On September 13, 2025, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79), authored by Senator Scott Wiener, representing one of the most important land use reforms of the 2025 legislative session, one that is aimed at accelerating housing production in areas served by public transit. Building on Senator Wiener’s record of advancing transit-oriented development (TOD) and housing legislation, and as discussed in greater detail below, SB 79 provides new zoning standards, height and density allowances, and streamlining measures that aim to reduce barriers to housing construction within proximity to rail, bus rapid transit, and other major transit stops.
Although the Governor has not yet taken action on SB 79 and it has garnered opposition from some municipalities due to its restrictions on local land use authority and control, the measure would appear to align squarely with Newsom’s broader housing agenda and policy priorities. The administration has emphasized the need for bold, statewide interventions to accelerate housing production, particularly in infill and transit-rich locations. SB 79’s combination of statewide TOD entitlements, affordability mandates, anti-displacement protections, and enforcement mechanisms would appear to fit directly within those goals.
Overview of SB 79
SB 79 provides a sweeping new statewide entitlement regime for TOD, which sets statewide minimum densities, height limits, and floor area ratios (FAR) near transit stops while integrating affordability mandates, anti-displacement protections, and Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) enforcement. It also provides a streamlined review pathway for qualifying projects, creating a parallel process for development on property owned by transit agencies so that those sites can fully benefit from SB 79’s provisions. In addition, the statute introduces an “adjacency intensifier” to extend density and height benefits just beyond the half-mile boundary, expands the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) oversight role to ensure proper implementation, and grants local governments the opportunity to adopt their own TOD policies consistent with the new state framework. Together, these provisions reflect an ambitious legislative effort to accelerate housing production in transit-rich areas while balancing state mandates with local participation.
SB 79’s Site Eligibility
As an initial matter, SB 79 sets out clear parameters for which sites near transit are eligible for the new law’s benefits. Housing development projects located on parcels zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial uses within a half-mile of a transit stop are, by default, considered an “allowed use” if they meet certain baseline thresholds. These include a minimum of five dwelling units, a density of at least 30 units per acre (or the local minimum density if higher), and an average unit size cap of 1,750 square feet. Collectively, these requirements are designed to ensure that the new statewide transit-oriented development (TOD) framework facilitates meaningful density of infill housing production, as opposed to less-dense projects with oversized units.
The statute also establishes a detailed entitlement framework for height, density, and floor area ratio (FAR), tied to the proximity and type of qualifying transit stops. The law distinguishes between two categories: Tier 1 TOD Stops and Tier 2 TOD Stops. Tier 1 includes stops in “urban transit counties,” defined as counties with more than 15 passenger rail stations, that are served by either heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail. Heavy rail transit refers to public electric railway lines with high-capacity trains operating on exclusive rights-of-way with high-platform boarding, excluding high-speed rail. Very high frequency commuter rail is defined as service with at least 72 trains per day across both directions within the last three years. Tier 2 covers stops not qualifying as Tier 1, including those served by light rail, high-frequency commuter rail, or qualifying high-frequency bus service. The broader category of a “transit-oriented development stop” incorporates these definitions and also includes planned or programmed stops identified in regional transportation improvement programs.
For projects within a quarter-mile of Tier 1 TOD Stops, SB 79 prohibits local governments from imposing height limits below 75 feet, density limits below 120 units per acre, or regulations that would prevent achieving an FAR of up to 3.5. Projects achieving at least 90 units per acre and meeting State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) requirements are also eligible for further concessions tied to the amount and type of affordable housing set aside. For sites between a quarter-mile and half-mile of Tier 1 stops in cities with populations above 35,000, the minimum entitlements are slightly lower: a 65-foot height limit, 100 units per acre, and FAR of 3. And, projects at or above 75 units per acre may qualify for additional SDBL concessions.
For Tier 2 TOD Stops, the baseline entitlements are more modest. Within a quarter-mile, local governments cannot impose height limits below 65 feet, density limits below 100 units per acre, or restrictions preventing an FAR of up to 3. For projects between a quarter-mile and half-mile of Tier 2 stops in larger cities (over 35,000 population), the minimums drop to 55 feet in height, 80 units per acre, and FAR of 2.5. In both contexts, projects meeting SDBL thresholds can access additional incentives based on affordability commitments.
SB 79 also contains significant affordability and anti-displacement safeguards. The statute prohibits projects on sites where two or more units subject to rent control have been demolished in the past seven years, or where demolition of such units is proposed. It also requires projects (other than those with ten units or fewer, or those in jurisdictions with stricter inclusionary ordinances) to meet one of three affordability thresholds: 7% of units for extremely low-income households, 10% for very low-income households, or 13% for lower-income households. Projects 85 feet or taller must also pay prevailing wage.
Finally, beginning in 2027, SB 79 strengthens enforcement by creating a presumption that denial of a compliant TOD project in a high-resource area constitutes a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). This mechanism aims to ensure that the statutory entitlements are not merely theoretical, but will be legally enforceable in the face of local resistance. In sum, SB 79’s entitlement framework attempts to strike a balance between ambitious statewide housing production goals and protections to ensure affordability and equity in transit-rich neighborhoods.
To assist in site identification, SB 79 also requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to create a map of TOD stops and zones, categorized by statutory tiers, in accordance with HCD’s guidance. These maps carry a rebuttable presumption of validity for use by both project applicants and local governments, which should help expedite the development of TOD projects.
Adjacency Intensifier
In addition to its core framework for sites located within a half-mile of a transit stop, SB 79 introduces a novel “adjacency intensifier” that extends development incentives to projects situated just beyond the immediate TOD boundary. This provision recognizes that transit-oriented housing demand does not abruptly end at the half-mile mark, and that parcels located slightly further away can still support and benefit from high-capacity transit infrastructure.
Under the adjacency intensifier, qualifying housing development projects outside of the half-mile TOD radius may receive an automatic entitlement to additional development capacity.
Specifically, these projects are eligible for a height increase of 20 feet above what local zoning would otherwise permit, a density increase of up to 40 units per acre, and an additional FAR bonus of 1. Importantly, these entitlements apply before any density or concession benefits under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) are layered onto the project, meaning that the adjacency intensifier operates as a baseline enhancement rather than a substitute for existing affordability incentives.
The adjacency intensifier is particularly significant because it reflects the Legislature’s recognition that rigid distance-based thresholds may undercut the state’s broader housing supply objectives. In many communities, parcels that are just beyond the half-mile radius may nevertheless be walkable to transit, connected by feeder bus routes, or otherwise integrated into the regional transportation network. By allowing for increased height, density, and FAR in these areas, SB 79 seeks to ensure that TOD principles are not applied in an overly restrictive or rigid manner, thereby unlocking more sites for higher-capacity housing production.
The adjacency intensifier is a critical element of SB 79’s architecture, closing potential gaps in the statute’s reach, ensuring that transit investments support a wider catchment area of housing growth, and complementing the more robust entitlements located directly adjacent to Tier 1 and Tier 2 stops. When combined with the State Density Bonus Law, the adjacency intensifier can substantially increase development feasibility for sites that might otherwise fall just outside the bill’s coverage area, reinforcing the Legislature’s overarching goal of producing more housing in transit-accessible locations.
TOD Policies on Property Owned by Transit Agencies
For parcels within a half-mile of TOD Stops that are owned by transit agencies, SB 79 also establishes a unique and dedicated framework for agency TOD projects.
To qualify, projects must meet several baseline requirements: at least 50 percent of the floor area must be residential; at least 20 percent of the units must be deed-restricted for lower-income households for extended affordability periods (55 years for rental, 45 years for ownership); unit size averages cannot exceed 1,750 square feet; and the site must qualify as infill, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21061.3.
SB 79 grants an agency’s board of directors the power to adopt agency transit-oriented development zoning standards for its land, establishing minimum allowable height, density, floor area ratios, and uses. Once adopted, these standards govern agency-owned parcels, displacing inconsistent local zoning if a jurisdiction fails to bring its ordinances into compliance within two years. The statute also imposes procedural requirements: public hearings, outreach to affected cities and communities of concern, and consultation regarding local housing needs and recent TOD approvals.
In practical effect, SB 79 ensures that all TOD zones statewide meet a baseline level of zoning permissiveness, while also creating a separate, agency-led pathway for leveraging district-owned land for housing development. By combining these approaches, SB 79 attempts to both lift the baseline of zoning permissiveness near transit and ensure that publicly owned land is put to productive residential use, subject to affordability, anti-displacement, and labor safeguards.
SB 35 Streamlining for SB 79 TOD Projects
SB 79 also establishes the procedural mechanism under which housing projects developed under the bill’s minimum zoning standards may obtain streamlined approval. Specifically, it ties qualifying projects to the state’s existing streamlining statute under Government Code § 65913.4 (commonly known as SB 35).
SB 35 requires eliminates discretionary review and hence California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis for eligible projects, requiring local governments instead to conduct only an administrative, objective review for compliance with applicable zoning, design, and subdivision standards. This streamlining means that if a project satisfies SB 35’s criteria, including location on an eligible site, consistency with objective standards, provision of a specified percentage of affordable units, and compliance with labor and construction requirements, the local government must approve the project ministerially within set time limits, often 60 to 90 days depending on project size. The statute prohibits additional hearings, conditional use permits, or subjective design review that could otherwise delay approval. At the same time, the law excludes sensitive sites from eligibility, including those containing historic resources, prime farmland, or areas subject to certain environmental hazards such as very high fire severity zones. In effect, SB 35 shifts housing entitlements into a ministerial “checklist” model: if the boxes are checked, the city must, by law, approve the project, thereby providing developers with certainty and reducing opportunities for local obstruction. SB 79 now extends SB 35’s procedural requirements to projects within half a mile of a TOD Stop.
Expansion of HCD’s Role and Local Alternative TOD Policies
SB 79 grants HCD primary responsibility for overseeing compliance with the entire chapter. The bill requires that HCD promulgate standards by July 1, 2026, for how capacity created under this chapter may count toward a jurisdiction’s inventory of land suitable for residential development under regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) and housing element law. By requiring HCD to define this methodology, the Legislature aims to ensure that jurisdictions will be able to count TOD capacity toward RHNA compliance, while simultaneously preventing undercounting or double-counting of sites.
Moreover, SB 79 empowers HCD to review local TOD ordinances that may be created under SB 79. Local governments may adopt ordinances conforming their zoning codes to the new framework established by SB 79. Such ordinances may establish objective development standards, conditions, and policies for TOD housing projects, provided that these standards do not “physically preclude” the statutory development standards of the bill. Importantly, the statute sets the evidentiary bar at a “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that local standards must be defensible with actual evidence rather than speculative assertions of infeasibility.
SB 79 creates additional safeguards to prevent cities from undermining TOD projects. First, the alternative plan must maintain at least the same net zoned capacity, measured both in housing units and residential floor area, as would otherwise be required under SB 79. Second, while local governments may reduce maximum density for individual sites, they may not reduce it by more than 50 percent of the baseline, except for certain categories of sites. These exceptions include parcels in very high fire hazard severity zones, areas vulnerable to sea level rise, historic resources, and (with additional guardrails) sites within Tier 2 transit zones. Notably, sites in Tier 2 must retain at least 30 units per acre and a residential FAR of 1.0, ensuring that such areas remain viable for meaningful multifamily housing development. Third, the plan may not reduce overall capacity within any TOD zone by more than 50 percent in either units or floor area. This safeguard prevents local governments from shifting capacity so dramatically that particular transit zones are left with little or no housing opportunity. Fourth, the statute caps the maximum credit a site may contribute toward the plan’s required capacity at 200 percent of the baseline density to prevent jurisdictions from clustering density in a few locations while dramatically downzoning the rest of the zone. Finally, the bill clarifies that a TOD alternative plan may consist of existing local zoning tools, such as an overlay or incentive program so long as those tools meet the capacity and density requirements of this section.
These Draft ordinances must be submitted to HCD at least 14 days prior to adoption, giving the department an opportunity to provide feedback. After adoption, jurisdictions must transmit the final ordinance within 60 days. HCD then has 90 days (or 120, if an extension is requested) to determine substantial compliance. If HCD fails to issue findings within the allotted time, the ordinance is “deemed compliant” for purposes of penalties, such as those under subdivision (m) of section 65912.157. This provision protects jurisdictions from indefinite exposure to uncertainty while incentivizing timely departmental review.
Where HCD finds noncompliance, jurisdictions are given up to 60 days to respond. They may either amend the ordinance to conform or adopt it unchanged, accompanied by findings explaining why they believe the ordinance is nonetheless compliant. If a jurisdiction refuses both options, HCD may notify the Attorney General, setting the stage for potential enforcement actions. This structure mirrors enforcement mechanisms used in the Housing Element Law, where HCD and the Attorney General increasingly collaborate in litigation against noncompliant jurisdictions.
Conclusion and Implications
California’s SB 79 represents a transformative approach to housing development near transit, fundamentally reshaping the interaction between state-level mandates and local zoning authority in such areas. At its core, SB 79 creates a uniform framework that defines TOD zones and establishes baseline entitlements for residential density, floor area, and affordability near transit stops. The law also provides clear, ministerial pathways for housing development projects to secure streamlined approval, tying these entitlements directly to measurable metrics such as net square footage, residential floor area ratio, and unit counts.
One key aspect of the law is the establishment of a tiered framework for transit stops, distinguishing Tier 1 and Tier 2 locations based on transit frequency and capacity. This nuanced differentiation creates tailored entitlements that respond to actual transit accessibility, promoting higher-density development near the most frequent transit services while still encouraging meaningful development in slightly lower-frequency corridors. By linking entitlements to measurable transit metrics and tying density to location, SB 79 creates predictability for developers and provides local governments with a transparent framework for planning and review.
SB 79 also preserves local discretion to some extent through mechanisms such as agency transit-oriented development projects (§65912.158) and local transit-oriented development alternative plans (§65912.161). Local jurisdictions can adopt their own plans or overlay zones, provided they maintain overall capacity, adhere to minimum density requirements, and comply with HCD approval standards. This flexibility allows municipalities to balance statewide housing mandates with local conditions, including environmental hazards, industrial land uses, historic resources, or specific neighborhood character considerations. Nonetheless, the statute limits the degree of local downzoning, ensuring that alternative plans cannot substantially reduce the housing supply in TOD zones or undermine statewide housing objectives.
From a procedural standpoint, SB 79 streamlines approvals and establishes clear state oversight responsibilities. HCD is empowered to review local ordinances, provide guidance on capacity calculations, and ensure that zoning adjustments align with statutory requirements. Transit agencies are authorized to establish zoning for agency-owned parcels, provided they comply with density, height, and floor area parameters and conduct meaningful public outreach.
The broader policy implications of SB 79 are significant. The law effectively prioritizes housing development near transit, aiming to reduce vehicle miles traveled, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and increase housing availability in areas with access to jobs and services. It also attempts to introduce a predictable, enforceable system for developers, transit agencies, and local governments alike, potentially reducing delays caused by discretionary review or inconsistent local zoning. By establishing default entitlements, tiered transit categories, and alternative plan mechanisms, SB 79 balances statewide housing production with local adaptability, creating a replicable model for aligning urban development with sustainability and equity goals.
In conclusion, SB 79 embodies a California housing policy that emphasizes both density near transit and enforceable state standards while still allowing local governments to shape development within structured parameters. The legislation’s combination of clear entitlements, ministerial approvals, and flexible alternative planning represents a pragmatic approach to addressing California’s housing crisis while advancing TOD growth. If signed or allowed to become law by the Governor, whose deadline to sign or veto is October 12, 2025, its implementation will likely define the state’s urban development patterns for decades, serving as a benchmark for integrating housing and transit.
