SB 79 (Wiener) — Signed Into Law by Governor Newsom
Another Step Toward State-Controlled Development
On October 10, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 79, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), as part of a larger package of housing bills designed to “accelerate housing and affordability.” While the bill’s supporters claim it will streamline approvals and boost housing supply near transit, SB 79 represents a serious shift of power away from local communities and toward the state—raising questions about safety, infrastructure capacity, and community input.
What SB 79 Does
SB 79 expands the state’s control over housing development, particularly in areas near public transit. Among other changes, it:
Limits local oversight by forcing cities to approve certain housing projects without the usual community review or environmental safeguards.
Expedites approvals by imposing strict timelines and reducing opportunities for public hearings or local mitigation measures.
Encourages high-density development near transit corridors—even in areas with inadequate infrastructure, emergency access limitations, or resource shortages.
Broadens the state’s enforcement power to penalize cities or counties that resist compliance, further eroding local decision-making authority.
There’s a Better Way Forward
NFABC supports responsible, balanced housing growth—but not at the expense of safety, infrastructure integrity, or local self-governance.
SB 79 raises several concerns:
Infrastructure Readiness: Many communities lack the road, sewer, and public-safety capacity to handle sudden density increases.
Public Safety: High-density projects near congested transit zones can impede emergency vehicle access and strain first responders.
Environmental Impact: Streamlining requirements could bypass important assessments meant to protect flood zones, fire-prone areas, and coastal regions.
Loss of Local Voice: Residents, planning commissions, and local officials are effectively sidelined in favor of one-size-fits-all state mandates.
Why This Matters
California’s housing crisis is real—but SB 79 takes a top-down approach that prioritizes speed over sustainability. Local governments understand their own communities best. Removing their ability to weigh in on development undermines public trust and puts long-term livability at risk.
NFABC believes that housing reform should balance affordability, safety, and infrastructure reality—not simply remove local barriers for the sake of numbers.
What’s Next
Implementation of SB 79 will unfold over the next year as state agencies issue guidance and cities adjust to new compliance standards. NFABC will continue to monitor the impact of this law, share data on unintended consequences, and advocate for smart growth that protects communities while addressing California’s housing needs.
Where SB 79 Would Hit You
What this map reveals:
Impact zones near transit. SB 79 would force denser, taller development within a half-mile of major transit stops (light rail, BRT, major bus corridors).
Communities under pressure. The map highlights both urban and suburban neighborhoods that have historically lacked capacity for rapid change — places with existing wildfire risk, flooding vulnerability, or critical infrastructure constraints.
Overlap with hazard zones. Some areas shown are already in fire-prone or flood-plain zones — densifying here raises serious safety and resilience concerns.
Displacement risk corridors. Where lower-income households currently live close to transit, SB 79 could accelerate turnover and displacement unless protections are built in.
Why the Map Matters:
Transparency, not abstraction. SB 79 is often described in abstract “housing near transit” language — but this map makes it concrete. You can see where it would bite, down to the block or parcel.
Unequal impacts. The bill doesn’t affect all neighborhoods equally. This map helps reveal patterns of which communities would absorb the brunt of deregulation.
Community defense starts with knowing. When people see their own blocks or nearby areas marked, it’s easier to mobilize, to demand accountability, and to press for better approaches.
What You Can Do with This Map
Zoom into your neighborhood. Check whether your address or nearby transit stop is inside an affected zone.
Share and mobilize. Use screenshots or embed links in your emails, social media, and calls to your local reps.
Spot risk neighbors. If your neighbors are in zones marked, reach out and help inform them.
Use as evidence. In letters, op-eds, or testimony, refer to this map to show how SB 79 isn’t an “everywhere” bill — it’s a targeted transformation in real places.
The interactive map above shows precisely which neighborhoods and communities would be affected by SB 79’s new zoning rules. It’s not theoretical — this is real land, homes, and lives.
What is SB 79
More Housing for Investors, Not Communities
Upzoning Private Land:
Forces cities to allow multi-family buildings within a half-mile of transit, overriding single-family zoning (Section 65912.155).
Mandatory Upzoning:
What: Local governments must allow multi-family residential development (e.g., apartments, condos) on private land within a half-mile radius of major transit stops—defined as rail stations, ferry terminals, or bus rapid transit with frequent service (per Public Resources Code Section 21155).
Details: Overrides restrictive zoning (e.g., single-family-only zones) with minimum standards for:
Height: Varies by transit type (e.g., 6-8 stories near rail, per implied tiers).
Density: No maximum unit caps.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Higher FAR to fit more units.
Parking: Eliminates minimum parking requirements, cutting costs for developers.
Streamlining Surplus Public Land and Private Approvals:
Eases disposal of public surplus land for housing, with some requiring 25% affordability (Section 54221 amendments). Lets agencies like MTS build housing on their land, bypassing local rules.
Qualifying private projects get faster permitting and some exemptions from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) reviews, reducing delays and legal risks.
How: Local agencies must approve projects meeting these zoning rules ministerially (no discretionary review).
Transit Agency Power:
Tier Detail (Implied, Not Labeled)
SB 79 doesn’t say “Tier 1” or “Tier 2,” but its rules suggest a tier-like structure:
"Tier 1" (High-Impact Transit Zones):
What: Areas near major transit (e.g., San Diego’s trolley stations).
Rules: Highest density allowed (e.g., 6-8 stories, no parking minimums) on private/public land (Section 65912.155).
Affordability: No set % for private land; 25% lower-income units (up to 80% AMI) required for certain surplus land projects (e.g., 300+ units, Section 54221(g)(1)(G)).
"Tier 2" (Secondary Zones or Smaller Projects):
What: Areas near less frequent transit or smaller surplus parcels.
Rules: Lower density (e.g., 4-6 stories) or fewer streamlining perks; surplus land might not need 25% if not exempt.
Affordability: Optional via density bonuses (10-15% typically) on private land.
Support our fight
Your Support Makes a Difference
Every dollar you donate helps us fight for responsible housing policies and stronger communities. With your support, we can continue to advocate for balanced development that benefits everyone. Whether it’s funding legal efforts or mobilizing communities, your contribution powers real change.
NFABC Response to Mayor’s Office on SB 79
We’ve reviewed the Mayor’s letter, and we’re left wondering:
Did the Mayor actually read SB 79 as it stands today?
Because if he did, then he knows this bill allows developers to stack density bonuses and waivers. This means they can break height limits, override local zoning, and reshape neighborhoods with very little oversight.
Does the City understand that these bonus provisions make it legally dangerous to say no?
Under the State Density Bonus Law, if the City denies a project using these stacking tools, it could be sued by developers with expensive legal teams. Is that really what the Mayor and Council want? A city forced to comply under the threat of lawsuits, instead of planning with integrity?
And what about the “planned transit” loophole?
SB 79 rewards developers for building next to future transit stops that may never be funded or built. Are we really going to let developers use imaginary bus lines as justification to build massive towers?
We also ask a very basic question:
Did the staff lobbyists even read the City’s adopted Legislative Platform?
One of its overarching policy principles is to “preserve local control.”
Honorable Mayor (or whomever wrote this response for you), how exactly does SB 79 comply with that Council direction?
At some point, we have to ask:
Is the fix already in?
Is City Hall knowingly misleading the public, hiding behind vague policy language while siding with wealthy development interests? It certainly looks that way when our elected officials defend a bill they don’t seem to fully understand, while everyday residents carry the consequences.
NFABC calls on the Mayor and City Council to clearly state whether they support the specific provisions in SB 79. Not just the idea of “more housing,” but this actual bill, in its actual form. The public deserves honest answers. The community deserves transparency.
