SAN DIEGO – Local opponents of SB 79 are nervous about the potential passage of a statewide bill allowing for more dense housing development, including taller buildings near transit hubs.
The California Legislature passed hundreds of bills, including SB 79, and sent them to Gov. Gavin Newsom before adjourning for the interim recess on Sept. 12. Newsom already signed several bills in late September, but not SB 79. Many of the remaining bills are being evaluated by his office before the final deadline for action on Oct. 12.
In 2024, Newsom received 991 bills that were passed in the final days of the legislative session. He signed 890 bills into law and vetoed 156.
In anticipation of the possible passage of SB 79, the city released this statement: “We are currently evaluating SB 79 to determine how to implement it in a manner that is best tailored to San Diego’s needs, and in compliance with state law. The City Planning Department will continue to share additional information on the City Planning Department webpage at sandiego.gov/planning.”
SB 79, officially known as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, aims to allow for more dense housing development near transit hubs statewide. If passed, this bill would override local zoning laws that restrict such development, allowing for taller buildings near transit to help lower housing costs, reduce traffic congestion, and support public transit agencies.
Local opponents of the proposed measure view SB 79 as an ominous sign, like Bonnie Kutch of University City, who is founder of UC Peeps and part of the San Diego Community Coalition, a network of 27 groups opposing high-density development. Detractors claim the bill undermines local governments’ ability to manage their zoning and land-use decisions.
“SB 79 is worse than the Bonus ADU Program, SB 10, Complete Communities, and any other program that has been proposed locally,” said Kutch. “While the full consequences of Newsom signing SB 79 into law have yet to be determined, what’s clear is they will be felt far and wide.”
Eric Law, a community planner and member of Protect Point Loma, a nonprofit advocating for preserving the overall quality of life in the Peninsula, said: “We are in an interesting place where our mayor and elected representatives support vested money interests – big developers with substantial donations – over the wants and needs of their constituents. SB 79, in effect, declares war on affordable housing creation.”
Kutch argues that SB 79 is completely unnecessary. “San Diego has already been up-zoned for housing in a manner that will allow transit to connect residents to their places of employment,” she said.
“The way SB 79 was written is highly flawed. Development one-half mile from transit is not transit-oriented development. SB 79 should have been limited to one-half mile ‘walking’ distance from rail service and one-quarter mile walking distance to bus service.”
Law insists that SB 79 will not serve the purpose for which it was intended: facilitating the creation of more affordable housing.
“SB79 will only create dense market-rate housing on scarce, expensive urban land,” he said. “Market-rate housing is the opposite of what is needed. San Diego’s ‘housing crisis’ impact is concentrated on the lower-income brackets.
“The San Diego Housing Commission reported that 40% of San Diegans in the low- and very low-income brackets compete for just 11% of the available housing,” Law added. “SB 79 certifies that our state legislators will only make more housing for those who can already afford what exists.”
Law pointed to the 2020 California Census to illustrate his point. “California is the densest built state in the Union with 95% of Californians residing on just 5% of California’s land,” said Law. “If dense urban building were the unlock code for affordable housing, we’d be the cheapest state in the US. Instead, we have the worst housing burden in the country. And it continues to get worse.”
Kutch asserts that SB 79 was crafted with flawed assumptions about housing supply and affordability. “Housing production in San Diego should not be driven by state projections of homes needed for moderate- and low-income households,” she said.
“As we’ve seen, developers produce upscale units at the rate the market can absorb without substantially driving down rent.
“In light of the increased chance of urban fire risk in San Diego, largely due to the city’s failure to implement its own brush management program, permanent protections for high-risk fire zones in San Diego should have been written into this proposed law.
“Los Angeles opposed SB 79. It’s extremely disappointing that Mayor Todd Gloria did not, choosing instead to put developers’ interests above the safety and well-being of San Diego residents.”
Key aspects of SB 79
Upzoning near transit: The bill allows for greater housing density, including taller buildings, in areas within a certain distance of transit stops and stations. Addressing housing crisis: The goal is to increase the supply of housing to make homes more affordable and reduce the overall pressure on the housing market, especially for lower-income renters. Promoting transit use: The bill makes it easier and faster to build housing near transit, while aiming to encourage more people to use public transportation. The legislation seeks to provide more riders and financial support for public transportation systems that are facing funding challenges. Tenant protections: The bill includes provisions to protect against tenant displacement by increasing housing supply and provides affordable-housing requirements.Hence then, the article about opponents of sb 79 warn the bill will not solve affordable housing needs was published today ( ) and is available on Times of San Diego ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Opponents of SB 79 warn the bill will not solve affordable housing needs )
Also on site :