Existing law requires a housing development project to be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within prescribed distances of a transit-oriented development stop if the development complies with specified requirements. Existing law applies these provisions to a local agency beginning July 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan, as specified. Existing law prescribes requirements for these plans, including requiring that the plan not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50%. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes.

This bill would provide that a transit-oriented development alternative plan may reduce the capacity in up to one transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if certain requirements are met.

Existing law requires a housing development project to be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within prescribed distances of a transit-oriented development stop if the development complies with specified requirements. Existing law applies these provisions to a local agency beginning July 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan, as specified. Existing law prescribes requirements for these plans, including requiring that the plan not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50%. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes.

This bill would provide that a transit-oriented development alternative plan may reduce the capacity in up to one transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if certain requirements are met.

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires that health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies provide coverage for certain services and treatments, including emergency medical transportation services. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or a health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2020, to provide, among other things, that if an enrollee, insured, or subscriber receives covered services from a noncontracting air ambulance provider, the individual will pay no more than the same cost sharing that the individual would pay for the same covered services received from a contracting air ambulance provider, referred to as the in-network cost-sharing amount.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to those provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2415

Author:(Hoover)

As Amended Ver:August 10, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Revises SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, to add additional historic preservation protections for cities that meet certain characteristics.

Senate Amendments

Amendments were taken in the Senate to address chaptering conflicts.

COMMENTS

Planning for Housing: Historically, housing planning and land use decisions in California have been delegated to local governments, which exercise primary authority over land use, zoning, permitting, and development approvals through their police power. While the state has long required each jurisdiction to adopt a housing element identifying how it will accommodate its share of regional housing need, these requirements historically lacked meaningful enforcement mechanisms. In addition, earlier iterations of Housing Element Law and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process required significantly less upzoning and did not compel jurisdictions to adopt zoning that could realistically accommodate assigned housing needs. As a result, jurisdictions could comply on paper while maintaining restrictive zoning and development standards that limited actual housing production. Local discretionary approval processes further allowed projects to be delayed, reduced in scale, or denied based on subjective criteria, contributing to significant constraints on housing supply, particularly in high-opportunity areas.

According to a 2024 analysis by the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, a staggering 95.8% of all residential land in California is zoned exclusively for single-family housing, severely constraining opportunities for infill development near transit. Even when lower-density unincorporated areas are excluded, over 82% of residentially zoned land in the state prohibits multifamily housing. The state has taken some strides to facilitate additional housing typologies in exclusionary zoning districts, namely through State ADU Law and SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021, effectively making single-family zoned parcels eligible to accommodate up to four dwelling units. However, much of California's residential land remains off-limits for denser development, regardless of how well-situated the land may be when it comes to access to jobs, transportation, and other opportunities.

SB 79: In recent years, the state has taken a series of actions to address local constraints on housing production by both expanding allowable residential density and shifting project approvals from discretionary review to more predictable, ministerial processes governed by objective standards. SB 79 was one of these most recent attempts to encourage additional residential density in climate-smart locations. SB 79 establishes a statewide framework to increase residential density near major transit stops by making qualifying housing development an allowable use on sites zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development within specified distances of transit. The bill sets minimum statewide standards for height, density, and residential floor area ratio based on a project's proximity to high-quality transit, and limits the ability of local governments to impose standards that would physically preclude achieving those thresholds. Projects must include at least five units and comply with specified affordability, labor, and antidisplacement requirements, including prohibitions on demolishing rent-restricted housing and requirements to provide deed-restricted affordable units for developments containing more than 10 units.

SB 79 applies to cities with a population of at least 35,000 that have qualifying high-quality transit stops, and requires that, beginning July 1, 2026, housing development projects be an allowable use on qualifying sites within one-half mile of a (TOD) stop (or one-quarter mile in smaller jurisdictions). The bill establishes a series of implementation deadlines, including requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue guidance by July 1, 2026 on how SB 79 capacity is counted toward a jurisdiction's housing element sites inventory, and requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare maps of TOD stops and zones to guide implementation. Local governments may adopt implementing ordinances or local TOD alternative plans, subject to HCD review, prior to July 1, 2026, to tailor development standards, so long as the plan maintains equivalent overall residential capacity. SB 79 also provides that, beginning January 1, 2027, denial of a qualifying project in a high-resource area is presumed to violate the HAA, subject to specified exceptions.

Within this framework, SB 79 provides local governments with the ability to craft local alternative plans and implement ordinances. This includes providing local governments with limited local flexibility to reduce development intensity on certain sites. A local TOD alternative plan may reduce the allowable density on an individual site by up to 50% below SB 79's baseline standards, and may further reduce or exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register, provided that such exemptions do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the total eligible area within a TOD zone. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments, through an implementing ordinance, to fully exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register as of January 1, 2025 from SB 79 until one year prior to the start of the seventh housing element cycle.

Historic Preservation, Districts, and Landmarks in California: Historic preservation in California operates across local, state, and federal levels, with each level maintaining its own designation processes and regulatory frameworks. Historic resources may include individual landmarks, such as buildings or structures associated with significant events, persons, or architectural styles, as well as historic districts, which are geographically defined areas containing a concentration of historically or culturally significant properties. These resources may be listed on local registers, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. In California, properties listed on the state or national register are generally treated as "historical resources" for purposes of environmental review, with any proposed development on those sites requiring analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Notably, listing on the California Register or National Register may occur through state or federal nomination processes that do not require local government approval, meaning properties may receive historic designation even where a local jurisdiction has not chosen to designate or protect them.

The regulatory implications of historic designation vary depending on the level and type of designation. Local governments typically establish and regulate historic districts and landmarks through local ordinances, which may impose restrictions on demolition, alterations, or new construction to preserve the character of designated areas. Within historic districts, individual properties may be classified as "contributing" or "non-contributing" resources, with contributing properties retaining their historic integrity and contributing to the district's overall historical, architectural, or cultural significance, typically because they were constructed during the district's period of significance and reflect its defining characteristics. Non-contributing properties, meanwhile, are geographically located in the district but do not maintain those character-defining features. Unlike local historic designations, which are typically implemented through local land use controls, protections for state and federal designations primarily operate through environmental review processes, most notably under CEQA in California.

State housing laws vary in how they treat historic resources when establishing streamlined or ministerial approval pathways. Some laws, such as SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, initially took a more categorical approach by excluding parcels located within historic districts or containing designated historic resources from its requirements; however, subsequent amendments under AB 1061 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 505, Statutes of 2025, narrowed these exclusions by eliminating the blanket district-wide prohibition and instead focusing on protections for individually designated resources and contributing structures. Other state streamlining and upzoning laws continue to exclude sites containing historic resources more broadly.

SB 79, by contrast, takes a more limited and locally driven approach to historic preservation. Rather than broadly exempting historic resources, SB 79 allows local governments to reduce development intensity on individual sites by up to 50%, or fully exempt sites, only if those properties are designated as historic resources on a local register, and only through adoption of an implementing ordinance or a locally adopted transit-oriented development (TOD) alternative plan subject to review by HCD. Even within that framework, SB 79 places constraints on the use of these exemptions, including a 10% cap on the total amount of land within a TOD zone that may be excluded from SB 79 in a local alternative plan around any given major transit stop. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments to temporarily exempt locally designated historic resources, as of January 1, 2025, from its provisions until one year after the next housing element cycle begins. As a result, SB 79's historic preservation framework primarily relies on local designation to determine where protections apply, rather than uniformly recognizing historic resources listed on the California Register or National Register. Under SB 79, only individually listed local resources, and not historic districts, are afforded these protections.

This Bill: This bill amends SB 79 by modifying the requirements applicable to local TOD alternative plans. Under existing law, a local TOD alternative plan may not reduce the residential development capacity of any individual TOD zone, measured in total units or residential floor area, by more than 50%. This bill creates a limited exception to that requirement by allowing a local government that is a city to reduce the residential capacity in up to one TOD zone by more than 50%, if specified conditions are met. Specifically, the exception applies only in cities with a population of less than 150,000, where a majority of the station area is located within a local historic district designated prior to January 1, 2000, and where the jurisdiction contains more than one TOD zone.

This targeted exception would allow certain jurisdictions with older, locally designated historic districts to further limit development intensity in transit-rich areas, beyond what is currently permitted under SB 79. The requirement that the historic district be designated prior to January 1, 2000 may help prevent jurisdictions from newly designating historic districts solely to avoid SB 79's upzoning requirements, and instead focuses the exemption on long-established historic areas. Proponents may argue that this flexibility is necessary to preserve historically significant neighborhoods and avoid conflicts between state upzoning requirements and long-standing local preservation goals.

According to the Author

"As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, it is the role of the legislature to increase affordability and availability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment—the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. Historic Folsom's commercial core and residential neighborhoods are thriving—economically, culturally, and civically. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state's housing goals."

Arguments in Support

The City of Folsom writes in support: "AB 2415 recognizes that historic districts serve unique public purposes that cannot be replicated once lost. By allowing the transfer of high-density housing obligations from our historic district to other transit-oriented development locations within the city through the development of an alternative plan, the bill provides a flexible, commonsense tool that supports both statewide housing objectives and the preservation of irreplaceable cultural resources."

Arguments in Opposition

South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth writes in opposition: "This bill is written so that the city of Pasadena could exempt one of the most useful train stations from SB 79. The city of Pasadena has not been a good actor in trying to solve the housing crisis. When SB 9 was enacted they tried to claim a significant portion of the city was exempted because of their "Landmark Districts." Rob Bonta put Pasadena on notice for violating state housing laws for this action."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 10-0-0

YES: Carrillo, Ta, Johnson, Pacheco, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Caloza, Ward, Wilson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-4

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta, Lee, Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Blakespear, Limón

UPDATED

VERSION: August 10, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0003833

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2415

Author: Hoover (R)

Amended: 8/10/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/26

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill revises SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025) to add additional historic preservation protections for a jurisdiction that meets certain characteristics.

Senate Floor amendments of 8/10/26 resolve chaptering conflicts with AB 2576 (Harabedian).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, pursuant to SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025):

Terms and Definitions

1. Establishes the following definitions:
   1. “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit oriented development (TOD) stop. A parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop, as defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio (FAR) by 1 prior to the application of density bonus law.
   2. “Residential FAR” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. A local government may not impose any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude the residential FAR established.
   3. “Tier 1 TOD stop” means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
   4. “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 TOD stop, and means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service, as specified. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.
   5. “TOD stop” means a major transit stop or a stop on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or specified bus service within an urban county. When a new transit route is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, these stops shall not be eligible as a TOD stop unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 TOD stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop.
   6. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

SB 79 Development Standards

1. Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone shall be entitled to specified development standards pursuant to the table below. TOD housing development projects shall also meet the following requirements:
   1. The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet; and,
   2. The housing development project shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
      • 1. A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or
        2. The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.

1. Provides that for projects with more than 10 units, the project shall comply with one of the following requirements:
   1. Any of the following:
      • 1. At least 7% are dedicated to extremely low-income (ELI) households.
        2. At least 10% of the total units are dedicated to very low-income (VLI) households.
        3. At least 13% of the total units are dedicated to low-income households.
   2. If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage or deeper level of affordability, then the local inclusionary housing standard shall apply.
   3. All units dedicated to ELI, VLI, or low-income households shall have an affordable cost or rent, as defined, and ensure the continued affordability of those units for 45 years for ownership or 55 years for rental units.
2. Prohibits a transit housing development from being located on either of the following:
   1. A site containing more than two units where the development would require the demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power that has been occupied by tenants within the last seven years.
   2. A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within seven years before the development proponent submits an application under this section any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control.
3. Requires a TOD project to meet specified labor standards, including the provision of prevailing wages if the project is not entirely a public work, as specified, and projects over 85 feet shall employ a skilled and trained workforce, as specified.

TOD Development Ordinances

1. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee compliance with SB 79 development standards. Requires HCD to promulgate standards for how to account for capacity in a city or county’s land suitable for development identified in its housing element by July 1, 2026.
2. Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by HCD, as specified. The adoption of the ordinance shall not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Provides that the ordinance may include objective standards, conditions, and policies, applying to TOD housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable SB 79 development standards provided for in (2) above.
3. Provides that if a local government adopts an ordinance, it shall submit a copy to HCD within 14 days of adoption. HCD shall review and make a finding of compliance within 90 days, plus an additional 30 days if needed. If HCD does not meet that timeline, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79 development standards. If HCD finds that the local government does not comply with SB 79 development standards, HCD shall provide the local government 60 days to respond.
4. Requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to create a map of TOD stops and zones established by SB 79.

Local TOD Alternative Plans

1. Provides that a local “TOD alternative plan,” defined as an amendment to the housing element or a program to implement the housing element—such as the adoption of a specific plan, adoption of a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this bill —may be adopted provided it incorporates all of the following:
   • 1. The plan shall provide at least the same total zoned capacity in terms of both total units and FAR, as specified.
     2. The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50%, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
        1. Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or within the state responsibility area, as defined.
        2. Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as specified.
        3. Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of (11)(a) do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD zone.
        4. Sites within ½ mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop shall not have a density below 30 units per acre with an FAR of 1.0 and should be considered for attached entry-level owner-occupied housing development opportunities.
     3. The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or FAR by more than 50%.
     4. The site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200% of the maximum density established by SB 79.
2. Exempts, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, the following sites from SB 79 if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance:
   1. A site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards.
   2. A site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards.
   3. A site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register.
   4. Sites identified in a Local Plan.
3. Authorizes, for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan, as specified, in future housing element cycles.
4. Provides that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local agency that denies a housing development project meeting the provisions of this bill shall be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act and are immediately liable for specified penalties, unless the local government demonstrates that it has a public health, life, or safety reason for denying the project, as specified.
5. Delays implementation of SB 79 development standards until July 1, 2026, unless a local government adopts an ordinance or local TOD alternative plan deemed compliant by HCD before July 1, 2026. Delays implementation to unincorporated areas of a county until the 7^th regional housing needs allocation cycle.

This bill:

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The local jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city.
   2. The city has a population of less than 150,000.
   3. A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000.
   4. The city has more than one TOD zone.

Background

SB 79 Development Standards. Beginning July 1, 2026, SB 79 makes housing an allowable use on sites zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial within one-half mile of an existing or currently proposed qualifying TOD stop in an “urban transit county” for jurisdictions with a population of at least 35,000 residents, and within one-quarter mile of the qualifying TOD stop for jurisdictions with a population of less than 35,000. For unincorporated areas of a county, implementation is delayed until the 7^th housing element cycle begins. SB 79 projects must include at least five units, achieve the greater of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) or meet the local minimum density requirements, and maintain an average unit size not exceeding 1,750 square feet. SB 79 projects over 10 units must include specified levels of affordable housing, comply with anti-displacement provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, and comply with specified labor standards.

SB 79 limits the standards local governments can impose on SB 79 projects depending on the distance from specified transit stops and population of the jurisdiction (see chart under existing law #2). SB 79 projects that meet certain density thresholds are also eligible for additional concessions and incentives under density bonus law. SB 79 projects are not eligible on the following sites: (1) a site in which the development would require the demolition of more than two units that is subject to any form of rent or price control that was occupied by tenants within the last seven years; and (2) a site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within the last seven years and those units were subject to price or rent control.

HCD’s SB 79 Advisory. Due to requests from several MPOs about the need for greater clarity about the implementation of SB 79, on March 20, 2026, HCD issued an SB 79 Advisory^[1]. Among other things, the advisory clarified several SB 79 definitions and specified that SB 79 applies to the following counties as of the publication of the advisory: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego. According to the advisory, HCD will review all SB 79 Ordinances and TOD Alternative Plans and determine their compliance with state law. The advisory also provides that SB 79 development standards apply to the following types of transit:

HCD’s advisory notes that SB 79 contemplates application to future planned TOD stops that meet specified requirements. As such, the chart above does not reflect rail typologies for all rail services that have yet to be constructed or enter into operation.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. “While California residents contend with a deepening housing shortage, it is the role of the legislature to increase availability and affordability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment – the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”
2. State and regional guidance. Independent of the SB 79 Advisory noted above in the Background section, HCD must issue guidance by July 1, 2026, on how SB 79 capacity is to be counted in local sites inventories for future housing element cycles. Additionally, MPOs are required to publish TOD tier maps with a rebuttable presumption of validity, however there is no requirement for MPOs to publish their maps on any statutory timeline. For the 6^th housing element cycle up to one year prior to the adoption of the 7^th housing element revision, local governments may exempt additional parcels from the provisions of this bill under specified conditions via an ordinance update.
3. Alternatives to SB 79 application. SB 79 creates two implementation alternatives for local governments to use to comply with the provisions of the bill:

• SB 79 ordinances. The SB 79 development standards identified in Comment 2 do not apply to a local government that enacts a local TOD ordinance to make their zoning consistent with SB 79 development standards, provided HCD has reviewed and determined the ordinance substantially complies with the SB 79 development standards by July 1, 2026. In other words, a local TOD ordinance would replace the SB 79 development standards. Specifically, HCD must review an enacted ordinance and make a finding as to whether the ordinance is in substantial compliance with SB 79 development standards and report back to the local government within 90 days – or 120 days if HCD needs an additional 30 days to review. If HCD fails to meet these timelines, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79. However, if the ordinance is not deemed to be compliant, the local government shall be given up to 60 days to respond.
• Local TOD Alternative Plan (Local Plan). The SB 79 development standards may also be waived or altered in jurisdictions that choose to implement SB 79 differently by electing to adopt a Local Plan. A Local Plan can be adopted by ordinance, housing element adoption, housing element program implementation, a specific plan, or a zoning overlay. A Local Plan may alter the general development standards prescribed by SB 79, but must maintain at least the same net zoned capacity (measured in both units and residential floor area) as SB 79 provides, and may not reduce maximum density on any site or total capacity in any TOD zone by more than 50%, unless the sites are within a very high fire hazard severity zone, vulnerable to sea level rise, or contain a historic resource on a local register.

Local Plans can apply to any site in the jurisdiction, including those sites owned by other local agencies, and may be implemented by existing local TOD zoning ordinances, overlay zones, specific plans or zoning incentive ordinances, provided they meet the other requirements of the Local Plan. In other words, a local government adopting a Local Plan can collaborate with other local agencies.

1. SB 79 exemptions. SB 79 does not apply, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, to the following sites if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance: (a) a site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards; (b) a site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards; (c) a site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register; or, (d) sites identified in a Local Plan.
2. SB 79 and Historic Resources. As noted in Comment 3, SB 79 allows local governments to exclude sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register if the local government has adopted a local alternative plan pursuant to SB 79 indicating the site’s exclusion within one year of adopting the seventh revision of the housing element.

This bill would allow for an exception to the provision in the local alternative plan requirements for the TOD zone to include at least 50% of the total units or residential floor area as would otherwise be allowed by SB 79 development standards. Specifically, this bill would allow for cities with fewer than 150,000 with more than one TOD zone to reduce the capacity in one of the TOD zones by less than 50% if the majority of that TOD zone is part of a local historic district designated by 2000.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/11/26)

City of Folsom
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Historic District Association
Folsom History
Friends of Folsom Preservation
Historic Folsom Residents Association

Neighbors for a Better San Diego
The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/11/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Lee, Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Alison Hughes / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

8/12/26 16:19:01

**** END ****

1. SB 79 Advisory: Clarifications on Definitions for Metropolitan Planning Organizations. HCD Housing Policy Development Division. March 20, 2026. Accessible here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb-79-mpo-advisory.pdf ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2415

Author: Hoover (R)

Amended: 4/23/26 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/26

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill revises SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025) to add additional historic preservation protections for a jurisdiction that meets certain characteristics.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, pursuant to SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025):

Terms and Definitions

1. Establishes the following definitions:
   1. “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit oriented development (TOD) stop. A parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop, as defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio (FAR) by 1 prior to the application of density bonus law.
   2. “Residential FAR” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. A local government may not impose any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude the residential FAR established.
   3. “Tier 1 TOD stop” means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
   4. “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 TOD stop, and means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service, as specified. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.
   5. “TOD stop” means a major transit stop or a stop on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or specified bus service within an urban county. When a new transit route is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, these stops shall not be eligible as a TOD stop unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 TOD stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop.
   6. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

SB 79 Development Standards

1. Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone shall be entitled to specified development standards pursuant to the table below. TOD housing development projects shall also meet the following requirements:
   1. The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet; and,
   2. The housing development project shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
      • 1. A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or
        2. The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.

1. Provides that for projects with more than 10 units, the project shall comply with one of the following requirements:
   1. Any of the following:
      • 1. At least 7% are dedicated to extremely low-income (ELI) households.
        2. At least 10% of the total units are dedicated to very low-income (VLI) households.
        3. At least 13% of the total units are dedicated to low-income households.
   2. If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage or deeper level of affordability, then the local inclusionary housing standard shall apply.
   3. All units dedicated to ELI, VLI, or low-income households shall have an affordable cost or rent, as defined, and ensure the continued affordability of those units for 45 years for ownership or 55 years for rental units.
2. Prohibits a transit housing development from being located on either of the following:
   1. A site containing more than two units where the development would require the demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power that has been occupied by tenants within the last seven years.
   2. A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within seven years before the development proponent submits an application under this section any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control.
3. Requires a TOD project to meet specified labor standards, including the provision of prevailing wages if the project is not entirely a public work, as specified, and projects over 85 feet shall employ a skilled and trained workforce, as specified.

TOD Development Ordinances

1. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee compliance with SB 79 development standards. Requires HCD to promulgate standards for how to account for capacity in a city or county’s land suitable for development identified in its housing element by July 1, 2026.
2. Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by HCD, as specified. The adoption of the ordinance shall not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Provides that the ordinance may include objective standards, conditions, and policies, applying to TOD housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable SB 79 development standards provided for in (2) above.
3. Provides that if a local government adopts an ordinance, it shall submit a copy to HCD within 14 days of adoption. HCD shall review and make a finding of compliance within 90 days, plus an additional 30 days if needed. If HCD does not meet that timeline, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79 development standards. If HCD finds that the local government does not comply with SB 79 development standards, HCD shall provide the local government 60 days to respond.
4. Requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to create a map of TOD stops and zones established by SB 79.

Local TOD Alternative Plans

1. Provides that a local “TOD alternative plan,” defined as an amendment to the housing element or a program to implement the housing element—such as the adoption of a specific plan, adoption of a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this bill —may be adopted provided it incorporates all of the following:
   • 1. The plan shall provide at least the same total zoned capacity in terms of both total units and FAR, as specified.
     2. The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50%, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
        1. Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or within the state responsibility area, as defined.
        2. Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as specified.
        3. Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of (11)(a) do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD zone.
        4. Sites within ½ mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop shall not have a density below 30 units per acre with an FAR of 1.0 and should be considered for attached entry-level owner-occupied housing development opportunities.
     3. The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or FAR by more than 50%.
     4. The site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200% of the maximum density established by SB 79.
2. Exempts, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, the following sites from SB 79 if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance:
   1. A site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards.
   2. A site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards.
   3. A site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register.
   4. Sites identified in a Local Plan.
3. Authorizes, for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan, as specified, in future housing element cycles.
4. Provides that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local agency that denies a housing development project meeting the provisions of this bill shall be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act and are immediately liable for specified penalties, unless the local government demonstrates that it has a public health, life, or safety reason for denying the project, as specified.
5. Delays implementation of SB 79 development standards until July 1, 2026, unless a local government adopts an ordinance or local TOD alternative plan deemed compliant by HCD before July 1, 2026. Delays implementation to unincorporated areas of a county until the 7^th regional housing needs allocation cycle.

This bill:

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The local jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city.
   2. The city has a population of less than 150,000.
   3. A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000.
   4. The city has more than one TOD zone.

Background

SB 79 Development Standards. Beginning July 1, 2026, SB 79 makes housing an allowable use on sites zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial within one-half mile of an existing or currently proposed qualifying TOD stop in an “urban transit county” for jurisdictions with a population of at least 35,000 residents, and within one-quarter mile of the qualifying TOD stop for jurisdictions with a population of less than 35,000. For unincorporated areas of a county, implementation is delayed until the 7^th housing element cycle begins. SB 79 projects must include at least five units, achieve the greater of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) or meet the local minimum density requirements, and maintain an average unit size not exceeding 1,750 square feet. SB 79 projects over 10 units must include specified levels of affordable housing, comply with anti-displacement provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, and comply with specified labor standards.

SB 79 limits the standards local governments can impose on SB 79 projects depending on the distance from specified transit stops and population of the jurisdiction (see chart under existing law #2). SB 79 projects that meet certain density thresholds are also eligible for additional concessions and incentives under density bonus law. SB 79 projects are not eligible on the following sites: (1) a site in which the development would require the demolition of more than two units that is subject to any form of rent or price control that was occupied by tenants within the last seven years; and (2) a site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within the last seven years and those units were subject to price or rent control.

HCD’s SB 79 Advisory. Due to requests from several MPOs about the need for greater clarity about the implementation of SB 79, on March 20, 2026, HCD issued an SB 79 Advisory^[1]. Among other things, the advisory clarified several SB 79 definitions and specified that SB 79 applies to the following counties as of the publication of the advisory: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego. According to the advisory, HCD will review all SB 79 Ordinances and TOD Alternative Plans and determine their compliance with state law. The advisory also provides that SB 79 development standards apply to the following types of transit:

HCD’s advisory notes that SB 79 contemplates application to future planned TOD stops that meet specified requirements. As such, the chart above does not reflect rail typologies for all rail services that have yet to be constructed or enter into operation.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. “While California residents contend with a deepening housing shortage, it is the role of the legislature to increase availability and affordability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment – the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”
2. State and regional guidance. Independent of the SB 79 Advisory noted above in the Background section, HCD must issue guidance by July 1, 2026, on how SB 79 capacity is to be counted in local sites inventories for future housing element cycles. Additionally, MPOs are required to publish TOD tier maps with a rebuttable presumption of validity, however there is no requirement for MPOs to publish their maps on any statutory timeline. For the 6^th housing element cycle up to one year prior to the adoption of the 7^th housing element revision, local governments may exempt additional parcels from the provisions of this bill under specified conditions via an ordinance update.
3. Alternatives to SB 79 application. SB 79 creates two implementation alternatives for local governments to use to comply with the provisions of the bill:

• SB 79 ordinances. The SB 79 development standards identified in Comment 2 do not apply to a local government that enacts a local TOD ordinance to make their zoning consistent with SB 79 development standards, provided HCD has reviewed and determined the ordinance substantially complies with the SB 79 development standards by July 1, 2026. In other words, a local TOD ordinance would replace the SB 79 development standards. Specifically, HCD must review an enacted ordinance and make a finding as to whether the ordinance is in substantial compliance with SB 79 development standards and report back to the local government within 90 days – or 120 days if HCD needs an additional 30 days to review. If HCD fails to meet these timelines, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79. However, if the ordinance is not deemed to be compliant, the local government shall be given up to 60 days to respond.
• Local TOD Alternative Plan (Local Plan). The SB 79 development standards may also be waived or altered in jurisdictions that choose to implement SB 79 differently by electing to adopt a Local Plan. A Local Plan can be adopted by ordinance, housing element adoption, housing element program implementation, a specific plan, or a zoning overlay. A Local Plan may alter the general development standards prescribed by SB 79, but must maintain at least the same net zoned capacity (measured in both units and residential floor area) as SB 79 provides, and may not reduce maximum density on any site or total capacity in any TOD zone by more than 50%, unless the sites are within a very high fire hazard severity zone, vulnerable to sea level rise, or contain a historic resource on a local register.

Local Plans can apply to any site in the jurisdiction, including those sites owned by other local agencies, and may be implemented by existing local TOD zoning ordinances, overlay zones, specific plans or zoning incentive ordinances, provided they meet the other requirements of the Local Plan. In other words, a local government adopting a Local Plan can collaborate with other local agencies.

1. SB 79 exemptions. SB 79 does not apply, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, to the following sites if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance: (a) a site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards; (b) a site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards; (c) a site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register; or, (d) sites identified in a Local Plan.
2. SB 79 and Historic Resources. As noted in Comment 3, SB 79 allows local governments to exclude sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register if the local government has adopted an local alternative plan pursuant to SB 79 indicating the site’s exclusion within one year of adopting the seventh revision of the housing element.

This bill would allow for an exception to the provision in the local alternative plan requirements for the TOD zone to include at least 50% of the total units or residential floor area as would otherwise be allowed by SB 79 development standards. Specifically, this bill would allow for cities with fewer than 150,000 with more than one TOD zone to reduce the capacity in one of the TOD zones by less than 50% if the majority of that TOD zone is part of a local historic district designated by 2000.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/15/26)

City of Folsom
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Historic District Association
Folsom History
Friends of Folsom Preservation
Historic Folsom Residents Association
The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/25/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Lee, Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Alison Hughes / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

8/3/26 17:24:37

**** END ****

1. SB 79 Advisory: Clarifications on Definitions for Metropolitan Planning Organizations. HCD Housing Policy Development Division. March 20, 2026. Accessible here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb-79-mpo-advisory.pdf ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

Allows an SB 79 (Wiener, 2025) local alternative plan to reduce the net zoned capacity of a transit-oriented development zone by more than 50% if a city meets specified conditions.

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 considerations. Zoning ordinances and other development decisions must be consistent with the city or county’s general plan.

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. Many economists point to zoning constraints as a cost driver. Last year, the Legislature passed SB 79 (Wiener, 2025) to remove some of these zoning constraints on projects near transit stops. Building housing near transit is also a strategy to combat climate change, since it can reduce reliance on automobile travel.

Historic preservation. At the federal level, historic preservation efforts are guided by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, which was enacted in response to the widespread destruction of historic and cultural sites during postwar infrastructure expansion and urban renewal projects. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official inventory of historic sites, and created procedural protections requiring federal agencies to assess the impact of federal activities on historic resources. It also established a framework for state and local governments, tribal nations, and preservation organizations to participate in historic preservation efforts.

Preservation efforts focus on character-defining features, which are the architectural and physical elements that give a historic district or landmark its distinctive identity. These may include architectural elements, materials, and spatial relationships.

State historic preservation programs. In California, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), under the California State Parks, “administers federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California’s irreplaceable resources.” According to the latest version of California’s Statewide Historic Preservation Plan, historic preservation efforts have evolved over the past two decades beyond merely identifying and documenting historic resources. Preservation is now integrated into land use planning, economic development, affordable housing policy, disaster preparedness, and environmental quality initiatives.

Generally, all nominations for state-level listing of historic properties or districts must be submitted to the OHP and reviewed and approved by the nine-member State Historic Resources Commission (SHRC). Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as California Historical Landmarks are automatically added to the State Historic Resource Inventory (SHRI). The SHRI includes the California Historical Landmarks, California Historical Points of Interest, and the California Register, which acts as an authoritative list of historical resources in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.

Local preservation requirements. Cities and counties may also adopt historic preservation requirements or designate historic districts pursuant to their police powers. According to a technical bulletin from the OHP, last updated in 2001, an estimated 250 to 300 cities and counties in California have adopted some kind of historic preservation ordinance.

Within historic districts, not all buildings or structures carry the same level of significance. “Contributing properties” are those built during the district’s period of significance, retain their historic integrity, and contribute to the overall historical, architectural, or cultural character of the district. Non-contributing properties may exist within a district, meaning that despite their geographic location they lack historic significance due to alterations or later construction.

One way local governments implement historic preservation requirements is through land use controls. According to OHP, “Because of the desire to strengthen the relationship between historic preservation and land use planning, some communities have adopted historic preservation overlay zones (HPOZs) as an alternative to the more traditional approach of designating individual properties or historic districts. HPOZs are established through the zoning ordinance, rather than the independent historic preservation ordinance. An HPOZ adds a layer of regulations over the underlying zoning regulations in a specific area. Another benefit that the zoning overlay has the potential to regulate use in addition to changes in design or fabric. In some jurisdictions HPOZs avoid the issue of a certain percentage of property owner approval. Other communities establish a historic district first through a historic preservation ordinance procedure, and then apply the historic overlay zoning.”^[1]

The extent to which cities and counties use HPOZs vary widely—some jurisdictions have not designated an HPOZ, while others use them extensively. For example, the City of Los Angeles has established 35 HPOZs for neighborhoods it has deemed worthy of protection.

Senate Bill 79. SB 79 (1) made transit-oriented development (TOD) an allowable use on any site zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed use; and (2) allowed a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and mixed-use development projects.

TOD development upzoning. SB 79 entitles a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone to specified development standards described in the table below.

TOD housing development projects must also meet the following requirements:

• The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit oriented housing development project cannot exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet; and
• The housing development project must include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
  • A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or
  • The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.

SB 79 prohibits projects from being located on specified sites subject to rent control within the last seven years. SB 79 projects must also meet specified affordability and labor standards.

SB 79 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to create a map of TOD stops and zones. Based on those maps, a local government has to enact an ordinance to make its zoning consistent with SB 79, subject to HCD review.

Local alternative plans. SB 79 allows cities and counties to submit a local alternative plan to tailor SB 79’s implementation to local conditions provided they maintain the same amount of housing as the general SB 79 provisions. Plans cannot reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site by more than 50%, except for the following:

• Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone;
• Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise;
• Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD zone; and
• Sites within ½ mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop must not have a density below 30 units per acre with an FAR of 1.0 and should be considered for attached entry-level owner-occupied housing development opportunities.

The plan cannot reduce the capacity in any TOD zone by more than 50%. SB 79 allows local governments to exclude sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register if the local government has adopted an ordinance pursuant to SB 79 indicating the site’s exclusion within one year of adopting the seventh revision of the housing element.

Folsom Historic District. Folsom is a city of nearly 100,000 residents in Sacramento County. In the 1960s, to preserve its historical character, it relocated its central business district and established the Folsom Historic District. In 1998, the city expanded the historic district and established design standards to protect the historic character of the historic core of the city. Folsom has three stations that meet the definition of a TOD stop, one of which is in the Folsom Historic District.

The author wants to limit SB 79’s application in and around the Folsom Historic District while making up for that lost housing capacity at Folsom’s other TOD zones.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 2415 allows a local alternative plan to reduce the net zoned capacity of a TOD zone by more than 50% if a city meets the following conditions:

• The city has a population of less than 150,000;
• A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000; and
• The city has more than one TOD zone.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “While California residents contend with a deepening housing shortage, it is the role of the legislature to increase availability and affordability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment – the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”

2. Special treatment. SB 79 gave local agencies the ability to adopt local alternative plans to tailor SB 79 implementation to their local needs provided they maintained the same net zoned capacity and did not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone by more than 50%. SB 79 also provided specific protections for local historical resources. AB 2415 takes those protections one step further for a small subset of cities. Specifically, the measure allows cities under 150,000, with more than one TOD zone, and where the majority of one of those TOD zones falls into a local historic district designated before January 1, 2000, to reduce the net zoned capacity in that zone by more than 50%. In other words, cities that made a decision over a quarter century ago to designate a local historic district get more flexibility from SB 79’s requirements than those who did not. SB 79 would still require cities like Folsom to make up for the lost housing at one TOD zone by upzoning in another TOD zone. However, it does mean that housing development opportunities near transit and Folsom’s historic downtown may be more limited than if the Legislature did not provide this special treatment.

3. Not so urgent? AB 2415 becomes effective January 1, 2027. However, SB 79 goes into effect on July 1, 2026. That means for six months developers can submit projects in the Folsom Historic District before the city gets the opportunity to reduce capacity more than 50% in the zone.

4. Related legislation. The Legislature is considering various measures regarding SB 79’s implementation, including:

• AB 2576 (Harebedian) expands the historic sites exclusion in SB 79 to include contributing sites within a historic district and parcels individually listed as a historical resource in the State Historic Resources Inventory designated before January 1, 2025. The Committee is also scheduled to hear this measure at its July 1^st hearing;
• SB 677 (Wiener), which this Committee approved at its January 14^th hearing on a vote of 5-2, would have changed definitions of “high-frequency commuter rail” and “commuter rail” for purposes of implementing SB 79. The measure was later amended to remove provisions regarding SB 79 and replace with them with provisions related to another subject; and
• SB 1361 (Durazo), which this Committee approved at its April 29^th hearing on a vote of 5-2, prohibits a local government with an existing or planned transit-oriented development (TOD) stop from taking actions to interfere with a transit project’s approval to avoid the upzoning provisions of SB 79. The measure is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

5. Incoming! The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 2415: first to the Committee on Housing, which approved the bill at its June 24^th hearing on a vote of 10-0 and second to the Committee on Local Government.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 12-0
Assembly Local Government Committee: 10-0
Assembly Floor: 76-0

Support and Opposition

(6/26/26)

Support: City of Folsom
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Historic District Association
Folsom History
Friends of Folsom Preservation
Historic Folsom Residents Association
K Cole Policy Advisors
The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom
676 Individuals

Opposition: None Submitted

-- END --

1. Office of Historic Preservation, “Local Preservation Ordinances: Making Them Work for Your Community.” ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 2415 Hearing Date: 6/24/2026

SUBJECT: Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

DIGEST: This bill revises SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025) to add additional historic preservation protections for a jurisdiction that meets certain characteristics.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, pursuant to SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025):

Terms and Definitions

1. Establishes the following definitions:
   1. “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit oriented development (TOD) stop. A parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop, as defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio (FAR) by 1 prior to the application of density bonus law.
   2. “Residential FAR” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. A local government may not impose any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude the residential FAR established.
   3. “Tier 1 TOD stop” means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
   4. “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 TOD stop, and means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service, as specified. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.
   5. “TOD stop” means a major transit stop or a stop on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or specified bus service within an urban county. When a new transit route is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, these stops shall not be eligible as a TOD stop unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 TOD stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop.
   6. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

SB 79 Development Standards

1. Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone shall be entitled to specified development standards pursuant to the table below. TOD housing development projects shall also meet the following requirements:
   1. The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet; and,
   2. The housing development project shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
      • 1. A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or
        2. The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.

1. Provides that for projects with more than 10 units, the project shall comply with one of the following requirements:
   1. Any of the following:
      • 1. At least 7% are dedicated to extremely low-income (ELI) households.
        2. At least 10% of the total units are dedicated to very low-income (VLI) households.
        3. At least 13% of the total units are dedicated to low-income households.
   2. If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage or deeper level of affordability, then the local inclusionary housing standard shall apply.
   3. All units dedicated to ELI, VLI, or low-income households shall have an affordable cost or rent, as defined, and ensure the continued affordability of those units for 45 years for ownership or 55 years for rental units.
2. Prohibits a transit housing development from being located on either of the following:
   1. A site containing more than two units where the development would require the demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power that has been occupied by tenants within the last seven years.
   2. A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within seven years before the development proponent submits an application under this section any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control.
3. Requires a TOD project to meet specified labor standards, including the provision of prevailing wages if the project is not entirely a public work, as specified, and projects over 85 feet shall employ a skilled and trained workforce, as specified.
   

TOD Development Ordinances

1. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee compliance with SB 79 development standards. Requires HCD to promulgate standards for how to account for capacity in a city or county’s land suitable for development identified in its housing element by July 1, 2026.
2. Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by HCD, as specified. The adoption of the ordinance shall not be subject to CEQA. Provides that the ordinance may include objective standards, conditions, and policies, applying to TOD housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable SB 79 development standards provided for in (2) above.
3. Provides that if a local government adopts an ordinance, it shall submit a copy to HCD within 14 days of adoption. HCD shall review and make a finding of compliance within 90 days, plus an additional 30 days if needed. If HCD does not meet that timeline, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79 development standards. If HCD finds that the local government does not comply with SB 79 development standards, HCD shall provide the local government 60 days to respond.
4. Requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to create a map of TOD stops and zones established by SB 79.

Local TOD Alternative Plans

1. Provides that a local “TOD alternative plan,” defined as an amendment to the housing element or a program to implement the housing element—such as the adoption of a specific plan, adoption of a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this bill —may be adopted provided it incorporates all of the following:
   • 1. The plan shall provide at least the same total zoned capacity in terms of both total units and FAR, as specified.
     2. The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50%, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
        1. Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or within the state responsibility area, as defined.
        2. Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as specified.
        3. Sites with a historic resource designation on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of (11)(a) do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD zone.
        4. Sites within ½ mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop shall not have a density below 30 units per acre with an FAR of 1.0 and should be considered for attached entry-level owner-occupied housing development opportunities.
     3. The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or FAR by more than 50%.
     4. The site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200% of the maximum density established by SB 79.
2. Exempts, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, the following sites from SB 79 if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance:
   1. A site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards.
   2. A site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards.
   3. A site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register.
   4. Sites identified in a Local Plan.
3. Authorizes, for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan, as specified, in future housing element cycles.
4. Provides that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local agency that denies a housing development project meeting the provisions of this bill shall be presumed to be in violation of the HAA and are immediately liable for specified penalties, unless the local government demonstrates that it has a public health, life, or safety reason for denying the project, as specified.
5. Delays implementation of SB 79 development standards until July 1, 2026, unless a local government adopts an ordinance or local TOD alternative plan deemed compliant by HCD before July 1, 2026. Delays implementation to unincorporated areas of a county until the 7^th regional housing needs allocation cycle.

This bill:

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The local jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city.
   2. The city has a population of less than 150,000.
   3. A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000.
   4. The city has more than one TOD zone.

Background

SB 79 Development Standards. Beginning July 1, 2026, SB 79 makes housing an allowable use on sites zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial within one-half mile of an existing or currently proposed qualifying TOD stop in an “urban transit county” for jurisdictions with a population of at least 35,000 residents, and within one-quarter mile of the qualifying TOD stop for jurisdictions with a population of less than 35,000. For unincorporated areas of a county, implementation is delayed until the 7^th housing element cycle begins. SB 79 projects must include at least five units, achieve the greater of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) or meet the local minimum density requirements, and maintain an average unit size not exceeding 1,750 square feet. SB 79 projects over 10 units must include specified levels of affordable housing, comply with anti-displacement provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, and comply with specified labor standards.

SB 79 limits the standards local governments can impose on SB 79 projects depending on the distance from specified transit stops and population of the jurisdiction (see chart under existing law #2). SB 79 projects that meet certain density thresholds are also eligible for additional concessions and incentives under density bonus law. SB 79 projects are not eligible on the following sites: (1) a site in which the development would require the demolition of more than two units that is subject to any form of rent or price control that was occupied by tenants within the last seven years; and (2) a site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within the last seven years and those units were subject to price or rent control.

HCD’s SB 79 Advisory. Due to requests from several MPOs about the need for greater clarity about the implementation of SB 79, on March 20, 2026, HCD issued an SB 79 Advisory^[1]. Among other things, the advisory clarified several SB 79 definitions and specified that SB 79 applies to the following counties as of the publication of the advisory: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego. According to the advisory, HCD will review all SB 79 Ordinances and TOD Alternative Plans and determine their compliance with state law. The advisory also provides that SB 79 development standards apply to the following types of transit:

HCD’s advisory notes that SB 79 contemplates application to future planned TOD stops that meet specified requirements. As such, the chart above does not reflect rail typologies for all rail services that have yet to be constructed or enter into operation.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. “While California residents contend with a deepening housing shortage, it is the role of the legislature to increase availability and affordability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment – the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”
2. State and regional guidance. Independent of the SB 79 Advisory noted above in the Background section, HCD must issue guidance by July 1, 2026, on how SB 79 capacity is to be counted in local sites inventories for future housing element cycles. Additionally, MPOs are required to publish TOD tier maps with a rebuttable presumption of validity, however there is no requirement for MPOs to publish their maps on any statutory timeline. For the 6^th housing element cycle up to one year prior to the adoption of the 7^th housing element revision, local governments may exempt additional parcels from the provisions of this bill under specified conditions via an ordinance update.
3. Alternatives to SB 79 application. SB 79 creates two implementation alternatives for local governments to use to comply with the provisions of the bill:
4. SB 79 ordinances. The SB 79 development standards identified in Comment 2 do not apply to a local government that enacts a local TOD ordinance to make their zoning consistent with SB 79 development standards, provided HCD has reviewed and determined the ordinance substantially complies with the SB 79 development standards by July 1, 2026. In other words, a local TOD ordinance would replace the SB 79 development standards. Specifically, HCD must review an enacted ordinance and make a finding as to whether the ordinance is in substantial compliance with SB 79 development standards and report back to the local government within 90 days – or 120 days if HCD needs an additional 30 days to review. If HCD fails to meet these timelines, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant with SB 79. However, if the ordinance is not deemed to be compliant, the local government shall be given up to 60 days to respond.
5. Local TOD Alternative Plan (Local Plan). The SB 79 development standards may also be waived or altered in jurisdictions that choose to implement SB 79 differently by electing to adopt a Local Plan. A Local Plan can be adopted by ordinance, housing element adoption, housing element program implementation, a specific plan, or a zoning overlay. A Local Plan may alter the general development standards prescribed by SB 79, but must maintain at least the same net zoned capacity (measured in both units and residential floor area) as SB 79 provides, and may not reduce maximum density on any site or total capacity in any TOD zone by more than 50%, unless the sites are within a very high fire hazard severity zone, vulnerable to sea level rise, or contain a historic resource on a local register.

Local Plans can apply to any site in the jurisdiction, including those sites owned by other local agencies, and may be implemented by existing local TOD zoning ordinances, overlay zones, specific plans or zoning incentive ordinances, provided they meet the other requirements of the Local Plan. In other words, a local government adopting a Local Plan can collaborate with other local agencies.

1. SB 79 exemptions. SB 79 does not apply, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7^th housing element, to the following sites if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance: (a) a site identified by the local government that permits density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 standards; (b) a site in a TOD zone in which 33% of the sites have already permitted density and FAR at no less than 50% of the SB 79 development standards and includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density for the TOD zone allowed using SB 79 development standards; (c) a site within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, sites that are vulnerable to one foot sea level rise, or sites on a specified historic register; or, (d) sites identified in a Local Plan.
2. Historic Preservation. At the federal level, historic preservation efforts are guided by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, which was enacted in response to the widespread destruction of historic and cultural sites during postwar infrastructure expansion and urban renewal projects. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official inventory of historic sites, and created procedural protections requiring federal agencies to assess the impact of federal activities on historic resources. It also established a framework for state and local governments, tribal nations, and preservation organizations to participate in historic preservation efforts.

In California, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), under the California State Parks, “administers federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California's irreplaceable resources.” According to the latest version of California’s Statewide Historic Preservation Plan, historic preservation efforts have evolved over the past two decades beyond merely identifying and documenting historic resources. Preservation is now integrated into land use planning, economic development, affordable housing policy, disaster preparedness, and environmental quality initiatives.

There are many historic districts in California, with the stated purpose of preserving the state’s architectural, cultural, and historical heritage. These districts are designated at the local, state, and federal levels, each with distinct regulatory frameworks, benefits, and potential development challenges. Local historic districts are formed through city or county ordinances, often requiring historic surveys, community support, and approval by local historic preservation commissions or city councils. Local designation may regulate the scope of alterations or demolitions that can be conducted within a given district. State historic districts are included in the California Register of Historical Resources and are established through a state nomination process. Development in state historic districts are typically subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires analysis of potential adverse impacts from future development. The criteria for designation on the California Register of Historical Resources include:

• 1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
  2. Association with the lives of persons important in our past.
  3. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
  4. Yield of information important in prehistory or history.

Federal historic districts are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and must meet national criteria for historic significance and integrity. Notably, federal designation does not automatically prevent development in most of the country. In other states, federal designation simply triggers NHPA reviews if federal funding, permits, or projects are involved. However, in California, development on federally designated properties typically involves CEQA review, and properties that are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places are automatically added to California’s State Historic Resources Inventory, affording them the same protections as state resources.

Within historic districts, not all buildings or structures carry the same level of significance. “Contributing properties” are those built during the district’s period of significance, retain their historic integrity, and contribute to the overall historical, architectural, or cultural character of the district. Non-contributing properties may exist within a district, meaning that despite their geographic location they lack historic significance due to alterations or later construction. Preservation efforts also focus on character-defining features, which are the architectural and physical elements that give a historic district or landmark its distinctive identity. These may include architectural elements, materials, and spatial relationships.

Historical landmarks are also included on the California Register. Landmarks are individual sites, buildings, or structures recognized for their exceptional historical, architectural, or cultural significance. These landmarks are associated with key historical events, individuals, or architectural styles and are officially designated by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Once designated, they typically receive regulatory protections under CEQA.

1. Nomination to the California Register of Historical Resources. Generally, all nominations for historic properties or districts must be submitted to the OHP and reviewed and approved by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). Properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as California Historical Landmarks (#770 or higher) are automatically added to the California Register. The SHRC is established by PRC and contains nine members appointed by the Governor. All nominations for inclusion on the California Register must provide detailed documentation of the resource’s historical, architectural, or cultural significance, including historical research, photographs, maps, and a justification for eligibility under California Register criteria. Any person or group, including historical societies, advocacy organizations, or members of the public, may prepare and submit a nomination to the SHRC.
   
   Even if a property owner or local government objects, the SHRC can still review a nomination for inclusion on the California Register. While a property owner objection prevents the property from being formally listed in the California Register, it may still be determined “eligible for listing” by the SHRC. A property that is “eligible for listing” is typically treated the same as a property that is officially designated a historic resource for purposes of CEQA when it comes to development proposals. It is not uncommon for nominations for historic districts to go directly to the SHRC rather than first trying to obtain local designation.
2. SB 79 and Historic Resources. As noted in Comment 3, SB 79 allows local governments to exclude sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register if the local government has adopted an local alternative plan pursuant to SB 79 indicating the site’s exclusion within one year of adopting the seventh revision of the housing element.

This bill would allow for an exception to the provision in the local alternative plan requirements for the TOD zone to include at least 50% of the total units or residential floor area as would otherwise be allowed by SB 79 development standards. Specifically, this bill would allow for cities with fewer than 150,000 with more than one TOD zone to reduce the capacity in one of the TOD zones by less than 50% if the majority of that TOD zone is part of a local historic district designated by 2000.

Given the novelty of the provisions of SB 79 and that the law has yet to take effect, the committee may wish to consider whether adding new exemptions is premature.

1. Opposition. South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth writes in opposition, “This bill is written so that the city of Pasadena could exempt one of the most useful train stations from SB 79. The city of Pasadena has not been a good actor in trying to solve the housing crisis. When SB 9 was enacted they tried to claim a significant portion of the city was exempted because of their ‘Landmark Districts.’ Rob Bonta put Pasadena on notice for violating state housing laws for this action.”
2. Double referral. This bill was also referred to the Senate Local Government Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2074 (Haney, 2026) — requires major transit cities to designate high-density downtown transit hub districts where qualifying housing developments are allowed by right, subject to specified labor and affordability standards, and establishes a state revolving loan fund to support their construction. This bill will be heard in this Committee on June 30^th.

AB 2576 (Harabedian, 2026) — expands the historic sites exclusion in SB 79 to include contributing sites within a historic district and parcels individually listed as a historical resource in the State Historic Resources Inventory designated before January 1, 2025. This bill will be heard today.

SB 1361 (Durazo, 2026) — prohibits a local government with an existing or planned transit oriented development (TOD) stop from taking actions to interfere with a transit project’s approval to avoid the application of SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025) development standards. This bill is pending in the Assembly.

SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025) — required a housing development project within a specified radius of existing or currently proposed transit-oriented development stop, as defined, be an allowable use on a site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the housing development meets certain requirements. This bill also allowed a transit agency to adopt TOD zoning standards for district-owned land located in a TOD zone.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 17^th, 2026)

SUPPORT:

City of Folsom

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Folsom Historic District Association

Folsom History

Historic Folsom Residents Association

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

1. SB 79 Advisory: Clarifications on Definitions for Metropolitan Planning Organizations. HCD Housing Policy Development Division. March 20, 2026. Accessible here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb-79-mpo-advisory.pdf ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2415

Author:(Hoover)

As Amended Ver:April 23, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Revises SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, to add additional historic preservation protections for cities that meet certain characteristics.

Major Provisions

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The local jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city;
   2. The city has a population of less than 150,000;
   3. A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000; and
   4. The city has more than one TOD zone.

COMMENTS

Planning for Housing: Historically, housing planning and land use decisions in California have been delegated to local governments, which exercise primary authority over land use, zoning, permitting, and development approvals through their police power. While the state has long required each jurisdiction to adopt a housing element identifying how it will accommodate its share of regional housing need, these requirements historically lacked meaningful enforcement mechanisms. In addition, earlier iterations of Housing Element Law and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process required significantly less upzoning and did not compel jurisdictions to adopt zoning that could realistically accommodate assigned housing needs. As a result, jurisdictions could comply on paper while maintaining restrictive zoning and development standards that limited actual housing production. Local discretionary approval processes further allowed projects to be delayed, reduced in scale, or denied based on subjective criteria, contributing to significant constraints on housing supply, particularly in high-opportunity areas.

According to a 2024 analysis by the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, a staggering 95.8% of all residential land in California is zoned exclusively for single-family housing, severely constraining opportunities for infill development near transit. Even when lower-density unincorporated areas are excluded, over 82% of residentially zoned land in the state prohibits multifamily housing. The state has taken some strides to facilitate additional housing typologies in exclusionary zoning districts, namely through State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Law and SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021, effectively making single-family zoned parcels eligible to accommodate up to four dwelling units. However, much of California's residential land remains off-limits for denser development, regardless of how well-situated the land may be when it comes to access to jobs, transportation, and other opportunities.

SB 79: In recent years, the state has taken a series of actions to address local constraints on housing production by both expanding allowable residential density and shifting project approvals from discretionary review to more predictable, ministerial processes governed by objective standards. SB 79 was one of these most recent attempts to encourage additional residential density in climate-smart locations. SB 79 establishes a statewide framework to increase residential density near major transit stops by making qualifying housing development an allowable use on sites zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development within specified distances of transit. The bill sets minimum statewide standards for height, density, and residential floor area ratio based on a project's proximity to high-quality transit, and limits the ability of local governments to impose standards that would physically preclude achieving those thresholds. Projects must include at least five units and comply with specified affordability, labor, and antidisplacement requirements, including prohibitions on demolishing rent-restricted housing and requirements to provide deed-restricted affordable units for developments containing more than 10 units.

SB 79 applies to cities with a population of at least 35,000 that have qualifying high-quality transit stops, and requires that, beginning July 1, 2026, housing development projects be an allowable use on qualifying sites within one-half mile of a (TOD) stop (or one-quarter mile in smaller jurisdictions). The bill establishes a series of implementation deadlines, including requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue guidance by July 1, 2026 on how SB 79 capacity is counted toward a jurisdiction's housing element sites inventory, and requiring MPOs to prepare maps of TOD stops and zones to guide implementation. Local governments may adopt implementing ordinances or local TOD alternative plans, subject to HCD review, prior to July 1, 2026, to tailor development standards, so long as the plan maintains equivalent overall residential capacity. SB 79 also provides that, beginning January 1, 2027, denial of a qualifying project in a high-resource area is presumed to violate the HAA, subject to specified exceptions.

Within this framework, SB 79 provides local governments with the ability to craft local alternative plans and implement ordinances. This includes providing local governments with limited local flexibility to reduce development intensity on certain sites. A local TOD alternative plan may reduce the allowable density on an individual site by up to 50% below SB 79's baseline standards, and may further reduce or exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register, provided that such exemptions do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the total eligible area within a TOD zone. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments, through an implementing ordinance, to fully exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register as of January 1, 2025 from SB 79 until one year prior to the start of the seventh housing element cycle.

Historic Preservation, Districts, and Landmarks in California: Historic preservation in California operates across local, state, and federal levels, with each level maintaining its own designation processes and regulatory frameworks. Historic resources may include individual landmarks, such as buildings or structures associated with significant events, persons, or architectural styles, as well as historic districts, which are geographically defined areas containing a concentration of historically or culturally significant properties. These resources may be listed on local registers, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. In California, properties listed on the state or national register are generally treated as "historical resources" for purposes of environmental review, with any proposed development on those sites requiring analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Notably, listing on the California Register or National Register may occur through state or federal nomination processes that do not require local government approval, meaning properties may receive historic designation even where a local jurisdiction has not chosen to designate or protect them.

The regulatory implications of historic designation vary depending on the level and type of designation. Local governments typically establish and regulate historic districts and landmarks through local ordinances, which may impose restrictions on demolition, alterations, or new construction to preserve the character of designated areas. Within historic districts, individual properties may be classified as "contributing" or "non-contributing" resources, with contributing properties retaining their historic integrity and contributing to the district's overall historical, architectural, or cultural significance, typically because they were constructed during the district's period of significance and reflect its defining characteristics. Non-contributing properties, meanwhile, are geographically located in the district but do not maintain those character-defining features. Unlike local historic designations, which are typically implemented through local land use controls, protections for state and federal designations primarily operate through environmental review processes, most notably under CEQA in California.

State housing laws vary in how they treat historic resources when establishing streamlined or ministerial approval pathways. Some laws, such as SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, initially took a more categorical approach by excluding parcels located within historic districts or containing designated historic resources from its requirements; however, subsequent amendments under AB 1061 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 505, Statutes of 2025, narrowed these exclusions by eliminating the blanket district-wide prohibition and instead focusing on protections for individually designated resources and contributing structures. Other state streamlining and upzoning laws continue to exclude sites containing historic resources more broadly.

SB 79, by contrast, takes a more limited and locally driven approach to historic preservation. Rather than broadly exempting historic resources, SB 79 allows local governments to reduce development intensity on individual sites by up to 50%, or fully exempt sites, only if those properties are designated as historic resources on a local register, and only through adoption of an implementing ordinance or a locally adopted transit-oriented development (TOD) alternative plan subject to review by HCD. Even within that framework, SB 79 places constraints on the use of these exemptions, including a 10% cap on the total amount of land within a TOD zone that may be excluded from SB 79 in a local alternative plan around any given major transit stop. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments to temporarily exempt locally designated historic resources, as of January 1, 2025, from its provisions until one year after the next housing element cycle begins. As a result, SB 79's historic preservation framework primarily relies on local designation to determine where protections apply, rather than uniformly recognizing historic resources listed on the California Register or National Register. Under SB 79, only individually listed local resources, and not historic districts, are afforded these protections.

This Bill: This bill amends SB 79 by modifying the requirements applicable to local TOD alternative plans. Under existing law, a local TOD alternative plan may not reduce the residential development capacity of any individual TOD zone, measured in total units or residential floor area, by more than 50%. This bill creates a limited exception to that requirement by allowing a local government that is a city to reduce the residential capacity in up to one TOD zone by more than 50%, if specified conditions are met. Specifically, the exception applies only in cities with a population of less than 150,000, where a majority of the station area is located within a local historic district designated prior to January 1, 2000, and where the jurisdiction contains more than one TOD zone.

This targeted exception would allow certain jurisdictions with older, locally designated historic districts to further limit development intensity in transit-rich areas, beyond what is currently permitted under SB 79. The requirement that the historic district be designated prior to January 1, 2000 may help prevent jurisdictions from newly designating historic districts solely to avoid SB 79's upzoning requirements, and instead focuses the exemption on long-established historic areas. Proponents may argue that this flexibility is necessary to preserve historically significant neighborhoods and avoid conflicts between state upzoning requirements and long-standing local preservation goals.

According to the Author

"As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, it is the role of the legislature to increase affordability and availability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment—the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. Historic Folsom's commercial core and residential neighborhoods are thriving—economically, culturally, and civically. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state's housing goals."

Arguments in Support

The City of Folsom writes in support: "AB 2415 recognizes that historic districts serve unique public purposes that cannot be replicated once lost. By allowing the transfer of high-density housing obligations from our historic district to other transit-oriented development locations within the city through the development of an alternative plan, the bill provides a flexible, commonsense tool that supports both statewide housing objectives and the preservation of irreplaceable cultural resources."

Arguments in Opposition

South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth writes in opposition: "This bill is written so that the city of Pasadena could exempt one of the most useful train stations from SB 79. The city of Pasadena has not been a good actor in trying to solve the housing crisis. When SB 9 was enacted they tried to claim a significant portion of the city was exempted because of their "Landmark Districts." Rob Bonta put Pasadena on notice for violating state housing laws for this action."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 10-0-0

YES: Carrillo, Ta, Johnson, Pacheco, Ramos, Ransom, Blanca Rubio, Caloza, Ward, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: April 23, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002463

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2415 (

Author:Hoover) – As Amended Ver:April 23, 2026

SUBJECT: Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

SUMMARY: Revises SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, to add additional historic preservation protections for a jurisdiction that meet certain characteristics. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The local jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city.
   2. The city has a population of less than 150,000.
   3. A majority of the TOD zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000.
   4. The city has more than one TOD zone.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates, pursuant to SB 79, a streamlined, ministerial approvals process for housing development projects meeting certain objective standards within a specified distance of TOD stops as follows:
   1. Makes housing development projects an allowable use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development within one-half mile of a TOD stop in cities with a population of 35,000 or more, and within one-quarter mile of a TOD stop in cities with a population of less than 35,000.
   2. Establishes minimum land use standards, including requirements related to height, density, and floor area ratio, for TOD housing projects based on proximity to the TOD stop and the population of the jurisdiction. [Government Code (GOV) § 65912.157]
2. Allows a local government, through an SB 79 implementing ordinance, to fully exempt sites designated as a historic resource on a local register as of January 1, 2025, from the provisions of SB 79 until one year after the adoption of a seventh cycle housing element. (GOV § 65912.161)
3. Establishes the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC), a nine-member state review board, appointed by the Governor, with responsibilities for the identification, registration, and preservation of California's cultural heritage. [Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020, PRC § 5020.2]
4. Defines a “historic district” as a definable unified geographic entity that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. (PRC § 5020.1)
5. Defines a “historic landmark” as any historical resource which is registered as a state historical landmark through a process involving the Commission and the Department of Parks and Recreation. (PRC § 5020.1, PRC § 5021)
6. Requires the Commission to evaluate and recommend historical resource designations by reviewing applications for the National Register, California Register, and state historical landmarks, while maintaining comprehensive records and criteria for preservation. (PRC § 5020.4)
7. Establishes the California Register of Historical Resources as an authoritative guide for identifying and protecting significant historical resources in the state. (PRC § 5024.1)
8. Sets criteria and procedures for listing historical resources based on significance in California’s history, architecture, and archaeology, including alignment with National Register standards. (PRC § 5024.1)

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill amends SB 79 by modifying the requirements applicable to local TOD alternative plans. Under existing law, a local TOD alternative plan may not reduce the residential development capacity of any individual TOD zone, measured in total units or residential floor area, by more than 50%. This bill creates a limited exception to that requirement by allowing a local government to reduce the residential capacity in up to one TOD zone by more than 50%, if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the exception applies only if the jurisdiction adopting the plan is a city, the city has a population of less than 150,000, where a majority of the TOD zone is located within a local historic district designated prior to January 1, 2000, and where the jurisdiction contains more than one TOD zone.
   
   This bill is author sponsored.
2. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, it is the role of the legislature to increase affordability and availability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment, the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. Historic Folsom’s commercial core and residential neighborhoods are thriving—economically, culturally, and civically. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”
3. Background. Planning for and approving new development is mainly a local responsibility. 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 enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations, as well as through an “entitlement process” for obtaining discretionary as well as ministerial approvals.
   
   The scale of the proposed development, as well as the existing environmental setting determine the degree of local review that occurs. For larger developments, the local entitlement process commonly requires multiple discretionary decisions regarding the subdivision of land, environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and project review by the local agency’s legislative body (city council or county board) or by a planning commission delegated by the legislative body.
4. Historic Preservation. At the federal level, historic preservation efforts are guided by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, which was enacted in response to the widespread destruction of historic and cultural sites during postwar infrastructure expansion and urban renewal projects. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official inventory of historic sites, and created procedural protections requiring federal agencies to assess the impact of federal activities on historic resources. It also established a framework for state and local governments, tribal nations, and preservation organizations to participate in historic preservation efforts.

In California, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), under the California State Parks, “administers federally and state mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California's irreplaceable resources.” According to the latest version of California’s Statewide Historic Preservation Plan, historic preservation efforts have evolved over the past two decades beyond merely identifying and documenting historic resources. Preservation is now integrated into land use planning, economic development, affordable housing policy, disaster preparedness, and environmental quality initiatives.

There are many historic districts in California, with the stated purpose of preserving the state’s architectural, cultural, and historical heritage. These districts are designated at the local, state, and federal levels, each with distinct regulatory frameworks, benefits, and potential development challenges. Local historic districts are formed through city or county ordinances, often requiring historic surveys, community support, and approval by local historic preservation commissions or city councils. Local designation may regulate the scope of alterations or demolitions that can be conducted within a given district. State historic districts are included in the California Register of Historical Resources and are established through a state nomination process. Development in state historic districts are typically subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires analysis of potential adverse impacts from future development. The criteria for designation on the California Register of Historical Resources include:

• 1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
  2. Association with the lives of persons important in our past.
  3. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
  4. Yield of information important in prehistory or history.

Federal historic districts are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and must meet national criteria for historic significance and integrity. Notably, federal designation does not automatically prevent development in most of the country. In other states, federal designation simply triggers NHPA reviews if federal funding, permits, or projects are involved. However, in California, development on federally designated properties typically involves CEQA review, and properties that are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places are automatically added to California’s State Historic Resources Inventory, affording them the same protections as state resources.

Within historic districts, not all buildings or structures carry the same level of significance. “Contributing properties” are those built during the district’s period of significance, retain their historic integrity, and contribute to the overall historical, architectural, or cultural character of the district. Non-contributing properties may exist within a district, meaning that despite their geographic location they lack historic significance due to alterations or later construction. Preservation efforts also focus on character-defining features, which are the architectural and physical elements that give a historic district or landmark its distinctive identity. These may include architectural elements, materials, and spatial relationships.

Historical landmarks are also included on the California Register. Landmarks are individual sites, buildings, or structures recognized for their exceptional historical, architectural, or cultural significance. These landmarks are associated with key historical events, individuals, or architectural styles and are officially designated by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Once designated, they typically receive regulatory protections under CEQA.

1. Nomination to the California Register of Historical Resources. Generally, all nominations for historic properties or districts must be submitted to the OHP and reviewed and approved by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). Properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as California Historical Landmarks (#770 or higher) are automatically added to the California Register. The SHRC is established by PRC and contains nine members appointed by the Governor. All nominations for inclusion on the California Register must provide detailed documentation of the resource’s historical, architectural, or cultural significance, including historical research, photographs, maps, and a justification for eligibility under California Register criteria. Any person or group, including historical societies, advocacy organizations, or members of the public, may prepare and submit a nomination to the SHRC.
   
   Even if a property owner or local government objects, the SHRC can still review a nomination for inclusion on the California Register. While a property owner objection prevents the property from being formally listed in the California Register, it may still be determined “eligible for listing” by the SHRC. A property that is “eligible for listing” is typically treated the same as a property that is officially designated a historic resource for purposes of CEQA when it comes to development proposals. It is not uncommon for nominations for historic districts to go directly to the SHRC rather than first trying to obtain local designation.
2. SB 79 and Historic Resources. SB 79 applies to jurisdictions within “urban transit counties” that have qualifying high-quality transit stops, and requires that, beginning July 1, 2026, housing development projects be an allowable use on qualifying sites within one-half mile of a TOD stop (or one-quarter mile in smaller cities). SB 79 contains implementation deadlines, including requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue guidance by July 1, 2026, on how SB 79 capacity is counted toward a jurisdiction’s housing element sites inventory, and requiring metropolitan planning organizations to prepare maps of TOD stops and zones to guide implementation. Local governments may adopt implementing ordinances or local TOD alternative plans, subject to HCD review, prior to July 1, 2026, to tailor development standards, so long as the plan maintains equivalent overall residential capacity. SB 79 also provides that, beginning January 1, 2027, denial of a qualifying project in a high-resource area is presumed to violate the HAA, subject to specified exceptions.
   
   SB 79 allows local governments to exclude sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025 on a local register if the local government has adopted an ordinance pursuant to SB 79 indicating the site’s exclusion within one year of adopting the seventh revision of the housing element.
3. Related Legislation. AB 2576 (Harabedian) expands the historic sites exclusion in SB 79 to include contributing sites within a historic district and parcels individually listed as a historical resource in the State Historic Resources Inventory designated before January 1, 2025. AB 2576 is on the Assembly Floor.
4. Previous Legislation. SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, established a streamlined, ministerial approval process for TOD housing development projects.
5. Arguments in Support. The City of Folsom writes in support, “AB 2415 recognizes that historic districts serve unique public purposes that cannot be replicated once lost. By allowing the transfer of high-density housing obligations from our historic district to other transit-oriented development locations within the city through the development of an alternative plan, the bill provides a flexible, commonsense tool that supports both statewide housing objectives and the preservation of irreplaceable cultural resources.”
6. Arguments in Opposition. South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth writes in opposition, “This bill is written so that the city of Pasadena could exempt one of the most useful train stations from SB 79. The city of Pasadena has not been a good actor in trying to solve the housing crisis. When SB 9 was enacted they tried to claim a significant portion of the city was exempted because of their ‘Landmark Districts.’ Rob Bonta put Pasadena on notice for violating state housing laws for this action.”
7. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Committee on Housing and Community Development, where it passed on a 12-0 vote on April 22, 2026.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Preservation Foundation

City of Folsom

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Folsom Historic District Association

Folsom History

Historic Folsom Residents Association

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom

578 individuals

Opposition

South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth

Analysis Prepared by: Linda Rios / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2415 (

Author:Hoover) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Transit-oriented housing developments: alternative plans

SUMMARY: Revises SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, to add additional historic preservation protections. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows a local government, through a transit-oriented development (TOD) local alternative plan, to reduce the site capacity in a TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50% if the following conditions are met:
   1. The city has a population of less than 150,000;
   2. A majority of the TOD station area is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000; and
   3. The city has more than one TOD zone.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates, pursuant to SB 79, a streamlined, ministerial approvals process for housing development projects meeting certain objective standards within a specified distance of TOD stops as follows:
   1. Makes housing development projects an allowable use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development within one-half mile of a TOD stop in cities with a population of 35,000 or more, and within one-quarter mile of a TOD stop in cities with a population of less than 35,000.
   2. Establishes minimum land use standards, including requirements related to height, density, and floor area ratio, for TOD housing projects based on proximity to the TOD stop and the population of the jurisdiction. (Government Code (GOV) 65912.157)
2. Allows a local government, in its TOD alternative plan, to reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site by more than 50% below the residential capacity permitted under SB 79 if the site contains a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as sites excluded do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the eligible area of any TOD zone. (GOV 65912.161)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “As Californians continue to face a housing crisis, it is the role of the legislature to increase affordability and availability. However, these ambitions cannot come at the expense of our history, culture, and community. Policies, such as those found in SB 79 of 2025, help increase housing development near public transit. Unfortunately, not all transit zones can accommodate such development without sacrificing the existing environment. This is the case for the Folsom Historic District. While many preservation efforts focus on landmark buildings or famous figures, Folsom understood the value of safeguarding an entire everyday small-town environment—the walkable grid, mixed uses, and incremental development patterns. Historic Folsom’s commercial core and residential neighborhoods are thriving—economically, culturally, and civically. AB 2415 helps preserve historic districts, like the one in Folsom, while still advancing the state’s housing goals.”

California’s Housing Crisis: California’s housing crisis is a half-century in the making. ^[1] After decades of underproduction, supply is far behind demand, and housing and rental costs are soaring. As a result, millions of Californians must make hard decisions about paying for housing at the expense of food, health care, child care, and transportation, directly impacting the quality of life in the state.^[2] One in three households in the state doesn’t earn enough money to meet their basic needs.^[3] In 2024, over 187,000 Californians experienced homelessness on a given night.^[4]

To meet this housing need, HCD determined that California must plan for more than 2.5 million new homes, and no less than one million of those homes must be affordable to lower-income households, in the 6^th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle. By contrast, housing production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of affordable housing per year.^[5] Increasing the overall supply of housing, both market-rate and deed-restricted affordable, is essential to reducing upward pressure on rents and home prices, and to creating a more stable, accessible housing market for Californians across income levels.

The state’s housing crisis is not equally experienced by all Californians. Testimony by the UC Berkeley Terner Center to this Committee showed that the impacts of the housing crisis are significantly more severe for lower-income individuals, single-earner households, Black and Latino Californians, younger and older populations, and those who reside in, or aspire to live and work in, the state’s highest-cost regions.^[6]

Planning for Housing: Historically, housing planning and land use decisions in California have been delegated to local governments, which exercise primary authority over land use, zoning, permitting, and development approvals through their police power. While the state has long required each jurisdiction to adopt a housing element identifying how it will accommodate its share of regional housing need, these requirements historically lacked meaningful enforcement mechanisms. In addition, earlier iterations of Housing Element law and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process required significantly less upzoning and did not compel jurisdictions to adopt zoning that could realistically accommodate assigned housing needs. As a result, jurisdictions could comply on paper while maintaining restrictive zoning and development standards that limited actual housing production. Local discretionary approval processes further allowed projects to be delayed, reduced in scale, or denied based on subjective criteria, contributing to significant constraints on housing supply, particularly in high-opportunity areas.

According to a 2024 analysis by the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, a staggering 95.8% of all residential land in California is zoned exclusively for single-family housing, severely constraining opportunities for infill development near transit. Even when lower-density unincorporated areas are excluded, over 82% of residentially zoned land in the state prohibits multifamily housing. The state has taken some strides to facilitate additional housing typologies in exclusionary zoning districts, namely through State ADU Law and SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021, effectively making single-family zoned parcels eligible to accommodate up to four dwelling units. However, much of California’s residential land remains off-limits for denser development, regardless of how well-situated the land may be when it comes to access to jobs, transportation, and other opportunities.

In recent years, the state has taken a series of actions to address local constraints on housing production by both expanding allowable residential density and shifting project approvals from discretionary review to more predictable, ministerial processes governed by objective standards. These efforts include allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right, enabling additional density in single-family zones, strengthening housing element requirements, and limiting the ability of local governments to deny, delay, or reduce the density of housing development projects that comply with applicable standards. The state has also established multiple by-right approval pathways for qualifying developments, particularly in infill and transit-accessible areas. For example, SB 684 (Caballero), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023, and SB 1123 (Caballero), Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024, create a streamlined process for small subdivisions in urban infill areas, enabling additional housing production at a neighborhood scale. AB 2011 (Wicks), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022, establishes a ministerial approval pathway for qualifying housing development on commercially zoned sites, while Density Bonus Law provides additional density, incentives, and concessions for eligible projects. More recently, AB 507 (Haney), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2025, facilitates the conversion of underutilized office buildings to housing through streamlined approvals, and SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, establishes minimum zoning standards near major transit stops, increasing allowable density and limiting local discretion.

SB 79: As mentioned above, SB 79 was one of the state’s most recent attempts to encourage additional residential density in climate-smart locations. SB 79 establishes a statewide framework to increase residential density near major transit stops by making qualifying housing development an allowable use on sites zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development within specified distances of transit. The bill sets minimum statewide standards for height, density, and residential floor area ratio based on a project’s proximity to high-quality transit, and limits the ability of local governments to impose standards that would physically preclude achieving those thresholds. Projects must include at least five units and comply with specified affordability, labor, and antidisplacement requirements, including prohibitions on demolishing rent-restricted housing and requirements to provide deed-restricted affordable units for developments containing more than 10 units.

SB 79 applies to cities with a population of at least 35,000 that have qualifying high-quality transit stops, and requires that, beginning July 1, 2026, housing development projects be an allowable use on qualifying sites within one-half mile of a (TOD) stop (or one-quarter mile in smaller jurisdictions). The bill establishes a series of implementation deadlines, including requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue guidance by July 1, 2026 on how SB 79 capacity is counted toward a jurisdiction’s housing element sites inventory, and requiring MPOs to prepare maps of TOD stops and zones to guide implementation. Local governments may adopt implementing ordinances or local TOD alternative plans, subject to HCD review, prior to July 1, 2026, to tailor development standards, so long as the plan maintains equivalent overall residential capacity. SB 79 also provides that, beginning January 1, 2027, denial of a qualifying project in a high-resource area is presumed to violate the HAA, subject to specified exceptions.

Within this framework, SB 79 provides local governments with the ability to craft local alternative plans and implement ordinances. This includes providing local governments with limited local flexibility to reduce development intensity on certain sites. A local TOD alternative plan may reduce the allowable density on an individual site by up to 50% below SB 79’s baseline standards, and may further reduce or exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register, provided that such exemptions do not cumulatively exceed 10% of the total eligible area within a TOD zone. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments, through an implementing ordinance, to fully exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register as of January 1, 2025 from SB 79 until one year prior to the start of the seventh housing element cycle.

Historic Preservation, Districts, and Landmarks in California: Historic preservation in California operates across local, state, and federal levels, with each level maintaining its own designation processes and regulatory frameworks. Historic resources may include individual landmarks, such as buildings or structures associated with significant events, persons, or architectural styles, as well as historic districts, which are geographically defined areas containing a concentration of historically or culturally significant properties. These resources may be listed on local registers, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. In California, properties listed on the state or national register are generally treated as “historical resources” for purposes of environmental review, with any proposed development on those sites requiring analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Notably, listing on the California Register or National Register may occur through state or federal nomination processes that do not require local government approval, meaning properties may receive historic designation even where a local jurisdiction has not chosen to designate or protect them.

The regulatory implications of historic designation vary depending on the level and type of designation. Local governments typically establish and regulate historic districts and landmarks through local ordinances, which may impose restrictions on demolition, alterations, or new construction to preserve the character of designated areas. Within historic districts, individual properties may be classified as “contributing” or “non-contributing” resources, with contributing properties retaining their historic integrity and contributing to the district’s overall historical, architectural, or cultural significance, typically because they were constructed during the district’s period of significance and reflect its defining characteristics. Non-contributing properties, meanwhile, are geographically located in the district but do not maintain those character-defining features. Unlike local historic designations, which are typically implemented through local land use controls, state and federal designations primarily operate through environmental review processes, most notably under CEQA in California.

State housing laws vary in how they treat historic resources when establishing streamlined or ministerial approval pathways. Some laws, such as SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, initially took a more categorical approach by excluding parcels located within historic districts or containing designated historic resources from its requirements; however, subsequent amendments under AB 1061 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 505, Statutes of 2025, narrowed these exclusions by eliminating the blanket district-wide prohibition and instead focusing on protections for individually designated resources and contributing structures. Other state streamlining and upzoning laws continue to exclude sites containing historic resources more broadly. SB 79, by contrast, takes a more limited and locally driven approach, allowing local governments to reduce development intensity or exempt sites designated as historic resources on a local register through implementing ordinances or alternative plans, subject to specified caps and capacity requirements. As a result, SB 79’s framework primarily relies on local designation to determine where historic preservation protections apply, rather than uniformly recognizing historic resources designated at the state or national level. Furthermore, for

SB 79, by contrast, takes a more limited and locally driven approach to historic preservation. Rather than broadly exempting historic resources, SB 79 allows local governments to reduce development intensity on individual sites by up to 50%, or fully exempt sites, only if those properties are designated as historic resources on a local register, and only through adoption of an implementing ordinance or a locally adopted transit-oriented development (TOD) alternative plan subject to review by HCD. Even within that framework, SB 79 places constraints on the use of these exemptions, including a 10% cap on the total amount of land within a TOD zone that may be excluded from SB 79 in a local alternative plan around any given major transit stop. In addition, SB 79 allows local governments to temporarily exempt locally designated historic resources, as of January 1, 2025, from its provisions until shortly before the next housing element cycle. As a result, SB 79’s historic preservation framework primarily relies on local designation to determine where protections apply, rather than uniformly recognizing historic resources listed on the California Register or National Register. Under SB 79, only individually listed local resources, and not districts, are afforded these protections.

This Bill: This bill amends SB 79 by modifying the requirements applicable to local TOD alternative plans. Under existing law, a local TOD alternative plan may not reduce the residential development capacity of any individual TOD zone, measured in total units or residential floor area, by more than 50%. This bill creates a limited exception to that requirement by allowing a local government to reduce the residential capacity in up to one TOD zone by more than 50%, if specified conditions are met. Specifically, the exception applies only in cities with a population of less than 150,000, where a majority of the station area is located within a local historic district designated prior to January 1, 2000, and where the jurisdiction contains more than one TOD zone.

This targeted exception would allow certain jurisdictions with older, locally designated historic districts to further limit development intensity in transit-rich areas, beyond what is currently permitted under SB 79. The requirement that the historic district be designated prior to January 1, 2000 may help prevent jurisdictions from newly designating historic districts solely to avoid SB 79’s upzoning requirements, and instead focuses the exemption on long-established historic areas. Proponents may argue that this flexibility is necessary to preserve historically significant neighborhoods and avoid conflicts between state upzoning requirements and long-standing local preservation goals.

Arguments in Support: The City of Folsom writes in support: “AB 2415 recognizes that historic districts serve unique public purposes that cannot be replicated once lost. By allowing the transfer of high-density housing obligations from our historic district to other transit-oriented development locations within the city through the development of an alternative plan, the bill provides a flexible, commonsense tool that supports both statewide housing objectives and the preservation of irreplaceable cultural resources.”

Arguments in Opposition: South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth writes in opposition: “This bill is written so that the city of Pasadena could exempt one of the most useful train stations from SB 79. The city of Pasadena has not been a good actor in trying to solve the housing crisis. When SB 9 was enacted they tried to claim a significant portion of the city was exempted because of their “Landmark Districts.” Rob Bonta put Pasadena on notice for violating state housing laws for this action.”

Committee Amendments: The Committee may wish to consider the following amendment to align the bill text with existing statutory language in SB 79:

(i) The local jurisdiction is a city.

(ii) The city has a population of less than 150,000.

(iii) A majority of the station transit-oriented development zone is part of a local historic district that was designated before January 1, 2000.

(IiiiV) The city has more than one transit-oriented development zone.

Related Legislation:

AB 2576 (Harabedian), of this legislative session, would allow local to adopt an ordinance exempting, through the first year of the 7^th housing element cycle, the following projects from the provisions of SB 79: individually listed sites on a state or federal register that were designated prior to January 1, 2025; and contributing structures within a historic district that was designated prior to January 1, 2025.

SB 722 (Wahab), of this legislative session, prohibits the use of SB 79 on mobilehome parks.

SB 1361 (Durazo), of this legislative session, would provide an exemption from SB 79 for a county, a city, a city and county, a single or multicounty council of governments, a regional transportation agency, a transit agency or district, or a county transportation agency that has adopted a policy by January 1, 2026, to complete at least 10,000 housing units, at least 50% of which will be income restricted, by January 1, 2032, except for certain transit stops.

SB 79 (Wiener), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025, established a streamlined, ministerial approval process for TOD housing development projects.

AB 1061 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 505, Statutes of 2025, narrowed historic preservation exclusions in SB 9 by eliminating the blanket district-wide prohibition and instead focusing on protections for individually designated resources and contributing structures.

Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Folsom
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Historic District Association
Folsom History
Historic Folsom Residents Association
The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom

Individuals (393)

Opposition

South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth

Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. California Department of Housing and Community Development, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan. March 2022, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136 ↑

2. IBID. ↑

3. IBID. ↑

4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Point in Time Counts. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html ↑

5. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml ↑

6. UC Berkeley Terner Center Testimony by Ben Metcalf, Managing Director, at the State Housing Production Legislation: Actions, Outcomes, and Opportunities Informational Hearing, February 12, 2025 ↑