State- Wide Constitutional Amendment from Our Neighborhood Voices
Who Decides What Gets Built in Your Neighborhood?
Right now, powerful developers and state lawmakers in Sacramento are making big decisions about what gets built in our community—without asking you. New laws have taken away local control, silenced public input, and opened the door to luxury development that displaces longtime residents and drives up housing costs. It doesn’t have to be this way.
We’re fighting for a California Constitutional Amendment to restore the power of local communities to decide how, where, and what kind of housing gets built—while still protecting fair housing, the environment, and public safety. Learn how this grassroots movement is putting the voice of residents back at the center of housing policy.
IT’S TIME FOR LOCAL CONTROL
WHAT IS SB 79?
SB 79 mandates denser housing (e.g., apartments) near major transit stops (rail, bus rapid transit) by:
Upzoning Private Land: Forces cities to allow multi-family buildings within a half-mile of transit, overriding single-family zoning (Section 65912.155).
Mandatory Upzoning:
What: Local governments must allow multi-family residential development (e.g., apartments, condos) on private land within a half-mile radius of major transit stops—defined as rail stations, ferry terminals, or bus rapid transit with frequent service (per Public Resources Code Section 21155).
Details: Overrides restrictive zoning (e.g., single-family-only zones) with minimum standards for:
Height: Varies by transit type (e.g., 6-8 stories near rail, per implied tiers).
Density: No maximum unit caps.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Higher FAR to fit more units.
Parking: Eliminates minimum parking requirements, cutting costs for developers.
Streamlining Surplus Public Land and Private Approvals:
Eases disposal of public surplus land for housing, with some requiring 25% affordability (Section 54221 amendments). Lets agencies like MTS build housing on their land, bypassing local rules.
Qualifying private projects get faster permitting and some exemptions from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) reviews, reducing delays and legal risks.
How: Local agencies must approve projects meeting these zoning rules ministerially (no discretionary review).
Transit Agency Power:
Tier Detail (Implied, Not Labeled)
SB 79 doesn’t say “Tier 1” or “Tier 2,” but its rules suggest a tier-like structure:
"Tier 1" (High-Impact Transit Zones):
What: Areas near major transit (e.g., San Diego’s trolley stations).
Rules: Highest density allowed (e.g., 6-8 stories, no parking minimums) on private/public land (Section 65912.155).
Affordability: No set % for private land; 25% lower-income units (up to 80% AMI) required for certain surplus land projects (e.g., 300+ units, Section 54221(g)(1)(G)).
"Tier 2" (Secondary Zones or Smaller Projects):
What: Areas near less frequent transit or smaller surplus parcels.
Rules: Lower density (e.g., 4-6 stories) or fewer streamlining perks; surplus land might not need 25% if not exempt.
Affordability: Optional via density bonuses (10-15% typically) on private land.
Transit Priority Areas where SB 79 can take effect
Click on Map to zoom in on your effected area on SANDAG site
Donate NOW for our Legal Battle
Why Now?
It's critical to start fundraising immediately because once construction begins or the City of San Diego makes its decision, it will be too late to effectively gather funds.
Possible City Decisions:
Deny: If the application is denied, the developer might sue the City. NFABC would then support the City with an amicus brief.
Approve: If approved, NFABC plans to sue the City.
Modify: An unacceptable modification like a 12-story building would also lead NFABC to sue.
Legal Costs:
Legal battles against developers, especially under current housing laws, will be expensive and prolonged.
Call to Action:
NFABC urgently needs donations to fund these legal actions. Please donate to help save your community from unwanted development.
A proposed 23-story high-rise at 970 Turquoise Street in Pacific Beach highlights unchecked development prioritizing profit over community needs. With 210+ units, only 5 are for very low-income families, and 5 for moderate-income* families.
Located on a congested two-lane evacuation route operating at 400% over capacity, this project lacks required infrastructure upgrades, shifting the burden onto taxpayers. If approved, it could set a dangerous precedent for high-rise expansion along the coast, threatening equitable beach access.
AMI is the Area Median Income as reported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Affordable housing sounds so great, but moderate income rents at Turquoise Tower could be higher than current market rates.
