By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO, CA – The California State Senate has passed SB 79, a major housing bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), aimed at legalizing mid-rise housing near major transit stops and on land owned by local transit agencies. The Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act passed 21-13 and now advances to the Assembly.
SB 79 is part of an ongoing effort to address California’s extreme housing shortage, slash climate emissions, and reduce the cost of living. Supporters say that restrictive local zoning laws have made it nearly impossible to build multi-family housing near public transit, driving up housing costs and undermining efforts to increase transit ridership. The bill seeks to reverse that trend by allowing denser development within a half-mile of rail stations and major bus rapid transit (BRT) stops. In the areas closest to these hubs, buildings of up to seven stories would be allowed, with density tapering off further from the stations.
In addition, the bill permits transit agencies to build housing at the same or greater density on their own land. This approach is modeled on successful transit systems in cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo, where revenue from housing and commercial development subsidizes transit operations. In contrast, many California transit agencies face financial strain as ridership remains below pre-pandemic levels and state support lags behind other jurisdictions.
Senator Wiener praised the bill’s passage as a milestone for the state’s housing and transportation policy. “Tonight’s vote is a big step toward making California an affordable place for people to live and thrive,” said Wiener. “California urgently needs to build more homes to bring down costs, and building them near transit provides our public transportation systems with an urgently needed infusion of new riders. This is an idea whose time has come.”
Amendments to the bill made in the Senate Appropriations Committee removed provisions related to the Surplus Lands Act and excluded light industrial zones from the bill’s scope. Additional changes clarified that local affordability requirements will continue to apply and added new requirements for jurisdictions that lack such policies.
SB 79’s backers argue that building more homes near transit hubs is essential to addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. Transit-oriented development, long championed by climate advocates and housing experts, is gaining momentum in other states. Colorado requires cities to allow an average of 40 dwelling units per acre within a quarter-mile of transit. Massachusetts mandates that transit-served municipalities zone at least one district for 15 units per acre. Utah requires 50 units per acre in designated reinvestment zones. California’s SB 79 aligns with these national trends while tailoring its provisions to the state’s unique geography and infrastructure.
Housing developments built under SB 79 would also qualify for a streamlined ministerial approval process under Senator Wiener’s previous legislation, SB 423, if they meet environmental, labor, and affordability standards. Local governments would still retain the ability to craft alternative TOD (transit-oriented development) plans subject to HCD oversight.
Some critics have accused the bill of encouraging market-rate housing that excludes low-income families. But housing advocates counter that opposition misunderstands both the bill’s structure and the scale of the crisis. “Blocking market rate projects on these sites will not make $3 billion materialize out of the air to fund affordable housing,” said housing advocate Max Dubler, referencing a CalMatters report that found just $576 million in state funding was available for more than $3.5 billion worth of shovel-ready affordable housing proposals in 2023.
Dubler highlighted the example of a two-bedroom unit at Oakland’s Skylyne Apartments, located near the MacArthur BART station, which rents for $4,242 per month. While expensive, he pointed out it’s still cheaper than purchasing a nearby two-bedroom home for $955,000, which carries a monthly cost of roughly $6,750. “It’s not cheap,” Dubler wrote, “but it’s a whole lot cheaper than $6,754 a month. I think a lot of Oakland households could really use that extra $30,000 a year.”
For advocates, SB 79 represents more than a housing solution—it’s a critical test of the state’s political will to align its climate goals, infrastructure investments, and housing policies. Legalizing denser housing near BART, rail, and major bus corridors, they argue, is essential if California hopes to address interlocking affordability, environmental, and transportation challenges.
The bill is sponsored by Streets for All, California YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, SPUR, and the Bay Area Council. With Senate approval secured, SB 79 now moves to the Assembly, where lawmakers will again confront the question of whether California is ready to meet its housing and climate needs with bold, systemic reform.
“The bill is sponsored by Streets for All, California YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, SPUR, and the Bay Area Council. ”
These are all bad groups, shills and tools for developers, corporatists and bought politicians. Unfortunately, they often blind and even have on board light-minded well-meaning people who don’t know better. Beware.
As I’ve said before and will say again — this approach will not work. It will lead to more traffic and less desirable living. Building dense first is not the solution. Our rail systems, though better than some states, are anemic, and some are collapsing financially in the near future having gone off the cliff like the Roadrunning Coyote in using massive Biden money during the pandemic, and about to fall into the fiscal canyon below. Transit oriented development means nothing if the transit is sh*t. And being near a bus stop means nothing if 95% of the tenants use cars, even if parking is paid or absent by design. People find a way.
The only solution is to massively shift our transit budget from highway to rail. This is made very difficult by how federal transit funding is distributed. “Choo Choo” Joe Biden was supposed to be a friend to rail transit, but was a huge disappointment. Though he did allocate some additional rail funding, he didn’t do anything to change the systemic federal structure that still, today, massively favors highways. If Biden didn’t even try to fix the real problem, what hope is there?
You aren’t going to fix housing issues until the entire structure of transit funding is overhauled, and we start making real investments — so, for example, one could get on a frequent, fast, and electrified train and go to Chico, LA, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, etc. in less time than a car could get you there. This isn’t going to happen in my lifetime, I have now accepted. But as things are going, if you are 20 and reading this, you aren’t going to see it either. If you don’t believe me, let me know how things went here on Earth when you say hi to me in the afterlife in 60-70 years. Talk then!
So this was just-barely approved by the Senate, and now goes to the Assembly. It does appear to have been watered-down somewhat.
In any case – Aguiar-Curry, where are you? And more-importantly, are your constituents contacting you regarding this?
https://www.kqed.org/news/12042670/controversial-housing-near-transit-bill-advances-to-next-stop-in-legislature