By popular demand, on Saturday we’re repeating our Zoom Special Training Hour on how to use the “State Portal” to get letters against the 9 Bad Bills onto the desks of VIP legislators and staff. (See the 9 Bad Bills List, dominated by awful laws from Scott Wiener, at bottom.)

In June, the Assembly approved EVERY Bad Bill written in its house, and sent them to the Senate. The Senate approved EVERY Bad Bill it wrote, sending them to the Assembly. Citing the pandemic, legislators engaged in the most non-transparent, rushed, poor decisions in years.

Legislators will NOT return from recess on July 13 because of a COVID-19 outbreak. The Capitol building is being disinfected. No return date is known. We think LATE July. Then, both houses will review the Bad Bills of the other house. We fear they’ll cite COVID to gut normal debate and transparency, rushing bills through one “policy committee” — instead of heard by 2 or 3.

The Legislature’s 2020 failure to debate the upheaval, gentrification and destruction they’d cause if they approved these 9 Bad Bills is why it’s crucial that YOU use The Portal in July.

We are fighting hard and so appreciate your donations. Please donate now, here. Thank you!

The Portal you’ll master on Saturday is great once you get past its baffling instructions (written by legislators). The Portal zips your letter to a key “analyst” reviewing the Bad Bills for the committee. Your key issues can appear in a binder sent to the committee for consideration!

The Portal will be made easy, nay SATISFYING, on July 11 at 10 a.m. Grab a coffee! Call in!

Are you in a group? Submitting as a group has major impact! You need 1) a mailing address and 2) a group name. Even if it’s just “[So & So Street] Residents.” A logo is nice, but not required.

Are you submitting as an individual? Your letter can STILL get read & sent to the committee!

Learn the steps, July 11. Send your Portal letters by July 19. You can also PLUG good bills, like SB 1299 by Portantino, which helps communities instead of demonizing and upending them.

Please donate, here today! And please go to our ACT NOW page to learn how easy it is to MEET & ZOOM with your legislators – a MUST before they return to Sacto! See the 9 Bad Bills below.

Here's your call-in info for 10 a.m. Saturday:

Via Computer: https://zoom.us/j/6377599629

Dial in: +1 720 707 2699

Meeting ID: 637 759 9629

One tap mobile: +17207072699,,6377599629#

The 9 Bad Bills:

SB 1120 (by Scott Wiener and Toni Atkins)

Crushes single-family zoning in California, a threat to 8 million homeowners at all income levels. Wiener has called yards and single-family homes “immoral.” SB 1120 allows 4 market-rate homes where 1 home now stands (theoretically it allows 8 units, if cities have granny flat laws). Requires NO affordable units! No garages! Opens California to widespread speculation.

SB 902 (by Scott Wiener):

Allows any city council to overturn voter-approved ballot measures that protect open space, shorelines and other lands — killing a 108-year-old voter right. AND allows any city council to rezone “any parcel” to 10-unit luxury apartments, overriding all zoning including single-family, and inviting gentrification into older, diverse, multi-family areas. Requires NO affordable units. Opens California to broad speculation.

SB 995 (by Wiener and Atkins):

Slashes the number of affordable units developers must build to qualify for “fast-track” projects that ignore environmental protection law, or CEQA. Today, a “fast-track” building can ignore CEQA only if a developer offers 49% of its units as affordable. SB 995 cuts the 49% to just 15%, allowing huge buildings but SLASHING the legislature’s commitment to affordable housing. This is wrong.

SB 1085 (by Nancy Skinner):

Today, developers are rewarded a 35% increase in apartment building size — a Density Bonus — if 40% of units in the building are affordable to moderate-income households. SB 1085 slashes to just 20% the required moderate-income units, allowing huge buildings that CUT IN HALF the legislature’s commitment to affordable housing. This is wrong.

AB 725: (by Buffy Wicks and Scott Wiener)

A severe threat to 300+ cities who have not attracted enough housing to hit state growth targets known as “RHNA.” AB 725 brings density and upheaval to single-family, duplex and multi-family areas whose residents have never even heard of “RHNA.” RHNA was once a helpful population-forecasting tool. Now it’s used (especially by Wiener) as a state weapon to force density and upheaval on communities.

AB 1279 (by Richard Bloom):

A YEAR AFTER this radical bill becomes law, an obscure committee would THEN identify neighborhood “Opportunity Zones” where 50-unit to 120-unit projects could be built, overriding local zoning if affordable units are included. But if developers don’t want to provide affordable units, they can pay an “in lieu” fee, and then build a profitable 10-unit luxury building! All without a single hearing. This is wrong.

AB 2345 (by Lorena Gonzalez and David Chiu)

Lets developers add 50% in “Density Bonus” size to a project if they agree to provide more affordable housing units than now required. But as a reward, developers can ignore well-planned city controls on height, open space (courtyards), parking, design review, setbacks, side yards, trees and other standards. Developers would become the planners.

AB 3040 (by David Chiu):

It’s a “Sophie’s Choice”: Cities can choose to comply with AB 3040 by sacrificing single-family homes older than 15 years — think South L.A., East L.A., and diverse older suburbs — to satisfy state growth dictates known as “RHNA.” OR cities can try to meet the growth dictates by relying on the Density Bonus program. Stay with us, folks: Unfortunately, the Density Bonus program is a FAIL, preventing nearly 600 cities from approving even close to the number of affordable units required by “RHNA.” When those 600 cities fail, a punitive law by Scott Wiener, SB 35, will let developers ignore local rules, to build as they wish, in most cities.

AB 3107 (by Richard Bloom and Phil Ting):

Wreaks height havoc by allowing tall apartments where neighborhood cafés or shops are now, even if adjacent to homes. The towers would contain 20% affordable units. Each city faces a different fate because AB 3107 randomly increases height based on the tallest commercial or residential height allowed ½ mile away. In L.A. it means 9-story towers on retail land citywide. In Inglewood, it means 75-foot towers near some neighborhoods. In Manhattan Beach, it wipes out a citywide 30-foot residential limit and allows 99-foot towers where stores are today.