|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A contentious state bill to encourage denser housing near public transit has been revised to give local governments more control over where that housing is built in an effort to appease skeptics who are concerned about overrides to local zoning.
The legislation in question is Senate Bill 79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, who hopes to incentivize developers to build housing near transit corridors such as BART, Caltrain or ferry stations. The bill prescribes height and density tiers based on the proximity and type of the nearest transit stop: for example, the maximum height could range from 45 feet to 95 feet.
Since SB 79’s introduction, the language has included a local flexibility provision to allow cities to choose where to build housing within the half-mile radius of a transit stop. But the bill has faced intense criticism from municipalities including Palo Alto, whose officials liken it to a state takeover of local zoning initiatives — especially after cities just finished planning for additional housing with the 2023-2031 Housing Element. To address these specific concerns, amendments approved in a state Assembly committee earlier this month give cities even more flexibility by allowing them to exempt certain lots from SB 79 that have already been upzoned.
Wiener told the Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government on July 16 that the changes acknowledge the density reforms cities have already made to comply with the Housing Element.
“This really shows that the author and the sponsors are making a good-faith effort to ensure that jurisdictions that are doing their part are getting credit for that,” said Jordan Grimes, who advocated for the bill during the meeting on behalf of the climate change nonprofit Greenbelt Alliance.
The amended bill sailed through the Local Government committee by a 6-1 vote earlier this month, with only Assembly member Tri Ta, a Republican who represents Orange County, dissenting. Three Democratic committee members, Blanca Rubio, Blanca Pacheco and Rhodesia Ransom did not register a vote.
Although the bill has statewide implications, SB 79 is ostensibly a Bay Area-led effort with co-authors Matt Haney, D-San Francisco; Alex Lee, D-Milpitas; and Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland.
But not all of the Bay Area is on board, and cities up and down the Peninsula have remained staunch opponents.
Palo Alto City Council member Pat Burt, the city’s leading critic of SB 79, said he wasn’t swayed by the latest changes. Even though the latest amendments give cities more flexibility to decide where to add housing in the next cycle of housing allocations, he said it fails to adequately integrate with cities’ ongoing efforts to change zoning and meet the aggressive allocations of the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle, which spans from 2023 and 2031. Palo Alto has a state mandate to plan for 6,086 housing units over that span.
“Cities just went through a tremendous effort to develop housing plans for RHNA allocations that were far and away the strongest, most aggressive ever,” Burt said in an interview. “They exceed even what the market will provide even with huge upzoning.”
Burt said he was concerned that SB 79 fails to consider the dramatic actions that cities are already taking to meet their allocations and requires. It also does not account for Eichler-style neighborhoods like Greenmeadow — which is partially within half a mile of the Caltrain station on San Antonio Road — and Old Palo Alto, which is close to the California Avenue station (see maps below).
“The community for the most part is unaware of how drastic this can be. … I don’t think the Jobs or the Pages know that four-story buildings can be erected right next door to them,” Burt said.
These maps show the half-mile radius (red) and quarter-mile radius (blue) around the California Avenue and San Antonio Caltrain Stations. Senate Bill 79 would allow higher density housing based on proximity to transit, including Caltrain stations. Courtesy mapdevelopers.com
Grimes and other supporters of the bill reject the notion that it is “one size fits all,” as many opponents have argued.
Grimes added that the latest amendments will satisfy good actors who want to see desperately needed housing built in their cities, while separating out the bad actors who will continue to oppose the bill regardless.
“It calls their bluff, in a sense,” Grimes said.
State Sen. Josh Becker, who represents cities on the peninsula including Palo Alto and Menlo Park, voted to advance SB 79 through the senate last month. But at the time, Becker said he would not support the bill in a final vote, citing his concerns about local flexibility and wanting to see a more dramatic tier system to distinguish housing built adjacent to transit from housing half a mile away.
He said in an email that the latest amendments “don’t seem to meet the central concerns that our cities have raised.”
Assemblymember Marc Berman has yet to stake out a position on the bill, but a spokesperson for his office previously told this publication that he is keeping tabs on SB 79 as it meanders through the legislative process.
The legislature is out on recess until mid-August, when the state Assembly will again pick up the discussion of SB 79.
Charged with child sex abuse, East Palo Alto employee gets character reference from council memberFebruary 23, 2026 2:08 pm
Thank you for the article. It would be very wrong if state legislators pass SB 79 to upend cities’ housing elements approved by the State, after cities spend a lot of effort and millions of dollars to hire the consultants needed to prepare the 6th cycle housing elements? SB 79 is not needed to fulfill our housing requirements. We have not voted for developers to take over our city councils.