Breaking down State Senate Bill 79
California debates a major transit-oriented housing reform
The San Francisco Chronicle published an op-ed by Tom Steyer today in favor of California State Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), which Matt wrote about in June and continues to follow on X. While the bill continues to see pushback in California — last week Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles City Council came out against it, and there were protests in the state yesterday — Steyer argues for its passage. He says the bill, which seeks to facilitate increased housing density near transit infrastructure, is necessary for a state facing a severe housing crisis.
So what’s the deal with the bill, its YIMBY champions, and its critics?
What’s in SB 79?
SB 79 proposes zoning reforms to allow higher-density residential development near transit hubs. It establishes state-level standards that override certain local zoning restrictions in these areas, with the stated intention of encouraging transit-oriented development. The bill has advanced through committee stages but remains under scrutiny as it moves through the legislative process.
While those who agree with State Senator Scott Wiener, the bill’s sponsor, see it as essential for addressing the state’s housing and climate goals, critics raise concerns about local control, affordability safeguards, and the potential impacts on existing communities.
Arguments in support of SB 79
1. It would build more housing.
The bill is designed to boost California’s housing supply, particularly in areas near transit, where demand is already high. Increased production could moderate housing costs over time and provide more opportunities for middle- and working-class families to live in urban centers.
2. It would strengthen public transit systems.
Facilitating more housing near stations should increase ridership and help stabilize agency budgets. Comparable strategies have seen success in international cities that have integrated land use and transit planning, such as Tokyo and Hong Kong.
3. It would reduce emissions.
Locating more housing near transit options is seen as a way to reduce automobile dependency, which would decrease greenhouse gas emissions and support California’s broader climate goals.
4. It would set uniform zoning standards.
Advocates argue that the current local zoning policies are too often exclusionary or resistant to multifamily development. A statewide standard would remove regulatory bottlenecks and accelerate construction timelines.
5. It would promote housing equity.
The bill has been framed as an equity measure that would open more high-opportunity neighborhoods to a diversity of residents by providing new housing in single-family zones near transit corridors that have historically been exclusionary.
Arguments in opposition to SB 79
1. It would undermine local control.
Opponents cite concerns that the bill overrides locally developed housing policies and land use decisions. Critics argue that local governments are better positioned to account for unique geographic, environmental, and infrastructure constraints.
2. It doesn’t do enough on affordability, risking displacement and gentrification.
Some housing advocates say that while the bill acknowledges affordability, its provisions are insufficient to ensure access for low-income households. Critics also warn that the bill could incentivize the demolition of existing, naturally affordable housing, which could displace existing tenants to lose stable housing.
3. It could strain infrastructure and harm the environment.
There are questions about the adequacy of infrastructure, including concerns about school capacity, emergency services, traffic congestion, and risks associated with locating new developments in environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains or fire zones.
4. It would reduce public oversight.
The bill includes mechanisms to streamline approvals, which may reduce opportunities for public hearings and community input. Opponents argue this could violate existing transparency laws and undercut civic-engagement processes.
5. It expands transit agencies’ authority too far.
Recent amendments give transit agencies broader zoning powers, even beyond current transit corridors. Detractors argue that this could incentivize commercially motivated decisions that do not align with community interests.
California needs more housing, especially near transit, and SB 79 is one of the few serious efforts to make that happen at scale. Like any bill, it isn’t perfect. But, Steyer writes, at some point the state has to choose between stepping toward a solution and maintaining a status quo that is not working.
Back in June, Governor Gavin Newsom came out swinging in support of a suite of pro-housing bills, helping push them across the finish line while leaning into “abundance” messaging. He has not taken a position on SB 79 yet, but he is facing sharper pushback from L.A. leaders. Advocates are now pressuring him to show that the bold YIMBY stance he took earlier this summer wasn’t just a one-time gesture.
“affordability safeguards”
The only true safeguard for affordability is to build enough damned housing.
"Some housing advocates say"
Housing advocates like homeless advocates often seem to be working to make the situation worse.