Senate Bill 79, authored by San Francisco Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener, would “upzone” neighborhoods immediately surrounding train, light rail and subway stations in many of the state’s most populous metro areas. That means apartment developers will be able to construct residential buildings — some as tall as 75 feet — regardless of what local zoning maps, elected officials or density-averse neighbors say.
In a legislative year teeming with controversial housing bills designed to kick-start more construction in California, SB 79 has been among the most controversial. Because it would override the planning decisions of local governments, the bill had to overcome opposition from a host of city governments and their defenders in the Legislature, while fracturing the Capitol’s reigning Democratic Party over questions of affordability, labor standards and who ultimately has the final say over what gets built where.
The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom who supporters expect will sign it.
…
The secret to Wiener’s success this year after so many past failures may be his willingness to whittle the bill down.
Over the course of the year, the proposal underwent 13 rounds of amendments — more than any other policy bill. Many of those changes were made to convince powerful interest groups to drop their opposition. That often meant reducing the bill’s scope.
The legislation would only apply to counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. According to its sponsors, just eight counties fit the bill: Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Mateo.
…
The legislation also comes with asterisks about the kinds of projects that can make use of its provisions. Developers, in select cases, must hire unionized construction workers — a provision that convinced the powerful State Building and Construction Trades Council to drop its opposition.
Projects must also set aside a modest share of homes for lower-income residents (at least 7%) and replace any rent-controlled units that are destroyed during construction. Lower-income neighborhoods also have more time to plan for the rezoning with the new rules not taking effect until at least 2032. That compromise led a number of tenant rights,“housing justice” advocacy groups and other affordability advocates to stand down earlier this week.
Zoning is pretty ridiculous in California. There is an unbelievable amount of R1 sprawl in the bay area, particularly on the peninsula. I grew up a stones throw from the Mountain View CalTrain...
Zoning is pretty ridiculous in California. There is an unbelievable amount of R1 sprawl in the bay area, particularly on the peninsula. I grew up a stones throw from the Mountain View CalTrain station and it suffers from the same issues. At the same time rezoning efforts here spurred by enforced RNHA requirements are mandating rezoning efforts take place anyway. The number of people coming out of the woodwork to complain about requiring parking minimums - something so expensive that it removes the possibility of making projects low income - are being trotted out right and left. In my opinion, overriding zoning in transit corridors is the only way to successfully institute new, low to moderate housing projects?
From the article:
…
…
I hope this doesn’t end up as another instance of “good idea, bad execution”.
Zoning is pretty ridiculous in California. There is an unbelievable amount of R1 sprawl in the bay area, particularly on the peninsula. I grew up a stones throw from the Mountain View CalTrain station and it suffers from the same issues. At the same time rezoning efforts here spurred by enforced RNHA requirements are mandating rezoning efforts take place anyway. The number of people coming out of the woodwork to complain about requiring parking minimums - something so expensive that it removes the possibility of making projects low income - are being trotted out right and left. In my opinion, overriding zoning in transit corridors is the only way to successfully institute new, low to moderate housing projects?