California lawmakers last week passed a bill to allow taller housing developments near major transit hubs, which they hope will create much needed housing and boost transit ridership. But to get the bill over the finish line, it will also include a number of exemptions, including one loophole that allows an entire Bay Area county to avoid the law.
The bill, SB 79, is the culmination of an eight-year effort by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco to pass a “transit-oriented development” bill. The new law gives developers permission to build multifamily housing as high as seven stories within a quarter-mile radius of BART or Caltrain, or up to six stories within a half-mile radius. Land along light-rail and certain bus lines will also be up-zoned to allow for buildings up to six and five stories high.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the measure in the coming weeks.
“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.” Wiener said in a statement. “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.”
But the final version is narrower than Wiener’s original 2018 proposal, having been whittled down to meet the demands of suburban lawmakers and affordability activists who have blocked previous versions of the bill.
One amendment to the bill meant that it would only apply to counties with more than 15 high-frequency train or bus stops. Ultimately, just seven counties within the state fit the bill: Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. (Orange County will be included after their streetcar project is completed next year.)
In the last week of the session, legislators tweaked the language defining which stations count toward that threshold. The changes allowed one Bay Area county in particular to duck the law: Contra Costa.
With its 12 BART stations, and three Amtrak stations on the Capital Corridor line in Richmond, Martinez and Antioch, Contra Costa has exactly 15 qualifying stations, just below the threshold.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and city councilmembers in Lafayette and Orinda — both home to BART stations that would have been subject to up-zoning to allow higher density — lobbied their state lawmakers to get the amendment passed. They argued that SB 79 would increase density along fire evacuation zones in the county and put existing residents at risk.
Tenant advocates also got carve-outs, which they say will help prevent displacement of low-income families. Developers can’t use SB 79 to advance a project that would demolish more than two rent-controlled apartments, which would prevent most multifamily buildings built before 2014 from being redeveloped through the law.
Through 2031, cities will also be able to exempt certain areas defined as “low-resource” by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. That could exempt much of the areas around BART stations in Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward from SB 79, if those cities act.
Local government officials, who long have been worried about losing local control over zoning decisions, will retain some authority under the amended bill, too. To get out of SB 79, cities can draft alternative zoning plans within transit areas by 2026, but must preserve at least half the mandated density stipulated by the law.
Developers who do use SB 79 will have to meet certain affordability standards as well. Projects with 10 or more units must set aside between 7% and 13% of them for low-income households. Projects on land owned by transit agencies face even stricter mandates of 25%. For projects over 85 feet high, they’ll have to use union labor, per an amendment negotiated in by the State Building and Construction Trades.
“The bill has undergone changes that limits where it applies,” said Jordan Grimes, a housing policy advocate with the Greenbelt Alliance, which sponsored the bill. “But this is still a monumental bill that will have significant impacts across California.”
California has made an effort to chip away at strict regulations around housing in recent years as it seeks to boost supply amid a housing shortage that has led to skyrocketing rent and housing costs. While lawmakers have passed a series of reforms in recent years, many have been diluted in negotiations as Democrats who control the legislature worked to satisfy competing constituencies.
Related Articles
For 27% of California tenants, rent is more than half their income
Opinion: Local control over housing has pushed Californians to other states
California home values drop $106 billion to $10.8 trillion
36% of California homebuyers were investors in 2025’s first half
Pro-housing nonprofits file amicus brief in support of developers in Los Gatos
Zoning has been among the most divisive issues. The split often runs not along party lines but geography, with urban legislators favoring state mandates to spur development and suburban representatives fighting to preserve local control.
That divide was evident in the final vote on SB 79. The measure passed 43-19 in the Assembly and 21-8 in the Senate. Several Bay Area Democrats withheld support, including Assembly members Diane Papan of San Mateo, Liz Ortega of Hayward and Josh Becker of Menlo Park. Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, whose Contra Costa County district was carved out of the bill, also voted no. Republicans in the Legislature were split, with a handful voting for the bill.
Housing advocates say that such amendments were necessary to get the votes for the bill.
“The fact that we could pass this bill at all is just a massive step forward for the state,” said Jeremy Levine, executive director of the pro-housing group Palo Alto Forward. “It will provide a blueprint for what works, and hopefully we’ll be able to build on that foundation in future legislative sessions.”
