The Marin Post

Blog Post < Previous | Next >

• Marin County
|
• California
|
• SF Bay Area
|
• Housing
|
• Planning & Development

SB 79 is more than streamlining, it’s a takeover

SB 79 (Wiener)-Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transit-oriented development.

Senator Wiener’s dreams of remaking California into an overdeveloped sea of high rise apartment buildings are in full swing this legislative session, and this time there’s zero appearance of preserving or promoting affordability.

Wiener’s SB 79 is a transit-oriented streamlining bill that upzones parcels for ministerial (automatic) approvals within specified distances of defined transit, potentially swallowing up whole neighborhoods, with up to seven stories of density.

City housing elements have already accounted for their state-assigned units at the required income levels. Wiener’s plans ignore affordability; “abundance” is all that matters. SB 79 goes on to alter the Surplus Public Lands Act. Transit agencies to would be able bypass the current requirement of offering land declared “surplus” for affordable housing, and instead go straight to revenue producing projects that can be 100% commercial.

SB 79 had pushback in the Senate Housing Committee, but made it through, and passed the Senate Local Government Committee. It was placed in the Appropriations Suspense File yesterday. It will be revisited on May 23rd.

If it passes Appropriations it will move to a Senate floor vote. Before that happens we need to let our State Senators know that this giveaway to developers is unacceptable.

Tell your Senator NOW that you OPPOSE SB 79 for these reasons:

• It undermines affordable housing goals
• It undermines the housing element process
• It alters the Surplus Lands Act by eliminating public process and priorities for housing.
• Affordable housing near transit is the goal of state policy, but it is not the goal of this bill.

Take action before it gets to a floor vote!

Find your Senator here:
Senators | California State Senate

Contact your Assembly Member if it makes it to the other house:
Members | California State Assembly

THE “TIRED REFRAIN”

Any argument against streamlining, no matter how valid, is automatically characterized as a “tired refrain” by the pro-housing crowd. It serves as an automatic deflection of real life concerns including the forcing of density into Fire Hazard Zones without evacuation access.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s Editorial Board recently characterized opposition to SB 79 by new Senate Housing Committee Chair, Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, “as a tired refrain that efforts to streamline new housing production are “giveaways for developers,”.

Actually, the tired refrain is that streamlining laws work, and abundance creates affordability.

SB 79 UNDERMINES AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS

Affordable housing and anti-gentrification advocates (and city governments) oppose SB 79 for making their mission to create and preserve affordable housing, especially near transit, more difficult in multiple ways.

It has no affordability provision; all transit-oriented development can be market rate. Upzoning in itself increases land prices. Non-profit organizations with limited funding won’t be able to compete with monied developers for parcels near transit.

SB 79 UNDERMINES HOUSING ELEMENTS

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns housing targets in 8 year cycles, and cities must create “housing elements,” lengthy reports that show where their new mandated housing units could be accommodated, spread specifically over four income levels. This lengthy and expensive process involves considerable upzoning, rezoning, and reforming of General Plans.

SB 79 imposes a new layer of zoning on top of the meticulous housing element planning. If top-down laws are going to override housing elements, they become irrelevant. They are already the last vestiges of local land control.

SB 79 has no consideration for the below-market-rate units the cities are responsible for, preferring to covering all parcels with expensive housing.

SB 79 ALTERS THE SURPLUS PUBLIC LANDS ACT

SB 79 strays from its supposed focus on housing by alarmingly altering the Surplus Public Lands Act (SLA). The Act currently allows agencies to dispose of land, but the process is public, must prioritize public benefit uses, and be offered to local governments and affordable housing developers before it can be sold on the open market.

SB 79 amends the SLA to grant transit agencies full control over properties they own or lease or have permanent easement on (regardless of proximity to transit) and allows uses of 100% commercial, entertainment, or other revenue-producing ventures — which do not have to include any housing. This public land can be leveraged for profit, not “public benefit uses.”

WHAT IS STREAMLINING?

Streamlining laws take city and community discretion — and environmental consideration — out of the equation to offer swift (ministerial) approvals and other sweeteners for developers of large scale housing projects. Streamlining allows projects easier approvals and local governments have no standing to reject them, no matter how impactful.

Streamlining bills like SB 79 ignore legitimate concerns about localized impacts on infrastructure, traffic, parking, evacuation egress, environmental issues, and more. Community needs are secondary to generating developer interest — to the point where no public noticing or input is allowed.

WHAT IS A TRANSIT ORIENTED BILL?

This is the intent to cluster housing, usually for low income commuters, around transit to encourage its use and discourage driving. As a transit oriented bill, SB 79 meticulously defines the distance from specific types of transit where the upzoning would apply. This assumes the bill creates defined boundaries, but definitions are often adjusted after passage. SB 79 might apply specifically to high quality transit, rapid bus transit and light rail now, but there’s no future guarantee that it won’t spread much farther. Wiener envisions lots would have their zoning restrictions updated automatically based on their proximity to transit stations and the amount of daily trains that pass through.

Currently SB 79 applies to “rapid transit bus stops for developments “up to seven stories.” Next year it could be changed to apply to regular bus stops, blanketing entire cities, and the “seven story” limit could be tossed.

There are examples of such adjustments. The definition of a “quality transit bus stops” has already dropped from 15 minute peak service to 20 minutes to cover more territory within a half mile of a qualifying stop. A couple of years ago Wiener successfully amplified his punishing SB 35 streamlining law with SB 423, making it permanent, lowering affordability requirements, and spreading density into coastal areas without Coastal Commission input or CEQA.

IS STREAMLINING THE SOLUTION?

If it was, we’d be seeing strides made toward the push to create 2.5 million new units by 2031. Cities, under duress, have approved countless projects, but developers aren’t building.

Matt Haney, Chair of the Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development, opened this year’s session responding to a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) study that years of streamlining laws hadn’t stimulated housing production.

In his words:

“We'll assess the progress of key housing production bills to understand what's working, what's not, and why. Honest evaluation is critical not only to improve our laws, but also to maintain public trust and ensure future housing legislation can succeed. We shouldn't just keep passing more and more bills just because we can.

"We should actually look at what is working, why it's working, how we can do more of what's working, and if it's not working, we should fix it or change it. And to be clear, there are also factors outside of our direct control that have a huge impact on the housing landscape.”

That common sense approach was quickly bulldozed by the legislature, which chose to ignore reality and double down on developer-friendly laws, like SB 79. Others (including Wiener’s SB 607) “spur development” by attacking CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) and the Coastal Commission. The regulations and authorities that have kept our state clean and our coastline accessible are now denigrated as inhibitors to housing.

HAS STREAMLINING CREATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

The state’s own figures show that 81% of new housing stock added since 2023 is market rate. Our affordability crisis is practically untouched.

Streamlining begs a for-profit industry to build. This policy — all carrot for developers, all stick for cities — isn’t working.

The private market doesn’t want to build much in this climate, especially below market rate units. Public funding for affordable housing is shaky. Our state has cut housing support from a strained budget. The Federal Government recently slashed their involvement with housing programs. But cities are still responsible for their mandates, which include a huge number of below market rate units, even if no one wants to fund or build them.

THE PRESS IS EITHER COMPLICIT OR INCURIOUS

The press repeatedly describes streamlining as simple “pro housing legislation,” an easy fix for our (undefined) housing crisis — without any reasonable critique. Our crisis is actually in affordability, but an “abundance” narrative has taken hold. Most California Newsgroup Publications, including the San Francisco Chronicle, have marketed SB 79 as a mere streamlining bill that only heartless anti-housing obstructionists would oppose.

The Atlantic now features a columnist who believes our “housing crisis” is the product of “too much democracy.” Community input and environmental laws are the culprits.

Aren’t democracy and environmentalism positive forces?

Simplistic thinking ignores the complex issues of local infrastructure strain, economic conditions, income inequality, the commoditization of housing, and the lack of interest in building anything unprofitable. In California, a one size fits all development plan is ridiculous. Many small towns are literally built out, with no major employers or transit. Most don’t have the budgets for infrastructure upgrades to accommodate massive growth.

TRICKLE DOWN AND ABUNDANCE

SB 79 assumes a glut of more expensive housing entices higher earners to “move up” and leaving their cheaper dwellings behind for lower income earners. Does that make sense? Our software industry over several decades has produced a whole class of higher earners, and they are being laid off in droves, possibly unable to afford their current rents, and looking to downgrade. They would face stiff competition. There isn’t enough enough housing stock truly affordable, especially at the lowest ends.

NEWSOM MAY INTERVENE

There have been some surprises. The new Housing Committee chairs seem more skeptical than their predecessors; Wiener was incredulous that Senator Wahab and staff were opposed to his SB 79. He is used to orchestrating legislation and coercing its passage. The fact that his legislation is either failing or passing by narrow margins could mean that some bravery and common sense is brewing.

But the democratic process is on shaky ground everywhere. Politico recently noted:

“Democratic state lawmakers this spring split on a series of housing votes that killed one bill and exposed gaping intraparty fractures.

"But Newsom’s intervention could be decisive. By moving to enact changes through the budget, he could circumvent legislative obstacles like hostile committee chairs, and he will hold considerable leverage over lawmakers intent on securing their spending priorities.

“With divisions among legislative Democrats imperiling a package of bills, Newsom announced during a news conference that he would instead advance those policy changes through the budget, over which he has considerably more leverage."

With committee chairs not falling in line, Governor Newsom has announced he’ll intervene if votes don’t proceed along the radicalized party line.

A piece in Rolling Stone includes an important new finding by the University of California and Federal Reserve researchers, summed up as:

“Economic inequality fueled by corporations keeping working-class wages below what’s needed to afford a home in locales full of rich people.”

We have an income inequality issue that is largely ignored. There are many studies indicating that streamlining bills aren’t going to solve our affordability crisis. Former Vancouver City Planner Patrick Condon, who helped densify his city: “If your only reason to give up land rights is affordability, you are in for a big disappointment.” Condon notes that upzoning increases the value — price — of land, and that speculation will keep housing expensive. Vancouver “tripled its housing stock since 1970, and the median price of housing compared to income has increased by 600%.”

These are the same results we’re seeing in California so far. Even when streamlining creates housing, the laws themselves increase land value and make housing overall more expensive.

BACK TO SB 79 —

SB 79 will join hundreds of unsuccessful streamlining bills, and will definitely not create any affordable housing; it requires none. Streamlining bills defy economic logic and put heavy pressures on cities desperately trying to comply.

SB 79 creates an overlay that neutralizes state certified city housing elements, would force cities to approve developments that don’t align with affordability goals, and it alters the surplus lands act to ignore housing completely.

SB 79 merely follows the questionable “abundance” trend — more housing, any housing, is good.

City governments have already generously rezoned and are constantly infuriating their communities by approving even the most egregious projects, hands tied. SB 79 would just increase the pace.

The torrent of legislation that penalizes cities and rewards private developers hasn’t worked. Our crisis is truly in affordability, but the laws have only amplified market rate development. If SB 79 makes it to a Senate floor vote, it deserves pushback there and every step it makes through the Assembly.

We’ll see very soon if our usually lockstep legislature is willing to challenge our radical streamlining policy. If they do, Governor Newsom should not intervene.

---

SOURCES:

Bill Text - SB-79 Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transit-oriented development.

San Francisco Chronicle:
Has California learned anything from Trump's rise?

CA YIMBY
SB 79 - California YIMBY

Politico
Gavin Newsom lays down the law on housing construction - POLITICO

Rolling Stone
Liberals’ ‘Abundance’ Discourse Is Good for Donald Trump and Elon Musk

Where Is the Housing Shortage? (Plenty of housing, not much affordable)
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2334011

Patrick Condon Interview
Vancouver Study Shows How the YIMBY Narrative Has Failed – OB Rag

We Zoned for Density and Got Higher House Prices: Supply and Price Effects of Upzoning over 20 Years
https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2124966

Matt Haney and YIMBY study
YIMBY group: Here’s why California’s housing laws aren’t working - CalMatters

https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings/258450

---