San Francisco voters will consider ten local measures on November 3, 2026. Four of them — Propositions A, D, E, and F — would amend the City Charter in ways that affect land use entitlement and development. These proposals, largely developed out of SPUR’s 2025 Charter for Change report, would not amend the Planning Code or change the substantive standards for development approvals, but would reallocate authority over the City bodies that process, condition, and enforce those approvals and certain real property transactions.

This post addresses these measures in four general categories:

• How future land use policy reaches the ballot
• Appointing and removing department heads and commissioners who oversee entitlements
• City requirements that can be amended by ordinance rather than Charter amendments
• How the City approves contracts and certain real property transactions

Future Land Use Policy at the Ballot 

Proposition D: Changes to Ballot Measure Process

Proposition D would raise the signature threshold for citizen initiative ordinances from 2 to 8 percent of registered voters (from roughly 10,600 to 42,500 signatures). The threshold to qualify for a special election would rise from 10 percent of votes cast for Mayor to 10 percent of registered voters (from roughly 39,000 to 53,100 signatures). It would also require a majority of the Board of Supervisors — six members rather than four — to place an ordinance or declaration of policy on the ballot, eliminate the Mayor’s unilateral authority to do so, and allow proponents to withdraw a qualified initiative up to 102 days before the election.

Why it matters. San Francisco land use policy has frequently been set by initiative ordinances qualified at the 2 percent threshold. Unlike the legislative process, which allows for consensus-building, adjustment prior to adoption, and later amendment, an ordinance approved by voter-qualified measure can generally be changed only by another vote. Proposition A separately authorizes the Board to amend a short list of specified initiative ordinances, but voter-adopted land use ordinances would remain amendable only by the voters unless those ordinances provide otherwise. The net effect is a higher barrier to legislating land use at the ballot, without loosening existing voter-adopted controls.

Mayoral Authority Over Planning, Building Inspection, and Public Works

Proposition F: Changes to Executive Branch Management

Under the current Charter, a commission generally nominates at least three candidates for a department head position, the Mayor appoints from that list, and the commission holds removal authority. Critics say this split blurs accountability: the Mayor appoints the Planning Director, for example, but removal authority rests with the Planning Commission.

Proposition F would convert six departments to full mayoral appointment, including Planning, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), and Public Works. It would also amend the Charter to authorize the Mayor to “appoint and remove” department heads and delete the provision that makes removal the commission’s duty. The Budget and Legislative Analyst calculates that the Mayor’s sole appointment authority would increase from five to eleven department heads, and removal authority would increase from five to twenty-seven.

Proposition F would also change commissioner tenure. Today, most board and commission members may be removed only for official misconduct. Under the measure, most would serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority — either the Mayor or Board of Supervisors.

Finally, the Mayor could transfer duties between executive branch departments or merge departments, effective 30 days after notice unless disapproved by the Board of Supervisors. Charter-assigned duties may be transferred but not eliminated. The measure excludes the transfer of duties of certain officers and entities, including the City Administrator, Controller, Board of Appeals, Port, and Airport.

Why it matters. In January 2026, the Mayor announced a plan to combine Planning, DBI, and the Permit Center into a single organization. Because DBI and the Building Inspection Commission (BIC) are established in the Charter, DBI’s administrative and information technology functions can move into Planning this fiscal year, but its Charter-mandated core services and BIC oversight must remain intact.

If Proposition F passes, the Mayor could move DBI’s core services into a fully integrated permitting department and oversight now performed by the BIC could be transferred to the Planning Commission.  Review that now runs separately through Planning and DBI, each with its own process and timeline, could then be coordinated within one organization rather than managed by applicants across departments.

Moving City Requirements From the Charter to the Administrative Code

Proposition A: Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions

Proposition A is the Board of Supervisors’ cleanup measure, sponsored by Supervisor Mandelman. The measure, which would change more than 130 Charter provisions, is largely housekeeping intended to simplify and modernize the Charter.

Among other things, it would move multiple Charter sections into the Administrative Code, where the Board could amend, consolidate, or eliminate them by ordinance without returning to the voters.

Consistent with the Commission Streamlining Task Force’s work, Proposition A would also eliminate the Sanitation and Streets Commission and the Public Works Commission, leaving the Department of Public Works without a separate oversight commission. It also removes the requirement that the Planning Department consult the City Administrator in preparing area and neighborhood plans that implement the General Plan, to help streamline the process.

Why it matters. San Francisco’s Charter covers a great deal of operational detail — commission composition, hearing procedures, reporting obligations — that most jurisdictions place in the municipal code, so even a minor procedural fix requires a citywide ballot measure. Proposition A’s transfers are modest and mostly outside the land use bodies, but they establish a template: moving provisions to the Administrative Code allows the Board to make changes through the legislative process, where a proposal can be noticed, heard, amended, and revisited if it does not work as intended.

Contracts and City Real Property

Proposition E: City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting

Proposition E would extend the City Administrator’s term from five years to ten and centralize procurement authority in that office. The City Administrator would have exclusive authority to introduce most procurement-related ordinances, along with authority over procurement rules and regulations and direction of citywide information technology. Notably, “procurement” excludes development agreements and agreements for the acquisition, disposition, or lease of real property, and the City Administrator’s exclusive introduction power does not extend to ordinances on contractor wage and benefit standards, local business utilization, or project labor agreements.

The measure would also raise the dollar thresholds that determine which contracts, leases, and contract amendments must come to the Board of Supervisors for approval — for example, from $10 million to $25 million in anticipated City expenditures, and from $1 million to $4.5 million in anticipated revenue to the City — and would adjust those thresholds for inflation every five years beginning in 2032. Amendments would require Board approval only if they increase the amount by 50 percent or more. Transactions below the thresholds would be handled and approved administratively. However, leases with a term of ten years or more and any sale or other transfer of City-owned real property would still require Board approval regardless of dollar amount.

Proposition A also includes a provision, effective only if Proposition E passes, authorizing the City Administrator to conduct long-term real estate strategic planning and to negotiate and manage acquisitions, leases, and conveyances of real property owned, controlled, or used by the City. That authority would remain subject to Board approval requirements and would not apply to the Airport, Port, Public Utilities Commission, or Municipal Transportation Agency.

Why it matters. Higher thresholds mean fewer City contracts and smaller leases reach the Board of Supervisors, which shortens approval timelines for parties contracting with the City and removes a public hearing step.

If approved, these measures would leave the land use entitlement process itself intact while changing who within City government decides, and how quickly those decisions can be made or revisited.

The Coblentz Real Estate Team advises developers, owners, and investors on San Francisco land use approvals and City transactions. Please contact us with questions about how these measures may affect a particular project or transaction.

The 2026 California legislative season lacked the blockbuster land use legislation that made headlines in 2025, but still delivered a number of meaningful changes for housing developers. This post focuses on key bills signed by the Governor affecting entitlement, permitting, financing, and subdivision of residential and mixed-use projects in California, in four general categories:

• Reducing uncertainty in project approvals and post-entitlement processing
• New streamlined development pathways
• Density Bonus Law limitations and expansions
• Extending the lives of subdivision maps, and reducing appeals

Reducing Uncertainty in Project Approvals and Post-entitlement Processing

SB 1014 (Grayson) [Earlier Disclosure of Required Improvements]

SB 1014 will provide housing developers with earlier information regarding potential improvement requirements and limit imposition of new requirements at the post-entitlement stage.

An applicant for a housing development project may request a preliminary estimate of required onsite and offsite improvements with an SB 330 preliminary application or, if no preliminary application is submitted, with the development application. Within 30 business days, the local agency must provide: (1) a good faith list of the types of improvements that may be required; and (2) for improvements the agency would construct or install, a good faith estimate of the cost. The estimate is informational and nonbinding and need not include improvements required under CEQA or by another public agency or utility. An applicant may also request a list of potential improvements from another public agency or utility within 30 days of submitting its application; that agency or utility must respond within 30 business days.

At the post-entitlement stage, within 30 business days after deeming a permit application complete, the permitting jurisdiction must provide a list of all onsite and offsite improvements required in connection with that permit and generally may not later require an improvement omitted from the list. Exceptions apply where the improvement is necessary to address a specific adverse health or safety impact supported by substantial evidence, is reasonably related to a requested change in the permitted work, or is required under CEQA for a discretionary post-entitlement permit.

AB 1621 (Wilson) [Post-entitlement Phase Permit Processing]

AB 1621 strengthens the statutory protections governing post-entitlement permitting for housing development projects by limiting repeated building permit review, restricting when review deadlines may be tolled, constraining changes to approved plans during building inspection, and expanding applicants’ remedies for agency noncompliance.

The bill also provides that a local agency’s violation of specified post-entitlement permitting requirements constitutes a disapproval under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), meaning that a developer could pursue HAA remedies against the agency, while a state agency violation would result in the permit being deemed approved and related reviews deemed complete. Key changes include:

• A local or state agency may not require or request more than two plan check and specification reviews in connection with a building permit application. After two reviews, the agency may deny an application that does not comply with applicable permit standards, and the applicant may make additional submittals. The two-review limitation does not apply to other post-entitlement phase permits.
• Statutory review deadlines will be tolled only where federal or state law requires review by another independent public agency before the permitting agency may act, and the agency must notify the applicant within three business days after tolling begins and after the deadline resumes.
• An agency may not require or request a deviation from an approved building plan during building inspection unless it makes written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that either a reasonable person could not interpret the approved plan as compliant with the applicable building permit standards, or the deviation is necessary to address a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety.
• If the applicant appeals an incomplete determination, a noncompliance determination, or a denial, the deadline for the agency’s final written determination on appeal is shortened from 60 to 30 business days for projects with 25 units or fewer, and from 90 to 45 business days for projects with 26 units or more. If an appeal is denied, a decision is not made within the applicable deadline, or the required appeal process is not provided, the applicant may seek a writ of mandate to compel approval.

New Streamlined Development Pathways

AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva, Wicks) [Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act]

AB 1751 creates a ministerial approval and subdivision process for qualifying townhome development projects, including projects on certain underutilized sites zoned for single-family use, and limits application of local objective standards that would physically preclude a project from meeting the law’s density threshold.

A qualifying “townhome development project” must:

• consist entirely of townhomes (single-family units of no more than three stories that either share a common wall on one or two sides or are separated from neighboring units by no more than the minimum fire separation distance);
• contain no more than 150 units;
• have an average townhome size of no more than 1,750 net habitable square feet; and
• achieve at least 75% of the applicable density specified in Housing Element Law, which varies depending on location and ranges from 10 to 30 units per acre.

For projects with 11 or more units, at least 10% of the units must be affordable to lower income households for at least 45 years, unless a higher local inclusionary requirement applies.

The new law also requires ministerial approval of tentative and final maps for qualifying townhome projects. The subdivision pathway is limited to sites zoned for multifamily residential use or underutilized sites zoned exclusively for single-family residential development (generally, sites with no permanent residential structure other than one that is abandoned and uninhabitable). Anti-displacement, environmental, historic-resource, infrastructure, and other site restrictions apply to this pathway. Newly created parcels generally must be at least 600 square feet and must be served by an existing community water system and municipal sewer system.

Local agencies may continue to apply objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do not conflict with the statute, but may not apply standards that physically preclude a project meeting the statute’s density threshold, impose requirements solely because a project uses the new process, or require enclosed or covered parking. A local agency may disapprove a qualifying project or deny its map only on written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, of a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot feasibly be mitigated. Approvals are not subject to CEQA.

Local agencies also may not require formation of a homeowners’ association except as required by the Davis-Stirling Act. Unless the local agency authorizes otherwise by ordinance or map condition, lots created under the new law generally may not be sold, leased, or financed separately until they contain a completed residential unit.

The new law does not apply in San Francisco.

AB 2074 (Haney) [Regional Transit Hub Districts and Downtown Housing]

AB 2074 establishes minimum height, FAR, and density standards for qualifying projects in regional transit hub districts, together with a ministerial approval pathway and the ability to layer applicable Density Bonus Law (DBL) benefits onto those standards.

The new law requires each “major transit city”—a city with at least 400,000 residents and at least two transit-oriented development stops—to designate at least one regional transit hub district by July 1, 2027. The total required district area depends on city population, ranging from 0.5 to1.5 square miles. Each district must be a contiguous area of at least 0.25 square miles and contain at least one transit-oriented development stop. If a major transit city does not comply, an equivalent area in a uniform radius around the city’s highest-ridership transit-oriented development stop will be deemed a regional transit hub district.

Within a regional transit hub district, a city must make a “downtown housing development” an allowable use and:

• may not set a maximum height below 150 feet, an FAR below 6, or a maximum density below 200 units/acre;
• must allow a maximum height of at least 450 feet, an FAR of at least 12, and no maximum density limit, each on at least 25% of the total aggregate district area; and
• may apply other objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards consistent with those requirements.

A “downtown housing development” must meet specified requirements, including a minimum density of 60 units/acre, affordability, labor and site-eligibility requirements, restrictions on demolition of individually landmarked property, and an average unit-size cap of 1,750 net habitable square feet. Such projects would be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35/SB 423 (while being exempt from many of that legislation’s requirements), and may qualify for DBL benefits using the bill’s requirements as the base density.

Designating a district is not a “project” under CEQA, and other cities may opt in by designating their own regional transit hub districts. The new law is enforceable by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which may refer violations to the Attorney General. It also directs the California Housing Finance Agency to study a potential state construction loan program and report to the Legislature by March 1, 2028.

Density Bonus Law Limitations and Expansions

SB 1383 (Arreguín) [Density Bonus Concessions and Local Labor Standards]

Adopted in response to developers in Berkeley using DBL to obtain concessions for relief from locally adopted labor requirements, SB 1383 will prevent the use of DBL incentives or concessions to modify certain local labor standards. The DBL defines an incentive or concession to include specified reductions in site development standards or modifications of zoning or architectural requirements, as well as other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, and developers are entitled to a certain number of incentives or concessions depending on the percentage and level of below-market rate units included in a project.

For a building over 85 feet in height above grade, SB 1383 provides that a reduction, modification, or other regulatory incentive or concession may not include or relate to a “labor standard,” as defined in Labor Code section 1205, adopted by the local government. For purposes of this restriction, the applicable labor standards are those that do not exceed the requirements of SB 35/SB 423 (Government Code section 65913.4(a)(8)), as those requirements existed on December 31, 2025.  Generally, these provisions require payment of prevailing wages and compliance with skilled and trained workforce requirements.

AB 2433 (Alvarez) [Density Bonus Law Amendments]

AB 2433 makes several changes to the DBL, including changes to when local agencies must apply the law, how a density bonus may be calculated, and how qualifying projects may use DBL benefits. Among the principal changes:

• A local agency would be required to comply with DBL when an applicant submits an application for a housing development that the local agency determines meets at least one of the statutory eligibility criteria, rather than only when an applicant affirmatively seeks a density bonus. When a density bonus application is deemed complete, the local agency must also determine that the project is eligible for a density bonus, in addition to determining the amount of the bonus and the other matters already required under DBL.
• An applicant may elect to provide a base density study, which the local agency must accept if it includes all applicable objective development standards, and may elect to receive the density bonus as a percentage increase in maximum floor area ratio (FAR) rather than an increase in residential density.
• A project that includes for-sale affordable units would receive two additional incentives or concessions.
• DBL benefits may be applied throughout a housing development. Density bonus units may be provided outside the areas containing the lower income units, and incentives, concessions, waivers, and reductions of development standards may be applied outside the areas containing housing units, subject to specified requirements.
• For the additional “super” density bonus made available by AB 1287, the bill removes the existing limitation that the resulting housing development not restrict more than 50% of the total units to moderate, lower, or very low income households. It also allows more deeply affordable units to be substituted for less deeply affordable units (e.g., substituting very low income units for moderate units) to satisfy the applicable unit percentage.
• The bill expands on existing language stating that a grant of a density bonus, incentive, or concession does not require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. It clarifies that any of these DBL-related actions, or the grant of a waiver or reduction in development standards, is not itself discretionary and does not independently require environmental review under CEQA.

Subdivision Map Act Protections

SB 1169 (Grayson) [Longer Tentative Map Terms]

Under existing law, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map generally expires 24 months after approval or conditional approval, subject to an additional period prescribed by local ordinance of up to 24 months. SB 1169 extends those periods to 48 months and up to an additional 36 months, respectively. These timelines also apply to any approved or conditionally approved tentative map that has not expired as of December 31, 2026. The new law does not change the other extension provisions in Government Code section 66452.6, including extensions associated with certain phased final maps and extensions granted upon application of the subdivider.

SB 677 (Wiener) [Limits on Third-Party Subdivision Appeals]

SB 677 limits administrative appeals of specified subdivision decisions for qualifying housing development projects. An interested person may not file an appeal under specified provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or a local subdivision ordinance if the decision relates to a map that is part of a housing development project and the project site is located in a qualifying urban area, meets specified infill criteria, will be served by a public water system and municipal sewer system, and is not located on specified sensitive lands. The restriction would not apply to appeals filed by an applicant or subdivider, certain tenants in residential conversion projects, an advisory agency otherwise authorized to appeal, or a public agency or public official acting within the course and scope of their employment.

The Coblentz Real Estate Team has extensive experience with the state’s latest housing laws and can help to navigate the laws’ complexities and opportunities. Please contact us for additional information and any questions related to the impact of these bills on land use and real estate development.

San Francisco is facing three lawsuits in Superior Court (the local trial court) challenging its recent efforts to implement state housing legislation, on different legal theories and from different ends of the NIMBY/YIMBY spectrum. The outcome of any one of these suits could have significant implications for developers seeking to introduce new residential uses or maximize density within the City.

Challenges to Family Zoning Plan

San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan—the City’s key Housing Element implementation measure approved last December—faces two lawsuits challenging its validity, with upcoming court dates in September and November.

The first lawsuit, led by Neighborhoods United SF and other parties seeking to limit additional development, argues that the City’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review understates the scope of the Family Zoning Plan and does not fully analyze its environmental impacts. The lawsuit asks the court to overturn the Plan’s approvals and require the City to complete additional CEQA review before moving forward. The next step for this lawsuit is a case management meeting at the end of September.

The second lawsuit, led by various pro-housing organizations including California Housing Defense Fund and YIMBY Law, alleges that the Family Zoning Plan does not provide sufficient housing capacity to satisfy the City’s Housing Element obligations and unlawfully restricts use of State housing law incentives such as State Density Bonus Law. The suit seeks to require the City to bring its zoning controls into compliance with the Housing Element and State law, including by eliminating local limits on State-law housing tools. This lawsuit’s first merits hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2026.

Taken together, these lawsuits add uncertainty for developers and property owners evaluating the feasibility of development projects that rely on the Family Zoning Plan and other San Francisco-specific housing ordinances. Even if the City is successful at the trial court level, appeals remain possible. If the City were to lose one of the lawsuits, the court could potentially set aside or suspend implementation of the Family Zoning Plan, although the ultimate remedy would be subject to the court’s discretion.

The stakes are significant because the Housing Element required this rezoning to take effect by January 2026. If a court sets aside the Family Zoning Plan, San Francisco could face renewed questions about Housing Element compliance and potential exposure to builder’s remedy projects.

Challenge to SB 79 Alternative Plan

Separately, the same pro-housing groups challenging the Family Zoning Plan have also sued over the City’s implementation of SB 79, Senator Wiener’s transit-oriented development legislation from 2025. The City adopted a local “alternative plan” intended to provide the same overall housing capacity as SB 79, but to distribute that capacity through its own zoning framework rather than directly applying SB 79’s default density rules to qualifying sites.

The lawsuit makes two key claims: (1) it challenges the City’s exclusion of large areas of SOMA, the Bayview, and Bayshore as “industrial employment hubs,” arguing that these areas do not qualify for SB 79’s exemption—in part because some of the excluded sites already allow housing; and (2) it asserts that the City cannot count additional density toward its SB 79 obligations while conditioning that density on developers’ waiver of State Density Bonus Law rights.

If the court were to invalidate the City’s alternative plan, the result could be a much broader application of SB 79 in San Francisco, unless and until the City adopts a legally compliant alternative plan. Rather than receiving SB 79-related density only through the narrower set of sites and rules established by the City’s plan, developers could potentially rely directly on SB 79 across qualifying transit-proximate sites throughout the City, including areas the City sought to exclude, and could potentially pair that density with State Density Bonus Law benefits.

For additional background on San Francisco’s Family Zoning Plan, our prior Unfamiliar Terrain post summarizes the Plan’s main development pathways and highlights the key considerations for developers evaluating whether to use Housing Choice-SF or existing State-law tools. We also previously posted about SB 79, including the types of narrow exemptions that San Francisco has attempted to invoke. Please reach out to the Coblentz Real Estate team with any questions about these legal developments.

A ballot initiative measure to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) has qualified for the November 2026 statewide ballot, with the backing of the California Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business, housing, healthcare, energy, and infrastructure organizations.

If approved by voters, the Building an Affordable California Act (“BACA”) would add a new chapter to CEQA for certain “essential projects,” including a wide array of housing projects,[1] as well as hospitals and medical facilities, clean energy facilities, educational facilities, and specified infrastructure/public improvement projects involving water, wildfire resilience and public safety, transportation, and broadband internet access.[2]

BACA would not exempt any project from CEQA, narrow the scope of environmental issues that need to be studied, or ensure approval of any particular project. But it would create an accelerated, and in some ways more predictable, process for qualifying projects that elect to use some or all of its procedures. Perhaps most significantly, it would create enforceable timelines for completing environmental review and judicial review, and fixed deadlines for public comment.

BACA is a detailed and complex measure—the full text submitted to the Secretary of State runs 41 pages. This summary focuses on the requirements to qualify for BACA treatment and key changes the measure would make to CEQA’s substance and process.

Tribal Consultation and Labor Requirements Apply

Any project that seeks to proceed under BACA must follow robust procedures relating to tribal consultation, beginning at the earlier of submittal of a preliminary application under any law (such as SB 330) or an essential project application.[3] These go beyond the standard notification and consultation requirements under AB 52, and in some respects beyond the tribal consultation provisions adopted for the AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption in 2025.

Additionally, essential projects that utilize the initiative would be subject to specified labor standards. All essential projects other than housing projects would generally be required to pay prevailing wages and use a skilled and trained workforce for construction, following the provisions established by AB 900/SB 7. For essential housing projects, certain prevailing wage requirements are triggered only for buildings over 85 feet in height and—in San Francisco only—for projects of 50 units or greater.[4] These mirror the provisions adopted for AB 130.

CEQA Clock Starts at Completeness

Under BACA, the determination that an essential project application is complete (or becomes “deemed complete” due to the public agency’s inaction) is an important milestone because many of the initiative’s review timelines and procedural protections begin at that point.

Like the process already available to housing projects under SB 330, BACA requires a public agency to make completeness determinations within 30 calendar days, prevents the agency from later requiring information that wasn’t identified in the initial “exhaustive” list of missing information, and can lead to applications being deemed complete if the agency misses its deadlines.[5]

Once an essential project application is determined or deemed complete, BACA would require the lead agency to identify the CEQA pathway and complete the corresponding CEQA determination within specified deadlines:

• EIR Certification: Within 365 business days (approximately 17 months)
• Adoption of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration: Within 180 business days (approximately 8.5 months)
• Adoption of Exemptions, Addenda, and Prior-review Determinations: Within 90 business days (approximately 4 months)

If an agency misses the applicable deadline to complete review, the applicant may request a meeting or hearing, and within 60 calendar days of receipt of the request, the agency must make a final written determination on the environmental review documentation and a final written determination to approve or disapprove the project.[6] All of these timelines may be extended, but only upon written request of the applicant.

Changes to Substantive Scope of Review

While BACA would not limit the types of environmental impacts or mitigation measures that must be analyzed, it would make two potentially significant changes to the scope of review.

• First, impacts are required to be analyzed only based on compliance with existing laws—meaning the lead agency can look only to formally adopted statutes, regulations, rules, standards, or ordinances that were in effect at the time the essential project application was submitted, with limited exceptions.[7] While the agency’s review is not expressly required to be limited to compliance with objective existing laws, that is the standard that will apply to judicial review of BACA projects, as discussed below, and so it will effectively guide the scope of agency review itself. If the agency has not adopted formal CEQA thresholds of significance, as most have not, then presumably that agency would be limited to evaluating compliance with independent legal requirements, such as building code standards, regulations adopted by a Regional Water Quality Control Board, or Air District guidelines.
• Second, where an EIR is required, the applicant may elect to opt into a process that provides preliminary scoping and streamlined alternatives analysis.[8] If the applicant selects this pathway, the evaluation of project alternatives would be limited to one “no project” alternative (as required by existing law) and one potentially feasible alternative proposed by the project applicant that is compatible with the project’s fundamental purpose. The applicant-developed alternative must be proposed early in the CEQA process, at the end of preliminary scoping period. This would differ from the current requirement to analyze a “reasonable range” of alternatives—the number of which is fact-specific—that are specifically intended to mitigate significant environmental impacts identified through the CEQA impacts analysis.

Shorter, Fixed Comment Periods

In keeping with the overall timelines above, the initiative would create fixed periods for public comment, limiting lead agencies’ ability to require longer review. (Recent examples in the Bay Area have included public agencies announcing comment periods of 60, 90, or even 180 days for draft EIRs.)

For a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or other circulated document, the public comment period would be 20 calendar days. For a draft EIR or subsequent or supplemental EIR, the public comment period would be 45 calendar days.[9]

The initiative states that a public comment period “shall not be tolled or extended except by a court of competent jurisdiction.”[10]

The initiative also limits which comments are included in the administrative record. The record would include timely written and electronic comments and oral testimony at a noticed and recorded public hearing.[11] Limited exceptions would apply where significant project changes or previously unavailable information create issues that could not reasonably have been raised during the original comment period.[12]

This represents a departure from the common situation where new information can be introduced into the record after the public comment period, up to the time the project is approved. Under the proposal, comments submitted after the close of the public comment period generally would be excluded unless they relate to genuinely new issues arising from project changes or information that was not previously available.[13]

Judicial Review Would Be Subject to New Rules

The initiative would also somewhat narrow the administrative record for CEQA litigation, limit the scope of review to compliance with “objective existing laws,” and provide that project approvals are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard.[15] This would be a significant change from current law, where compliance is not necessarily fixed based on pre-existing standards, and depending on the specific form of CEQA document and claims at issue, the nature of judicial review is often less deferential to the public agency’s decision. If the court finds a deficiency in the agency’s CEQA review, the remedy must be narrowly tailored to prohibit only any part of the essential project that was affected by the agency’s noncompliance, rather than setting aside the entire approval.

Together, these provisions are intended to create a more defined process for resolving CEQA challenges to qualifying projects while maintaining opportunities for judicial review of agency decisions.

Vesting Protections for Projects Already in the Pipeline

An application for any essential project submitted before BACA’s effective date and not yet finally approved may be withdrawn and resubmitted under BACA after its effective date. If the application was previously determined or deemed complete, no further completeness review would be required to preserve those rights.[16]

For housing projects in particular, a pending application may be withdrawn and resubmitted under BACA without losing vested rights or other benefits acquired under laws including the Subdivision Map Act, the Housing Accountability Act (including the Builder’s Remedy), and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).[17]

Practical Takeaways

BACA would not exempt any projects from CEQA or guarantee approval. But for “essential” projects that choose to qualify and use its procedures, it offers more predictable entitlement and judicial review timelines, a more favorable standard of review, and fixed and predictable standards, among other benefits. It does not supersede any existing exemptions or streamlining provisions for housing or other projects, although it expressly provides that it may be used in combination with other land use and environmental review laws and processes. If BACA becomes law, it may create additional opportunities to combine existing streamlining tools with the initiative’s new procedures, all of which should be carefully evaluated for individual projects.

 

[1] Proposed Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21013, 21028, subd. (l). (Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the proposed Public Resources Code text that would become effective if BACA is adopted by the voters.) The measure generally includes all projects that would qualify as “housing development projects” under the Housing Accountability Act. Notably, there is no minimum or maximum number of residential units to qualify as an essential housing project.

[2] §§ 21013, 21028, subds. (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q).

[3] § 21015, subd. (d)(1); § 21016.

[4] § 21015, subd. (c)–(d).

[5] § 21017.

[6] §§ 21018–21020.

[7] § 21022, § 21028, subd. (r).

[8] § 21024.

[9] § 21021, subd. (a)(1)–(2).

[10] § 21021, subd. (b).

[11] § 21021, subd. (d).

[12] § 21021, subd. (d)(1)(A)–(D).

[13] § 21021, subd. (d)(2).

[14] § 21027, subd. (a)(1).

[15] § 21026, subds. (b), (c).

[16] § 21014, subd. (f).

[17] § 21014, subd. (f)(3).

A roundup of news focused on real estate issues in the June 2026 state and local elections.

California

I Have Some Questions for the Democrats Who Want to Run California (New York Times): Ezra Klein hosted California’s top five Democratic candidates for governor to learn how each candidate plans to make progess on the issue of housing affordability.

‘Buckshot’ or moonshot? Dem candidates to replace Newsom offer grand plans for more housing (Politico): A central question for the Democratic candidates for California’s next governor is whether they will pursue many incremental “buckshot” fixes for more housing or implement a sweeping “moonshot” strategy to meaningfully increase supply.

How California’s Next Governor Would Tackle Rent, Insurance and Housing Costs (KQED): The gubernatorial candidates have made housing a leading issue in their campaigns, including a focus on the need to lower construction costs and address homelessness, but diverge on certain housing issues.

Here’s How California’s Next Governor Will Change Your Taxes (KQED): California’s leading gubernatorial candidates offer sharply different tax plans against the backdrop of affordability concerns and a projected state budget deficit.

San Francisco

The real estate industry picks its candidate in CA-11 (The Real Deal): Of San Francisco’s three leading congressional candidates, the real estate industry has contributed more to State Senator Scott Wiener’s campaign than to those of Supervisor Connie Chan or former congressional staffer Saikat Chakrabarti.

Scott Wiener passed laws that made it easier to build in California. Can he do the same in Congress? (Cal Matters): If elected, Senator Scott Wiener’s record of passing ambitious pro-housing laws in California may be tested against the far slower, less centralized realities of Congress.

S.F. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s edge at City Hall could hinge on these two supervisor races (SF Chronicle): Two closely watched San Francisco supervisor races have become proxy battles over Mayor Daniel Lurie’s pro-housing and moderate governance agenda, with challengers criticizing the Lurie-appointed incumbents’ support for denser zoning and their alignment with the mayor and his political allies.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has released 22 new Housing Law Fact Sheets that provide concise, standalone summaries of key state housing laws. As state housing laws continue to expand and evolve, the fact sheets offer quick-reference guidance on statutory requirements, recent legislative changes, and relevant technical assistance letters. Topics that may be of interest to developers include:

• Accessory Dwelling Unit law
• Density Bonus Law
• Housing Accountability Act
• Housing Crisis Act (SB 330)
• SB 35 / SB 423 streamlining
• Permit Streamlining Act
• Transit-Oriented Development (SB 79)

HCD also recently revamped its Technical Assistance and Enforcement Letters Dashboard to make it easier to locate individual letters sent to local jurisdictions on a range of housing law implementation issues. Together, the materials offer a practical reference for navigating entitlement strategy, local agency obligations, and state housing-law compliance across California.

A roundup of news and multimedia from the Unfamiliar Terrain team:

San Francisco

Why the skyscraper race is back on when SF has plenty of empty offices (SF Standard): Although one-third of San Francisco’s 90 million square feet of office space remains vacant since the pandemic, several developers are pursuing plans to build the City’s next great skyscraper, with investor backing.

Apartment rents soar to all-time highs — ‘San Francisco is rewriting its own record books’ (SF Business Times): San Francisco’s apartment rents are at their highest levels ever, driven by competition from tech workers. Local rent growth is significantly outpacing national trends.

S.F. tech company expands its footprint as leasing surge lifts downtown office market (SF Chronicle): A year after signing a long-term, 150,000 square foot lease at One Sansome, Databricks has expanded its office footprint in the space by 90,000 square feet, showing strong momentum for the City’s office market.

Bay Area

Big Tech’s favorite landlord is leaning into housing. It’s daring others to follow (SF Standard): The Sobrato Organization, long known for developing major Silicon Valley corporate tech campuses, is turning significant attention toward affordable housing, marked by the opening of The Millton, a 120-unit all-affordable development in Redwood City.

Newsom issues ‘final warning’ to cities over housing law violations — only one is in the Bay Area (Mercury News): Gov. Gavin Newsom issued notices to 15 jurisdictions, including Half Moon Bay, giving them 30 days to address housing law violations before potential referral to the Attorney General. The jurisdictions are more than two years behind on securing state-certified housing elements, and continued noncompliance could expose them to litigation, fines, loss of state funding, and builder’s remedy consequences.

California and Beyond

California considering a first of its kind idea to boost factory-built housing (CalMatters): The Legislature is considering a new proposal that would allow the state to serve as a financial backstop for factory-built housing projects. Under AB 2166, introduced by Buffy Wicks, the state would provide credit support to surety companies, enabling them to issue payment and performance bonds for factory-built construction.

Tight Curves and Wide Horizons: The Return of Highway 1 (NY Times): A travel feature explores the reopening of California’s Highway 1 through Big Sur and reflects on how recurring landslides, climate pressures, and costly repairs continue to shape the future of one of the state’s most iconic transportation corridors.

Cities scramble to comply with or fight major state housing law (CalMatters): With a July 1 deadline looming for local governments to introduce local “wiggle room” around SB 79, which broadly increases building height limits near major transit stops, cities around the state are exploring ways to tailor their own plans or buy themselves more time.

A Bill Aimed at Creating Homes Is Leaving Plots Empty Instead (Wall Street Journal): A U.S. Senate housing bill would significantly restrict the build-to-rent industry, causing financing to pull back and putting projects on pause.

California blew a hole in environmental planning law. Now, lawmakers are trying to fix it (CalMatters): California lawmakers are scrambling to more clearly define the new CEQA exemption for “advanced manufacturing” passed as part of the 2025 CEQA reform. The proposed fix would add limits and community protections, setting up a fight between environmental justice advocates seeking more review and industry groups arguing that streamlined approvals are needed for clean-energy manufacturing and economic development.

A roundup of news and multimedia from the Unfamiliar Terrain team:

San Francisco

Proposed waterfront tower could test California’s power to override S.F. height restrictions (SF Chronicle): A proposed waterfront tower project shows how new high-rise development proposals are reshaping debates over design, density, and growth along San Francisco’s northeastern waterfront.

The Marina Safeway may be SF NIMBYs’ last stand (SF Standard): A controversial proposal to redevelop the Marina Safeway site into a high-rise housing complex has become a focal point for debates about neighborhood opposition and the growing influence of California’s pro-housing state laws.

Scaled-back Potrero Yard plan clears way for 100 affordable homes in S.F. (SF Chronicle): SFMTA has scaled back the redevelopment plan (reduced from 465 to 100 units) for the Potrero Yard bus facility, with a nonprofit developer building the new affordable housing on the Bryant Street side of the site, rather than on top of the bus yard facility as originally planned.

Office-to-housing conversion planned for historic downtown S.F. building (SF Business Times): Local conversions of office buildings to housing have been much-discussed but rarely proposed; now a proposal 901 Market Street will test whether regulatory changes will help these projects pencil.

S.F. leaders propose cutting city’s transfer tax to spur stalled housing projects (SF Chronicle): A proposal by San Francisco leaders to reduce the city’s real estate transfer tax seeks to revive stalled housing projects and catalyze new residential development.

Here’s how much it costs to buy S.F.’s Transamerica Pyramid (SF Chronicle): Transamerica is under contract to sell for approximately $700 million, likely at a loss for its current owners after a costly renovation, but the deal suggests renewed global investor interest in San Francisco’s highest-end office properties despite the city’s relatively weak broader office market.

Bay Area

The Napa town where it’s easier to win a Michelin star than build an apartment (SF Standard): The debate over the proposed Yountville Commons workforce housing project intensified after celebrity chef Thomas Keller publicly criticized the town’s plans, arguing local workers need larger units and more parking.

California Forever Eyes New Trump Initiative to Bring Its Shipbuilding Plans to Life (KQED): California Forever proposes to use a recent “Maritime Prosperity Zone” initiative to secure federal support and incentives for a regional shipbuilding revival in the California Delta, tied to its broader Solano County development plans.

Chevron’s HQ left California. A developer now plans to add thousands more homes in its place (SF Chronicle): Sunset Development proposes to turn Chevron’s former San Ramon headquarters and surrounding office park into a mixed-use community with thousands of new homes, retail, and other amenities, reflecting a broader shift away from suburban office campuses in the remote-work era.

Concord rezoning paves the way for 1,000 homes in single-family neighborhoods (SF Business Times): The East Bay city completed rezoning to implement its housing element, avoiding potential “builder’s remedy” projects and creating higher-density opportunities in a traditionally low-density community.

California and Beyond

Senate passes bipartisan housing bill targeting large investors and easing regulations (NPR): The largest federal housing bill in decades has passed the U.S. Senate on an 89-10 vote, focusing on spurring supply and limiting institutional owners’ ability to purchase single-family homes.

L.A. council puts off yet another attempt to rewrite the city’s ‘mansion tax’ (LA Times): A Los Angeles City Council vote to place revisions to the city’s controversial “mansion tax” (Measure ULA) before voters was delayed after officials opted to send the proposal back for further review amid debate over whether the tax is hindering housing development or funding critical homelessness programs.

After months of hearings, numerous proposed amendments, and substantial public comment for and against, the San Francisco Family Zoning Plan passed by a 7-4 vote at the Board of Supervisors, and was approved by Mayor Lurie on December 12. At a high level, the Family Zoning Plan is intended to provide zoning capacity for 36,000 new housing units, as part of San Francisco’s implementation of its 2023-2031 Housing Element. This increased zoning capacity is largely concentrated in San Francisco’s northern and western neighborhoods, along existing public transit corridors.

The key component of the Family Zoning Plan is the Housing Choice-SF Program, which allows developers to opt in to a local density bonus program by meeting the City’s affordable housing requirements. Under Housing Choice-SF, projects can qualify for the local program even if they provide affordable units off-site or through land dedication; projects with fewer than 25 units can also elect to subject all units to rent control rather than providing on-site affordable units. By contrast, the State Density Bonus Law and related approval pathways such as SB 35/423 require affordable units to be provided on-site to unlock bonus density and ministerial approvals.

Projects that opt in can use the new local program to:

1. Obtain relief from applicable numeric density controls (for example, one unit per 600 square feet of lot area), and instead be governed by form-based density controls, such as height, bulk, setbacks, and lot coverage.
2. Unlock building height that exceeds base zoning, in many locations by one to two stories, but in some locations by five or more stories.
3. Modify or eliminate otherwise applicable development standards such as required open space, dwelling unit exposure, and rear yards, and obtain up to 15% reductions of many other quantitative development standards.
4. Utilize an administrative review process with Planning Director-level approvals and limited appeal opportunities.

If a developer elects to use Housing Choice-SF, that developer must forgo use of State Density Bonus Law. The Planning Department’s September staff report to the Planning Commission acknowledges that in some circumstances, State Density Bonus Law could allow for projects that exceed heights achievable through Housing Choice-SF.

At any potential development site, a developer will need to evaluate, among other criteria, the following:

1. Between Housing Choice-SF and State Density Bonus Law, which path would allow a denser or taller project?
2. Even if Housing Choice-SF would result in less density or height, does its administrative review process, with limited appeals, make it a more desirable path? Or could a State Density Bonus approach, especially if combined with a ministerial review through SB 35/423, provide a comparably streamlined approach with greater density or height?
3. Are there any Planning Code compliance issues that are better or more effectively solved through use of Housing Choice-SF, or would State Density Bonus Law waivers and concessions achieve a similar or better result?
4. Does the affordable housing flexibility provided by Housing Choice-SF, discussed above, make it a more attractive option?

The Family Zoning Plan also expands protections for existing residential tenants and historic structures, and provides assistance for businesses displaced by new residential development.

The Coblentz Real Estate Team is ready to assist as developers weigh their options under Housing Choice-SF and State Density Bonus Law.

A roundup of news and multimedia from the Unfamiliar Terrain team:

San Francisco

S.F. supervisors back tenant, small-business protections in Lurie’s ‘Family Zoning’ plan (SF Chronicle): Mayor Lurie’s family zoning plan would raise height limits and add density on the north and west sides of the city, but some elected officials, residents, neighborhood groups, and organized labor are pushing back, and various amendments are being considered.

New report says SF Family Zoning Plan will fall short of state housing mandates (SF Standard): The city economist’s analysis finds rezoning could yield far less housing than the Planning Department projects. Report available here.

Demand for SF offices is highest in the country (SF Standard): Demand for office space in San Francisco has doubled year over year, with particularly strong growth in the tech sector.

S.F.’s North Beach divided over proposal that could shake up retail in the historic neighborhood (SF Chronicle): Some businesses and residents are worried that a change in zoning could mean that neighborhood staples could lose protections that have helped them survive, while supporters believe that the legislation will make it easier to fill vacant spaces.

Bay Area

Plan Bay Area 2050+, draft plan and Draft EIR out for comment (MTC and ABAG): After more than two years of public discussion, technical analysis and refinement, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have released Draft Plan Bay Area 2050+ for review and comment.

Newsom authorizes Bay Area transit tax measure for 2026 ballot (CBS News): Gov. Newsom signed legislation authorizing a ballot measure for Bay Area voters to decide whether to increase sales taxes to fund transit.

BART made it easier to pay. Here’s how many riders are tapping the new system (SF Standard): Ridership is up 25% since January, and agency officials say the recent rollout of contactless payment may be the reason.

Homes in this Bay Area region are selling at a slower pace — and for less. What’s behind the cooldown? (SF Chronicle): Return-to-office mandates may explain shifting demand from further out suburbs to San Francisco and the South Bay.

Marin County town officials renew fight over proposed housing, even as a recall election looms (SF Chronicle): Fairfax’s mayor and vice mayor are facing a recall election that’s tied to housing development in the Marin County town.

California and Beyond

Newsom signs major housing bill allowing for dense construction near transit (SF Standard): Senate Bill 79 upzones heights near high-quality transit in eight counties, including four Bay Area counties (San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). We’ve written about the bill here.

Why California’s historic housing law gave activists a new reason to battle the bus (CalMatters): Opponents to dense housing developments in Los Angeles County are organizing against planned bus routes in response to Senate Bill 79.

Condos Provide Affordable Homeownership, So Why Doesn’t California Build More of Them? (SPUR): High insurance costs for condo builders, resulting from construction defect liability laws, may disincentivize condo development.

The Twin Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, Calif. (NY Times): Exploring two towns in the Sierra foothills and a recent influx of new residents.

This California town is battling the state’s deepest housing conundrum (SF Chronicle): Nevada County grapples with the need for more housing in wildfire country.