State Senate Bill SB79 (the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act) was signed by the governor on October 10, 2025, and goes into effect on July 1, 2026. It increases height and density limits, overriding local zoning, in order to facilitate large scale housing developments near transit.
However, recognizing that recent new housing laws may in some cases have had undesirable consequences, SB-79 provides for certain temporary exclusions. This pause will allow cities to do a detailed analysis and develop an Alternative Plan. The Alternative Plan will review potential effects parcel by parcel.
The temporary exclusion will allow more tailored density and height requirements based on local land use conditions, such as fire safety, historic districts, street width, public utilities, and still meet the overall requirements of the law. The City planners are using the phrase “fine-grained” to describe their zoning approach. It would allow for robust public input. They are aiming for completion by Spring 2027, as work as already started as part of the on-going General Plan revisions.
Oakland has identified 48 transit-oriented areas in Oakland that are eligible to be temporarily excluded from SB-79. Three of those areas are in North Oakland and include the areas around MacArthur BART, Oakland sites near the Ashby BART and the full length of College Avenue including some sites on Broadway Terrace.
Council Amendment Removes North Oakland from the Pause
Councilmember Zac Unger, who represents District 1, including Rockridge, introduced an amendment that would allow the SB-79 temporary exclusion to go into effect in the 48 transit-oriented districts, EXCEPT FOR THE THREE IN NORTH OAKLAND.
Unger proposed to allow SB-79 to go into effect on July 1 in these three areas without giving Planning Staff time to do the careful site by site analysis.
There are rumors that a developer will be proposing a massive senior residence on the Trader Joe’s site, including both front and back parking lots, in the first quarter of ’27. If that is true, all the more reason for Unger to support the staff’s proposal to allow time for creating an Alternative Plan. The result of Unger’s amendment is that 95 feet, nine to ten stories, will become the new height limit on College Avenue, effective July 1.
[Response from Councilmember Unger: Senior housing already receives density bonuses under state law, unconnected to SB79. My amendment does not do anything to make the development of senior housing at the TJ's site any more or less likely.]
Unger has responded to letters from concerned Rockridge resident noting that he had heard the rumors but was unaware of any specific proposal. He asserts that holding back development on College Avenue, even for a temporary pause, would push it into neighborhoods. But where are the large sites in Rockridge neighborhoods that could accommodate massive development? Land is so expensive that assembling enough lots to build would be prohibitively expensive, as well as unlikely.
City staff explained to the City Council that during the exclusion period somebody could come up with a large project pre-application, using SB 79 increased heights and densities, and get it vested. The city would not be able to do anything about it subsequently, even if it later passed an Alternative Plan.
On March 3 the City Council approved Unger’s amendment to the Planning Department’s proposal. Any proposed development on College Avenue could obtain irreversible vesting rights, and be built regardless of what the city and area residents might prefer under an Alternative Plan.
Council Member Unger's last newsletter to his district contained no mention of this important issue. Consequently, there was minimal public participation. Hardly anyone in Rockridge knew this item was going to the council.
The Alternative Plan would have encouraged public participation.
SB-79 is so complicated and so sweeping that cities are unsure about how to implement it. According to Politico (February 10, 2026) “State Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of Senate Bill 79, has not ruled out postponing the July 1 implementation date for the new law because of widespread confusion over what it requires.”
