Bay Area state Sen. Scott Wiener, who has called yards “immoral,” is out to kill voter-protected open space, shorelines & canyons via his noxious SB 902. Please join community leaders and city officials Sat. 10 am to discuss the land Wiener wants your cities to overrun. Let’s stop him.

After a robust 90-minute discussion – bring examples of “voter-initiated, voter-approved” protected land to add to our list! — at 11:30 we’ll repeat 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 Wiener bills, at bottom.)

In June, the Assembly approved EVERY Bad Bill it wrote, and the Senate approved EVERY Bad Bill it wrote. Citing COVID, they engaged in the most non-transparent poor decisions in years.

Legislators return from recess July 27, weeks late due to COVID-19. Next WEEK both houses will review the Bad Bills of the other house. Both sides are citing COVID to kill transparency, rushing bills through one “policy committee” instead of debating in 2 or 3 such committees.

We watched as nearly EVERY senator voted FOR SB 1120, which kills single-family zoning and harm homeowners across all income categories. It invites Irvine Company and Blackstone to turn homes into unaffordable rentals, a terrible threat to building middle-class wealth.

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

Go here to read our Sample Letters that oppose the 9 Bad Bills. Borrow from our sample letters, but use your own words to tell legislators about YOUR concerns and community!

The Legislature’s 2020 failure to debate the upheaval they’ll cause if they approve the 9 Bad Bills makes it crucial that YOUR group submit “oppo” letters to the state Portal ASAP.

The Portal is a pain! Learn to use it Sat. Jun 25 at 11:30 am. We strongly recommend this training for groups. 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.

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 in July! 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 local 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):

SB 995 is a favor to well-heeled developers that “fast tracks” large commercial projects to let them get around CEQA, our environmental law. It dubs big buildings “Environmental Leadership Development Projects” even if they lack transit. To sell this attack on CEQA, the authors include a paltry 15% affordable housing — another reduction in the 2020 legislature’s commitment to affordable housing.

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. This means huge buildings that CUT BY HALF the 2020 legislature’s commitment to affordable housing. This is wrong.

AB 725: (by Buffy Wicks and Scott Wiener)

A severe threat to 600 cities who have not attracted enough housing to hit state growth dictates known as “RHNA,” AB 725 brings density and upheaval to areas whose residents have never 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 became law, an obscure committee would THEN identify neighborhood “Opportunity Areas” 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 build 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 and makes zero sense.

AB 2345 (by Lorena Gonzalez and David Chiu)

Lets developers add 50% in “Density Bonus” size to a project if they agree to provide just a TINY bit more affordable housing units than now required. 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 their own 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 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.