Seems better than the current. She also pledged to further her expansion of LA’s RSO protections which she headlined strengthening as a council member recently.

Mr. Rogers said, "won't you be my neighbor?" not "don't you be my neighbor." New neighbors = new friends!

I've got a couple of questions about the 80 Willow project in Menlo Park which just triggered a court case, but has been contentious for a couple of years:

1. Part of the controversy is that Menlo Park is claiming that some land in a neighboring city is not a park, it is wetlands (and this would change how California AB 2011 was applied to the site). The exact quote is "the open space adjacent to the existing parcels is a natural feature preserved for its environmental value, not a park."
   

However, the neighboring city calls it a park on all their maps, and I have not found a map produced by anyone (US Corp. of Engineers, County, State, Spanish/Mexican land grant) that calls it wetlands. For what it's worth, Google Gemini claims it is 2.4 miles from the nearest wetlands. Menlo Park, as far as I can tell, has not produced a single document backing up their claim.

In particular, aren't all parks "a natural feature preserved for its environment value"? Isn't that part of the definition of a park? It sounds to me like Menlo Park is looking up at the sky and saying "That is a bunch of gas, not an atmosphere" the laws for atmosphere don't apply, because it is just a bunch of gas!

Does anyone know the legal basis for the cities argument? Has this come up before in California HAA or AB 2011 court cases?

1. The second issue is simpler. Menlo Park claims the project is not a housing development and therefore not entitled to any of the advantages of California's AB 2011 or "Builder's Remedy". They claim it must be more than 50% sq footage of housing and it is not. There is text like this in the laws, but I'm having trouble figuring out if it still applies. The California attorney general does not seem to think so, in a letter sent to the city. (I am not a land use professional.) Does anyone know how to apply this part of the law? Has it been applied before to similar developments?

The $2+ million Berkeley home with this anti-housing sign is assessed at $186,989 and paid $4,201.90 in property taxes last year

All the more confused because small businesses benefit from housing nearby

For context: Berkeley is considering plans to allow more housing around some of its retail corridors in expensive neighborhoods. A weird coalition of small businesses and Prop 13-protected homeowners opposes this efforts—even though many of those same corridors already have middle-density multi-family! It’s just all just old bc it’s not legal to build anymore

Berkeley Planning Commissioner Darrell Owens did a great write up looking at where sales tax revenue (and thus business) has grown the most in Berkeley. No evidence of housing hurting businesses, in fact likely helping. Check it out here

An SB 9 lot split lets a homeowner in a single family zone divide one lot into two. Then you can build up to two homes on each new lot. Approval is ministerial, which means no public hearing if the plan meets the rules. In Los Angeles in 2026, though, the process is harder than it sounds. The rules changed in 2025 and again on January 1, 2026. Some fire damaged areas are also on hold, and the eligibility screen is strict.

What SB 9 allows

Two unit development: you can build up to two main homes on one single family lot, attached or detached.

Urban lot split: you can divide one lot into two parcels and build up to two homes on each. That allows up to four homes on the original property.

The key difference from an ADU is ownership. In most cities, you cannot sell an ADU apart from the main house. Each lot created by an SB 9 lot split can be sold on its own.

What changed in 2025 and 2026

SB 450 (since 2025): cities must approve or deny a complete SB 9 application within 60 days, cannot apply stricter standards to SB 9 projects than to other housing in the same zone, and can deny a project only for specific health and safety impacts.

AB 1061 (since January 1, 2026): historic districts are no longer excluded across the board, including Historic Preservation Overlay Zones in the City of Los Angeles. Individually listed landmarks stay ineligible.

Lot split basics

Each new lot must be at least 1,200 square feet, and neither lot can be smaller than 40 percent of the original. You must sign an affidavit that you plan to live in one of the homes for at least three years after approval.

Continue reading: https://rndbuildersinc.com/blog/sb-9-lot-split-los-angeles/

Includes a concise explanation of the need for state pre-emption.

It always been within the power of local governments to alleviate this crisis, but they have consistently failed to act. Our housing crisis is a preventable and self-inflicted catastrophe. Had our cities allowed housing to be built, price appreciation would be far lower. But too many cities, even as prices rose, have done the opposite. They have erected regulatory and legal barriers to housing, chief among them low-density zoning. In most parts of most cities, local governments prohibit the construction of multi-family housing. These constraints on new housing catered to the concerns of existing residents, who worried about traffic congestion, neighborhood aesthetics, the ease of parking on the street, and the nature or character of people might live in multi-family housing. Some of these concerns are understandable (others are not), but cities that block housing out of fears over congestion or aesthetics are prioritizing amenities a lucky few over basic shelter for the many. By accident or intent, our local governments have created and presided over a massive transfer of wealth: from renters to owners, from the poor to the rich, and from the young to the old. They have also reinforced the segregation, by race and income, of our metropolitan areas.

SB 827 can break the local gridlock and put housing where it belongs. The local failure to build housing owes largely to the political incentives local governments face. Local officials are most responsive to local voters, and the most vocal of these local voters are often suspicious of housing. The result is a collective action problem: when every local government looks out for itself, the state as a whole suffers, and the most vulnerable residents — who often have the least local voice — suffer most.

Saratoga's Mayor op-ed on why they need to process their 18 active Builder Remedies, lest they get a revocation that allows more.