S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Andrew Bowen filling in for Jade Hindman on today's show , Sacramento takes a big swing at the state's housing shortage , with a new law forcing cities to allow denser housing near major bus and rail stops. This is KPBS Midday Edition , connecting our communities through conversation. Last Friday , Governor Gavin Newsom signed one of the most closely watched housing bills of the year. SB 79 sets minimum zoning standards around public transit. Once the law is in full effect , cities and counties will be required to allow apartment buildings of between 5 and 9 stories near rail and rapid bus stops. The goal is twofold turbocharge homebuilding to alleviate the state's housing shortage , and do so in areas where residents are least likely to need a car. Joining me to help understand the bill and how it could impact California and San Diego is Ethan Elkind. He's director of the climate program at UC Berkeley's Center for law , energy and the environment. Ethan , welcome to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you. Andrew. Good to be with you.
S1: The state legislature has passed a lot of housing bills this year. It passed a lot of housing bills last year , in the year before that.
S2: There certainly have been a lot of bills that have , over time , restricted the housing growth in the state and led to the extreme shortage that we have. But to my knowledge , there is no bill that is as impactful as SB 79 in terms of just its broad effect in some of the state's key regions , the high transit frequency neighborhoods that have traditionally been squelching housing growth , and to have essentially a broad up zoning in these areas across the major urban counties of California is really significant. We've had a lot of bills that have tried to kind of nibble around the edges , create really kind of complex planning processes , but this one is going really right for the jugular in terms of what's been keeping housing production from happening in California.
S1: Well , let's get into some of the details. SB 79 defines two different types of transit stops. There's a tier one and tier two. Can you explain the difference between those two and what types of housing projects are allowed in each tier ? Yeah.
S2: So tier one is for major rail transit stops. So heavy rail and commuter rail. So think of like the Bart stations , for example , in the San Francisco Bay area. Tier two is for light rail , which would affect San Diego County and also for bus rapid transit. And basically if you're in a tier one station area , then the zoning has to allow slightly higher buildings that are more dense than if you're in a tier two area , but in both areas that the differences aren't massive to be between an A tier one and a tier two. Both basically allow around five storey buildings , potentially up to nine storeys , when you factor in some other bonuses that can kick in , and they both allow a significant amount of density per acre as well as floor area ratio , the amount of sort of developed space relative to the floor area of the , of the project.
S1: And there's also a difference in terms of if a per property is a quarter mile from a transit stop versus a half mile. Can you explain that ? And the sort of tiers of of radius around the transit stop ? Yes.
S2: And there's been a there was a lot of horse trading around this bill. So there's a number of carve outs. But generally speaking , if you're within a quarter mile of a major rail transit stop , or any rail transit stop in a major bus rapid transit stop , then you get higher buildings more density than if you're within a half mile. So there's sort of a concentric circle effect. But like I said , a number of carve outs to that. But that's the general approach of the bill.
S1: And this bill was authored by Senator Scott Wiener from San Francisco. He has been at this for a while. I remember interviewing him , I think , back in 2018 , about SB 27 , which was another sort of previous version or previous iteration of this bill.
S2: This is his third bite at the apple. 827 was really the sort of shot across the bow for the then pretty new movement , the yes in my backyard movement. And for them , that was such a major milestone for them to get that bill even introduced that they still celebrate on August 27th , 827. In recognition of that failed attempt. And then there was SB 50 , which was a similar type of approach. SB 79 was successful for a couple reasons. One , the politics have really changed on housing , even just since 2018. You know , you think of the abundance book that came out by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. You think of the , you know , increasing homeless crisis that we have in the state , the out of control housing prices and the state , and a lot of organizing behind the scenes to finally get Sacramento leaders their heads wrapped around the idea that it is local government zoning and permitting processes that have largely contributed and created this housing shortage , which is really an artificial housing shortage by bad local government policy. And , you know , in some state laws , too , I don't want to put it all on local governments in a broad brush. And some local governments have , you know , been trying to do their part. But broadly speaking , local control has really squelched housing development in the state. And , you know , that's why many cities incorporated as a city to try to keep housing from happening , but what SB 79 was able to y was able to get across the finish line was in part because it was changing politics , but also because it is much more surgical and approach in a lot of ways than SB 827 and SB 50. I mentioned there was a lot of horse trading. There were a number of carve outs here recognizing some counties were in different situations. Some cities , even within urban counties , had unique situations and unique political power too. So this was a more surgical attempt , and I think that met up with the politics as well to finally get across the finish line.
S1: So one of those carve outs or exemptions in the bill is for cities with fewer than 35,000 people , and in those cities , only a quarter mile radius around a transit stop will apply , rather than the larger half mile radius. What do you make of this ? Is this just sort of plain politics , you know , trying to win over that one Assembly member who happens to represent a small city ? Or do you feel like there might be some legitimate reasons for smaller cities to have , you know , a less of a burden to to figure out how to implement this bill.
S2: I mean , if you're trying to be charitable about it , that I think the argument would be that , you know , we want to have density and height that's somewhat scaled to the surrounding population. But I do think it's mostly about the political power of some of these smaller cities. In California , you have some very wealthy cities that are lucky to have multibillion dollar transit system serving them. And these homeowners are often very politically connected , politically powerful , and they have the ear of Assembly and state senators and can get them to negotiate for these carve outs. So I think that that tends to be what happens when it comes to land use politics , that you're really kind of poking a hornet's nest of some of the the well-heeled landed gentry of California , and they don't like to see their communities up zoned , you know , without their consent. So I think that's largely what happened. But like I say , to be charitable , you could say , all right. Well , these are smaller cities , and they're still going to have to up zone. We'll just go a little bit easier on them because they are a bit smaller. And you know , they may not have the same services , the infrastructure. ET cetera. That a larger city would have to be able to support that kind of density , at least right off the bat.
S1: There's another possible exemption I read in the bill for a property that might be within a half mile radius of , say , a trolley stop in San Diego as the crow flies. So if you're measuring a straight line from the transit stop to this property , it's within a half mile. But the the walking distance to that transit stop is actually much , much farther. So we have a lot of canyons in San Diego. We have a lot of transit stops that are right next to freeways , where , you know , you can't actually cross to the other side. How significant is that , do you think , or was that really a necessary thing to include ? Because , you know , ultimately we're trying to get people to that transit and the barriers that someone might have to get there could be pretty significant.
S2: I mean , there's arguments on both sides of that. You know , on one hand , we just want to see as much housing growth as we can get near our major transit stops. Transit ridership has really fallen off a cliff since Covid has not really been able to recover. Many transit agencies are facing a fiscal cliff. So , you know , one argument is let's just build as much housing as we can , even if people can't really walk that conveniently to a transit stop , if they're still pretty close , they'll find a way to get there. And maybe they would encourage local governments to build better infrastructure , bike lanes , you know , bridges for pedestrians , etc. but on the other hand , I think it is a compromise that , you know , I think most pro housing people can probably live with that. If you are across from a ravine or a canyon or a freeway that you know , that's not really going to be the most ideal place to build a dense apartment building. And so I think that carve out , I don't think that , you know , there wasn't in there originally because pro housing people would just love to see as much housing as possible in our urbanized areas. but I think it's a carve out that does have some logic. And if that helped get the bill across the finish line , I think it's something that a lot of pro housing people can live with.
S1: And SB 79 passed with really just barely enough votes. I think it got 43 votes and needed 41. In the Assembly and in the Senate it got 21 , which is exactly how many it needed to pass.
S2: I mean , they they barely made it over the finish line. This is very controversial. This is not something the state really has ever done before to sort of intrude on local control. Many state representatives , you know , come out of local government themselves. They they rely on their relationships with local government , you know , city council members , county supervisors. They're very sensitive to what the cities and counties are going to say. So to essentially take authority away from local governments is a big step , and I think one that really has only been necessitated by the scale of the crisis that we're in. So I think the fact that it even got across the finish line is pretty monumental. And it shows that all of these compromises that we've been talking about were ultimately necessary , because they needed every last vote that they were able to get.
S1: And there were also a couple of weeks that passed between when the bill passed the legislature and when Governor Gavin Newsom signed it last Friday.
S2: And then quickly , once he came into office , walked back from that. He did sign some housing legislation. But it was sort of that nibbling around the edges type of approach that I talked about. He really didn't use his political capital to get anything across the finish line. Uh , so I think he's been very sensitive to the controversial nature of local land use and housing politics , and didn't really want to stick his neck out , even though he campaigned on really boosting housing production , which were well short of that 3.5 million. I mean , we're we're nowhere on pace. Um , so it has been a , a failure in that respect. Um , but I'm not really clear why he waited so long. Uh , there was a lot of nervousness among pro housing folks , and there was time for people , homeowners , particularly in Los Angeles County , to lobby him. Uh , but I did talk to State Senator Wiener last week , who didn't sound too nervous about it before Governor Newsom signed the bill. So , you know , it's hard to know. He had a lot of bills on his plate. This is a very consequential legislative session on a number of issues. So it's not clear to me why he was waiting. He did ultimately sign it. So he and he had a good signing statement. You know , in terms of understanding the issues , uh , and it didn't seem like a tepid signing statement to me. So hard to know why he waited , but he ultimately did sign it , and that's what matters.
S1: One of the arguments that I've heard from opponents of SB 79 , particularly in San Diego , is that San Diego has already zoned for plenty of housing , that , you know , this city actually , in contrast to Los Angeles or San Francisco , has been very aggressive at up zoning and , you know , allowing more density near transit , more , you know , projects to move through the permitting process much faster than they used to. And , you know , their argument is that SB 79 is essentially unnecessary , that San Diego is doing its part. And , you know , this law coming down from Sacramento is is unfairly encroaching on the local control that we we have had for so long.
S2: It is one of the most progressive cities in California in terms of moving housing along zoning for housing. I think the planning department and the mayor deserves a lot of credit for for that approach. But when we talk about meeting sort of housing element goals , housing elements were always designed. And state housing law and their requirements on local governments were always designed really as a floor not meant to be a ceiling in terms of the amount of housing growth. So the fact that a city like San Diego is on pace to meet the housing requirements that the state has , has brought down , doesn't mean that that is a job well done. And we could stop there. We know we've got a major housing crisis. We also know even in communities like San Diego , there are a lot of communities right around the transit stops in San Diego that are still zoned essentially for single family only , you know ? So it's not just the amount of housing. It's also about where that housing is. We need to make sure that we're building as much housing as possible near our major transit stops , because we're not going to see the transit ridership that we need. As I mentioned , we're facing a fiscal cliff for transit agencies. We need to get that ridership up. And the best way to do it is to put more people and jobs and development right within walking distance of those rail stops. So that's one area where I think most cities , including San Diego , really have a lot of room for improvement. And also , we know we need a huge amount more housing , well beyond what the housing elements require to try to stabilize housing prices , try to address this really humanitarian crisis in the state where we have so much homelessness , so many people having to leave the state because they're priced out , such a burden on people's fiscal situations , quality of life , to have housing prices out as out of whack as they are with our incomes in the state. So. So that would be my response that cities still need to be doing more. And if we were on pace as a state , we wouldn't have needed SB 79.
S1: I've been speaking with Ethan Elkind. He's director of the center for law , energy and the environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Ethan , thank you so much for lending your expertise to this. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. My pleasure. Thank you for having me on.
S1: And that's our show for today. I'm your host , Andrew Bowen in for Jade Hindman. Thanks for listening to Midday Edition. Have a great day.
