Housing

The Lookout: New Cal Housing Bills Could Change the Look, Feel of Your Neighborhood

But lawmakers disagree about whether the bills would make housing more affordable or cause a host of other issues for the state’s single-family household neighborhoods that so many California homeowners appreciate.

Published

5 years ago

September 7, 2021

Isabelle Price

Row of Houses, Photo Courtesy of California Black Media

California, known for its sprawling residential neighborhoods of single-family homes spread out with driveways, front yards and garages, even in urban areas, may soon get an architectural makeover. That’s if two new bills approved by the Legislature and awaiting the governor’s signature are signed into law.

Both Senate Bill (SB) 9 and Senate Bill (SB) 10 are legislative responses to California’s twin crises — the lack of affordable housing and an overall shortage of homes.

SB 9, authored by California’s Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D- San Diego), would allow homeowners in single-family households to have up to four housing units on their property. SB 10 would allow cities and counties to bypass the usual environmental review process for projects or developments with a maximum of 10 units in urban areas.

“Growing up, my family moved between rentals — some better than others, but none of them ‘ours.’ Even though my mom and dad clocked into honest jobs their whole lives, the idea that the Atkins family could own a home of our own was hardly a goal. It was a far-off fantasy,” said Atkins late last month after the Senate approved SB 9.

“Today, too many hard-working California families are saying the same. With SB 9, we have the chance to change that,” Atkins continued. “This bill would give homeowners the tools to help ease our state’s housing shortage while creating a new source of income in their own backyard. It would allow our communities to welcome new families to the neighborhood and help more folks set foot on the path to buying their first home.”

But, in cities and neighborhoods across the state, there has been strong and vocal opposition to SB 9 and SB 10. Organizations like the League of California Cities claim SB 9 would actually be detrimental to affordable housing without the appropriate safeguards.

“The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions,” the local governance advocacy association wrote in an opposition letter.

“This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements,” the letter continued.

However, California Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY), a pro-affordable housing organization, argues that SB 9 is precisely what California residents need, especially following a pandemic.

“California has a severe shortage of middle-income housing, or small (fewer than 10 homes) multi-family housing developments near jobs and transit; the lack of such housing is driving the displacement and severe rent burden of Californians across the state. The problem: it is illegal to build middle-income housing in over 70% of the state,” the organization’s website states.

“SB 9 would legalize this middle-income housing by adopting best practices from housing experts at the University of California Los Angeles. It will also help California respond to historic job loss in the construction sector and a 45% decrease in home construction due to COVID-19,” the statement continues.

There has been significant opposition to SB 10 as well. Many of its critics feel it is a shallow solution to a complex problem.

“While the intent of providing more housing may be good, these bills and approach are highly problematic. It poses a one-size-fits-all solution and a blunt, statewide fix that would outstrip local authority and planning. It also does not recognize the diversity of communities and development statewide, let alone throughout Greater Los Angeles,” the Los Angeles Conservancy wrote in an opposition statement.

Both SB 9 and SB 10 have passed in the State Senate and are now awaiting final approval from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until October 10 to sign or veto these bills.

Meanwhile, in the California State Assembly, Assembly Bill (AB) 1199 imposes an excise tax on landlords as a way to disincentivize them from buying foreclosed or under-market value homes in order to make a massive profit from these homes by using them as rental properties.

AB 1199 author Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) claims that this bill could help build generational wealth for low-income families.

“First-time homebuyers and working families lack opportunities to own homes and build generational wealth,” Gipson stated.

“AB 1199 corrects the excessive practice of corporations buying up foreclosed or under market value homes in order to profit from increasingly inflated rents. The state would impose an excise tax on large corporations that own and rent out 10 or more properties. The bill would create a fund from the taxes to support first time homebuyer education, down payment assistance programs and rental assistance for low-income families,” he continued.

The Assembly has not yet voted on AB 1199.

Isabelle Price

Posts by Isabelle Price

Up Next

California Republican Assembly, Top Democrat, Endorse Larry Elder for Governor

Don't Miss

Rights and Rules: 5 Things You Should Know If You’re Voting on Election Day

Isabelle Price

Click to comment

Business

COMMENTARY: Your California Living Trust Could Be Next: When Evidence Isn’t Enough

A recent California appellate ruling in the case of the Laura Dean Head Living Trust serves as a sobering warning for property owners relying on estate planning. Despite Dr. Head’s express written wishes to disinherit her estranged sisters and name a longtime friend as beneficiary, the court invalidated the trust based on undue influence. This decision highlights how documented intentions and supporting testimony from legal and medical professionals may still face successful legal challenges from disinherited relatives. Read more to see how this precedent impacts California homeowners.

Published

1 week ago

November 3, 2026

Post News Group

By Quintella Griffin , Legal Writer

You put your home in a living trust. You choose who inherits. You expressly disinherit relatives. An attorney prepares the documents. You expect your wishes to survive you.

Dr. Laura Dean Head’s trust did not.

California property owners should examine Laura Dean Head Living Trust, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, Case No. RP20061734, and Hamlin v. Jendayi, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. A167695.

The case delivers a sobering warning: a living trust can face a successful challenge even when its chosen beneficiary presents evidence supporting the person’s stated wishes.

Head, a San Francisco State University professor, named Zakiya Jendayi as successor trustee and primary beneficiary. They had known each other for 28 years. Seven years after Dr. Head’s death, her estranged sisters contested the trust. Jendayi alleges that they consulted various probate attorneys while forum shopping before pursuing the challenge. Judge Sandra K. Bean in Dept. 103 invalidated the trust based on undue influence.

Jendayi’s compilation, “The Truth Is in the Transcriptions,” places disputed findings beside testimony and medical records. She argues that the evidence tells a different story.

Estate planning attorney Elaine Lee testified that she reviewed the trust privately with Head, behind a closed door. Lee’s testimony, reproduced in the compilation, attributes the beneficiary choices to Head and describes her insistence that her sisters receive nothing.

Hospice social worker Jenna Noe confirmed that Head told her she wanted to leave her belongings to Jendayi. Noe also testified that Head made her own decisions in their conversations.

The court described complete dependence on Jendayi. The compilation points to paid caregivers, hospice professionals and frequent visits from friends. When the judge asked nurse Dolly Woodson whether she had witnessed Jendayi abusing Head, Woodson answered no.

Jendayi also challenges the court’s treatment of her conditional power of attorney and alleges omissions and unequal treatment of evidence.

Yet the appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found substantial evidence supporting undue influence, rejected the judicial-bias claims and deemed any deficiencies in the statement of decision harmless. The published portion held that disinherited potential intestate heirs had standing to contest the trust.

That ruling endangers Californians who have properties held in a trust. Disinheritance did not prevent this challenge, and evidence supporting Head’s intentions did not secure the outcome Jendayi sought.

For homeowners relying on a living trust, the question is urgent: how well will your documented choices withstand a contested courtroom narrative?

Read the decision at https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2024/a167695m.html

Examine the testimony. Consider what happened when a woman’s written wishes and the evidence offered to defend them were still not enough.

Sources: Hamlin v. Jendayi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1064, opinion filed Oct. 17, 2024, modified Nov. 12, 2024; Jendayi’s supplied compilation of transcript excerpts and exhibits. Claims of error reflect Jendayi’s position.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Commentary

Oakland Probate Dispute Raises Questions About Court-Ordered Property Transfer and Missing Notice

A legal dispute over an Oakland property has intensified following a tentative ruling that favored occupant Zakiya Jendayi, who claimed she was not properly notified before a judge ordered the property transferred into an estate. After the ruling, the estate’s administrator successfully challenged the presiding judge and requested the case be returned to the judge who signed the original transfer order. The First District Court of Appeal has now intervened to review the disqualification process and recent changes to the court docket. Read more.

Published

2 weeks ago

October 25, 2026

Post News Group

By Quintella Griffin, Legal Writer

Opinion and documentary analysis | Part 2 of 2

A tentative ruling found that Oakland property occupant Zakiya Jendayi had not received notice before a judge ordered its transfer into an estate.

The ruling was not final. Attention shifted to the assigned judge.

The estate’s special administrator, Phillip Campbell, invoked California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to disqualify Judge Stephanie Sato. The trial court granted the challenge Sept. 9, 2026.

Five days later, Campbell requested reassignment specifically to Judge Sandra Bean, who had signed the property order Jendayi sought to overturn.

The sequence raises questions about procedural fairness.

A Challenge After an Unfavorable Ruling

Sato’s Sept. 8 tentative ruling concluded that California’s notice requirement protected Jendayi as an occupant, regardless of whether Jendayi held a valid ownership interest.

Her proposed decision would have vacated Bean’s Oct. 8, 2025, order.

Section 170.6 permits challenges under certain circumstances. Whether Campbell’s challenge was timely was disputed.

On Sept. 14, Campbell sought Bean’s reassignment, citing her familiarity with related trust litigation, judicial economy and consistency. Jendayi opposed the request the following day.

The timing invites serious public scrutiny but does not establish misconduct.

The Appellate Court Intervenes

In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1987), a California appellate court examined the danger of allowing litigants to learn a judge’s likely decision before seeking disqualification.

The decision also recognized that changed assignments and insufficient notice can affect when a challenge is permissible.

On Sept. 17, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal stayed the order granting Campbell’s challenge and requested briefing addressing Kaiser.

That intervention did not vacate Bean’s property order, restore the invalidated trust or conclusively decide whether Campbell’s challenge was improper.

It did place the reassignment dispute under appellate review.

Questions in the Docket

Two versions of the court docket present another unresolved issue.

A printout preserved through Sept. 15 lacked reassignment entries that appeared in a later version. The later docket listed reassignment to Bean and a clerk’s notice under Sept. 9.

The difference warrants an explanation of when the entries were created, entered and made publicly accessible.

It does not establish deliberate backdating.

Accountability Beyond an Order

Judges generally enjoy immunity from damages claims arising from judicial acts, even when serious error is alleged. That protection does not make their decisions immune from review.

Appellate courts can correct legal errors; California’s Commission on Judicial Performance can investigate misconduct but cannot reverse judgments.

For Jendayi, the central concern remains practical: How much litigation must an occupant undertake to enforce a notice requirement intended to protect participation before property rights are adjudicated?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. underscores the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to object.

The record establishes contested filings, a tentative ruling and appellate intervention, not anyone’s private motives.

The public deserves a transparent, documented explanation of this consequential judicial process.

A judge’s signature should resolve a lawful dispute, not silence legitimate questions about how the decision was reached.

The case is Estate of Laura Dean Head, Alameda County Superior Court case RP20066047. Records are available through the court’s eCourt Public Portal.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Business

Veterans Housing Project Proposed for South Richmond

According to the development team’s presentation, the project has an estimated total cost of nearly $158 million. The presentation outlines five phases encompassing entitlement and construction documents, community outreach, soil remediation and utility work, podium and building construction, solar technology integration, and interior buildouts.

Published

4 weeks ago

October 13, 2026

Post News Group

Artist’s rendering of the complex that will have xx units for veterans. Courtesy image.

A proposed mixed-use development at 338 Carlson Blvd. could bring hundreds of homes and support services for military veterans to South Richmond.

Led by the Richmond-based Veterans Resource Program in partnership with Eagle Environmental Construction & Development, the proposal covers an approximately 2.3-acre property the nonprofit acquired in 2018.

The proposal features a multi-building residential development with various apartment sizes, though city documents and developer materials cite conflicting totals ranging from 226 to 268 units.

The proposal also includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, about 200 parking spaces, and an entrepreneurial training and job-development component intended to connect veterans with economic and workforce opportunities.

Founded in 2011, the Veterans Resource Program provides housing assistance and other services to veterans, including those experiencing homelessness or transitioning from incarceration.

The proposal aims to advance Richmond’s affordable housing goals while connecting veterans with housing and supportive services. Details of affordability and veteran eligibility remain to be clarified.

The Richmond City Council was scheduled to receive an informational presentation on the project at its Oct. 6 meeting, following a continuance from Sept. 22. The item does not seek project approval or city funding. Any future request for city financial assistance or other public resources would require separate consideration and approval.