ACTION ALERT: Stop SB 79 Before It’s Too Late 🚨
ACTION ALERT: Stop SB 79 Before It’s Too Late 🚨
SB 79 isn’t just another housing bill. It is a sweeping, top-down rezoning scheme that puts communities at risk while handing Sacramento politicians and developers unchecked power.
This bill is currently in the Suspense File but could be released this Friday, August 29th, and head for a floor vote in the State Assembly as early as next week. That means we have only days to act.
Why SB 79 is Dangerous
Transit Fiction: SB 79 allows 55–75 foot towers within a quarter mile of planned or even phantom bus lines and rail stops. A line on a paper map could unlock massive density in your neighborhood—even if the transit never materializes.
Wildfire Risk Ignored: The bill allows towers in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones without evacuation planning. Families could be trapped in gridlock when fires hit.
No True Affordability: SB 79 has no meaningful affordability requirements. A token set-aside can unlock entire towers of luxury micro-units. That isn’t housing for working families—it’s speculation.
Infrastructure Blindness: Water shortages, sewer systems, and evacuation routes are ignored. Local governments are stripped of the power to plan responsibly. Taxpayers are left holding the bill.
Local Democracy Stripped Away: Communities know their evacuation routes, water systems, and infrastructure. Sacramento doesn’t—and SB 79 silences them.
What You Can Do
Call Your Assemblymember — Tell them to vote NO on SB 79.
Send an Email or Letter — Personal stories make a difference.
Spread the Word — Share this action page with your networks, neighbors, and community groups.
There’s a Better Way Forward
We believe California can build the homes it needs without steamrolling communities.
SB 79 is not the answer. We call on state legislators to:
Support targeted zoning reform, not blanket overrides
Pair upzoning with infrastructure funding
Strengthen, not weaken, affordable housing requirements
Prioritize community partnerships in planning
Let’s build more housing — and build it right
Our Message is Simple
SB 79 is not about affordability. It’s not about climate. And it’s certainly not about safety.
It is a developer subsidy bill—a blank check that overrides local planning and gambles with our neighborhoods.
We can stop it, but only if we act together.
Tell your Assemblymember: VOTE NO on SB 79.
Tell Sacramento: Vote NO on SB 79
Laws like SB 79 put developer profits ahead of community safety, climate resilience, and affordability. They ignore the lessons of disasters we’ve already lived through — from the Palisades to Paradise — where families lost everything in minutes.
Your voice matters. Lawmakers do pay attention when their constituents speak up, especially in large numbers and before a vote.
Here’s how to take action now:
1️⃣ Find Your Representative – Use the link to locate your California State Assemblymember.
2️⃣ Call, Email, or Tweet Them – Keep your message short and personal. Tell them why safe, affordable, climate-smart housing matters to you.
3️⃣ Ask Them to Vote NO on SB 79 – And to support housing policies that protect people, not just profits.
What is SB 79
More Housing for Investors, Not Communities
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
Under California law (SB 743), Transit Priority Areas are zones located within half a mile of a major public transit stop — even if that stop is only planned and may not be built for up to 20 years.
A major transit stop includes:
Rail stations (like trolleys or trains)
Ferry terminals with connecting bus or rail service
Intersections of two or more frequent bus lines (buses arriving every 15 minutes during rush hours that goes North & South or East & West)
Why it matters:
If your home falls within a TPA, the state allows developers to bypass many local zoning rules — making your neighborhood a target for high-density development, regardless of current infrastructure or transit reliability.
San Diego TOD Zones Mapping for MTS Routes 7, 11, and 30 under SB 79
This mapping identifies San Diego bus stops along MTS Routes 7, 11, and 30 that could qualify as Tier 2 or Tier 3 transit-oriented development (TOD) stops under SB 79 (Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, 2025). It delineates ¼-mile and ¼–½-mile zones where SB 79’s zoning standards apply, tailored for advocacy by Neighbors for a Better San Diego and the Pacific Beach Planning Group. The mapping addresses concerns about Pacific Beach, City Heights, North Park, local control, infrastructure strain, and neighborhood character, and considers overlaps with the ADU Bonus Program (hearing June 16, 2025).
Methodology
• SB 79 Criteria: TOD stops are major transit stops (Public Resources Code Section 21155) served by non-fixed guideway bus routes with 15-minute or better frequencies during peak hours (6–9 AM, 3–6 PM). Tier 2 requires transit priority (e.g., signal prioritization, part-time bus lanes); Tier 3 does not. San Diego is not an urban transit county (<15 rail stations), so Tier 1 stops do not apply.
• Data Sources: MTS schedules (sdmts.com), transit data (transitapp.com), and X posts (e.g., @sdmts on service updates). Stops are selected based on frequency and known transit priority features (e.g., University Avenue’s signal prioritization).
• Zoning Impacts: Within ¼ mile of Tier 2 stops: 65-ft height, 100 units/acre, 3.0 FAR; within ¼–½ mile: 55-ft, 80 units/acre, 2.5 FAR. Tier 3 stops: 55-ft, 80 units/acre, 2.5 FAR (¼ mile); 45-ft, 60 units/acre, 2.0 FAR (¼–½ mile). Adjacency bonus adds 20-ft height, 40 units/acre, 1.0 FAR.
Some Affected San Diego Areas
SB 79’s zoning changes could impact neighborhoods served by frequent non-fixed guideway bus routes based on MTS route data.
Pacific Beach (e.g., Grand and Garnet Avenues):
MTS Route 30: Serves Pacific Beach via Mission Boulevard, Garnet Avenue, and La Jolla, with frequent service (every 15–20 minutes during peak hours)qualify as Tier 2 TOD stops.
North Park andCity Heights (e.g., University Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard):
MTS Route 7: Runs along University Avenue through North Park and City Heights, with frequent service (every 12–15 minutes during peak hours).
MTS Route 11: Serves City Heights via El Cajon Boulevard, also with frequent service.
Downtown San Diego:
MTS Routes 2, 3, 7, and Others: Multiple non-fixed guideway routes converge Downtown, often achieving 15-minute or better frequencies. A single stop served by multiple routes could be deemed a “transit center” under SB 79, as noted on X, amplifying its TOD status
La Jolla (Route 30):
Stops near UC San Diego could trigger TOD zoning, impacting areas like La Jolla Village Square.
Hillcrest (Route 1, 3):
Frequent service along University Avenue could designate stops as Tier 2 or 3, affecting this dense, walkable area.
San Diego State University (Route 11, 115):
Stops near SDSU’s Transit Center could qualify, potentially allowing mid-rise housing in College Area.
Notes
• Frequency Assessment: Based on MTS schedules (sdmts.com, June 2025). Route 7 and 11 stops meet ~12–15-min frequencies, qualifying as Tier 2 with transit priority (e.g., University Ave’s signal prioritization, El Cajon Blvd’s part-time bus lanes). Route 30’s ~15–20-min frequencies suggest Tier 3, but upgrades (e.g., signal priority on Garnet Ave) could elevate to Tier 2.
• Transit Priority: Inferred from MTS infrastructure (e.g., signal prioritization on University Ave) and X posts (@sdmts on service enhancements). Route 30 lacks dedicated lanes, limiting Tier 2 eligibility unless MTS implements priority measures.
• Zoning Zones: ¼-mile radius (1,320 ft) and ¼–½-mile band (1,320–2,640 ft) calculated from stop coordinates using pedestrian walk distances. Boundaries are approximate, based on street grids (e.g., Google Maps).
• San Diego Context: Reflects your concerns about Pacific Beach (Route 30, Grand/Garnet), City Heights (Routes 7, 11, Euclid Ave), and North Park (May 12, 2025). SB 79’s TOD zones overlap with ADU Bonus Program’s transit priority areas (TPAs), waiving parking mandates and complicating proposed ADU reforms (e.g., parking requirements, single-family zone repeal).
SB 79 Tracker
Local Leaders Oppose SB 79 —
And So, Do We
A May 2025 letter from Catalysts for Local Control urges Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire to oppose SB 79, warning that it gives “a bright green light to developer/investors and a red light to local officials representing safety, fiscal responsibility, and community well-being.”
Support our fight
Your Support Makes a Difference
Every dollar you donate helps us fight for responsible housing policies and stronger communities. With your support, we can continue to advocate for balanced development that benefits everyone. Whether it’s funding legal efforts or mobilizing communities, your contribution powers real change.
NFABC Response to Mayor’s Office on SB 79
We’ve reviewed the Mayor’s letter, and we’re left wondering:
Did the Mayor actually read SB 79 as it stands today?
Because if he did, then he knows this bill allows developers to stack density bonuses and waivers. This means they can break height limits, override local zoning, and reshape neighborhoods with very little oversight.
Does the City understand that these bonus provisions make it legally dangerous to say no?
Under the State Density Bonus Law, if the City denies a project using these stacking tools, it could be sued by developers with expensive legal teams. Is that really what the Mayor and Council want? A city forced to comply under the threat of lawsuits, instead of planning with integrity?
And what about the “planned transit” loophole?
SB 79 rewards developers for building next to future transit stops that may never be funded or built. Are we really going to let developers use imaginary bus lines as justification to build massive towers?
We also ask a very basic question:
Did the staff lobbyists even read the City’s adopted Legislative Platform?
One of its overarching policy principles is to “preserve local control.”
Honorable Mayor (or whomever wrote this response for you), how exactly does SB 79 comply with that Council direction?
At some point, we have to ask:
Is the fix already in?
Is City Hall knowingly misleading the public, hiding behind vague policy language while siding with wealthy development interests? It certainly looks that way when our elected officials defend a bill they don’t seem to fully understand, while everyday residents carry the consequences.
NFABC calls on the Mayor and City Council to clearly state whether they support the specific provisions in SB 79. Not just the idea of “more housing,” but this actual bill, in its actual form. The public deserves honest answers. The community deserves transparency.
