California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

Overall View of SB 79 and Incremental Strategy

• Many see SB 79 as another step in a multi‑year pro‑housing “winning streak,” preferring many small winnable bills over one giant reform that might trigger stronger opposition.
• Supporters think it will meaningfully chip away at the housing shortage over decades, not fix it quickly.
• Some commenters compare it favorably to or alongside reforms in Oregon and Washington that legalized more density statewide.

Legal / Process Changes and CEQA

• Key design is “ministerial” approvals: if projects meet objective criteria, cities must approve them, and approvals are automatically granted if deadlines are missed.
• Because there is no discretionary decision, CEQA challenges are greatly reduced, cutting a major traditional avenue for killing projects.
• Earlier “poison pill” bills are cited as warnings (e.g., bans on demolishing any recently-tenanted buildings), but SB 79 is viewed as having relatively clean mechanics.

Transit-Hub Focus, Small Towns, and Local Character

• Strong disagreement over the “build near transit” narrative: some fear more traffic, parking shortages, and unchanged car use; others argue transit scales better and density around it is exactly the point.
• Several corrections: high heights (7–9 stories) only apply near heavy rail or very high‑frequency bus/BRT; small towns and rural areas generally lack such transit and, in some cases, are population‑threshold‑exempt.
• One thread worries that broader state housing laws already force dense projects even in tiny forest towns, though others say that’s not what SB 79 does.

What Gets Built: 1–2 BR vs Family Housing

• Concern: market may overproduce 1–2 bedroom rentals for younger, transient tenants, leaving families still struggling for larger units.
• Counterargument: many large homes/3+BR units are currently occupied by singles or couples with roommates; building lots of small units would free those larger places for families and lower their prices.
• Debate over whether zoning and design rules (e.g., two‑stair requirements) make good family apartments uneconomical; some advocate “single stair” reforms to enable better 4–8 story buildings.

Transit, Cars, and Infrastructure

• One camp argues for better roads, parking, and acceptance that most people will still drive; another says more roads don’t scale and simply lock in congestion.
• Dispute over whether added density near transit will truly shift trips from cars; some point to full light rail/streetcars, others to “pokey” buses and entrenched car culture.
• Robotaxis are discussed as potentially increasing vehicle miles traveled and congestion unless regulated (e.g., bans on private ownership or circling instead of parking).

Implementation, Incentives, and Possible Gaming

• Doubts that zoning changes will automatically translate into lots of new housing: high interest rates, construction costs, local fees, and safety/accessibility codes can still kill project economics.
• SB 79 reduces parking minimums near transit; some fear developers will still over‑provide parking and encourage driving.
• Speculation that transit agencies or cities might “game” the law by tweaking bus/train frequencies or resisting new transit to avoid triggering upzoning.
• Others think there’s too much money in transit‑oriented development for this kind of resistance to fully prevail.

Equity, Politics, and Investor Power

• Philosophical conflict: should “current residents” be able to lock in low density, or must growing metros accommodate workers in essential services?
• Some warn SB 79 strengthens institutional landlords and developers at the expense of local control, given low affordability set‑asides and reliance on market‑rate projects.
• Others argue the status quo already favors property owners and large landlords; building “anything” (especially many small units) is seen as a net win that reduces their pricing power over time.