📡 SACRAMENTO SENTINEL — ISSUE 4
The Enforcement Hammer & The CEQA Scalpel
Bills: AB 712 (Wicks) + AB 609 (Wicks)
Franchise Conflict: Housing
📌 TL;DR
Two housing bills—AB 609 and AB 712—are quietly rewriting the rules of local control in California:
AB 609 allows developers to bypass environmental review (CEQA) and override city planning rules by choosing whichever interpretation helps their project.
AB 712 punishes cities that push back—with mandatory fines, attorney’s fees, and a ban on legal protections.
Together, they allow developers to override city rules and sue local governments for saying no—even when the project violates zoning. Meanwhile, AB 736 would hand developers $10 billion in public funds.
This is not just housing policy. It’s the rise of a new regime—fueled by public money, protected by state law, and enforced by the public’s own representatives.
⚖️ Two Bills, One Doctrine: Clear the Path or Pay the Price
In California’s accelerating housing war, the state is no longer just setting goals—it’s deploying weapons. Two bills this session—AB 609 and AB 712, both authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks—form a precise legal doctrine:
AB 609 carves a surgical exemption through the state’s environmental law.
AB 712 punishes local governments for defying housing mandates.
Together, they restructure the rules of engagement between the State Government, cities, and developers.
🪚 AB 609 — The CEQA Scalpel
Title: CEQA Exemption for Urban Infill Housing
Author: Asm. Buffy Wicks
Status: Amended in Assembly, May 5, 2025
🔍 What It Does:
AB 609 exempts certain housing projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provided they meet specific infill criteria.
“This division does not apply to a housing development project... that meets the following conditions...”
(Section 21080.66(a))
✅ To Qualify, a Project Must:
Be 20 acres or less
Be located in an incorporated city or urban area
Be surrounded on 75% of its perimeter by “urban uses”
Be consistent with either zoning or the general plan (whichever is more permissive)
Not demolish historic structures or affect tribal cultural resources
🧠 Strategic Clause Explained:
Ordinarily, cities can reject a project that violates either their zoning code or general plan. AB 609 overrides that.
“A project shall be deemed consistent with both [zoning and general plan] if the project is consistent with one.”
(21080.66(a)(4)(B))
This means that:
If there’s a conflict between the two, the project only needs to match one.
And even if the city believes it matches neither, it still counts as “consistent” if “any reasonable person” could see it that way.
The result: developers can reinterpret city plans to suit their needs—and courts will back them.
Cities write the rules.
AB 609 lets developers decide what they mean.
🧱 Why This Matters:
In theory, cities must align their zoning codes with their general plans. But in practice, that alignment is slow, and often incomplete. The law uses the phrase “within a reasonable time”—but it’s undefined. Most cities have dozens or even hundreds of parcels with mismatches.
AB 609 weaponizes that gap.
It doesn’t help cities fix it. It empowers developers to exploit it. Routine misalignment becomes a legal loophole—and cities get exposed.
🔧 Definitions:
Infill Housing: Development on vacant or underused land within existing urban infrastructure.
Urban Use: Existing or former residential, commercial, public, or transit uses.
🧪 Environmental Checks Still Required:
A Phase I Environmental Assessment for hazardous substances
If contamination is found: a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment and full mitigation before occupancy
🪓 AB 712 — The Enforcement Hammer
Title: Housing Law Enforcement Penalties
Author: Asm. Buffy Wicks
Status: Amended in Assembly, May 5, 2025
🔍 What It Does:
AB 712 creates mandatory penalties for local agencies that violate state housing laws. It empowers developers to sue and recover costs when cities obstruct.
"The applicant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs."
(65914.2(b)(1))
💰 Key Penalties:
$50,000 minimum fine if the city acted despite written warning from the AG or HCD
5x multiplier if the city already violated the same statute earlier in the planning period
"The court shall impose a fine... not less than $50,000 per violation."
(65914.2(b)(2)(A)(i))
🚫 No Indemnity Allowed:
Cities can no longer shield themselves by offloading legal risk to developers.
"A public agency shall not require an applicant... to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the public agency..."
(65914.2(c)(1))
🧨 The Paradox of Penalty: When Cities Are Liable for What They Don’t Build
Under AB 712, cities aren’t punished for building the wrong thing—they’re punished for not approving what the developer proposes under state housing law. Cities don’t build housing. But they approve, deny, or delay it.
So when a city denies a compliant project, either by delay, disapproval, or imposing illegal conditions, the city becomes the legal violator.
🧱 Example:
A developer applies to build a 5-story apartment.
The project qualifies.
The city council rejects it based on height concerns.
Under AB 712:
The city can be sued by the developer.
If the developer prevails, the city must pay:
Mandatory fines ($50K+ per violation)
The developer's legal fees
And it can’t pass those costs onto the developer through indemnity
⚠️ Why This Matters:
This flips the structure of housing governance:
Cities become legally subordinate to developers, not just regulators of them
Public discretion becomes a liability, not a check
Local sovereignty is hollowed out through financial risk
And because cities don’t build directly, they face a binary choice:
Approve the project as demanded
Fight it, lose, and pay.
⚔️ The Coordination Trap: AB 609 Sets the Bait, AB 712 Springs the Trap
When these two bills work together, the legal mechanism becomes dangerous:
A developer proposes a housing project that doesn’t comply with zoning—but arguably fits the general plan.
Under AB 609, that’s enough to be deemed consistent.
If the city disagrees and denies the project, the developer sues under AB 712.
The city loses: courts side with any “reasonable person” interpretation.
The city pays fines, legal costs, and still has to approve the project.
AB 609 empowers reinterpretation.
AB 712 enforces submission.
The result? Cities are held liable for other people’s buildings based on their own plans—reinterpreted against them.
🧰 Developer Starter Kit (2025 Edition)
🧱 Step 1: Find a city with inconsistent zoning and general plan
🧱 Step 2: Draft your own interpretation of their rules
🧱 Step 3: Propose a project that benefits from CEQA exemption under AB 609
🧱 Step 4: If the city pushes back—sue under AB 712
🧱 Step 5: Win the lawsuit, get your attorney’s fees paid, and break ground with their money
This is the new model:
Interpret. Sue. Build. Repeat.
🧠 Strategic Reading
AB 609 and AB 712 aren’t isolated reforms. They are part of a legal infrastructure shift:
CEQA is being selectively neutralized
Local discretion is being legally disciplined
Developers are gaining direct legal leverage over cities
These are not policies. They are tools of enforcement and exemption, designed to override resistance and accelerate state-aligned housing development. And with AB 736 likely headed to the ballot next year, builders and contractors will be rolling in the publicly funded dough.
Stay Sharp. Stay Sovereign.
Let the People see the game.