Suburban life is core to the American identity. Miles of manicured lawns have become our amber waves of grain. Through exclusionary zoning practices, Californians have been funneled into this singular mode of living. All hope is not yet lost, though. With increasing pressure on policymakers in Sacramento, legislation is currently being drafted to reverse decades of precedent. SB 79 has just passed through the California legislature with the goal of eliminating single-family zoning ordinances in many of the state’s urban centers. However, opposition from suburbanites and their legislators has reined the bill in.
In California, residential land use is dictated by local governments. An individual or local board tasked with zoning ordinances determines if land can be used for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes, as well the appropriate density. Residential zoning uses fall into a complex tiered system that can be simplified into a few categories: single-family, two-family, and multi-family. Historically, these zoning policies have been used as a tool to raise property values and further racial segregation. For both of those goals, single-family zoning was the weapon of choice. By only allowing single-family homes, the supply of housing is artificially constrained, raising the price of homes and serving homeowners’ desire to use their home not primarily as a residence, but as an investment. These same mechanisms were often exploited to keep minorities out of white communities. By allowing dense housing in inner cities and constraining the supply elsewhere, zoning policy effectively segregated financially disadvantaged, non-white residents to the inner cities.
Decades of single-family dominance in zoning policy have led to the housing supply crisis of today. Not only are the consequences of exclusionary zoning still present, but the policies are still in place. The vast majority of residential land in our largest cities is zoned exclusively for single-family residences: 74% in Los Angeles, 81% in San Diego, and 85% in the Bay Area. These rates are similar across the state. Cities in California, on average, require 77.82% of their residential land be zoned for single-family use.
To ease the strain on urban housing markets, State Sen. Scott Weiner of California’s 11th District authored SB 79. This bill would supersede local zoning ordinances on land parcels within a half mile of a “transit-oriented development stop” (TOD stop). These are stops serviced by heavy rail, high-frequency commuter rail, light rail, or bus rapid transit. The bill dictates the maximum height and density of a project based on the distance from a TOD stop and the type of transit provided.
SB 79 defines project standards | Image Source: CA State Legislature
Parcels adjacent to high-quality transit stops, like the North Berkeley BART station, may be allowed at least 160 units per acre. Alternatively, parcels over a quarter-mile from lower-quality transit are allowed only 30 units per acre. The bill also allows transit agencies to develop land that they own, opening a new revenue stream for burdened agencies. For residents near TOD stops, this could mean a dramatic shift in the available housing supply. Single-family properties and duplexes can be replaced with denser developments of up to nine stories.
This bill has not arrived on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk unscathed. Due to amendments, SB 79’s scope has been drawn in dramatically. On May 13, 2025, SB 79 was amended to exclude most types of transit and nearly every county. Prior to this, SB 79 applied to any “major transit stop” as defined in Public Resources Code § 21155. This was generous, including every bus rapid transit station or passenger rail, ferry terminal served by bus or rail, and high-quality bus route. However, “major transit stop” was amended to a new, less inclusive term, the TOD. At the same time, the “urban transit county” was born. This amendment originally edited the law to include only counties with 15 or more rail transit stations. This was already a high bar for entry, but the minimum was increased two weeks later by one to specifically exclude Contra Costa Country.
These amendments destroyed the potential for this bill to bring thousands of housing units to cities across the state, with only eight of the 58 counties qualifying. This bill could have brought housing relief to cities from Richmond to Antioch, but the 15 passenger rail stations in Contra Costa county are not enough. A possible culprit for this amendment is continued opposition from groups like the League of California Cities. The League advocates for the autonomy of local governments and has cited state overreach when opposing SB 79. This desire for home rule is not limited to the League. On March 28, 2025, the Los Angeles City Council resolved to oppose SB 79 on similar grounds.
A case study for upzoning in the Bay Area is the block between Eola and Sacramento streets, adjacent to the North Berkeley BART station. Under the current zoning code, these 18 parcels are zoned for two-family housing, 36 units altogether. Taking into account the 1.77 acre block, the density is only 20 units per acre. The new zoning rules under SB 79 raise the total to 212 units, a nearly six-fold increase.
The land between Eola and Sacramento streets is zoned for two-family (R-2) residences | Image Source: City of Berkeley
In 2020, Berkeley had a population of 122,580 people competing for only 51,523 units. The city found that from 2000 to 2020, housing inventory only grew by 9.9%. Meanwhile, from 2000 to 2010, the population grew by 9.6%. Berkeley is indicative of the slow response to the housing crisis, building to keep up with growth rather than getting ahead of it.
SB 79 is a dramatic shift in the tenor of the housing debate in California. Until now, housing legislation has focused on making it easier to build what is already permitted with occasional zoning exemptions. SB 79 will fundamentally change the urban fabric. By compelling cities to build more housing where it is needed most – along transit corridors – Californians will be able to stay in the places they call home without fear of being priced out.
Featured Image Source: Dan Brekke
