By Kate Callen / July 10, 2025
You would think that before the City of San Diego endorsed a contentious state housing measure like Senate Bill 79, which aims to turbocharge urban density, the Mayor and the City Council would deliberate the issue in full public view.
You would be wrong.
Assemblymember Chris Ward’s July 2 announcement that the City of San Diego `has formally endorsed SB 79 caught San Diegans by surprise. The Mayor never announced any endorsement, and the City Council never discussed the bill or sought public input. What happened?
The mystery was solved by the release of a baffling two-page letter sent on June 3 to State Senator Scott Weiner, author of SB79. The letter was signed by Sacramento lobbyist Moira Topp of Topp Strategies. The first page is on official City of San Diego letterhead. The second page is on Topp Strategies corporate letterhead. [See letter below.]
Topp begins the letter by stating, “On behalf of my client, the City of San Diego, I am writing in support of your measure, SB 79.” She ends with, “The City of San Diego applauds Senator Wiener’s leadership in advancing this forward-thinking legislation and urges the Legislature to support SB 79. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.”
Well, we at the Rag have several questions.
Since when does a lobbyist convey the City’s support for a significant legislative proposal to a state legislator on quasi-official stationery? Who authorized Topp to speak for San Diego? Was the Council consulted or even informed?
A message from Rachel Laing, Gloria’s communications director, explains it this way:
“Support for the groundbreaking changes to state housing policy in SB 79 was part of the City Council’s adoption of the City of San Diego’s Legislative Platform on Dec. 16, 2024. The City Council receives a monthly report of the City’s legislative activities, noting the status of bills the City has endorsed and sponsored.”
Legislative platforms are devices that give city mayors wide latitude in choosing to endorse state legislative proposals. In the first week of July, at Gloria’s behest, lobbyist Topp testified in Sacramento that the City supports five separate bills. Four were on consensus issues like curbing prostitution and the sale of controlled substances. The fifth was SB 79.
Here in San Diego, SB 79 could hardly be more controversial. The Mayor and the Council certainly know that. Just this year, they have been whipsawed by surging outrage over the harm inflicted by excessive development. Any public discussion of SB 79 would have drawn overflow audiences of furious constituents.
The California Policy Center, one of many statewide groups opposing the bill, wrote this in a letter to Sen. Scott Weiner, the bill’s author:
“This bill represents yet another top-down mandate from Sacramento that strips away local control, imposes sweeping land-use changes without voter consent, and opens the door to speculative high-rise development under the guise of pro-housing policy. … It risks destabilizing the very neighborhoods it claims to assist by forcing cities to approve high-rise projects without proper consideration of public safety, infrastructure, or neighborhood integrity.”
Sound familiar? If SB 79 passes, the return to sustainable growth signified by Bonus ADU reform will end. Developers will be free to build massive high-rises full of market-rate units in residential neighborhoods with anemic mass transit and scant street parking.
San Diego is the only major California city to endorse the measure. The four other cities in support are Culver City, Emeryville, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose have not given their endorsement.
Gloria can argue that SB 79 should be treated just like any other state bill. The City Council knows better. The nine of them have heard hours and hours of impassioned testimony from San Diegans living with the hellish consequences of predatory development.
Maybe Councilmembers can’t do anything about Gloria’s rubber-stamping of SB 79. But they can speak against it. And they have an obligation to their constituents to do that.
Here’s the link to the letter:
Time to plot recall of Todd Gloria?
Why is a newspaper like OBRag citing anti-union, conservative California Policy Center?
Are you familiar with the Rag or is this your first time?
I chose to cite that group for two reasons: Because their letter to Weiner was powerful and precise. And because I’m tired of operating inside political silos. If we cut off everyone who doesn’t agree with us on everything, we will occupy a very small space. That insularity gave us Trump II. (I’m only speaking for myself and definitely not for the Rag.)
Our neighborhood voices and neighbhors for a better california had better letters
This is an excellent article, Ms. Callen, and thanks for bringing the situation to general attention. I think the thing the OB Rag does best is to alert people to these sorts of developer actions, or end-runs around (and to avoid) public scrutiny as they often seem to me. One suggestion I have is sending a follow-up letter to this one attached to the article that basically encapsulates many of the objections you note to what has occured here. Basically, letting the state know that this city “endorsement” may not be what it seems and to expect significant push-back.
/s/ Chris Kennedy
Thanks very much Kate for doing the reporting that brings this important issue to light. I agree that SB 79 is too contentious for our Mayor —who frequently I am very publicly says he’s “for all of us” to unilaterally instruct the city’s lobbyist to endorse it. There should’ve been public discussion on the pros and cons of this issue by the city council before any action was taken by the lobbyist to claimthat city endorse this very controversial change to neighborhood zoning, and development regulations.
Please write to your assembly person as well as to Chris Ward even if he is not your district legislator: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Immediate-Action-Needed-to-Save-Historic-Sites-SB-79-Moves-Forward-.html?soid=1101889363559&aid=3LYJKbtcJqw
Below is email I received from our State Senator, Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, M.D. who voted in favor of SB 79.
Dear Neighbors,
Californians from every walk of life know that our state is facing a historic housing crisis. Rents are rising, homeownership is out of reach for too many families, and long commutes are taking a toll on our quality of life and the environment. That’s why I voted in favor of Senate Bill 79, a measure that allows for more housing to be built near transit-oriented developments (TODs).
This bill is about making smarter and more efficient use of the land we already have, especially near public transit, so that we can grow in a way that is sustainable, inclusive, and practical. SB 79 focuses development in areas where transportation infrastructure already exists, reducing the strain on our roads and cutting down on vehicle emissions by making it easier for people to live near where they work and commute.
At the same time, I have heard from many constituents, particularly long-time homeowners, who are concerned about the potential impacts on their neighborhoods. I understand the concerns about parking, school crowding, and preserving the character of residential communities. This legislation is not a one-size-fits-all mandate. It gives local jurisdictions a say in how growth is implemented, so long as they are contributing to regional housing goals.
Supporting SB 79 was not a vote to change the identity of our neighborhoods overnight. It was a vote to begin addressing a housing shortage that is hurting our teachers, nurses, seniors, and young families. By building more homes where it makes the most sense, near transit, we can reduce pressure on suburban sprawl and help ensure that our children and grandchildren can afford to live in the communities they grew up in.
I will continue to advocate for thoughtful growth, respectful of our neighborhoods, while working toward a future where all Californians have a place to call home.
Our mayor has taken kickbacks from builders, so his thought process isn’t going to be to represent constituents. He represents builders. He also knows that his time is up, so doesn’t seem to care much about San Diego, or our quality of life.
Kate thank you for your hard work. Many people follow you on this topic, and understand more clearly , what is happening to our once beautiful city.
Oh yes, I remember her being elected by name recognition and party. Did you get what you voted for?
The development SB79 would mandate cities take, with no consideration for local circumstances, is nearly DOUBLE the density, volume, and height of the last legislative term’s SB10. Remember those yard signs? SB10 was a bridge too far even for San Diego’s developer-staffed Planning Commission.
Did I miss something? I don’t remember voting for Moira Topp, seeing her name on a ballot, or even having seen her name ever before but now she’s representing San Diego? She says the City of San Diego endorses controversial bill SB79 ,which will not only devastate our neighborhoods, it will devastate this city. It will facilitate and permit building exponentially huge numbers of housing units without regard to infrastructure needs, safety issues or quality of life.
No public hearing and no public notice about SB79 and a lobbyist for SB79 claiming to represent us?
This City has really gone too far!
Are those who voted to re-elect Todd Gloria happy? Todd gloria is slowly but surely destroying San Diego and the voters knew it before they voted for him again. Wait until he terms out to uncover all the damage he’s done TO the people for decades to come. Hopefully the voters of CA will NOT vote for him when he runs for Gov. which will allow him to continue his destruction.
From the beginning, I have ALWAYS suspected that Todd Gloria wins by messing with the voting system. I can’t believe voters are too stupid to not see how devastating his rule has been for the average citizen.
SB 79 will be heard in the Local Government Committee on July 16.
Email Local Government Committee Members
Subject Line:SB 79 – Oppose!!
Thursday the 10th is the deadline.
Still time to act, in Sac and SD!!
Kate (and all of the planning types who are way smarter than I am about this)…I’ve got questions:
1. Isn’t SB79 a replication (of sorts/mostly) of San Diego’s Complete Communities / Housing Action Plan 2.0, which would if passed impose our messy development scheme on the whole state?
2. Does SB79 override the hard-fought “reforms” (minor tweaks) we recently won in City Council that modified some of the worst parts of CC/HAP2.0?
3. If SB79 doesn’t pass, we’re in the same mess as today- and if passed, we’re worse off.
Am I crazy to think that no matter what happens, we’re still screwed?
San Diego doesn’t need SB 79. They can simply rezone San Diego. Plus San Diego and get very specific where they want the Apartments vs allowing the greedy corporations to put they were ever that want.
Why force it on the rest of California?
Thanks for all the info about SB 79. I have signed petitions and I would like to write protest letters to assembly men, Congressman, etc. I have the city council‘s emails, but I need help with addressing the politicians. Could you give me the address of Those connected with our district? I live in 92107 and have travel looking things up I am 79 losing memory fast and suffering long Covid. Thank you,
People should ask Chris Ward why he supports SB79. They should also ask why there is no mention of SB79 on his website, his legislative agenda, anywhere? They should also ask why he supports measures that are a back door lobbyist run around, that doesn’t involve the voters in open forum, usurping the public interest.
I believe the wrong argument are being used. rental properties should be treated equally if apartment owners have to provide off street parking then and provide their own trash pickup then ADU owners should also. I as a single private family homeowner should not have to pay for the additional trash, and I should not have to pay the additional property tax that result from the lower property tax for ADU owners Once again money sucking is promoted and we in this struggling hardworking middle class are paying.
You might want to check out the water billing formula which is in favor of the ADUs. Since I use only two to three cubes per billing. I’m paying 3540 or more per cube base fees a $107 for a zero drops of water the average waster of 25 cubes or more pay 1112 or $13 per cube. we should be encouraging people to conserve water not punishing people for conserving water. please publish my email
SB79 bears many similarities to Complete Communities, except in one key respect. Complete Communities only upzoned mid- to higher density multi-family, and mixed use parcels.
SB79 upzones single-family neighborhoods. Besides a 6 story building being grossly incompatible with the one story bungalows on either side of it, many (most?) single family neighborhoods lack the infrastructure to support this kind of density. We’re talking utility pipe widths, park space, high capacity roads. What happens when these end up on cul de sacs?
SB79 is mindless upzoning as a solution to a problem which isn’t zoning related.
Thank you Kate Callen for catching this no-public-input sneak endorsement and David Moty for clarifying what it means. Just when it looked like the city was acknowledging how limitless development is NOT getting the result of actual affordable housing while allowing abuses, the state steps in and says, hey, build anything anywhere. Rather than catching on, they keep passing the same spoilt egg from one level to another. But sneakier. Ick.
Ah HA!! Yes! Feels like the city said , Here, throw the peasants this bone – cause we know we wont loose developer $$ when SB79 passes.
I spoke to Councilman Joe LaCava about the letter sent by Mayor
Gloria’s lobbyist. The City Council has never voted in favor of SB79
but LaCava believes that the Council majority would be supportive. The letter signed by the City’s hired gun, Lobbyist Moira C. Topp, was sent to CA State Senator Scott Wiener as authorized by Todd Se;f-Appointed Führer Gloria on City of SDiego stationary! Yes, it is past time to return to City Manager local governance! I’m looking forward to Gloria following in the footsteps of Faulconer….out of office!!
Voting for candidates of the two major political parties is a death sentence for San Diego. If you understand politics, you know why.