Key points:
- California Assembly passes Senator Scott Wiener’s housing bill SB 79 with a 41-17 vote.
- SB 79 allows more homes near public transportation to reduce traffic and increase affordability.
- The bill includes labor standards for housing projects over 85 feet in height.
SACRAMENTO – Senator Scott Wiener’s major housing bill of the session, SB 79, cleared the California Assembly on Thursday with a 41-17 vote, marking a significant step forward in the state’s ongoing battle over housing affordability, climate change, and land-use policy. The measure must now return to the Senate for concurrence before heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, due to amendments made since the Senate’s initial passage.
“HUGE HOUSING NEWS: The Assembly just passed our bill allowing more homes near public transportation, SB 79!” Wiener wrote after the vote. “We need more housing & we need it near transit. It’ll reduce traffic congestion & carbon emissions & increase transit ridership & affordability. Go housing! Go transit! Huge thanks to my Assembly colleagues & extra huge thanks to Assemblymembers Sharon Quirk-Silva & Buffy Wicks for your tenacious leadership on the floor!”
SB 79 would upzone land within a quarter mile of rail stations, major bus stops, and ferry terminals. It would also give transit agencies the power to build housing at greater density than local zoning allows on their own property and streamline approval processes for transit-oriented development. Within a half-mile of stations, the bill would establish ministerial approval for developments that conform to local zoning and inclusionary housing requirements.
Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Orange County), carrying the bill in the Assembly, framed the measure as a necessary balance between state-level intervention and local planning authority.
“Over the last five years, housing affordability and homelessness have consistently been among the top priorities in California,” Quirk-Silva said. “The smartest place to build new housing is within existing communities, near the state’s major transit investments that connect people to jobs, schools, and essential services. In the Assembly, Senator Wiener amended SB 79 to, among other things, increase affordability requirements, strengthen renter protections, and provide more flexibility at the local level. These changes ensure that the bill is not a top-down mandate, but rather a framework that allows cities to shape SB 79 according to their own intentional local planning.”
Quirk-Silva was joined by a bipartisan group of legislators in support, including Buffy Wicks (D-Berkeley), Juan Carillo (D-Palmdale), Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), Joe Patterson (R-Roseville), Alex Lee (D-Fremont), Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), David Tangipahoa (R-Fresno), and Anamaria Ávila Farías (D-Concord).
The coalition of supporters reflected the unusual political dynamics that have long surrounded housing legislation in Sacramento. Wicks and Haney framed SB 79 as an opportunity to bring urgently needed housing closer to jobs and transit, while Republicans like Patterson and Hoover emphasized the economic benefits of increasing housing supply.
Opposition was led by Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-West Hollywood/Santa Monica), who used his floor remarks to defend single-family neighborhoods and raise concerns about displacement.
“The neighborhoods most affected by this are not necessarily the ultra-wealthy,” Zbur said. “Instead, lower-priced areas will be the first to feel the impacts because land costs are lower. These are places where people have already made incredible sacrifices to live. They are built-out single-family neighborhoods, where homeowners bought with the expectation that they could raise their kids in a stable, safe community they understood.”
Other opponents included Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) and José Luis Solache, Jr. (D-South Gate). Diane Papan (D-San Mateo), who had spoken against the bill earlier in committee, abstained on the floor.
The debate produced some unlikely alliances. DeMaio noted his surprise at siding with Zbur, a Democrat he usually opposes. Similarly, Alex Lee, one of the Assembly’s most progressive members, joked that he never expected to find himself in agreement with conservative Joe Patterson on housing policy.
After the vote was announced, the chamber erupted in applause and cheers, a rare moment of bipartisan celebration on the Assembly floor.
The pro-housing group YIMBY Action hailed the passage as a turning point for transit-oriented development in California. The group argued that SB 79 would finally make it possible to align public investments in transit with land-use policy.
“SB 79 will make it faster and easier to build multi-family housing near transit stops, like train and rapid bus lines, by making it legal for more homes to be built in these areas,” the organization wrote. “Across California, cities continue to ban most new housing near publicly-funded transit stops. These housing bans contribute to high housing costs, make traffic and pollution worse, and make it difficult or impossible for most Californians to use the transit systems they paid for.”
The legislation is structured with multiple tiers of density tied to transit type and frequency. It applies to any qualifying site zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial properties within a half-mile of transit, or a quarter-mile in smaller cities. It also includes affordability standards and displacement protections. Projects cannot require demolition of rent-stabilized housing with three or more units, or any multifamily housing occupied within the past seven years.
Labor standards were also embedded in the bill. Housing over 85 feet in height, or projects built on land owned by transit agencies, must meet the prevailing wage or “skilled and trained” requirements of SB 423.
To address fire safety, the bill includes provisions allowing local governments in very high fire severity zones to defer density requirements for up to three years while adopting local fire protection plans. It also allows density to be shifted away from high-risk areas.
SB 79 has been closely watched since Wiener introduced it in January. The bill moved steadily through both chambers, surviving multiple committee hearings and floor votes. It passed the Senate in June with a 21-13 vote before clearing the Assembly Housing, Local Government, and Appropriations Committees over the summer.
Alongside SB 79, Wiener celebrated two other legislative victories this week. His bill banning extreme masking by law enforcement, SB 627, received final Senate concurrence and is now on the governor’s desk. The measure prohibits local and federal law enforcement from concealing their faces with ski masks or similar gear.
“Our legislation to ban federal & local law enforcement from extreme masking (SB 627) just received final sign-off from the Senate & is on its way to the Governor,” Wiener wrote. “Law enforcement wearing ski masks isn’t normal. We don’t need or want secret police in California. Enough.”
Wiener also won passage of SJR 1, a resolution rescinding California’s historical calls for a federal Constitutional Convention. “While the Constitution could be improved in many ways, risking a Constitutional Convention at this moment is dangerous for our democracy & basic rights,” Wiener posted.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
If this goes through, I would think that one of the results will be that residents will resist expansion of public transit lines (of the type that would trigger this law). Ironically, having a perverse, “opposite” impact regarding the claimed goal (in regard to future public transit lines, at least).
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some city attempted to “de-certify” public transit lines (reduce or eliminate them to the point where they no longer trigger this law).
Seems to me that anything near the Amtrak station is in jeopardy, at least. (I wonder if something even larger than the unbuilt Trackside proposal would be automatically approved under this law. Perhaps that fight was nothing but a waste of time and energy, if this law goes through.)
You assume that everyone agrees with you on housing?
I said no such thing.
But obviously, there are a lot of residents (and cities) throughout the state which do resist this type of proposal (Los Angeles city council being one of them).
I just mentioned a possible impact (reduction of current or future public transit lines, to avoid exposure to this law). Seems like the type of thing that some city might try.
SB 79 passes the senate and heads to the governor’s desk
It does indeed sound like a big deal in regard to anything close to a qualified public transit stop. Locally – anything near the Amtrak station, at least.
Not sure about “normal” bus stops, but it sounds like something to keep an eye on.
“Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.”
“It opens the door for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.”
Time to cash-out property in old East Davis. Who knows, we may find some displaced homeowners from old East Davis in Spring Lake, pretty soon. (Flush with cash as a result of selling out.)
Like I said, the fight regarding Trackside apparently wasn’t even necessary. Sounds like they could build a 6-7 story building there, now.
Also not seeing any “affordability” requirements attached to this bill. None whatsoever.
It would be interesting to know the details regarding the deal that they struck with the State Building and Trades Council.
Time to start opposing any additional public transit near your own home, I guess – unless you want your neighborhood destroyed. (Perhaps continued livability is not an issue for those who want to cash out with a big fat profit as a result of this, and move somewhere where there is no public transit.)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-12/california-lawmakers-pass-sb-79-housing-bill-that-brings-dense-housing-to-transit-hubs
SB 79 should have failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 29th.
Asm Appropriations Committee member Gregg Hart, a NO vote, was absent for the SB 79 vote, and Asm Speaker Rivas replaced him with Asm Member Ahrens, who is not a member of the Asm Appropriations Committee. Ahrens was a known YES vote, and the bill squeaked through with 8 votes out of 15. If Hart had voted, or hadn’t been replaced and was an NVR, SB 79 would have failed with 7 YES votes.
Asm Speaker Rivas didn’t do anything illegal by replacing Hart with Ahrens, but used his authority to “speakerize” SB 79 so it would pass. Behavior like this doesn’t exactly inspire trust in our state government or its motives.
Atkins is right for bringing attention to the backroom deal on the day the State Assembly Appropriations Committee voted on SB 79. I did some fact-checking on the information provided, looking up committee membership, and who voted on 8/29. Ahrens is a supporter of SB 79. Hart voted No on the Assembly Floor on 9/11. It is very disturbing to see how the process is manipulated for this controversial bill, which scraps cities’ housing elements approved by the State. Cities had spent a lot of effort and millions of dollars to get their housing elements certified.