“Building more homes in our most sustainable locations is the key to tackling the affordability crisis and locking in California’s success for many years to come.” – Senator Scott Wiener
SAN FRANCISCO – In a bipartisan vote, the California State Senate gave final approval to Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) SB 79, the Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act. The bill now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom, who must sign or veto the legislation by October 12.
SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops and on land owned by transit agencies. The bill establishes state zoning standards around train stations and major bus stops that allow for midrise homes within a half mile of transit and allows local transit agencies to develop on land they own.
SB 79 builds on the CEQA reforms passed earlier this year in AB 130 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and SB 131 by Wiener. By establishing state zoning standards, SB 79 unlocks land to use streamlining bills like AB 130 and Wiener’s SB 423, signed in 2023.
“Building more homes in our most sustainable locations is the key to tackling the affordability crisis and locking in California’s success for many years to come,” Wiener said. “Decades of overly restrictive policies have driven housing costs to astronomical levels, forcing millions of people away from jobs and transit and into long commutes from the suburbs. Many are being forced out of the state entirely. It has been a long road to tackling these decades-old problems, but today’s vote is a dramatic step forward to undo these decades of harm, reduce our most severe costs, and slash traffic congestion and air pollution in our state.”
“Today, California YIMBY achieved one of its founding goals: legalizing apartments and condos near train stations,” said Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY. “We won many victories over the past eight years, but the dream of passing a robust, transit-oriented development program has long eluded us, until now. My message to YIMBY activists across the country: Keep organizing, keep educating, and keep hustling. Your time will come.”
“SB 79 is the boldest housing action California has ever taken, and it couldn’t come at a more urgent time,” said Marc Vukcevich, Director of State Policy at Streets For All. “By opening the door to millions of new homes, this bill tackles our housing shortage at the scale the crisis demands. For Streets For All, this is about more than housing—it’s about equity, affordability, and creating communities where people can live near jobs and transit without being forced to drive.”
“California’s severe housing shortage makes it difficult for working families to stay housed and for our homeless neighbors to find a place to call home,” said Mahdi Manji, Director of Public Policy at the Inner City Law Center. “By ensuring that housing for all Californians, regardless of their income, is built near publicly funded transit infrastructure, SB 79 puts California on track to meet our state’s housing needs and build homes for all our neighbors.”
“Californians have been demanding bold action on housing affordability and climate change, and today the legislature delivered,” said Azeen Khanmalek, Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA. “SB 79 will lead to more affordable housing, cleaner air, safer streets, and accessible transit. Abundant Housing LA thanks Senator Wiener for his leadership and tireless dedication to solving our housing shortage, and our fellow cosponsors for their hard work.”
“The Bay Area Council is proud to cosponsor SB 79, which will allow more housing near transit and jobs,” said Jim Wunderman, CEO of the Bay Area Council. “Amid rising rents and already-too-high home prices, measures like these are critical to making housing more affordable, increasing ridership on transit, and giving people the option of living closer to where they work. This is critical to making the Bay Area the best place to live and work, and we thank Senator Wiener for being an incredible champion for the region’s housing and transportation needs.”
The bill was amended to provide greater local flexibility and establish safeguards for affordability, worker’s rights, displacement, demolition, low resource areas, historic preservation, wildfire risk, and sea level rise. It also sets minimum density standards.
California has the highest cost of living of any state, largely due to its severe housing shortage. Restrictive zoning laws prevent millions of residents from living near public transit, making train and bus systems impractical for many. SB 79 addresses this by legalizing multifamily housing near major transit stops.
Transit agency-owned land will also be opened for housing, providing new financial support for struggling transit systems. Successful models exist abroad: Hong Kong’s transit agency regularly turns a profit by developing its land, while California’s agencies face budget shortfalls amid slow ridership recovery.
Other states have adopted similar policies. Colorado requires an average of 40 dwelling units per acre within a quarter-mile of transit. Massachusetts requires multifamily districts of at least 15 dwelling units per acre near transit. Utah mandates an average density of 50 units per acre in transit reinvestment zones.
SB 79 sets standards for allowable housing development within a half mile of transit. Tier 1 stops, such as BART, Caltrain and LA Metro heavy rail lines, allow up to nine stories adjacent to the stop, seven stories within a quarter mile, and six stories within a half mile. Tier 2 stops, including light rail and bus rapid transit, allow up to eight stories adjacent, six within a quarter mile, and five within a half mile.
Transit-oriented developments under SB 79 are eligible for streamlined approvals under SB 423 if they meet environmental, labor, and affordability standards. Local governments retain flexibility to create alternative TOD plans subject to oversight from the Department of Housing and Community Development.
SB 79 is sponsored by Streets for All, California YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, SPUR, Abundant Housing LA, the Inner City Law Center and the Bay Area Council.
Nine stories at the old Ace Hardware building. Now all we need is for interest rates to come down.
You didn’t read the bill obviously
As I mentioned in the other article, it’s time to start opposing public transit – unless you want your neighborhood destroyed.
Probably 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.
Sounds like the fight regarding Trackside was a gigantic waste of time. From what I’m reading, they can now build a 6 or 7 story building, there.
Regarding the rest of Old East Davis, you’d better home that your home qualifies as “historic” (assuming that the YIMBYs don’t challenge that designation, as well. Again, unless you’re actually looking forward to cashing out and moving.
For everyone else, better keep an eye on what qualifies as a “transit stop” under this bill, and make sure that it doesn’t qualify (and ensure that it doesn’t qualify in the future, if they change the bus schedule for example).
“it’s time to start opposing public transit”
If people want to know just how anti-housing Oertel is…
The key is whether or not it qualifies as a transit stop under this bill.
But yeah, I’m just telling you how some will react to this. (It’s not likely to impact me. I’m semi-amused by it, because the voters of this state ultimately allowed the foxes into the henhouse. A lot of them just see the word “Democrat”, and fill in the box on the ballot. I used to do so, myself.)
Perhaps this will be the issue that lights a fire under the continuing effort by some groups to remove power from the state via a proposition on a future ballot.
The only problem I see is that some communities are already shielded from this, since they have no public transit to speak of. And you can be sure that they’ll remain that way, as a result of this bill. (The same type of communities that would otherwise lead the charge against the state.)
But again, it’s not an issue for those seeking a massive profit by selling out and moving.
“It’s not likely to impact me”
And that’s all that matters
Within a half mile radius of qualifying transit stops → parcels are designated as eligible for transit-oriented development under the bill. Which is the same as the previous legislation.
SB 79 spells out tiered height, density, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements based on how far a project is from transit stops. Projects closer to transit are eligible for greater height and density, while those further away have lower caps.
David says: “And that’s all that matters”
Most of what I write about on here doesn’t directly impact me. I do it because I have a sense of right and wrong in regard to communities, the environment, the future, etc. I have seen what happens when development interests corrupt government. I’ve also seen backlash which resulted.
One difference I do see these days is that the population itself is not growing (unlike previous decades). So really, this is part of the continuing attempt to return to the “old days”, before some communities took control away from development interests. (Or more accurately, reigned them in to some degree.)
“Qualifying transit stops” – yes, residents would be wise to know what that means.
But again, this bill is likely to make some homeowners, at least, richer – on their way out the door.
And there’s no affordability requirements whatsoever attached to this bill that I’ve seen, which makes it even more valuable for current property owners and developers.
I realize it’s being presented as “anti-homeowner” (anti-NIMBY), but the only ones it will have a negative impact on are the ones who don’t sell out (and move to somewhere where there is no public transit). And even the ones who don’t move will still be richer on paper, at least. (As will their heirs.)
Wasn’t there a full-length cartoon like this – a traditional house surrounded by skyscrapers? Titled “Up” – or something like that?
It will be interesting to see if the banks will require resident parking on projects near transit hubs.
I would think that another thing which will occur (in regard to Davis’ downtown and near-downtown areas) is that it will become even more of a student housing hub than it already is.
It’s not a normal town, in this way. Most of the “high rise” demand is from students.
Same thing will occur at places like Village Farms (and the neighborhoods within a particular radius), if they put in a “qualifying” transit stop there. (Seems like that’s the plan that some already have.)
I’m tellin ya – it’s time for the “normies” to get out of Dodge City – with a bundle of cash in your hands.
I would think that in Davis (based on more than shear speculation) it won’t have any impact at all (I more than just think btw, I know).
Would you care to explain? Davis has an Amtrak station, for example.
Normally, when you write about something (and if you know more about it than a YIMBY-style press release, it might be useful for your readers to explain how it may, or may not impact them locally. And since I’m not the only one asking about this, there’s your invitation.
Apparently it only applies to what they refer to as “high quality” transit stops – i.e. Bart, Lightrail – and so it only impacts eight counties among them San Francisco, Alameda, Sacramento, LA, Orange, San Diego…
I believe Davis station qualifies on a lower tier that would prevent local zoning laws from preventing provisions in bill such as five-story housing within 1/4 mile of the station.