I’ve been out in the neighborhood since early Spring speaking out about the threat posed by SB-79. I thought I’d pen a quick post outlining what is in the bill (in broad strokes).
And to keep this post relatively neutral, I’ve enlisted Google AI to summarize the bill. I’m not a certified expert on SB-79 by any stretch of anybody’s imagination, but I know enough about it to recognize and confidently represent that the information provided is generally reliable. The cited sources are certainly legit.
Neutral Summary
SB-79, also known as the Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, is a California bill aimed at increasing housing near public transit by allowing denser, taller buildings around transit stops. The bill does not mandate affordable units but makes them eligible for incentives. [1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Provisions of SB-79:
- Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): SB-79 focuses on transit-oriented development, encouraging housing construction near transit stops. [1, 2]
- Increased Density and Height: The bill allows for taller buildings (up to 7 stories near high-frequency transit) and higher densities near transit stops, potentially upzoning areas previously zoned for single-family homes. [1, 6]
- Tiered Approach: The level of density and height allowed varies based on the type and frequency of transit service at a given stop. [4, 7]
- Streamlined Approvals: SB-79 allows certain developments near transit to utilize the streamlined ministerial approvals process under SB 423. [1]
- Flexibility for Local Jurisdictions: While establishing statewide standards, SB-79 allows local governments some flexibility in tailoring their TOD areas and standards. [1]
- Focus on Transit Agency Land: The bill encourages development on land owned by transit agencies to generate revenue for public transit. [8]
Affordability Provisions:
- Incentives for Affordable Units: SB-79 does not mandate affordable units, but it does make developments that include affordable units eligible for density bonuses and other concessions under existing state law, such as SB 1511. [1, 1, 4, 4, 9, 10]
- Potential for Affordable Housing Development: By streamlining the development process and allowing for increased density, SB-79 aims to facilitate the development of more housing overall, potentially including more affordable units. [1, 1, 2, 2]
- Tenant Protections: The bill includes tenant protections, such as the right of return for those displaced by development. [2, 2]
Arguments for SB-79:
- Addresses Housing Shortage: Proponents argue that SB-79 is crucial for addressing California’s housing crisis by increasing the supply of housing near transit.
- Reduces Traffic Congestion: By encouraging people to live near transit, the bill aims to reduce reliance on cars and alleviate traffic congestion.
- Promotes Environmental Sustainability: Reduced car usage contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.
- Supports Public Transit Funding: Development on transit agency land can generate revenue for public transit systems. [2, 8]
Arguments Against SB-79:
- Concerns about Single-Family Neighborhoods: Some residents and community groups are concerned about the potential impact of increased density and height on existing single-family neighborhoods. [9]
- Potential for Displacement: Concerns exist about the potential for displacement of existing residents as a result of increased development near transit. [2, 9]
- Impact on Local Control: Some argue that SB-79 undermines local control over land use decisions. [11]
Current Status:
- As of June 3, 2025, SB-79 has passed the Senate and is awaiting further action in the Assembly.
- The bill has been amended several times and is subject to ongoing debate and negotiations. [3, 3, 12, 12, 13]
[3] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3248204
[4] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3207750
[5] https://www.encinonc.org/assets/documents/8/committee6838ef487420b.pdf
[6] https://laist.com/news/transportation/denser-housing-near-transit-sb-79
[7] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3220243
[9] https://www.encinonc.org/assets/documents/8/committee6838ef487420b.pdf
[10] https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37603/SB35-Fact-Sheet
[12] https://cayimby.org/legislation/sb-79/
My closing thoughts
Of course “abundant & affordable homes near transit” sounds like a no-brainer. Hat tip to the highly paid marketing consultant who came up with that title.
But the title is BS.
The bill encompasses parcels within one half mile of “planned transit.” What?
Yes, if a qualifying bus line is “planned,” developers can snatch up lots in a 1/2 mile circumference. Color me skeptical (or a conspiracy nut, if you must), but this smells to me like “planned” bus lines might become something a cash strapped city “sells” to developers.
But even existing bus lines will annihilate existing neighborhoods like Kentwood, being surrounded on three sides by major boulevards with qualifying bus routes.
And don’t even get me started on what Osage becomes with a light rail station.
And how is 1/2 mile “near” to transit?? Do you know anybody who will walk 1/2 mile to our crappy bus system? Even my husband, who is the ONLY person I know who rides the bus, gets in his car and drives down to a park and ride, where he parks mere steps from his bus downtown.
And nothing affordable has to be built. Throwing in a few token units get extra density. 😱
And there are no guardrails to prevent already affordable housing from getting razed for SB-79 market rate units, also known as “gentrification.”
Recent amendments to the bill provide “tenant rights” by allowing displaced people access to the new units, but where are they supposed to go in the meantime, and how are they supposed to afford the resulting market-rate units?
No, those “tenant rights” are lip service and downright offensive.
SB-79 has zero redeeming qualities. Call your assemblyperson stat and let them know you oppose SB-79, and that you will actively campaign against them if they support the bill.
Stay tuned because the Assembly may further amend the bill and then it will have to go back to the Senate.
