Understanding the changes to SB 79, this year’s biggest housing bill for cities

By Brady Guertin, legislative advocate (housing)

One of this year’s most consequential housing bills, SB 79 (Wiener), is still alive — albeit with a few dozen changes. Opposed by Cal Cities, the bill would require cities to approve tall, dense residential buildings near specific transit stops without public engagement and environmental review and with unclear affordability requirements.

Due to opposition from local governments, affordable housing groups, and unions, the bill scraped by the Senate with a vote of 21-13 and out of its last policy committee hearing by a vote of 6-1, the bare minimum needed to pass. The author has modified the bill 11 times since its introduction.

Many of these amendments were made due to lawmakers' concerns about the bill’s impact in their districts. The most significant, recent changes would affect the land use authority of transit agencies and the “alternative transit-oriented development plan.” The author and the sponsor revised the bill in an attempt to account for local transit-oriented development planning that has occurred for decades. Here’s everything cities need to know about these latest changes.

How high do the height limits go?

Height limits and density requirements would vary based on the type of transit the housing project is near, the number of passenger rail stations in a county, and the distance between the transit stops and the residential development project.

Cities in urban transit counties — defined as “a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations” — would need to approve residential projects up to 7 stories tall, with limited to no environmental review depending on the type of transit and the project’s distance from the transit stop. Cities in a county with 15 or fewer passenger rail stations would need to approve projects within a quarter mile of specific transit stops up to 5 stories tall, with limited environmental review.

In both cases, cities would need to improve the projects without community input and regardless of state-approved planning efforts. Recent amendments added minimum affordability requirements. However, the bill is silent on how long the units must be affordable. This is a major change from existing law, which commonly mandates 55 years of affordability.

How will transit agencies with no planning experience adopt local development standards?

As drafted, SB 79 allows transit agencies to develop zoning standards — including height, density, floor area ratio, and allowed uses — for residential projects on land they have a permanent operating easement on, currently own or provide services to, or plan to have a future transit stop on as of Jan. 1 of next year. 

The bill establishes minimum requirements that projects must meet, including dedicated residential purposes and affordability requirements for housing and mixed-use developments. The new language also requires the transit agency to consult with local government when creating its development standards. However, it does not require them to follow local zoning regulations or to heed local governments’ input.

Furthermore, cities would need to modify their zoning regulations for transit agencies’ land to comply with the agency’s adopted regulations. These standards must meet the minimum requirements for height, density, and floor area ratios established in the bill.

But what about the alternative plan?

SB 79 also allows cities to create a “transit-oriented development alternative plan” to comply with the measure. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would need to review and approve these plans. Cities could do this through one of two ways: Include the plan in their housing element in the next housing element cycle or adopt an ordinance approved by HCD.

If a city takes the housing element option, it will need to show how the plan maintains at least an equal number of residential units and floor area ratios laid out in the bill. If the ordinance route is taken, the city would need to meet the standards that HCD is tasked with developing next year. These standards would specify exactly how each city or county’s inventory of land can meet the residential capacity required by SB 79. 

The challenge with the alternative plan is twofold. First, cities that go through the housing element process must provide additional information to HCD — adding more time, red tape, and complexity to an already challenging process. Second, HCD has made it clear that the department cannot handle new workloads. In a separate Senate appropriations analysis, HCD said that providing more clarity in the housing element review process — including specifying exactly what cities need to do to get certified — would cost $11.1 million annually and require 52 new positions.

With no guarantee that local governments can get their alternative plan or even housing elements approved promptly by HCD, there would be little incentive for cities to use the plan.

What’s next?

While these new amendments are somewhat positive, the bill still overlooks local planning efforts. If anything, this lack of genuine flexibility will only complicate the housing element certification process. While the measure provides minimum affordability requirements for transit-oriented development projects, the bill is silent on the length of time those units must remain affordable.

Cities should express their opposition to the bill by contacting their assembly member before the legislative session ends on Sept. 12. For more information, including how your city could be affected, please contact your regional public affairs manager.