FOLLOW LEGISLATION (letter instructions lower down)

---

ADDRESS LETTERS TO: 

Senator Monique Limon, President pro Tempore

California Senate

The California State Capitol

Re: AB 2433 (Alvarez) - OPPOSE

Dear Senator Limon and California State Senators: 

(I/we) are writing to kindly ask if you would vote to OPPOSE AB 2433 (Alvarez). 

 (I/we) urge you to OPPOSE AB 2433 for the following reasons:

1) AB 2433 would authorize two additional DBL incentives whenever a project includes any deed-restricted-for-sale units affordable to low-income households. Although Cal Cities supports the goal of expanding homeownership opportunities, we are concerned that the bill would require local governments to provide additional reductions in local development standards without requiring a meaningful increase in affordability. For example, a developer could provide a single low-income, deed-restricted home and qualify for two additional concessions or incentives, while much of the project consists of market-rate or luxury rental projects. Cal Cities strongly believes that state incentive programs like DBL must produce affordable housing comparable to the benefits granted. At a minimum, developers should be required to demonstrate how additional incentives or concessions will directly reduce the cost of providing affordable units. 

 2) AB 2433 would require local governments to ministerially approve a Density Bonus Law project that qualifies for the CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)). However, this CEQA exemption does not require that the project comply with local objective development standards. This is a significant departure from prior streamlining laws, which have consistently preserved local governments’ ability to apply objective standards to ministerial approvals.

For these reasons, (I/we) OPPOSE AB 2433. 

Sincerely, 

To: Speaker Rivas and California State Assembly Members

Re: SB-1361 Transit-oriented housing developments: local governments: transit agencies and projects. OPPOSE

Assembly Members:

[organization or individual] strongly opposes SB-1361 for the reasons set forth below.

SB-1361 would forbid the public and their elected representatives from exercising their democratic rights to advocate for and against transit and housing projects. As stated below, there are legitimate questions about whether SB-79 is consistent with real transit-oriented development principles, and it is repugnant that the authors of SB-1361 are trying to make it illegal to question the soundness of state law.

The problem with SB-1361 is that its understanding of SB-79 is backwards. SB-79’s indiscriminate upzoning allows high-density development up to a mile or more walking distance from qualifying transit stops, contrary to ridership studies showing that transit usage drops off quickly as the distance from transit stops increases beyond one-quarter mile walking distance from a transit stop.

Regional planning and transit organizations (MPOs) have put considerable effort into creating synergies between transit and housing, along with supporting commercial and other development, to create walkable, transit-supportive neighborhoods.

SB-79 undoes all this planning by allowing projects far away from transit, especially projects in automobile-dependent single-family and low-density multi-family residential zones, which will remain automobile-dependent after adding scattered SB-79 projects.

Because SB-79 undermines efforts to create dense neighborhood centers that encourage transit usage, its ultimate impact will be less ridership than MPOs are projecting. Therefore, it is well and proper for cities to choose which transit projects to support or oppose based on whether the dispersed density of SB-79 will make those projects financially viable.

Respectfully,

[name of person and organization, if applicable]

To: President pro Tempore Limón and California State Senators

Re: AB-956 Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. OPPOSE

Senators:

[organization or individual] strongly opposes AB-956. Homeowners already have the option of adding two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to their properties plus a junior accessory dwelling unit, so the major impact of this bill will be to turn what was originally intended to be a way for homeowners to add housing for family members or extra income into a program targeted to developers.

The bill will especially change the market for smaller homes (e.g., 1,200 sf homes on 5,000 sf lots). Today these small homes are available as starter homes to first time homebuyers, but if AB-956 is adopted, then these will become the primary target for developers, who can convert a garage or other space internal to the existing house and add two detached ADUs in the rear (four total rental units). Of particular concern is that many of the homes targeted by AB-956 are in California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) designated low opportunity communities, which raises concerns that AB-956 violates California’s commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH).

Finally, state laws are inconsistent. The side and rear setbacks for new detached ADUs are 4 feet, while the state has adopted a conflicting 5 foot setback requirement for Zone Zero (fire safety). Setbacks for ADUs and all other infill housing programs should be increased to 5 feet to match Zone Zero requirements, especially since fire hazard zones are likely to expand in coming years due to climate change.

Based on the above reasons, I urge you to oppose AB-956.

Respectfully,

[name of person and organization, if applicable]

To: Speaker Rivas and California State Assembly Members

Re: SB-1116 Planning and zoning: housing development projects: subdivisions. OPPOSE

Assembly Members:

[organization or individual] strongly opposes SB-1116 for the reasons set forth below.

Cities are still implementing SB-1123 – It’s premature to be making drastic changes.

SB-1116 proposes numerous changes to the current regulations that significantly change the allowed scale and eligibility of SHRA developments. While the current SHRA regulations are mostly consistent with existing zoning, SB-1116 disregards “missing middle” principles and pushes heights, setbacks, and floor area ratios beyond reasonable values. SB-1116 includes drastic reductions minimum lot sizes, from 600 to 480 square feet in multi-family zones, and from 1,200 to 960 square feet in single-family zones. The proposed reduced lot sizes are inconsistent with other state and local standards for small lot subdivisions, such as SB-9.

Changing the definition of “vacant” lot to reference Section 1941.1 of the Civil Code invites abuse. Section 1941.1, which calls out easily repaired defects such as broken windows, is fundamentally a tenant protection law intended to force landlords to provide safe and healthy homes for their tenants, not to allow developers to game state law by vandalizing their own properties.

SB-1116 explicitly promotes confusion, uncertainty, and overreach in its implementation by stating that “This section shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” Based on experience with other state laws, this clause will give free rein to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to invent whatever it wants from the language of the law. This violates California’s separation of powers. When a law is vague, then it is the sole responsibility of the Legislature to fix it, not a free pass to California’s executive branch to make up whatever it wants the law to be.

Again, it is premature to make significant changes to the scope of the Starter Home Revitalization Act before the existing regulations have had a chance to be implemented and prove their effectiveness, which will take a few years as developers acquire properties and execute projects. 

At this time, the Legislature should focus its efforts on creating reporting requirements to assess the effectiveness of the SHRA and other state-mandated housing regulations, so that it can make data-driven decisions about whether to change the regulations in future Legislative sessions.

It is extremely difficult to roll back regulations once they’ve been adopted, and we ask the Legislature to show restraint and patience by rejecting SB-1116.

Respectfully,

[name of person and organization, if applicable]

To: President pro Tempore Limón and California State Senators

Re: AB-1751 Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act. OPPOSE

Senators:

[organization or individual] strongly opposes AB-1751, as amended on July 2. AB-1751 undermines the potential benefits of the Starter Home Revitalization Act (SHRA) by vastly increasing the scale of development on eligible properties. Development under the SHRA has barely begun in most jurisdictions, and the Legislature should let the current regulations prove themselves before radically changing the program.

[organization] objects to AB-1751 for the following reasons:

•               AB-1751 doesn’t place any limits on the size of eligible parcels, which means that three-story lot-filling housing blocks can be shoehorned into small single-family zoned lots. This is made worse by the proposal to reduce the minimum lot size from 1,200 square feet to 600 square feet. AB-1751 strives to create row homes, but in practice these types of developments work best when scaled to larger, wider lots or even entire blocks.

•               AB-1751 violates missing middle housing principles by allowing structures that are vastly out of scale with surrounding homes. In doing this, AB-1751 will crowd out the Starter Home Revitalization Act’s (SB-1123) more appropriate smaller scale developments. Upzoning reprices properties based on the maximum allowable development and therefore properties eligible for both the SHRA and AB-1751 will only “pencil out” for maximum sized developments. Neighborhood-compatible developments of fewer, larger, family-sized houses promised by SHRA will not be produced.

•               Exclusion of San Francisco is inconsistent with the requirement that AB-1751 address a statewide concern. The bill asserts “unique circumstances of the City and County of San Francisco” without providing objective definition of those circumstances in either the bill language or the bill analysis. This provision should be replaced with exceptions that can be assessed and applied statewide or removed from the bill altogether.

If AB-1751 is adopted as currently written, it will eventually create a huge statewide backlash as builders year-by-year push developments toward the unreasonable maximum allowances of AB-1751. It is extremely difficult to claw back giveaways to developers and real estate speculators, so the Legislature should tightly constrain the eligible parcels for AB-1751 or reject the bill altogether.

Respectfully,

Yes, if submitted by the deadline. Organization letters are listed in the public record. As YIMBY and other organizations are writing or sponsoring legislation, they are aware of it in advance, and often submit many letters in support of a bill. We don't have the luxury of advance notice, but if we don’t submit letters the public record looks like no one opposed the legislation. 

Yes, if you want o send letters to committees online. After you set up an account — you only sign up once (it’s easy) your comments can go to both Senate and Assembly committees , just by clicking through a few forms. Write your letters before you open the portal — individuals can copy the text into a box. Organizations will upload a file. 

VIDEO INSTRUCTIONS AT THIS LINK. Written instructions below. 

https://nourishca.org/GeneralNutrition/Legislation/How%20To_%20CA%20Leg%20Portal-2020.pdf

At the top, include your name, address, and date. Address it to the correct committee, formally with the Hon. (Committee Chair’s Name), followed by name of committee.

SUBJECT AND SUBJECT LINE 

In the subject line, add the bill number with OPPOSE or SUPPORT

YOUR LETTER can be as simple as a note that says you oppose or support, or write more. You can write that you support the Citizen Marin or another organization/ individual’s letter

1. Under ACTIVITY click SUBMIT A LETTER, click BILL SELECTIONon the top ribbon, enter the MEASURE info — AB or SB, then the bill number, REGULAR SESSION, and hit SEARCH
2. Check that the correct bill pops up, and the blue dot selection is on the most recent version, at the top line. Click NEXT
3. Option where to send;  Committees and the author will pop up
4.  Click NEXT SELECT FILE 
5.  You’ll be asked your STANCE (support, oppose, etc) and SUBJECT (as simple as I support / oppose this bill)
6.  Individuals will have a box for copying and pasting your letter, write it first.*
7. ORGANIZATIONS NEED TO SAVE LETTERS AS A FILE (PDF, WORD DOC) Organizations will be prompted: CHOOSE FILE Be sure the letter has your logo and a signature.*
8.  Click REVIEW and check to be sure everything looks good
9.  Hit SUBMIT and you’re done! 

Our laws created wildfire safety standards for a reason: public safety. They are latest wildfire science applied to real scenarios. Our fires are becoming more frequent and intense, and we have seen the devastation that people fleeing will face. Unfortunately, not all areas can support heavy population evacuation; in many cases egress is constrained for even current residents.

Many areas can safely support the housing we need without putting residents in harm’s way; builders should not be able to opt out of the regulations created to keep this balance. We need to protect communities by strengthening, not  weakening evacuation and fire safety standards. 

This bill would allow developers to use outdated standards without following the latest fire safety standards be followed. 

Care deeply about protecting our natural landscape, reducing wildfire exposure, and responsible planning? This legislation  is narrowly targeted at helping one developer bypass the latest wildfire safety standards on a technicality. Our climate disasters are worsening and we need to be oreosred to live with them. 

The laws from 12 years ago have not protected us which is why we've passed numerous laws in the past 10 years to protect communities.