Fantastic explainer of a monumental piece of legislation. Congrats to all involved, and to the people of California who will now have more affordable transit accessible housing!
The 7 year redevelopment clause seems to mostly prevent using sb79 to help with redevelopment of existing residential within those transit rich areas. Is that true or am I overestimating how harmful it will be? Are there a lot more single family lots in scope than I realize?
Overall very exciting though! Allowing transit to profit from real estate on their land seems like it could be a big game changer!
Redevelopment of single family homes will probably include multiple lots, but AB835 did legalize signle stair construction back in 2023, so narrower developments are more feasible now
As for redevelopment of existing multi family sites, each city is still free to upzone those sites as much as they please
Its just not automatically upzoned via SB79, but many of those lots may already be upzoned by other recent housing laws
Some cities may choose to upzone denser lots as a way to keep other parcels downzoned as part of alternate plans
AB 835 didn't legalize single-stair—it directed the state fire marshal issue to study the issue and make recommended code changes. That work is happening now—find out how you can submit a comment: https://bsky.app/profile/stephenjacobsmith.com/post/3m2mijkl6gc2b
Thanks for a useful guide, and I've read SB 79 repeatedly during its revisions. But I will respond to a few points:
* Ahem! "The definition of BRT is pretty strict. It’s not your neighborhood bus stop." Not so! Los Angeles Metro # 234 is a local bus line on Sepulveda Blvd. in Van Nuys, with 10-minute peak headways. But a year ago Metro and the City of Los Angeles decided to paint a 24-hour dedicated bus and bike lane on it, which triggered SB 79's nominal BRT definition, despite it lacking any other BRT features like stations or signal priority. You see it on the L.A. Planning Department's draft map.
* No, I don't think the Disneyland monorail meets the definition of "public" transit. ;)
* Regarding labor standards, I'd presume that new buildings over 85 feet are no longer wood frame, rather usually reinforced concrete, with is a different skill set.
* Thank you for the clarification, "Cities are not obliged to allow taller buildings than the heights specified above, even if additional height is requested as an extra incentive and/or concession." You're sure about this?
* Los Angeles Metro owns very little land beyond its actual transit infrastructure.
* Somewhere I thought you were dubious about single R1 lots being redeveloped; I can show you multiple examples of existing 50'-wide-lots in Los Angeles that have been redeveloped into 5- and 6-story apartment buildings in current multi-family zones.
In the City Limits, under Mayor Lightfoot, city policy was updated to permit/require TOD within a 1/2 mile radius of all train stations (CTA & Metra). What is needed next is to extend that into the Suburbs where density is lacking and increases are needed to help support the transit system and capitalize on smart development opportunities. I know CMAP planners have highlighted the lack of density along the Regional/Commuter Rail lines (Metra). Seems like IL can now more easily "jump on the bandwagon" for TOD around stations if California is leading by example statewide! Let's make it a requirement already!!!
Thanks Nolan for such a detailed and informative summary!
Fantastic explainer of a monumental piece of legislation. Congrats to all involved, and to the people of California who will now have more affordable transit accessible housing!
The 7 year redevelopment clause seems to mostly prevent using sb79 to help with redevelopment of existing residential within those transit rich areas. Is that true or am I overestimating how harmful it will be? Are there a lot more single family lots in scope than I realize?
Overall very exciting though! Allowing transit to profit from real estate on their land seems like it could be a big game changer!
Based on the data I've seen, redevelopments of multifamily buildings with 3+ protected units are pretty uncommon, given the costs imposed by the HAA.
Tons of single family lots are potentially covered in all the counties that this law applies to
A little funny to me that it’ll be easier to redevelop a single family residence than a quadplex. But that’s good to know, and a wins a win!!
Redevelopment of single family homes will probably include multiple lots, but AB835 did legalize signle stair construction back in 2023, so narrower developments are more feasible now
As for redevelopment of existing multi family sites, each city is still free to upzone those sites as much as they please
Its just not automatically upzoned via SB79, but many of those lots may already be upzoned by other recent housing laws
Some cities may choose to upzone denser lots as a way to keep other parcels downzoned as part of alternate plans
AB 835 didn't legalize single-stair—it directed the state fire marshal issue to study the issue and make recommended code changes. That work is happening now—find out how you can submit a comment: https://bsky.app/profile/stephenjacobsmith.com/post/3m2mijkl6gc2b
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for a useful guide, and I've read SB 79 repeatedly during its revisions. But I will respond to a few points:
* Ahem! "The definition of BRT is pretty strict. It’s not your neighborhood bus stop." Not so! Los Angeles Metro # 234 is a local bus line on Sepulveda Blvd. in Van Nuys, with 10-minute peak headways. But a year ago Metro and the City of Los Angeles decided to paint a 24-hour dedicated bus and bike lane on it, which triggered SB 79's nominal BRT definition, despite it lacking any other BRT features like stations or signal priority. You see it on the L.A. Planning Department's draft map.
* No, I don't think the Disneyland monorail meets the definition of "public" transit. ;)
* Regarding labor standards, I'd presume that new buildings over 85 feet are no longer wood frame, rather usually reinforced concrete, with is a different skill set.
* Thank you for the clarification, "Cities are not obliged to allow taller buildings than the heights specified above, even if additional height is requested as an extra incentive and/or concession." You're sure about this?
* Los Angeles Metro owns very little land beyond its actual transit infrastructure.
* Somewhere I thought you were dubious about single R1 lots being redeveloped; I can show you multiple examples of existing 50'-wide-lots in Los Angeles that have been redeveloped into 5- and 6-story apartment buildings in current multi-family zones.
So what about ChicagoLand? :)
In the City Limits, under Mayor Lightfoot, city policy was updated to permit/require TOD within a 1/2 mile radius of all train stations (CTA & Metra). What is needed next is to extend that into the Suburbs where density is lacking and increases are needed to help support the transit system and capitalize on smart development opportunities. I know CMAP planners have highlighted the lack of density along the Regional/Commuter Rail lines (Metra). Seems like IL can now more easily "jump on the bandwagon" for TOD around stations if California is leading by example statewide! Let's make it a requirement already!!!
Great explainer. When do you think the effects of this bill will start to be felt in CA?
so like how many houses are we going to get?? Tokyo La when?