Status: Not passed (Awaiting Governor's signature as of September 12, 2025)
The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,[2] officially California Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), is a proposed California bill that would preempt local government control of land zoning near public transit stations in order to upzone housing within the intervening area. SB 79 and preceding bills have been authored by state senator Scott Wiener and have been sponsored by California YIMBY, a pro-housing lobbying group,[3][4] while they have been opposed by local governments, anti-gentrification activists, and suburban homeowners. The bills are written in support of transit-oriented development in response to an ongoing housing affordability crisis in California's largest urban areas.[5]
Wiener first introduced the bill in January 2018 as Senate Bill 827 (SB 827), which would have applied to areas within one-half-mile (0.8km) of frequent transit corridors, including rail stations and bus routes, as well as jobs centers. SB 827 failed to advance from the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in April 2018, effectively killing it.[6] In 2019 and 2020, Senator Wiener attempted to pass California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), a revised successor to SB 827, multiple times both in committee and on the senate floor, culminating in an unsuccessful floor vote on January 31, 2020, which resulted in the bill's demise.[7] A light-touch version, Senate Bill 902 (SB 902), passed the Senate in 2020 but died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 79 was introduced by Wiener in the 2025 session, where it passed in both houses and awaits signature or veto by Governor Gavin Newsom.
However, the 2021 California HOME Act (drafted by Wiener) and 2022 AB 2097 (drafted by Laura Friedman), both signed into law by Newsom, accomplished some of the same aims as SB 827 and SB 50, by allowing lot splits of single-family houses up to four units per lot (regardless of single-family zoning) as well as banning parking minimums within a half-mile of transit stops, respectively.[8][9]
In 2008, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 375, which encourages transit-oriented development to reduce vehicle miles travelled in the state and to address climate change. The bill was created to help achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals of the 2006 bill Assembly Bill 32.
Existing state law grants the authority for local zoning from the police power in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, giving cities and counties local discretion in controlling land use.[10] Localities have exercised these zoning powers in residential areas in various ways; while land in California cities has been historically limited to low density housing (by being zoned for single-family homes[11] and since 2016, single-family homes and up to a 1,200 square foot secondary unit), city and county governments can allow higher density zoning, if they choose. For example, in 2018, the LA County Metro Board of Directors created the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program after the passage of Measure JJJ in November 2016, which allows for land zoned for commercial development near transit stations to be developed into residential housing, with between 11 and 27 percent of units required to be reserved for affordable housing.[12]
An act to amend Section 65589.5 of, to add Sections 65913.5 and 65913.6 to, and to add Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.50) to Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, relating to housing.
Planning and zoning: housing development: streamlined approval: incentives. ("More HOMES (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, Stability) Act")
Passed by the Senate June 3, 2025 (21–13–6); Passed by the Assembly September 11, 2025 (43-19-18); Senate concurred with Assembly amendments September 12, 2025 (21-8-11); awaiting signature
Senate Bill 827 (2018)
Senator Wiener, representing San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 827 on the first day of the 2018 legislative session.[3] Wiener had previously authored Senate Bill 35, a bill to streamline the approval process for residential projects, which was passed by the legislature in 2017.[13]
Under SB 827, cities in California would have been required to permit residential buildings of up to 45 to 55 feet (14 to 17m) in "transit rich" areas near train stations and bus stops.[14] The bill would have also eliminated minimum requirements for parking and prohibited local design requirements that would lower the amount of space in a new development.[15] The bill would have affected roughly 50 percent of single-family homes in Los Angeles and 96 percent of land in San Francisco.[16][17]
A similar bill, Senate Bill 828, was introduced by Wiener to amend market-rate housing requirements for local governments and avoided much of the controversy that affected SB 827.[18] Another bill, Assembly Bill 2923, was announced in March 2018 and would require the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (serving the San Francisco Bay Area) to adopt zoning standards that would be accepted by cities and local jurisdictions.[19]
The first revisions to the bill were made in late February, adding pro-tenant provisions to prevent demolition of existing housing and other protections.[4] In April 2018, the bill was amended to reduce the maximum height in "transit rich" areas to approximately four to five stories and remove bus stops with non-frequent service outside of peak periods.[20] The bill was brought to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in April, where it was rejected by a vote of 6–4.[21]
Senate Bill 50 (2019-2020)
2019
Senator Wiener announced that he intended to introduce an updated version of the bill with a new number, 50, in the 2019 legislative session, and described the bill as the "More HOMES (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, Equity, Stability) Act".[22] Senate Bill 50 had the same sponsors as Senate Bill 827.[23]
Wiener added amendments that exempted counties with populations under 600,000 from transit rezoning provisions in a compromise with Marin County senator Mike McGuire. The final bill required similar rezoning near transit, four-plex zoning statewide, and additional rezoning in "jobs-rich" areas.[24]
In May 2019, Anthony Portantino, chair of the senate appropriations committee, made Senate Bill 50 into a two-year bill with a pocket veto, meaning it would not be eligible for consideration again until the 2020 legislative session.[25]
2020
Senator Wiener reintroduced Senate Bill 50 in January 2020 with additional amendments that gave cities the ability to opt out of its rezoning provisions providing they built the state-mandated amount of housing.[26]
Senator Portantino, who had blocked the bill in 2019, objected to not being consulted about amendments to the bill and said Wiener did not adopt suggestions from an alternative blueprint developed by a coalition of Southern California governments.[27]Toni Atkins, president pro tempore of the senate, used parliamentary powers to maneuver the bill out of Senator Portantino's committee to prevent it from being blocked from appearing on the senate floor again.[28]
Following debate in the senate, Senate Bill 50 was defeated on January 31, 2020, after multiple vote attempts garnered at most 18 votes, three shy of the 21 needed to pass into the state assembly. Six senators were absent or abstained from voting.[29][30]
SB 902 (2020)
After the failure of SB 50, Scott Wiener proposed SB 902, a lighter-touch version of SB 50 which would allow the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by right.[31] The bill would have required approval of 2 to 4 unit apartment buildings on single-family lots, depending on a city's size.[32] The bill was passed in the Senate on June 23, 2020, but died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 79 (2025)
In January 2025, Wiener introduced SB 79, dubbed as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which would require the upzoning of housing within distance of rail and rapid bus stations, allowing for the construction of housing between four and nine stories tall and for developers of such properties to take advantage of existing permit streamlining and density bonus laws.[33][34][2]
Provisions
Millbrae station (BART and Caltrain intermodal station, photo taken July 2018), an example of a "Tier 1" station near which SB 79-eligible housing could potentially be built.
The bill would allow eligibility for SB 423 streamlining for affordable housing projects and adopts SB 423's requirement to hire skilled and trained workers for SB 79 project which is higher than 85 feet in height. In addition, SB 79 projects constructed on transit agency-owned land have the option to either hire unionized workers or enter into a direct contract with labor unions. Finally, the bill would exclude hotel development projects from its provisions.[35]
The bill would apply only to jurisdictions within designated "urban transit counties" which meet certain criteria (currently Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sacramento, San Diego). The bill creates two tiers of jurisdictions, with SB 79-eligible housing being eligible for certain height limits depending on distance of the nearby type of transit station:
Tier 1 jurisdictions (heavy rail OR 72+ trains daily, including BART, LA MetroB/D Lines, Caltrain): 9 stories immediately adjacent to the station, 7 stories within 1/4 mile, 6 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile;
Tier 2 (light rail OR 48+ trains daily OR dedicated bus lanes, including Muni Metro, LA Metro A/C/E/K Lines, VTA Light Rail, Orange Line BRT, MTS Trolley): 8 stories immediately adjacent to the station, 6 stories within 1/4 mile, 5 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile.
Two other proposed tiers were removed in committee by amendment in early September 2025:
Tier 3, within urban transit counties, which cover 24+ trains daily or ferry (i.e., COASTER, Metrolink (mostly), SF/Oakland ferries, Capitol Corridor) and would have allowed for lower height limits (up to 7 stories immediately adjacent to the station, 5 stories within 1/4 mile, 4 stories between 1/4 and 1/2 mile);
Tier 4, which would have applied outside of urban transit counties within distance of any rail service (heavy, light, commuter with 24+ trains daily) or ferry (7 stories immediately adjacent to the station, 5 stories within 1/4 mile, or locally-authorized limit between 1/4 and 1/2 mile).[36]
Carlsbad Village station (on the NCTDCOASTER, photo taken October 2010), an example of a "Tier 3" station which would have been potentially eligible to build SB 79 housing nearby prior to removal of the Tier in committee.
For renters, SB 79 would prevent demolishing rent-controlled buildings where renters have lived any time in the seven years prior to passage of the bill. Any demolitions of rent-controlled housing in favor of SB 79-eligible housing would require a minimum amount of assistance by the developer to existing tenants, including:
moving costs plus three months' worth of rent;
Right to return at a rent affordable to the tenant;
Subsidized rent while the new homes are being built;
guarantee that new housing units exceed the quality of demolished housing.
Cities would be allowed to provide further tenant protections beyond those outlined in SB 79. In addition, every SB 79-eligible development must designate 7% of units for extremely low income residents, 10% for very low income, and 13% for low income. However, SB 79 cannot be used on a site containing more than two units if either the development would require the demolition of any units which are rent- or prince-controlled and has been occupied by tenants within the last five years or the site previously involved more than two rent-controlled units which were demolished within five years prior to submission of an SB 79 streamlining permit.
The bill excludes:
sites with a "very high fire severity zone", as defined by CAL FIRE, or within the state responsibility area;
sites vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise;
sites which are designated on a local historic register, so long as such sites do not exceed 10 percent of any transit-oriented development zone.
The bill would incorporate "fire flexibility", allowing local leaders a minimum of 3 years to adopt plans that ensure maximum community protection from wildfires and shift density away from highly fire-prone areas.
Passage
State Assembly vote
State Senate concurrence vote
California State Assembly vote and State Senate concurrence vote on SB 79 by district and party.
Democratic AYE
Republican AYE
Democratic NO
Republican NO
Democratic Not Voting
Republican Not Voting
On May 23, the bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate voted 21-13 in favor of the bill on June 3, 2025, sending the bill to the Assembly for consideration.[37][38]
The bill was passed by the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development 9-1 on July 2, 2025, and by the Assembly Committee on Local Government 6-1 on July 16, 2025. The bill was passed on August 29 by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in an 8-6-1 vote, and was passed on September 11 by the Assembly in a 43-19-18 vote.[39] Significant amendments to the bill were made in the Assembly to reduce opposition from labor activists, tenant organizations and municipal governments. In both houses, both support and opposition crossed party lines, with opposition or abstention emanating most from legislators representing districts in Southern California.
The State Senate then concurred with the amended bill on September 12, the final day of session, in a 21-8-11 vote, with Senators Aisha Wahab and María Elena Durazo having switched their initial opposition to support following amendments providing protections for tenants.[40] The bill was sent to Newsom for his signature or veto, which is due by October 12. Unlike his public support and early signature for AB 130 and SB 131, Newsom did not indicate whether he would sign SB 79 or other housing bills passed by the Legislature.
Political debate
Senate Bill 827
Wiener said he proposed Senate Bill 827 in part to alleviate the state's ongoing housing affordability crisis as well as to address carbon emissions generated by vehicles.[16] Regarding the issue of local control, he stated: "In education and healthcare, the state sets basic standards, and local control exists within those standards. Only in housing has the state abdicated its role. But housing is a statewide issue, and the approach of pure local control has driven us into the ditch."[41]
The bill was opposed by city councils in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and major suburban cities,[42][43] by suburban homeowners, and by tenants' rights groups, who argued that additional development would cause gentrification and displace underprivileged residents, especially non-white groups.[14][44]
The bill was supported by a group of scholars who stated that it would help reduce decades of racial and economic residential segregation,[45]:1-2[6]:1 by national pro-housing groups, and by over 100 executives from the Bay Area technology industry, who voiced their support for the bill in a joint letter.[46]
The Sierra Club California opposed the bill, saying that denser housing near major transit lines would displace people from cities[47] and undermine plans for future commuter rail projects.[48]
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill 50 received coverage from major national newspapers outside of California, with the New York Times and The Atlantic publishing articles and opinion pieces on the bill.[49][50]
Some scholars questioned the ability of Senate Bill 50 to lower housing prices on its own, with some giving credence to the idea that it was a "luxury housing bill." Senator Wiener said "increasing the supply of market rate housing, over time, will reduce costs."[51]
A study published in Urban Affairs Review found five years after Chicago rezoned land around transit stops for denser market-rate development, speculation caused housing prices to increase in the rezoned areas while housing production did not increase. The author of the study, in an online essay, said the tenant protections in Senate Bill 50 made it different from Chicago's rezoning. The author also acknowledged the need for affordable housing development to address California's housing issues and how more research was necessary to determine the long-term effects of rezoning on housing prices and production.[52][53]
The mayor of Beverly Hills, who engaged in a broadcast debate with Senator Wiener, questioned why Senate Bill 50 would necessarily impact Southern California while exempting several affluent yet sparsely populated Bay Area counties.[54][55] The bill faced opposition from local governments around the state who objected to how the bill would usurp local land use authority.[56] Some mayors endorsed the bill.[57][58]
Senator Wiener said the passage of an anti rent-gouging bill in the previous year hindered the leverage for passing Senate Bill 50.[5]
A Los Angeles Times columnist said lawmakers from the greater Los Angeles area delegation were responsible for the demise of Senate Bill 50, and that the fight "had nothing to do with partisan politics" but instead was "all about geography"[59] while a Curbed columnist said opposition from a statewide coalition of affordable housing advocacy organizations was responsible for the defeat of Senate Bill 50.[60]
Independent analyses said most of the development spurred by the bill would have likely happened in the San Francisco Bay area.[61]
Michael Storper has argued that slight reductions in stringent zoning would mainly produce housing for wealthy people, and that it is already legal under existing zoning to build millions of units in unprofitable locations.[62]
The bill was significantly amended in committee in order to win legislative and organizational support. Wiener and other supporters negotiated with the State Building and Construction Trades Council to secure the council's withdrawal of opposition to the bill, and secured support for the bill from UNITE HERE, in return for a requirement that SB 79 projects which measure above 85 feet in height or are constructed on transit agency-owned land would require the hiring of “skilled and trained” workers if the developer receives a sufficient number of bids.[35]
Following passage of the bill, Bass called for Newsom to veto the bill.[66]
In 2016, California lawmakers removed local barriers to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction by passing Senate Bill 1069. This was later updated in 2017 with Senate Bill 229 and Assembly Bill 494. These bills modified single-family zoning throughout California by requiring speedy local approval of up to 1,200 square foot secondary units on all residential property in California, including land zoned for single-family homes.[67] In 2019, the law was updated with Assembly Bill 68 to allow up to 500 of the 1,200 square feet to be designated a "junior accessory dwelling unit"; some commentators said this amounted to de facto triplex zoning throughout the state.[68][69]
In 2021, the SB 9, the California HOME Act, which was co-sponsored by Wiener, was signed into law, legalizing up to two units to be constructed across the state. Under the law, ADUs and JADUs can be built on a HOME Act project provided that the total number of dwellings does not exceed the amount allowed under the HOME Act.
On August 30, 2022, AB 2097 was passed by the legislature, and was signed into law on September 22, 2022 by Newsom. It removes parking minimums for homes and commercial properties within one half-mile of public transit stations or in neighborhoods with low rates of car use.[70] California became the second state after Oregon to eliminate parking minimums near public transit. Other laws passed before and after AB 2097, including the HOME Act, SB 4, and SB 6, also prohibited parking mandates within a half-mile of public transit for eligible projects.
↑ Kendall, Marisa (January 24, 2018). "Tech execs back California bill that aims to build more housing near transit". The Mercury News. Retrieved April 29, 2018. Bigger, taller apartment buildings surrounding your neighborhood BART station? More than 100 California tech leaders are enthusiastically saying yes, please.... On Wednesday, 130 tech executives and venture capital partners said they 'solidly support' the plan in a letter addressed to Wiener.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
