Status: In Senate Appropriations Committee – Hearing postponed to May 19, 2025

What it does:
SB 79 imposes state-mandated upzoning in residential areas, overriding local housing plans and enabling high-density development without community input.

Key concerns:
-Undermines local Housing Elements and RHNA planning
-Opens the door to Builder’s Remedy penalties
-Incentivizes land speculation and gentrification
-Strains infrastructure and displaces long-term residents
-Ignores local planning goals and public trust

Take action: Submit a letter of opposition via California Legislative Portal

Status: Active – under consideration

SB 607 proposes significant changes to California’s environmental review process under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), primarily to fast-track urban infill housing. The amended bill now allows more expansive CEQA exemptions, including for much larger project sites, removes key environmental safeguards, and increases the state’s power to override local planning decisions. It also dramatically narrows the ability of communities to use CEQA to challenge inappropriate developments.

Why we now oppose it:

Expanded CEQA exemptions now apply to much larger developments than before—well beyond the traditional 5-acre limit—without sufficient oversight or safeguards.

Eliminates “substantially surrounded” criteria, potentially allowing exemptions for isolated parcels not integrated with existing development.

Removes protections for sensitive or constrained lands such as high fire-risk zones, farmland, and areas without adequate infrastructure.

Applies to commercial and mixed-use projects, not just housing, despite the original housing-focused intent.

Weakens public accountability and legal recourse, limiting how CEQA lawsuits can be filed and shifting the burden to community members.

Undermines local control by tying CEQA exemptions to state-mandated rezoning, regardless of a city’s infrastructure, environment, or capacity.

Bottom line:
SB 607, as amended, goes too far. What started as a modest effort to streamline true infill housing has become a broad attempt to weaken CEQA and silence local voices. We urge the Assembly to reject this version of the bill.

Status: Active – moving through the legislature

What it does:
Expands the existing CEQA exemption for infill housing projects from 5 to 20 acres if they meet local general plan or zoning standards in environmentally friendly areas. Aims to fast-track urban housing development and reduce CEQA-related delays.

Key concerns:
-The proposed size increase (up to 20 acres) is too broad and may trigger public backlash over mega-projects.
-Provisions requiring centralized HVAC within 500 feet of freeways could raise costs unnecessarily.
-Without proper guardrails, this could bypass meaningful community input and local control.n goes here

Status: In Assembly – Committee referral pending

What it does:
Expands density bonus law to allow multiple stacking of bonuses—on top of one another—for height, FAR, parking, and setbacks.

Key concerns:
-Creates loopholes for excessive height and bulk
-Dramatically increases scale of developments with minimal affordability
-Further undermines local design standards
-Reduces transparency and community input

Status: In Assembly – Committee hearings pending

What it does:
Allows up to 8 units on any residential lot (including single-family) by right, with virtually no local oversight.

Key concerns:
-Overrides single-family zoning
-Eliminates parking requirements, setbacks, and height limits
-Allows 4-story, 8-unit buildings on standard 7,200 sq ft lots
-Requires only one low-income unit in exchange
-Encourages luxury development under the guise of affordability

Status: Passed Senate; in Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee

What it does:
Makes permanent a controversial streamlining law (SB 10) that allows cities to override voter-approved land-use protections and upzone parcels near transit or “urban infill” areas.

Key concerns:
-Allows local governments to bypass voter initiatives
-Undermines General Plans and community protections
-Enables up to 10 units per parcel with no environmental review
-Sets a dangerous precedent for overriding local control