Have you always wanted your house next to a nine-story condo tower?

[Mick]

…your wish is about to come true.

Gavin Newsom Announces Change for California’s House Building

The 2.6 million undocumented immigrants require domiciles in which to live, so the new law paves the way for construction of housing near transit hubs:

• Projects near transit stops of up to nine stories allowed.
• Projects within a quarter mile of transit stops up to six stories.
• Projects within half a mile of transit stops up to five stories

Aimed at the following eight high-density counties: LA, SD, SClara, Alameda, SF, San Mateo, Sacto, Orange. Interestingly, Riverside, San Bernardino, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Ventura and San Joaquin Counties are omitted from the bill.

A “certain share” of the housing will be subsidized with rent restrictions.

Even liberal Democrat LA Mayor Karen Bass opposes the bill, saying it would erode local control, diminish community input, etc.

AFAIC, the YIMBY movement just continues to support denser housing development, right when homebuilders are withdrawing from the market in general and the California market in particular.

There  are 39.43 million people in California, 23 million in those eight counties, and 18.5 million are within half-a-mile of transit stops. So basically half of the state’s population will get to live next to densely populated towering apartments and they have no say about it.

Pretty impressive land grab, even for Newsom.

[Mick]

Senate Bill 79 – known as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act – supersedes local zoning rules to allow developers to create more housing around transit hubs. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law.

It takes effect on July 1, 2026. It affects the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside. All the high-density counties.

Why is this happening? Matt Lewwis, a spokesperson for California YIMBY (one of SB79’s sponsors) says “If your home is close to a transit stop, you’re getting exclusive access to a publicly funded amenity that needs to be accessible to more people,” he said. “The only way to get that access is building more houses by transit stops.” In other words, you don’t have any say and the fact that you were there first is literally immaterial.

SB79 author Scott Wiener says his bill favors people over buildings when you prefer low zoning density. You’re basically racist if you’re against his bill.

Los Angeles desperately needs new housing. So why are its politicians still fighting SB79?

[Mick]

So, the incredible advantages for existing homeowners include:

1. Property values may drop.
2. Much taller, denser buildings than today with loss of views, sunlight and privacy and avoidance of setbacks, step-backs and open-space rules.
3. Much weaker local control and neighborhood influence.
4. No public approval process, no subjective design review, no broad discretionary decision, CEQA is bypassed, as is CEQA lawsuits.
5. Single family homes are protected by anti-displacement rules, but usually for rent-controlled multifamily housing. It doesn’t protect single family homes or duplexes not under rent control.
6. Density increase will be dramatic. Bill does not allow for added funding for parking, roads, schools, parks, sewers, water, policing or emergency services, or mitigation for parking, traffic congestion, noise or neighborhood services.
7. Cities are explicitly restricted from imposing additional fees or inclusionary requirements because a project uses this law.
8. So you’ll get more congestion, tougher parking crowding in schools, crowding in public facilities.
9. Parking pressure that spills over into adjacent neighborhoods. I have that little happy, happy, joy-joy right now. Increased competition for curb parking, more circulation, more park and ride behavior.
10. It allows cities to exclude some sites through a transit-oriented development alternative plan. So. some neighborhoods will become “dumping grounds” for density.
11. It allows transit agencies to override local zoning on their own land.
12. Very complex interaction of CA TOD rules, Local TOD alternative plans, MPO-created TOD maps with “rebuttal presumption of validity”, HCD oversight and potential attorney general enforcement.
13. Potential for gentrification or other demographic shifts.
14. Does not guarantee shadow studies, sun access protections, light or noise pollution abatement.
15. Somewhat ironically, more traffic and more congestion. More service trucks, more late-night activity, more noise, more rooftop decks, less backyard privacy.
16. Greater fire and safety risks.
17. Homeowners can’t “opt out” through democracy, even if a majority of local voters wish to exempt themselves.
18. Delayed/inevitable changes in unincorporated county areas.
19. This is to affect all light rail stops, train stops, intersections of bus stops, major bus stops.
20.  Best bonus of all, property taxes — might increase. Awesome.

[cardcrimson]

Again, fwiw. We’re moving. Had enough of CA, even though I grew up here and a chunk of my heart is here. Heading for the Heart of Dixie within the next 9 months.

[Mick1]

Local angle: 1/4th of the city of Campbell falls under this law (with three light rail stations). Technically speaking, Sacramento could force them to add up to 40,000 homes, tripling Campbell’s population. And Campbell would be on the hook for the infrastructure upgrades demanded.

Audaces fortuna iuvat

[Author]

Posts