruling.
And I’ve noted the reasons why they shouldn’t be