|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An ambitious and divisive housing bill that seeks to encourage taller and denser developments near transit lines survived a key vote in the state Senate last week with the assistance of state Sen. Josh Becker, though its ultimate fate remains uncertain is it moves to the Assembly.
Becker, a Democrat who represents Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View and other cities in the San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, in many ways epitomizes his party’s ambivalence toward Senate Bill 79, a housing bill that was authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener. The bill would grant concessions to new housing projects near train stations, light rail, bus corridors and ferry stops. Development standards would vary based on distance from transit areas and types of transit available. Maximum heights, for example, would range from 45 feet to 95 feet, depending on which of the three “tiers” a project falls into.
The bill moved through the state Senate on June 3 on a vote of 21 to 13, with some Democrats joining Republicans in expressing concerns about SB 79. Sen. Caroline Menjivar, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley, argued that many parts of California, including her district, have inadequate and scarcely used transit services. The light rail service in her district goes “from nowhere to nowhere” and isn’t connected to any destinations that her constituents would need to go to.
“We’re not London. We’re not Zurich,” Menjivar, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley. “We don’t have the transit infrastructure yet. When we look at these kinds of bills, we shouldn’t put the horse before the carriage. We should invest in infrastructure.”
While Becker voted to advance the bill, he emphasized in an interview that his support hinges on significant changes that would need to be made to the legislation before it comes back to the Senate for a final vote. Chief among them is a clearer differentiation between projects that are located right along a transit corridor, or within 1/8 of a mile and those that are as far as half a mile away.
Becker told this publication that if this were the final vote, he would not have supported SB 79.
“I was clear to the team that I will not vote on this bill on the way back unless the radius has changed,” Becker said.
The bill also proved divisive in Palo Alto, where City Council member Pat Burt described the prior version of the bill as a “one-size-fits-all” proposal that takes the “chainsaw to local zoning.”
“We’re talking about 55 feet and 5 stories by right without any parking requirements in an Eichler neighborhood,” Burt said at an April meeting, referring to Eichler neighborhoods in south Palo Alto that are within half a mile of El Camino Real. “That’s how crazy this is.”
While he had urged his colleagues to oppose the legislation, others on the council advocated for a wait-and-see approach. Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker supported taking no position on the bill at this time but monitoring it as it moves through the Legislature.
Supporters of SB 79 characterized the bill as a much-needed measure to address California’s housing crisis by focusing on areas that are particularly suitable for residential development: transit corridors. Wiener noted that placing housing near transit would not only help boost housing supply but also support transit services, many of which are now facing significant financial pressure. Many transit areas currently have little housing around them and, as a result, have low ridership, he said.
“The purpose of this bill is to say, ‘Let’s focus on more housing around the highest quality transportation, where we have to make significant public investment of tax dollars,’ and I support that investment,” Wiener said during the June 3 hearing on his bill. “If we’re going to invest, as we should, in better and better public transportation, let’s help it succeed.”
Becker similarly said that he sees great value in focusing residential development on transit corridors. In recent months, he has been a vocal critic of the state’s existing process for encouraging housing. Under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process, the state assigns a housing quota to each jurisdiction and requires them to adopt a plan for meeting its state-mandated target for new dwellings. Those that don’t get their plans certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development by the state’s deadline become vulnerable to “builder’s remedy” projects that effectively ignore local zoning regulations.
The new approach proposed by SB 79 has merit, Becker argued, because it focuses on transit corridors and, as such, would require some of the more urban parts of the state to build a greater share of housing. In addition to greater distinction between areas right next to transit stations and those further away, the revised bill would need to include provisions to give more flexibility to local governments, particularly those that have already adopted zoning changes to encourage more housing near transit, to get his support.
“A lot of the housing legislation out of Sacramento has been misguided,” said Becker, who recently tried to spearhead a law to reform and limit use of builder’s remedy. “That’s why I didn’t support a lot of it. I think this conversation around building near transit statewide is an important one and I think there are some good elements in this bill.”
The bill will now go to the state Assembly for hearings. Assembly member Marc Berman has not yet staked out a position on the bill, according to his office but his spokesperson said that Berman will be evaluating SB 79 closely.
Becker is exactly right. I don’t care if you put 9 story buildings on el Camino , with the right infrastructure. But someone lives 1/4 a mile away and a 9 story goes up on a corner lot within a sea of R1s?!? Give me a break.
YIMBYs embarrass themselves here with no regard to homeowners who paid $3mm for a house only to be told they have to live next to a skyscraper.
Mr. Burt, what’s crazy is an Eichler neighborhood within half a mile of a train station. It’s time to build taller in such locations.
I understand that SB 79 also gives cities flexibility to shift density around, for instance, from Cal Ave and San Antonio stations to their respective downtowns.
Quite a bit of equivocating from our State Senator. If he wanted changes to a law shouldn’t he see them before voting for it?
Did you know that SB 79 is sponsored by the CA YIMBY movement? It’s true!
https://cayimby.org/legislation/sb-79/
“SB 79 will make it faster and easier to build multi-family housing near transit stops, like train and rapid bus lines, by making it legal for more homes to be built in these areas and streamlining project review processes.”
[The devil is always in the details. Rapid bus lines? Sounds good, but what EXACTLY are they? And notice the words “streamlining project review processes”. Those are pretty-speak for “taking away the ability of residents in the community to express their concerns. I’d like to understand why anyone believes it is important AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS to pass even more laws that take away residents rights to have a voice regarding what happens in THEIR COMMUNITIES.]
“Most cities in California continue to prohibit multi-family homes on many properties near transit stops, which both increases housing costs, and undermines access to, and use of, transit. The broad prohibitions on multi-family housing also increase climate pollution, both through reducing transit ridership and forcing people to drive private vehicles for more of their trips.”
[First, why should cities like MV that do NOT prohibit such multii-family housing be punished with a bill like SB 79? How about we only punish the cities who do not provide such multi-family housing with it? Wouldn’t that be more fair? It could be like Builder’s Remedy, only imposed on cities that are “out of compliance”.]
[And second, why is this bill EVEN NECESSARY for ANY CITY that has actually submitted approved Housing Elements? Perhaps there might be a need if cities were not able to meet their current RHNA targets … It sounds to me like this might be an early move to enable the state to REQUIRE even more massive construction during the NEXT RHNA cycle, in 2031. Mountain View was REQUIRED to increase our housing supply by OVER 30% in this cycle, a grotesque amount that was imposed on few other cities. Why? The answer from the State has been crickets. The only answer that makes sense is: because that’s what Google wants. I can only imagine how much further density will be mandated by the State in the next RHNA cycle].
“Despite the Legislature’s successful recent efforts to reduce local barriers to transit-adjacent housing, many properties within a half-mile of transit are still essentially off-limits to multi-family housing — often because local zoning restrictions prohibit these types of homes. Across California, single-family-only zoning districts still dominate the land use around many publicly-funded transit systems.”
[Notice “properties within a half-mile of transit are still essentially off-limits to multi-family housing”. There you go. The YIMBYs want to use SB 79 to give them the silver bullet to break up existing areas that contain only single-family housing. The YIMBYs have been conducting a hate-mongering campaign against SFH owners for at least 4 years now. We have been falsely blamed as being the primary reason, really the ONLY reason, that the cost of housing is so high here. The desire to hurt and punish SFH owners is absolutely intense. Laws that would enable a 9 story building to be constructed right next to 1 and 2 story homes … I can hear the chuckles of glee at the thought.]
“SB 79 will make it legal to build more multi-family housing near transit, including in areas currently zoned only for single-family homes, by allowing upzoning and rezoning near rail stations and rapid bus lines. It will help address housing affordability by increasing the supply of homes in these areas, while also bolstering transit use – and the funding stability of public transportation systems.”
[Once again, notice “SB 79 will make it legal to build more multi-family housing near transit, including in areas currently zoned only for single-family homes, “. That is a KEY GOAL OF THIS SB 79.]
And remember ALMOST ALL of the new housing will only be “affordable” (hah1) to the highest wage earners in the land.
Also, how expensive is it to build a new bus stop? How difficult would it be for a developer to fund one in an area where they want to build a 7 story housing project? Voila! Their project is now “near transit”. Seems like an easy obstacle to overcome in order to get STREAMLINED approval for their project.