SB 79 Is on Track: What HCD’s New Advisory Memo Means

Big picture: HCD has provided new clarity, and we are full steam ahead on SB 79 implementation.

HCD just released a new advisory memo to help California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations map SB 79’s coverage in the state’s 4 major metros. Cities & MPOs had raised some questions about the finer points of SB 79 coverage. While ultimately the MPOs are tasked with drawing up maps for SB 79 coverage (and many cities can and have mapped their own coverage areas), HCD was seen as having a role in ensuring consistency in interpretation across the state.

What questions does HCD’s memo answer?

• Which counties are urban transit counties?
  • SB 79 applies only in “urban transit counties” that contain more than 15 “passenger rail stations.” However, the latter term is not specifically defined within SB 79. 
  • HCD’s answer: Sacramento, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and San Diego. (While it is not explicitly addressed in the memo, Orange County will become an urban transit county once the OC Streetcar is complete.)
  • HCD’s memo clarifies that passenger rail stations include light rail transit, heavy rail transit, and commuter rail transit, but not stations served solely by Amtrak long distance rail. In other words, “passenger rail stations” are stations where someone could take rail transit to get around their metro area.
• Which systems are heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail?
  • There was a very strange argument floating around about whether Sacramento’s light rail system met SB 79’s standard for light rail transit. HCD’s memo clarifies that yes, it does, and identifies the state’s other light rail transit systems: SF Muni light rail & streetcar, SD MTS trolley, VTA light rail, and the LA Metro light rail lines.
  • California operates three state supported rail lines – Pacific Surfliner, Gold Runner (formerly San Joaquin), and Capitol Corridor – that are something of a hybrid between intercity rail and commuter rail. HCD’s memo clarifies that these routes should be considered as commuter rail for the purposes of SB 79, along with San Diego’s Coaster and SPRINTER, Los Angeles’s Metrolink (including the Arrow), and the Bay Area’s ACE, Caltrain, and SMART. BART’s eBART service from Pittsburg to Antioch also falls into the commuter rail category.
  • HCD identifies BART & LA Metro’s subways (B&D lines) as the state’s heavy rail transit.
• How should stations that share multiple commuter rail lines, or in some cases multiple commuter rail operators, be counted?
  • SB 79 doesn’t apply to just any commuter rail station, but only to those that meet a standard for “high frequency” or “very high frequency” based on the number of trains per day. Many commuter rail operators run multiple different lines or service patterns (for example, Caltrain has three different stopping patterns between San Jose & San Francisco), and some stations are served by multiple different operators (such as Metrolink and the Surfliner).
  • HCD’s memo clarifies that what matters for SB 79 is the total number of trains serving a station. Trains from different lines “stack”, rather than requiring one single line to meet the frequency threshold.
• How should frequent bus routes with intermittent bus lanes be counted? 
  • SB 79 applies around frequent bus routes operating within dedicated lanes. Some bus routes have bus lanes for some segments, but operate in mixed traffic for others. Some cities and transit agencies had asked whether SB 79 applied in those cases. Consistent with their guidance memo on AB 2097 (Friedman, 2023), HCD’s memo clarifies that stops within or immediately adjacent to where a bus route operates within a dedicated lane may qualify for SB 79 (so long as they meet the other standards, such as being a major transit stop), even if other stops along the route do not.
• What exact planning milestones “activate” a TOD stop?
  • SB 79 applies to planned transit, not just lines currently in operation. It sets two possible milestones for when a planned transit expansion counts as real for the purposes of transit-oriented development: funding or environmental review. The first is indicated by inclusion in the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the second by selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative route.
  • HCD’s memo provides more detail on those milestones. For planned stops within a TIP, HCD’s memo allows for the MPO to limit coverage to only those stops with committed construction funding, indicating achievement of the funding milestone. For a preferred alternative, HCD’s memo refers to possible adoption of a CEQA/NEPA document, as well as other local implementing documents determined by the MPO.

HCD’s memo addresses and clarifies all of the questions that were being considered for clean up legislation. From our perspective as cosponsors of SB 79, the memo aligns with our understanding of the bill’s provisions and how they were discussed within the legislature during debate over passage. Based on this new clarity from HCD, Senator Wiener and the cosponsors of SB 79 have decided that a clean up bill is no longer necessary.