State lawmakers reviving housing production effort

The six proposals resurrect a discussion among lawmakers that was unceremoniously disrupted in the previous legislative session by the difficulties of building consensus when in-person interactions were restricted due to the health hazard posed by COVID-19.

Recognizing the housing struggle millions of Californians faced before the pandemic, Atkins said she believes the health crisis and resulting financial uncertainty has only amplified the need for more residential development throughout the state.

“Each one of these bills is targeted at an element of the housing crisis, and together, they give us a unified approach that would create pathways to home ownership, stable housing for vulnerable families and a pathway to economic stability for Californians across the golden state,” she said in a prepared statement.

State Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo, too acknowledged the severity of the state’s housing problem and expressed his enthusiasm over the opportunity to review the legislation in his first term.

“Homelessness and housing affordability were in crisis before COVID and work-from-home is not a cure-all for our housing deficit. I am eager to review the bills introduced by my colleagues and am committed to working with all parties on this issue,” he said in an email.

Atkins, Wiener, Skinner and Caballero, along with state senators Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, Richard Roth, D-Riverside, and Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, introduced Senate Bill 5 to establish the framework for a bond generating revenue for affordable housing construction.

Caballero proposed Senate Bill 6, which aims to allow residential development on lots zoned for commercial and retail spaces occupied by strip malls and big box stores. Residential development would be subjected to local development standards and would be limited to low-density building to accommodate affordable housing.

Senate Bill 7, authored by Atkins, the president of the state Senate, would limit the state’s environmental review authority by expanding the influence of existing legislation intending to streamline development of multi-family residential projects offering affordable housing.

Skinner’s Senate Bill 8 attempts to refine existing density bonus law with minor changes to the legislation allowing developers to build more units in projects where concessions such as land donations or affordable housing are offered.

Atkins also proposed Senate Bill 9, aiming to facilitate construction of duplexes or lot splits to allow for additional construction on residential parcels. It also catalyzes construction of accessory dwelling units, under a belief that existing neighborhoods can accommodate more units and drive down the cost of living in California.

And Wiener brought back his attempt to upzone areas near job centers, transit stops and other residential hubs with Senate Bill 10, which tries to loosen development standards and invite construction of new housing.

“SB 10 provides cities with a powerful, fast and effective new tool to allow light-touch density exactly where it should be: near jobs, near public transportation and in existing urbanized areas that do not push into wildfire zones,” said Wiener in a prepared statement.

Wiener’s bill, and others in the package, mirror similar efforts that were defeated in a legislative session compromised by the pandemic. The Legislature was shut down for nearly 2 1/2 months starting in March. And when lawmakers returned, they had to keep their distance from each other, making it difficult to build consensus on tough issues. Multiple high-profile bills failed to pass at the deadline as lawmakers simply ran out of time.

For his part, Becker said he is especially intrigued by the housing bond proposal, while also expressing interest in addressing affordability issues through development of accessory dwelling units. He added renter protections such as eviction moratorium extensions will be critical in meeting the needs of threatened tenants across California during the pandemic.

Meanwhile, housing advocates such as Michael Lane, San Jose director with San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, lauded the package of proposals.

“We strongly support the Senate housing package of six bills that arrived just in time for the holidays and call for its swift passage by the Legislature,” Lane said in an email. “It really is a comprehensive approach and will help us create greater housing choice, availability and affordability for our residents.”

The efforts received some criticism from local control proponent Livable California, which identified four of the new proposals — Senate Bills 7, 8, 9 and 10 — as targets to strongly oppose. Calling most of the bills lookalikes to legislation considered problematic from the previous session, the group encourages residents to rally against the efforts.

Livable California was not universally opposed to the bills in the package though, expressing potential support for Senate Bill 5 as a means of thoughtfully redeveloping underutilized sites and Senate Bill 6 as a vehicle for funding housing development.

Support for the slate was more broad from Leora Tanjuatco Ross, associate director of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.

“We are heartened by the Senate’s new housing package. It’s more important than ever for cities to build new housing and make sure that people can stay in their homes,” she said in an email. “The housing shortage hasn’t gone away, and we’re glad to see the Senate propose new solutions.”

austin@smdailyjournal.com