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)
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: Deepens State Overreach
🚨 SB 79: Deepens State Overreach
Current Status (as of July 2025):
SB 79 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee on Tuesday, July 16. The bill was amended on July 8, but the core provisions remain deeply problematic for communities across California.
What SB 79 Does:
SB 79 is being sold as a “transit-oriented development” bill — but what it actually does is:
Override local zoning and planning rules near transit corridors
Allow buildings up to 95 feet tall, regardless of existing height limits
Eliminate or reduce environmental review and community input through CEQA exemptions
Force cities to allow dense development near proposed or planned transit—not just existing infrastructure
Require only 5–10% affordability, with no guarantee those units will serve low-income residents
Strip cities of their ability to manage infrastructure, address emergency access, or prevent overdevelopment
What the July 8 Amendments Changed — and Didn’t:
What changed:
More language was added to clarify the definition of “transit corridors” and the timelines for when development applies
The bill now references state-set affordability percentages and allows cities to submit alternative compliance proposals
Some CEQA exemptions were softened — but not removed
What didn’t change:
The bill still gives state-level override power over local planning
It still favors developer flexibility over community safeguards
It still offers weak affordability thresholds that don’t meet the needs of California’s working families
Why NFABC Strongly Opposes SB 79
At NFABC, we support more housing, especially near transit - but not make believe transit.
But we believe it must be:
✅ Affordable — deeply and meaningfully
✅ Sustainable — supported by infrastructure, schools, and public safety
✅ Community-informed — developed with local input, not dictated from Sacramento
✅ Equitable — not just profitable
SB 79 fails on all counts.
Instead of encouraging collaboration, it imposes top-down mandates.
Instead of securing affordability, it locks in weak targets and removes enforcement tools.
Instead of streamlining housing, it streamlines displacement and public distrust.
📢 What You Can Do
SB 79 is headed to a key vote. This is our chance to stop it.
🗓️ Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2025
📍 Assembly Local Government Committee
✅ Take Action Now:
Contact your Assemblymember (we provide a script)
Submit a letter of opposition
Join us at the hearing or send public comment
Donate to support NFABC’s legal and advocacy work
🧭 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.
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.”
