SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 79 Hearing Date: 4/30/25
Author: Wiener Fiscal: Yes
Version: 4/23/25 Consultant: Peterson
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND: PUBLIC TRANSIT USE: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT:
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Makes transit-oriented development an allowable use on specified sites, gives transit agencies more flexibility under the Surplus Land Act, and exempts specified projects from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Background
Land use. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Cities and counties use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific consideration. Zoning ordinances and other development decisions must be consistent with the city or county’s general plan.
Housing streamlining laws. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice and may require additional approvals. In 2017, the Legislature enacted a substantial package of legislation aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis. Among others, the Legislature enacted SB 35 (Wiener) to provide for a streamlined, ministerial process for approving housing developments that are in compliance with the applicable objective local planning standards—including the general plan, zoning ordinances, and objective design review standards. SB 35 was intended to enable developments that face local opposition, but are consistent with local objective development standards, to be constructed. To be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, a specified percentage of the total housing units in the development must be affordable to lower-income households.
SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) extended the sunset for SB 35 until January 1, 2036, and made many changes to SB 35’s provisions. Some of the most significant changes, included:
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 2 of 16
Authorizing SB 35 to apply within the coastal zone, beginning January 1, 2025, consistent with the applicable local coastal plan or land use plan, except in areas that are environmentally sensitive or hazardous;
Requiring that, in jurisdictions not meeting their housing targets for above moderatehouseholds, projects eligible for SB 35 streamlining must contain at least 10% of the units affordable to very low-income households (i.e., 50% of the area median income (AMI) or below); and
Amended labor standards that apply to projects over 85 feet in height above grade.
Density bonus law. The state’s density bonus law grants certain benefits to developers who build affordable units in order to encourage greater affordable housing production. Density bonus law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:
10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households; 5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households; A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park; 10 percent of the units in a common interest development for moderate-income households;
10 percent of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons; or
20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.
If a project meets one of these conditions, the city or county must allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20 percent to 50 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, depending on the percentage of affordable units.
Incentives, concessions, waivers, and other benefits. Density bonus law (DBL) also grants “incentives or concessions” that can be used to modify development policies that add costs or reduce the number of units that a developer can build on a site. Incentives and concessions can vary widely based on the individual projects, but examples can include reduced fees, waivers of zoning codes, or reduced parking requirements. The number of incentives or concessions a project may be eligible for is based on the percentage of affordable units contained in the project, up to a maximum of four. DBL also allows “waivers” of any development standards that physically prevent the developer from constructing a project at the density allowed to the project, along with the incentives or concessions, under density bonus law. Finally, density bonus law reduces or eliminates the parking that can be required in connection with a project.
Surplus Land Act. Public agencies are major landlords in some communities, owning significant pieces of real estate. When properties become surplus to an agency’s needs, public officials want to sell the land to recoup their investments. The Surplus Land Act (SLA) spells out the steps local agencies must follow when they want to dispose of land. It requires local governments to give a “first right of refusal” to other governments and nonprofit housing developers, and to negotiate in good faith with them to try to come to agreement. This means that local agencies must open their properties up to affordable housing developers first, even if they have a different purpose in mind for the property.
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 3 of 16
Before local officials can dispose of property, they must declare that the land is no longer needed for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” Land that is being used for an agency’s use is not subject to the SLA. “Agency’s use” includes land that is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency or will be disposed of to support agency work or operations.
As a general rule, agency’s use cannot include commercial or industrial uses or activities, and land disposed of for the purpose of investment or generating revenue cannot be considered necessary for the agency’s use. As a result, cities and counties are limited in their ability to dispose of properties for economic development or revenue generation purposes. However, most special districts are not subject to those restrictions on agency’s use as long as they can demonstrate that use of the site will do one of the following:
Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations. Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency.
Transit districts can only dispose of property for commercial or revenue generation purposes if they meet specific requirements for developing affordable housing across their portfolio of properties, and have made a certain amount of progress towards building that housing.
The SLA designates certain types of land as “exempt surplus land.” Statute provides that the entirety of the SLA does not apply to disposals of exempt surplus land. All other surplus land must follow the procedures laid out in the SLA before a local agency can sell it.
California’s housing crisis. California has the largest concentration of severely unaffordable housing markets in the nation, with the average home value in California at $773,363. To keep up with demand, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that California must plan for the development of more than 2.5 million homes over the next eight years, and no less than one million of those homes must meet the needs of lower-income households (more than 640,000 very-low income and 385,000 low-income units are needed).
For decades, not enough housing was constructed to meet need, resulting in a severe undersupply of housing.
According to HCD, completed residential construction is up 13.1% (99,130 units in 2022 to 112,076 units in 2023). Construction has been up every year since 2018. Additionally, the share of lower-income units in new development has nearly doubled since 2018, now representing 19% of permitted units and 16% of completed units in 2023. VLI unit completions increased by
44.2% from 2022-2023, while low-income unit completions rose by 75.7%, a 61.5% overall increase in affordable housing production.
Housing production advocates want to expand housing opportunities near transit stations.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 79 includes three major components:
Makes transit-oriented development an allowable use on any site zoned residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development;
Makes changes to the SLA; and
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 4 of 16
Exempts certain projects on land owned by a public transit agency from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Transit oriented development. SB 79 makes housing development projects (projects) near transit-oriented development stops (TODS) an allowable use on any site zoned residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development. Under the measure, a TOD is a major transit stop, excluding any stop served by rail transit with a frequency of fewer than 10 total trains per weekday. Under the measure, there are three tiers of TODS:
Tier 1: TODS served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail; Tier 2: TODS, excluding Tier 1, served by light rail transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus rapid transit service; and
Tier 3: TODS, excluding Tier 1 and Tier 2, served by frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service.
The standards for a project depend on the tier, the distance from TODS, and whether the project is adjacent to TODS, as described in the table below.
Development proponents may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. However, if a project proposes a height in excess of the local height limit, the local government does not have to grant additional height under density bonus law, unless the project is 100% affordable housing.
SB 79 allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed on land owned the transit agency owns, or on which it has a permanent operating easement, if the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity as that allowed by local standards or applicable state law.
TODS Type Distance
from TODS
Standards for Project
Tier 1 ¼ mile from
stop
Max Height: 75 ft. or 95 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 120 units per acre (u/a) plus any density bonus or 160 u/a if adjacent to stop
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 3.5 or 4.5 if adjacent to stop + 3 concessions or incentives under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
Max Height: 65 ft. or 85 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
+ 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 2 ¼ mile from
stop
Max Height: 65 ft. or 85 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
+ 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
Max Height: 55 ft. or 75 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 5 of 16
FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
+ 1 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 3: ¼ mile from
stop
Max Height: 55 ft. or 75 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
+ 1 concession or incentive under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
Max Height: 45 ft. or 65 ft. if adjacent to stop
Min Density: 60 u/a plus any density bonus or 100 u/a if adjacent to stop
FAR: 2 or 3 if adjacent to stop
No additional concessions or incentives
Regardless of the tier, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Additionally, SB 79 projects are considered consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements or other similar provision for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act.
Streamlining for SB 79 projects. SB 79 projects can opt to use SB 35/423 streamlining provisions, but with some differences. Unlike SB 35/423 projects, SB 79 projects:
Can be on a parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing; Do not have to be in a jurisdiction subject to SB 35/423 streamlining; and Do not have to be consistent with consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government.
To be eligible for streamlining, SB 79 projects must generally meet the same SB 35/423 affordability requirements.
Local government accountability. If a local government denies an SB 79 project in a highresource area, as determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, then it is presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), and is immediately liable for penalties under that law, unless it can demonstrate that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project.
Allowed local ordinances. SB 79 allows local governments to adopt ordinances that revise applicable zoning requirements on individual sites within a TOD zone, provided that the revisions maintain an average density allowed for the applicable tier, or up to a 100% increase.
Local governments must submit a copy or any ordinance to HCD for review within 60 days of adoption. When HCD receives an ordinance, it must review the ordinance and determine whether it complies with SB 79. If it determines the ordinance does not comply, then HCD must notify the local government in writing and give them a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond. The local government must consider any findings HCD makes, and either amend the ordinance to comply with these findings, or adopt the ordinance without changes. If the local government adopts the ordinance without changes, it must explain the reasons why it believes the ordinance complies with SB 79 despite HCD’s findings. If the local government adopts the SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 6 of 16
ordinance without making these findings, HCD can notify the Attorney General that the local government is violating SB 79.
SLA changes. SB 79 expands the definition of “agency’s use,” to include any land leased to support public transit operations, which means these provisions do not go through the SLA process.
Also, SB 79 provides that in the case of a public transit operator, “agency use” can include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development or be for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue if the agency’s governing body takes action in a public meeting declaring that the use of the site will do one of the following:
Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations; or Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency, as specified.
CEQA exemption. This bill also provides that CEQA does not apply to any public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the development proponent files the project application, is located entirely or principally on land a public transit agency owns, if it includes specified transit infrastructure or an agreement to finance transit infrastructure, maintenance, or operations.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops and on land owned by transit agencies – bolstering transit use, slashing climate emissions, and supporting public transportation in the process.
“SB 79 allows more homes near transit in two major ways. First, SB 79 allows for upzoning land for multi-family homes up to 75 feet within a half mile of specified major train stations and bus rapid transit stops. This change will ensure that transit oriented developments (TODs) are feasible and enhance access to transit. Second, SB 79 authorizes local transit agencies to develop at the same or greater density on land they own. All TODs under SB 79 are eligible for the streamlined ministerial approvals process under SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) if they meet the law’s environmental, labor, and affordability standards. “California needs to build millions of new homes in sustainable locations to meet state housing goals, slash climate emissions, and reduce the cost of living, but overly restrictive zoning codes make building such homes illegal. SB 79 allows building more homes near transit to lower costs for families while bolstering public transit use and supporting cash-strapped transit agencies.”
2. Downtown train. TOD projects host a multitude of benefits. They offer residents a place to live without needing a car to get around, and if that resident uses transit, could help address climate change. For higher-income households, TOD projects may reduce the number of vehicles they have or reduce the number of vehicle trips they take. For lower-income residents, they can offer even greater benefits. Rather than forcing these households to purchase a vehicle to travel to jobs, they can find a home that allows them to travel via transit. The state’s housing crisis is also most acute at lower income levels.
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 7 of 16
SB 79 allows more homebuilding on parcels near transit. While SB 79 requires certain levels of affordability on projects that opt to use SB 35/423 streamlining, developers can decide whether they want to avoid affordability requirements and associated costs in exchange for the traditional, discretionary housing approval process. Deed-restricted affordable housing units limit developers return on investment because they cannot charge rents or sell units for as high as they otherwise could. Additionally, SB 79 requires projects that do not use streamlining provisions to meet local inclusionary requirements, but not all local governments have such a policy. As a result, SB 79 does not guarantee that every SB 79 project will include some level of affordability.
Providing truly affordable housing opportunities is pivotal to ensuring that individuals experiencing homelessness, or at risk of homelessness, have a roof over their heads. While the state needs homes at all income levels, if projects do not have to include deed-restricted affordable units, the state may miss an opportunity to address its greatest housing needs on the parcels where housing for lower-income individuals may further multiple state goals, including both housing and improvements in transit ridership. Accordingly, while requiring an affordable housing component to all SB 79 projects may mean SB 79 generates fewer market-rate units, the overall public benefits may be greater. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to expand SB 79’s affordable housing requirements.
3. Thank you, next. Local governments are subject to many planning requirements, especially when it comes to housing. The housing element process requires local agencies to consider many different factors, including how economic, environmental, fiscal, and community factors influence their ability to address regional housing needs. Among the many factors local agencies must include is a statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing, and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. After balancing factors such as these, local governments have to identify and implement programs and policies to make sites available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs at all income levels, which, crucially, which must include any necessary rezonings. Existing law defines affirmatively furthering fair housing to require, “…taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”
1 HCD must approve local housing elements as meeting the requirements of state law, and in recent years, the Legislature has strengthened requirements contained in, and consequences of violating, housing element law. If a local government does not rezone to allow development at the levels required in its approved housing element, or does not adopt a compliant housing element, it may be subject to various penalties, including enhanced fines and restrictions on land use authority. As a result, housing elements are more meaningful, and more local governments are faithfully implementing the law to allow for more dense development in a way that suits their communities.
Despite local governments’ efforts to work through this process to meet their housing needs in a way that balances all these factors, SB 79 applies. Even for a well-meaning local government, such as a city HCD has designated as pro-housing and has a compliant housing element, a developer could build a project on a parcel near a TODS that conflicts with the planning and zoning decisions the local has made, potentially as part of adopting a compliant housing element,
1 Government Code §8899.50.
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 8 of 16
to balance these competing factors. Projects could be built in a manner that does not sufficiently account for housing needs at all income levels, or in a manner that goes against their efforts to affirmatively further fair housing and ensuring all communities have access to new housing opportunities. SB 79 allows local government enacts an ordinance to implement SB 79 that might provide some flexibility, but the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to allow additional flexibility for local agencies that comply with state housing planning requirements.
4. Don’t go chasing windfalls. Valuation of real estate is complicated, but a fundamental principle is that property is as valuable as its highest and best use allows. Land that can only accommodate construction of a few new units of housing is less valuable than land that can accommodate more, all else being equal, and same goes for larger developments versus smaller ones. When zoning rules change to allow more building, property values go up—an effect that was demonstrated in a recent study of upzoning in Chicago.2 SB 79 allows more units to be built and reduces costs associated with developments by granting additional waivers and concessions of development policies. SB 79 also allows developers to choose the density, height, and FAR, up to the limits for the particular tier, potentially allowing them to maximize profits by building larger luxury units instead of smaller, lower priced ones. Many previous pieces of housing legislation have included provisions that help balance these private benefits with public benefits.
For example, AB 2011 (Wicks, 2022) and the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (SB 6, Caballero) both made certain types of housing developments an allowable use on land zoned for commercial uses. AB 2011 required specific levels of affordable housing. Both measures included labor standards for all their projects, although the specific standards differ. Similarly, previous efforts at TOD upzoning, including SB 827 (Wiener, 2017) and SB 50 (Wiener, 2020), included provisions that provided explicit public benefits for projects, including certain affordability requirements. SB 79 includes some provisions in the same areas, but generally more limited requirements than previous housing production legislation. For example, SB 79 only requires specific affordability levels and labor standards if the developer opts to use SB 35/423 streamlining. If a developer opts not to use SB 35/423 streamlining, then the measure only requires the developer to meet a local inclusionary standard, if one exists. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to better balance private developer benefits with public benefits.
5. Changes. Studies are split on whether new housing development in a community significantly increases or decreases the net displacement of low-income households from an area. Some studies argue that new housing frees up less expensive units that would otherwise be occupied by high-income households,3 while others argue that the effect is dependent on the specifics of the housing market in an area that determine whether the number of lower-income households moving into an area exceed the number moving out.
4 Previous legislation similar to SB 79
attempted to strike a balance by delaying implementation for sensitive communities, meaning low-income communities and communities of color at risk of gentrification, and permitted them to come up with a community plan and other policies to encourage multifamily development at varying income levels and protect vulnerable residents from displacement. SB 79, however,
2 Yonah Freemark. (2020) “Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction.” Urban Affairs Review 56(3), 758-789. 3 Phillips, S., Manville, M., & Lens, M. (2021). “Research roundup: The effect of market-rate development on neighborhood rents.” UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. 4 Karen Chapple & Taesoo Song (29 Mar 2024): Can New Housing Supply Mitigate Displacement and Exclusion?, Journal of the American Planning Association, DOI:
10.1080/01944363.2024.2319293
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 9 of 16
does not identify or change its operation in any communities that might be more vulnerable to displacement. Instead, the bill cross-references the demolition protections in existing law that would apply to an SB 79 project in any case under the Housing Crisis Act. The Committee may wish to consider whether SB 79 should include more protections against displacement consistent with previous efforts.
6. I still haven’t found what I’m looking for. SB 79’s tiers of TODS would be a new concept in state law, so figuring out exactly where each tier is, and what projects would look like can be challenging to imagine. According to the author and sponsors, Tier 1 is intended to apply to the following stations: BART, LA Metro B and D lines, and 25 commuter rail stations. Tier 2 is intended to apply to SacRT Light Rail, SF Muni Metro, SF Muni streetcars, SF Van Ness BRT, VTA Light Rail, LA Metro A, C, E, G, J, and K Lines, San Diego MTS Trolley, Santa Ana Streetcar, 15 commuter rail stations, and 13 additional light rail or BRT stations. Tier 3 is intended to apply to 60 commuter rail stations and 10 ferry stations.
7. Imagine. California is a geographically and demographically diverse state, and that is reflected in its 483 cities and 58 counties. Local elected officials for each of those municipalities are charged by the California Constitution with protecting their citizens’ welfare. One chief way local governments do this is by exercising control over what gets built in their community.
Local officials weigh the need for additional housing against the concerns and desires of their constituents. Where appropriate, those officials enact ordinances to shape their communities based on local conditions and desires. SB 79 applies regardless of these efforts and the unique features of California’s communities by requiring all communities near TODS to allow projects that meet SB 79’s development requirements.
What existing housing exists near this vast range of transit stops varies greatly. For example, all BART stations are supposed to be tier 1 TODS. Some BART stations in places like San Francisco and Oakland already have large, tall structures surrounding them. However, in other places like Castro Valley, the neighborhoods surrounding the BART station are mostly singlefamily homes. Regardless of these differences, SB 79 treats these stops the same. In a suburban neighborhood like Castro Valley, this would represent a drastic change.
SB 79 includes some provisions that nod to local flexibility to tailor the bill’s impacts to different communities. It allows local governments to enact ordinances to implement its provisions, and those ordinances can revise applicable zoning requirements on individual sites within a TOD zone, provided that revisions maintain the average density allowed for that tier, or up to a 100% increase. However, the bill is missing several details regarding “TOD zones,” including a definition of TOD zone, that could raise questions for local governments that want to use this provision. To help ensure that SB 79 provides clear flexibility for local governments, the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to clarify how local governments can make zoning decisions that deviate from SB 79 requirements, and require minimum densities for projects to ensure units are widely available and suitable for habitation at a range of income levels.
7. Don’t you forget about me. Not only does SB 79 attempt to address the housing crisis, it also tries to address the fiscal challenges confronting the state’s transit agencies. It does this in a couple ways.
First, it allows transit agencies to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed on land owned the transit agency owns, or on which SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 10 of 16
it has a permanent operating easement. This allows transit agencies to make land use decisions that could conflict with those established by the city or county. However, the bill does not make clear whether this applies just to SB 79 projects or any residential or commercial development. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 79 to clarify what projects a transit agency’s zoning applies to. Second, it expands the definition of “agency’s use” in the SLA to include any land leased to support public transit operations. This means transit agencies could decide to lease their land for more market-rate housing, or other commercial or industrial uses, without first offering the parcel to affordable housing developers. Transit agencies already have this authority under the SLA if they adopt a program that commits to certain requirements for residential development, including a 25% inclusionary requirement, across their portfolio of properties. While SB 79’s SLA exemption could expand transit agencies’ revenue generating possibilities, it runs contrary to the purpose of the SLA, which is to prioritize affordable housing development over other competing priorities. As a result, this provision may reduce the availability of affordable housing in the state. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 79 to remove the bill’s provisions amending the SLA.
8. Bring the noise. Unlike other recent housing streamlining bills, SB 79 expands the zones where housing can be built from residential and commercial to light industrial. Light industrial zoning varies across jurisdictions, but can include light manufacturing, warehouses, and other uses. Some light industrial zones may be adequate places to build housing, like next to a brewery. However, other light industrial zones might not be if there are potentially hazardous materials or involve pollution emissions like a warehouse. This sets a precedent for other legislation to follow, and could place housing opportunities in places that could present public health and safety risks. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to remove the authority to build SB 79 projects in light industrial zones.
9. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
Because the Constitution does not define municipal affairs, the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it is an issue of statewide concern. SB 79 says that its statutory provisions regarding TODS apply to charter cities because addressing the state’s housing crisis of availability and affordability is a matter of statewide concern.
10. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 79 adds to the duties of local officials, Legislative Counsel says the bill imposes a new state mandate. SB 79 disclaims the state’s responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill’s provisions.
11. Incoming! The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 79: first to the Committee on Housing, which approved the bill at its April 22nd hearing on a vote of 6-2, and second to the Committee on Local Government.
Support and Opposition (4/25/2025)
Support: California Yimby (Co-Sponsor)
Greenbelt Alliance (Co-Sponsor)
Spur (Co-Sponsor)
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 11 of 16
Streets for All (Co-Sponsor)
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
Casey Glaubman - Councilmember, Mount Shasta
Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
James Coleman - Councilmember, South San Francisco
Jed Leano, Councilmember, Claremont
Jesse Zwick - Councilmember, Santa Monica
Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
Matthew Solomon - Councilmember, Emeryville
Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
Rashi Kesarwani - Councilmember, Berkeley
Rebecca Saltzman - Councilmember, El Cerrito
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Zach Hilton - Councilmember, Gilroy
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Active San Gabriel Valley
All Voting Members of the North Westwood Neighborhood Council Bay Area Council
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike Long Beach
Bikesd
Business for Good San Diego
Calbike
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Nightlife Association (CALNIGHT)
Car-lite Long Beach
Chamber of Progress
Circulate San Diego
City West Hollywood
Climate Action Campaign
Climate Hawks Vote
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Leadership Council
East Bay Yimby
Eastside Housing for All
Environmental Protection Information Center
Everybody's Long Beach
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Fieldstead and Company, INC.
Fremont for Everyone
Generation Housing
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 12 of 16
Glendale Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation
House Sacramento
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inclusive Lafayette
Indivisible Sacramento
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Leadingage California
Lisc San Diego
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
National Independent Venue Association of California
New Way Homes
Northern Neighbors
Our Time to ACT
Pathway to Tomorrow
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
People for Housing Oc
People for Housing Orange County
Prosperity California
Redlands Yimby
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone (RISE)
Ridesd
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Fernando Valley for All
San Francisco Yimby
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sierra Business Council
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sloco Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE)
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)
Strong Towns Poway & Rb
Strong Towns San Diego
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
Student Homes Coalition
UC San Diego Housing Commission
University of California Student Association
Ventura County Yimby
Walk Bike Berkeley
Walk San Francisco
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 13 of 16
Westside for Everyone
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Yimby LA
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby Slo
Opposition: Allied Neighborhoods Association (of Santa Barbara) Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
Brentwood Homeowners Association
Burton Valley Neighborhoods Group
California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
California Preservation Foundation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Catalysts for Local Control
Cheviot Hills (Los Angeles) Neighborhood Association
Chinatown Community Development Center
Citizen Marin
Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Agoura Hills
City of Anderson
City of Artesia
City of Azusa
City of Belvedere
City of Brentwood
City of Calimesa
City of Camarillo
City of Carlsbad
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Cloverdale
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Downey
City of Encinitas
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Glendora
City of Grand Terrace
City of Hawthorne
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hesperia
SB 79
(Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 14 of 16
City of Highland
City of Huntington Beach
City of LA Mirada
City of LA Quinta
City of Lafayette
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood CA
City of Larkspur
City of Lathrop
City of Lawndale
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Marina
City of Mission Viejo
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Napa
City of Newport Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Oakley
City of Oceanside
City of Ontario
City of Orange City of Orinda
City of Palm Desert
City of Palmdale
City of Paramount
City of Perris
City of Pico Rivera
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redding
City of Redlands
City of Ripon
City of Riverbank
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of San Fernando
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Marcos
City of San Rafael
City of Sausalito
City of Scotts Valley
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 15 of 16
City of Simi Valley
City of Solana Beach
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Upland
City of Vista
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Yucaipa
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN)
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Communities for a Better Environment
Comstock Hills Homeowners Association
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association 2025
Crescenta Valley Community Association 2025
Del Rey Residents Association
Disability Rights California
Eastside Voice Long Beach CA
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA)
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Foothill Communities Association
Friends of Historic Miracle Mile
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
Hills2000_friends of the Hills
Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, United Neighborhoods Homey
Kennedy Commission
Lafayette Homeowners Council
Larchmont United Neighborhood Association
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of California Cities
Little Tokyo Service Center
Livable California
Livable Mountain View
Long Beach Forward
Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of Mental Health Advocacy Services
Mission Street Neighbors
Neighborhoods United SF
Neighbors for a Better California
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation
Our Neighborhood Voices
Our Neighborhood Voices -- Education Corporation
SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 16 of 16
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Poder SF
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Public Law Center
Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF)
Rise Economy
Save Lafayette
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
Shift-Bay Area
Spaulding Square Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Sunnyvale United Neighbors
Sunset Square Neighborhood Organization
Town of Apple Valley
United Neighbors
Urban Habitat
West Torrance Homeowners Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Westwood Homeowners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Young Community Developers
-- END --