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

“David will support reasonable ideas from other representatives,” Knowles said. “He’s open to considering changes his colleagues want to make.”

A conversation with Travis Knowles,
Chief of Staff for Assemblymember David Alvarez

While he remains focused on providing more housing for Californians, Assemblymember David Alvarez will support “reasonable ideas from his colleagues” that will curb abuses in the state’s density bonus housing laws.

That was the main message delivered in a conference call on January 23 between Alvarez’ Chief of State, Travis Knowles, and board members of Neighbors for a Better California (NFABC).

“David will support reasonable ideas from other representatives,” Knowles said. “He’s open to considering changes his colleagues want to make.”

One of his colleagues – State Senator Catherine Blakespear – already has introduced changes to the state’s density bonus housing laws. Those changes, Blakespear said, were spurred by abuses of state laws that led to the 23-story Turquoise tower being proposed for North Pacific Beach.

On Wednesday, Blakespear introduced Senate Bill 92. The aim of the bill is to prohibit developers from benefiting from the density bonus law when building projects that “don’t include significant amounts of housing,” Blakespear said in a press release.

The bill would require developers to devote two-thirds of the floor space of their projects to residential housing in order to qualify for exemptions under the law from local restrictions. The bill is not retroactive, so it does not apply to the application of the Turquoise Tower, which is being reviewed by the City of San Diego.

Knowles said Alvarez has the same concerns as Blakespear about providing more housing and added that coastal areas “have to be a part of that.” Alvarez represents District 80 in the Assembly. The district includes coastal areas such as Imperial Beach. And while he doesn’t want to comment on projects outside of his district, he has a firm belief that the coast should be open to everyone – to live in, not just to visit.

While Alvarez likely won’t be offering amendments on his own, he would, Knowles stressed repeatedly during the call, be open to working with colleagues and supporting their efforts.

“He’s always about making things work, getting to yes,” Knowles said of Alvarez.

Another of those colleagues who is offering changes to the state’s density bonus laws in Assembly member Tasha Boerner. The lone Assembly member to vote no on Alvarez’ AB 1287, Boerner reportedly will soon introduce her amended bill in the Assembly.

Housing, said Knowles, is going to happen. NFABC agrees. It just wants responsible planning to guide new developments.

High-rise projects like the Turquoise tower actually work against the housing interests of Alvarez and others, NFABC pointed out during the meeting. The proposed skyscraper has united opposition to extreme housing projects, particularly in San Diego’s coast communities long-governed by Prop D’s 30-foot height limits.

“The density bonus laws currently have no guardrails because they can just stack bonus upon bonus up on each other,” said Marcella Bothwell, Chair of NFABC. “We’re just asking for some guardrails.”

California Information