From starter homes to parking reform, MAP’s model legislation toolkit gives legislators and advocates everything they need to act.
Transit-Oriented Development
Build More Homes Near Transit Act
This bill makes it legal to build multi-family homes near major bus and rail stops, and includes streamlined approval processes with clear, objective rules.
Transit-Oriented Development
About the bill
"This kind of smart development around transit hubs is not only going to get us the units we need, but it's going to provide denser, more walkable neighborhoods that reduce pollution and help residents stay healthy."
— Representative Julia Reed (D-Washington), Washington House Democrats, April 2025
What this bill does
This bill legalizes multifamily housing within a half-mile of major transit stops. It sets clear height and density minimums, removes parking mandates, and provides streamlined, ministerial approvals for projects that meet objective standards.
Why it's needed
Many localities prohibit more than one home per residential lot on most of the land within their jurisdiction. These housing bans include land within one-half mile of major public transit stations. On top of that, local jurisdictions impose parking mandates that both drive up the cost of housing and remove valuable land from more productive uses, like homes and businesses.
Public transit systems are funded by tax dollars and paid for by all of the residents of a jurisdiction and state. Overly restrictive zoning near transit stations lets these important and expensive public assets go to waste by capping how many people can use them. Most regular transit users live close to the transit systems they use – if transit isn’t close to where people live, they are much less likely to use it. The de facto bans on more homes near transit stops act as a barrier to a reliable transportation system, resulting in lower transit ridership and less fares into the system, and more people stuck in traffic than would be present if more residents could easily access transit.
The first step to accessing affordable transportation is proximity to transit. Allowing more homes near existing transit means our existing transit investments can give more people access to affordable options, without increasing taxes to pay for new transit. Housing and transportation are the two biggest household expenses; combined, they add up to over 40% of typical household expenses, and for lower-income families, can reach as high as 50 to 60%. Families who live near frequent transit can lower their combined transportation and housing costs since they can use public transportation.
Frequently asked questions
What does this bill actually do?
This bill makes it legal to build apartments near major bus and rail stops, and ensures those projects get approved quickly.
- Homes near transit are an allowed use. Any multifamily housing project within a half-mile of a qualifying transit stop can be built by-right, without a rezoning, public hearing, or discretionary review.
- Approvals are automatic. Projects that meet the rules get approved through a simple, over-the-counter process. Local jurisdictions must complete their review within set deadlines and cannot issue repeated incompleteness notices to slow projects down.
- Clear height and density minimums. Near major rail and high-frequency transit stops, local jurisdictions must allow buildings of at least 75 feet and a floor area ratio of 3.5. Near high-frequency bus stops, the minimums are 55 feet and a floor area ratio of 2.5.
- No parking mandates. Local jurisdictions cannot mandate off-street parking for qualifying projects near transit.
- No bedroom caps or family restrictions. Local jurisdictions cannot limit the number of bedrooms or restrict who can live in transit-area housing, ensuring families with children are not excluded.
- Local flexibility within limits. Local jurisdictions can adopt their own transit-area zoning plans, but only if those plans provide equal or greater development capacity than the state minimums. If a city fails to comply, state standards apply automatically.
- Transparency and accountability. The state must publish maps of qualifying transit stops, track which local jurisdictions are in compliance, and make all certification materials publicly available.
Who benefits from this bill?
Renters and first-time buyers who can’t afford to live close to jobs and transit. Workers who spend hours commuting because housing near their workplace is too expensive.Only 4% of lower-wage workers are employed in areas where affordable housing supply meets demand, compared to 58% of medium-wage workers. Employers who can’t find or keep workers because housing near their jobs is unaffordable. Almost two-thirds of employers in one regional survey cited housing costs as a major barrier to hiring.
Seniors and people with disabilities who depend on transit and need housing nearby. Transit agencies, whose ridership and fare revenue grows when more people live within walking distance of stops. Taxpayers, who have already invested billions in transit infrastructure: Urban Institute research found that cities that zone for more housing near transit build more housing, get more out of their public investment in transit. Businesses, who can grow more sustainably, thanks to increased access to a wider and more robust pool of talent and customers with access to public transportation. Access to transit remains a major deciding figure for where companies choose to operate. Amazon chose Arlington, Virginia, as the new site for its second headquarters in part thanks to its proximity to the workforce connected by transit.
Which states would benefit most from a transit-oriented development bill?
Any state where transit infrastructure outpaces the zoning around it. A 2024 Lincoln Institute analysis found more than 276,000 acres of publicly owned, transit-accessible urban land across the U.S. could be redeveloped for housing, most of it sitting underused. States with major commuter rail networks, growing bus rapid transit systems, or significant federal transit investments that haven’t updated their zoning to match are leaving that investment on the table. In practice, that’s most of the country.
The Legislation
Full model legislation text
Clean version
Annotated
Section 1. Title.
(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Build More Homes Near Transit Act.”
Establishes the title of the legislation as the “Build More Homes Near Transit Act.”
Section 2. Purpose and Legislative Intent.
(a) The purpose of this Act is to lower household housing costs via increased housing supply, lower housing transportation costs through fostering neighborhoods with greater transportation options, and increase the efficiency of the transportation network to reduce overall infrastructure costs by requiring Local Authorities to allow additional multifamily housing near qualifying transit stops and within qualifying transit zones.
(b) This Act is intended to ensure that land near major public transportation investments is planned and zoned to support substantial housing growth through a combination of:
(1) direct statewide project-level entitlement and ministerial approval standards for qualifying transit-oriented housing developments; and
(2) local planning, mapping, reporting, and certification obligations.
(c) This Act shall apply as a matter of statewide concern.
This section explains why transit-oriented housing is a statewide concern. California SB 79 finds that building homes near transit can reduce combined housing and transportation costs, promote economic growth and environmental sustainability, and support transit systems through increased ridership. Colorado HB 24-1313 similarly identifies the effects of transit-area housing policy on housing access, commute distances, infrastructure costs, transit ridership, air pollution, and state transportation investments.
The model combines three different approaches. California SB 79 gives qualifying projects direct development rights near transit. Washington HB 1491 requires local zoning to provide substantial station-area development capacity and creates a state fallback ordinance. Colorado HB 24-1313 relies on local capacity planning, state mapping, reporting, and certification. This Act uses all three so that project approval does not depend entirely on whether a Local Authority completes its planning obligations.
Section 3. Definitions.
For purposes of this Act:
(a) “Adjacent” means within two hundred (200) feet of any Pedestrian Access Point to a Transit-Oriented Development Stop.
(b) “Application” means the first local project-level land use or development application required to obtain ministerial entitlement for a qualifying transit-oriented housing development under applicable state or local law, whether denominated as a site plan, development permit, zoning clearance, ministerial housing application, preliminary plan, or similar application.
(c) “Bus Rapid Transit” means a fixed-route bus transit service, including any bus rapid transit system described in 49 U.S.C. § 5302(3), that operates in dedicated rights-of-way or dedicated bus lanes and provides defined stations and other features identified by state rule.
(d) “Commercial Development” means a use or structure lawfully devoted to retail, office, service, or other nonresidential activity permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance.
(e) “Default State TOD Ordinance” means the zoning and development standards established by the state under this Act that apply in a local jurisdiction that has not adopted a compliant ordinance.
(f) “Family-Suitable Housing” means housing that is without age restrictions and that may include dwelling units with two (2) or more bedrooms, and that is not subject to local bedroom caps, occupancy restrictions, or other requirements that would effectively exclude households with children.
(g) “Fixed Guideway Transit” means public transportation operating on a fixed guideway, including rail, aerial tramways, gondolas, Light Rail Transit, a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of public transportation, a fixed catenary system, a passenger ferry system, or a bus rapid transit system, consistent with 49 U.S.C. § 5302(8).
(h) “Feasible and Likely-to-Develop Sites” means privately developable sites that, based on size, configuration, ownership pattern, existing improvements, and other objective factors identified by state rule, present a realistic opportunity for development during the applicable planning period.
(i) “Generally Applicable” means a requirement of general applicability that is not tailored to, triggered by, or imposed uniquely on transit-oriented housing development, and that is generally applicable to:
(1) applicable to all residential development in the same zone;
(2) applicable to all ministerial residential permits in the jurisdiction; or
(3) applied uniformly to all new residential construction of a similar building type.
A requirement shall not be considered Generally Applicable if it was adopted or materially amended after a year before the effective date of this Act for the purpose or effect of reducing development capacity or feasible development potential in Transit-Oriented Development Zones.
(j) “Local TOD Zoning Scheme” means a locally adopted transit-oriented development alternative plan, zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, zoning incentive ordinance, or other land use framework that applies within Transit-Oriented Development Zones and that has been certified by the state agency as compliant with Section 9(c).
(k) “Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development” means a Multifamily Housing or Mixed-Use Development project proposed on a Project Site within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone that satisfies this Act and any Objective Standards that may lawfully be applied under this Act or under a certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme.
(l) “Urban Rail Transit” means electric railway service operating on a majority exclusive guideway with high-capacity passenger service and grade-separated operation for most of the route.
(m) “High-Capacity Transit” means Urban Rail Transit, Light Rail Transit, commuter rail as defined in 49 USC § 24102(3), rail fixed-guideway transit, Bus Rapid Transit, or any equivalent transit mode designated by state rule.
(n) “High-Frequency Bus Service” means a public mass transit service operating a route comprised of at least 50% full-time dedicated bus lanes or a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a designed frequency of service interval of fifteen (15) minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
(o) “High-Frequency Passenger Railroad” means commuter rail service that, as of the effective date of this Act or at any time during the year preceding the effective date of this Act, is scheduled to operate at least once per hour, on average, during the morning peak period from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the afternoon peak period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(p) “Local Authority” means a city, county, city and county, or other local jurisdiction, including a charter city or charter county, with authority to adopt or enforce land use, zoning, subdivision, design, or development standards or to approve applications under this Act.
(q) “Light Rail Transit” means electric rail transit service operating on Fixed Guideway Transit, whether grade-separated, in street-running segments, or in a combination thereof.
(r) “Major Transit Stop” means a stop served by High-Capacity Transit, including a stop under construction.
(s) “Mixed-Use Development” means a development containing a residential use together with one or more nonresidential uses. As well as a development containing a combination of office and retail uses.
(t) “Multifamily Housing” means a residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units, whether rental or owner-occupied. (WA HB 1491; MA MBTA § 3A)
(u) “Non-Codified Departmental Policy” means any unpublished or nonbinding policy, memorandum, staff practice, checklist, bulletin, interpretive guidance, or other requirement that is not expressly incorporated into an adopted ordinance, adopted rule, adopted code, or Objective Standard”
(v) “Objective Standard” means a zoning, subdivision, design, parking, infrastructure, or development standard that:
(1) is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion; and
(2) does not depend on personal or subjective judgment by a public official.
(w) “Pedestrian Access Point” means:
(1) for a rail, Fixed Guideway Transit, Bus Rapid Transit, or ferry stop, any entrance, boarding platform access point, or equivalent public boarding access point; and
(2) for a qualifying bus stop, the mapped location of the stop or other pedestrian boarding access point identified by the state or relevant transit operator.
(x) “Planned Transit-Oriented Development Stop” means a stop identified in a federally or state-mandated transportation improvement program, or a preferred alternative stop identified in an adopted environmental review document, locally preferred alternative, or similar implementing document recognized by the state agency.
(y) “Project Site” means the parcel or parcels, lot or lots, or other area of land included in an application for a proposed development project, including contiguous parcels and parcels separated only by a public street, alley, easement, or other right-of-way, that are proposed to be developed as part of a single integrated project, whether in one phase or multiple phases.
(z) “Tier 1 TOD Stop” means an existing or Planned Transit-Oriented Development Stop that is served by Urban Rail Transit, Light Rail Transit, or Very High-Frequency Passenger Railroad.
(aa) “Tier 2 TOD Stop” means an existing or Planned Transit-Oriented Development Stop, excluding a Tier 1 TOD Stop, that is served by High-Frequency Passenger Railroad or High-Frequency Bus Service.
(bb) “Transit-Oriented Community” means a Local Authority containing one or more TOD Stops or TOD Zones identified pursuant to this Act and subject to the planning, zoning, and certification requirements of this Act.
(cc) “Transit-Oriented Development Stop” or “TOD Stop” means a Major Transit Stop, including a Planned Transit-Oriented Development Stop, that qualifies as a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop under this Act.
(dd) “Transit-Oriented Development Zone” or “TOD Zone” means the area within one-half (1/2) mile of a TOD Stop.
(ee) “Very High-Frequency Passenger Railroad” means passenger rail service that, as of the effective date of this Act or at any time during the year preceding the effective date of this Act, is scheduled to operate at least once per hour, on average, from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding temporary service changes lasting less than one month and unplanned service disruptions.
This section defines the transit services, project types, geographic areas, and regulatory standards covered by the Act. Many of its core concepts follow California SB 79, including the half-mile TOD Zone, the 200-foot definition of “Adjacent,” planned transit stops, pedestrian access points, transit tiers, and straight-line distance measurement.
The model modifies California’s transit tiers. Under SB 79, heavy rail and very high-frequency commuter rail are Tier 1, while light rail, high-frequency commuter rail, and qualifying bus service are Tier 2. This model places light rail in Tier 1 and uses service-frequency definitions designed to include both all-day passenger rail and commuter systems that provide strong peak-period service. That choice allows more rail stations to qualify for the Act’s higher development standards.
The definition of “Feasible and Likely-to-Develop Sites” supports the local-adjustment process in §9. Colorado HB 24-1313 requires communities to calculate realistic zoning capacity after accounting for dimensional standards, parking requirements, and other restrictions. California SB 79 similarly requires an alternative plan to preserve equal feasible developable housing capacity. This model makes that principle more explicit by excluding sites that provide theoretical capacity but have little realistic opportunity for development.
The “Default State TOD Ordinance” follows Washington HB 1491, which requires the Department of Commerce to prepare a model ordinance that supersedes conflicting local regulations when a city misses its implementation deadline. The “Family-Suitable Housing” definition follows Massachusetts §3A, which requires transit-area multifamily housing to be free from age restrictions and suitable for families with children.
The definitions of “Generally Applicable,” “Non-Codified Departmental Policy,” and “Objective Standard” are broader model safeguards. They prevent a Local Authority from imposing informal staff practices, unpublished requirements, or standards written specifically for TOD projects as an additional layer of review.
Section 4. Applicability.
(a) This Act shall apply to all Transit-Oriented Communities.
(b) A Local Authority that is not otherwise a Transit-Oriented Community may elect to be governed by this Act.
(c) This Act shall apply to all land within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone that is zoned for residential, office, retail, or mixed-use development, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
(d) A Local Authority shall not rezone, redesignate, or apply an overlay, district, or other land use classification to land within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone in a manner that reduces eligibility or development capacity below what this Act would otherwise require, unless and until the state agency certifies a compliant Local TOD Zoning Scheme pursuant to Section 9(c). Any such action taken within five years before the date of enactment of this Act, or at any time thereafter, is void and unenforceable to the extent that it conflicts with this Act.
This section determines where the Act applies. Like California SB 79, it covers land near qualifying transit that is already zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed use. This model expressly includes office and retail zoning and allows Local Authorities without a qualifying TOD Stop to opt into the Act voluntarily.
The final paragraph prevents a Local Authority from avoiding the Act by downzoning land, changing its designation, or creating a restrictive overlay. California SB 79 permits local alternatives only when they preserve equivalent housing and floor-area capacity, while Colorado HB 24-1313 requires covered communities to retain enough effective capacity to satisfy their housing opportunity goals.
The five-year lookback is a stronger model-policy choice. It invalidates a recent zoning change to the extent it was used to reduce the eligibility or capacity that the Act would otherwise provide. Neither California nor Colorado uses the same general five-year rule.
Section 5. State Mapping and TOD Designation.
(a) Within [180 days] of the effective date of this Act, the state [housing / transportation / planning agency], in consultation with metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies, shall prepare and publish official maps identifying TOD Stops and TOD Zones by tier.
(b) The official maps prepared pursuant to this Section shall carry a rebuttable presumption of validity for purposes of project eligibility under this Act.
(c) The state [agency] shall periodically update the official maps to reflect newly qualifying transit stops, routes, stations, or corridors.
(d) The state [agency] may adopt technical mapping guidance, including treatment of Planned Transit-Oriented Development Stops, Pedestrian Access Points, and route classifications, consistent with this Act.
(e) Until an official map is prepared or updated, an applicant may establish that a Project Site is within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone or near a qualifying TOD Stop through schedules, General Transit Feed Specification data, transportation improvement programs, official transit maps, adopted environmental review documents, or other public records specified by state rule. A Local Authority shall accept such evidence unless it demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the submitted material does not establish eligibility under this Act.
This section gives the state responsibility for identifying TOD Stops and TOD Zones. Colorado HB 24-1313 directs its state housing department to prepare the transit-area maps used to calculate local housing obligations. California SB 79 requires metropolitan planning organizations to map TOD stops and zones by tier and gives those maps a rebuttable presumption of validity. This model places primary mapping responsibility at the state level while adopting California’s presumption that the official maps are legally valid unless rebutted.
The applicant-evidence provision is an additional safeguard. Until the state finishes or updates its maps, applicants may establish eligibility through transit schedules, GTFS data, transportation improvement programs, official maps, environmental documents, and other public records. This prevents a delayed map from postponing the development rights created by the Act.
Section 6. Transit-Oriented Housing as an Allowed Use and Ministerial Approval.
(a) Notwithstanding any local ordinance, policy, standard, or regulation to the contrary, Multifamily Housing shall be an allowed use on any Project Site within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone that otherwise satisfies the requirements of this Act and is zoned for residential, office, retail, or mixed-use development.
(b) A Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development shall be approved ministerially or through an administrative approval process and shall not require a rezoning, conditional use permit, special permit, discretionary design review, variance, or any other form of discretionary land use approval.
(c) A Local Authority shall not apply any local law, ordinance, policy, standard, or practice that would prohibit, materially reduce, or unreasonably delay a qualifying transit-oriented housing development authorized by this Act.
(d) A Local Authority may apply Objective Standards to a qualifying development only to the extent those standards are Generally Applicable and do not conflict with this Act.
(e) Nothing in this Act requires compliance with a Non-Codified Departmental Policy.
(f) A Local Authority shall determine whether an application for a Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development is complete within twenty (20) days of submission and, if incomplete, shall provide a single written notice identifying all missing items and the Objective Standards, adopted code provisions, or other lawfully applicable requirements that require each item.
(g) A Local Authority shall not issue subsequent incompleteness notices for items that could have been identified in the initial notice, except for items made necessary by a material change in the application or a change in adopted law.
(h) A Local Authority shall approve or deny a completed application for a Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development within thirty [ 30 ] days after the application is deemed complete. If the Local Authority fails to approve or deny a completed application within that time, the application shall be deemed approved.
(i) If a Local Authority denies an application, it shall concurrently provide a written determination identifying the specific Objective Standards or adopted code provisions that are not met, the specific facts in the record supporting that determination, and the changes necessary to bring the application into compliance.
This section creates the Act’s direct project-level entitlement. Multifamily Housing becomes an allowed use on qualifying residential, office, retail, and mixed-use sites without a rezoning, special permit, variance, discretionary design review, or other discretionary land use approval.
California SB 79 makes qualifying transit-oriented housing an allowed use and makes eligible projects available for streamlined ministerial approval. Massachusetts §3A requires multifamily housing to be permitted as of right in qualifying districts. Washington HB 1491 prohibits cities from excluding multifamily housing from station-area lots where another residential use is permitted. This model combines those principles and applies them through a single statewide entitlement.
The 20-day completeness determination, single incompleteness notice, 30-day final decision, and deemed-approval remedy are model-policy choices. They are intended to prevent repeated requests for information or administrative delay from defeating an otherwise ministerial entitlement. A denial must identify the precise standards that are not satisfied, the supporting facts, and the changes necessary for approval.
Section 7. Local Standards, Objective Standards, and Anti-Preclusion.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or apply any Objective Standard upon a Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development if the standard, alone or in combination with other standards, would physically or financially preclude the project from achieving the minimum density, floor area ratio, height, or housing type authorized by this Act or by a certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme adopted pursuant to Section 9(c).
(b) A Local Authority shall not require special design features, unusual amenities, special site features, special sustainability certifications, or similar conditions that are not Generally Applicable or materially impair feasibility, cost, or timely ministerial approval.
(c) A Local Authority shall not require off-site improvements, special infrastructure upgrades, unusual frontage improvements, or other external improvements for a Qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development unless the same type of requirement is Generally Applicable, objective, and roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed development.
(d) Nothing in this subsection prohibits a fee, exaction, or infrastructure requirement expressly authorized by other state law and imposed on a Generally Applicable and roughly proportionate basis, or a voluntary development agreement entered into by the applicant. A Local Authority shall not require a development agreement as a condition of ministerial approval under this Act.
(e) A Local Authority shall not impose loading berths, bicycle parking requirements, transportation demand management requirements, drop-off zones, circulation standards, frontage standards, or similar requirements in a manner that functions as a de facto parking minimum or otherwise prevents a qualifying transit-oriented housing development from achieving the floor area ratio, height, or housing type authorized by this Act or by a certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme adopted pursuant to Section 9(c).
(f) A Local Authority shall not deny or condition a qualifying Transit-Oriented Housing Development on the basis that:
(1) the project could comply if it were shorter, smaller, had fewer units, had fewer bedrooms, had a different mix of units, or used a different housing type;
(2) the applicant could redesign the project to avoid a standard that would otherwise prevent the project from achieving the floor area ratio, height, or housing type authorized by this Act or by a certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme adopted pursuant to Section 9(c).
(g) The burden of proof shall be on the Local Authority to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that:
(1) a denial or condition is required because the project fails to meet an Objective Standard that may lawfully be applied under this Act; or
(2) the Project Site is not within a qualifying Transit-Oriented Development Zone, is not near a qualifying TOD Stop, or is otherwise not entitled to approval under this Act.
This section prevents local development standards from making the state entitlement unusable. California SB 79 prohibits a local standard, alone or in combination with other standards, from physically precluding the height, density, or floor area ratio established by state law. This model follows that approach and adds financial preclusion, recognizing that a project can be authorized on paper but made impracticable through cumulative design, infrastructure, or site requirements.
Local Authorities may still apply lawful, objective, and generally applicable standards. They may also impose proportionate infrastructure requirements and fees authorized under other state law. What they may not do is impose special amenities, unusual design features, excessive off-site improvements, or requirements written specifically for TOD projects.
The section also prevents loading, bicycle parking, transportation-demand-management, drop-off, frontage, and circulation requirements from operating as disguised parking mandates or capacity limits. An applicant does not lose the protection of the Act merely because a shorter project, a project with fewer units, or another design could comply with the local standard. The Local Authority bears the burden of establishing a lawful basis for denial or a condition of approval.
Section 8. Distance and Measurement Rules.
(a) A Project Site shall qualify under this Act if it is located within one-half (1/2) mile of a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop.
(b) For purposes of this Act, distance shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to a Pedestrian Access Point for the TOD Stop.
(c) A site that is Adjacent to a TOD Stop shall be treated as within the Transit-Oriented Development Zone for all purposes of this Act.
This section establishes a uniform statewide measurement rule. A site qualifies if it is within one-half mile of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 stop, measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the project parcel to a pedestrian access point.
The parcel-edge and straight-line rules follow California SB 79. California also defines “Adjacent” as within 200 feet of a pedestrian access point. Using a fixed rule avoids local disagreement over parcel centroids, driving routes, station platforms, or the particular walking path chosen by a reviewer.
Section 9. Development Standards by Tier and Capacity-Equivalent Local Adjustment.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a Local Authority shall allow on each qualifying Project Site within the Transit-Oriented Development Zone of a Tier 1 TOD Stop:
(1) Multifamily Housing as an allowed use;
(2) a permitted residential floor area ratio of at least three and one-half (3.5);
(3) a permitted residential building height of at least seventy-five (75) feet; and
(4) a permitted residential density of at least one hundred twenty (120) dwelling units per acre.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a Local Authority shall allow on each qualifying Project Site within the Transit-Oriented Development Zone of a Tier 2 TOD Stop:
(1) Multifamily Housing as an allowed use;
(2) a permitted residential floor area ratio of at least two and one-half (2.5);
(3) a permitted residential building height of at least fifty-five (55) feet; and
(4) a permitted residential density of at least eighty (80) dwelling units per acre.
(c) A Local Authority may adopt, and the state agency may certify, a local TOD zoning scheme that adjusts the standards required by subdivisions (a) and (b) upward in some locations and downward in others, if the Local Authority demonstrates that the scheme:
(1) applies only within Transit-Oriented Development Zones or encompasses an area including the Transit-Oriented Development Zone and additional land accessible to the Transit-Oriented Development Stop;
(2) continues to allow Multifamily Housing as an allowed use throughout Transit-Oriented Development Zones;
(3) provides, on Feasible and Likely-to-Develop Sites, aggregate zoning capacity and feasible development potential equal to or greater than the capacity and development potential that would result from direct application of the standards in subdivisions (a) and (b);
(4) provides realistic, geographically distributed feasible development potential across Transit-Oriented Development Zones and does not satisfy the capacity requirement by concentrating excess capacity on publicly owned sites, sites constrained by permanent easements or public facilities, irregular parcels, or other sites that do not present a realistic opportunity for development, or by otherwise limiting practical access to transit-rich areas to only a small subset of parcels; and
(5) does not reduce standards on a parcel-specific or area-specific basis in a way that defeats the practical effect of the statewide minimum standards across the Transit-Oriented Development Zone.
(6) does not reduce the maximum allowed density or residential floor area ratio for any individual site counted toward compliance by more than fifty percent (50%) below the standards otherwise required by this Act;
(7) does not reduce the capacity in any Transit-Oriented Development Zone in total units or residential floor area by more than fifty percent (50%);
(8) does not count toward compliance a site at more than two hundred percent (200%) of the maximum density otherwise established by this Act;
(9) does not count toward compliance a site at more than two hundred percent (200%) of residential floor area ratio otherwise established by this Act;
(10) does not allow any site within one-half (1/2) mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop to have density below thirty (30) dwelling units per acre with a residential floor area below 1:1, except where exclusion is otherwise expressly authorized by state law.
(d) A Local Authority may allow greater floor area ratio, height, density, or more permissive development standards than those required by this Section.
(e) A Local Authority shall not impose lot coverage, setback, open space, parking, design, or other standards in a manner that would prevent a project from achieving the minimum floor area ratio and height required by this Section or by a certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme adopted pursuant to subdivision (c).
(f)Except where adjusted through a Local TOD Zoning Scheme certified pursuant to subsection (c), the standards established in subsections (a) and (b) apply separately to each qualifying Project Site and shall not be calculated as averages across a Transit-Oriented Development Zone.
This section establishes the minimum development rights available on every qualifying Project Site. The Tier 1 standards are at least 3.5 FAR, 75 feet, and 120 dwelling units per acre. The Tier 2 standards are at least 2.5 FAR, 55 feet, and 80 dwelling units per acre.
Those numerical standards are drawn from California SB 79 and Washington HB 1491. California applies 75 feet, 120 units per acre, and 3.5 FAR within one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 stop. It applies 55 feet, 80 units per acre, and 2.5 FAR in the outer portion of a Tier 2 zone. Washington requires an average FAR of at least 3.5 in rail station areas and 2.5 in bus station areas.
This model deliberately uses a simpler and stronger structure. It applies the full Tier 1 standard throughout the half-mile Tier 1 zone rather than reducing the entitlement beyond one-quarter mile. It applies the Tier 2 baseline throughout the Tier 2 zone rather than creating separate inner and outer standards. It also makes the standards individual parcel entitlements rather than averages across the TOD Zone.
Subsection (c) preserves local flexibility. A Local Authority may place more capacity in some locations and less in others, but only through a state-certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme that provides at least equal aggregate capacity and feasible development potential.
The 50 percent site-reduction limit, 50 percent zone-capacity limit, 200 percent counting cap, and minimum Tier 2 floor of 30 dwelling units per acre and 1.0 FAR follow California SB 79’s alternative-plan safeguards. California also requires an alternative plan to preserve the same total capacity in units and residential floor area.
This model adds stronger feasibility and geographic-distribution rules. A Local Authority cannot satisfy its obligation by concentrating excessive capacity on public land, constrained parcels, irregular sites, or a small number of locations that are unlikely to develop. The local alternative must preserve practical access to housing opportunities throughout the TOD Zones, not merely produce an equivalent number in a zoning spreadsheet.
Section 10. Family-Suitable Requirement.
A Local Authority shall not impose bedroom caps, household composition restrictions, age restrictions, or other occupancy-related rules that would render new housing unsuitable for families with children, except as otherwise required by state or federal law.
This section prevents Local Authorities from limiting transit-area housing to studios, small units, age-restricted housing, or narrowly defined household types. It follows Massachusetts §3A, which requires as-of-right multifamily housing near qualifying transit to be without age restrictions and suitable for families with children.
The model makes that rule more specific by prohibiting bedroom caps, household-composition restrictions, age restrictions, and similar local rules that would exclude families. It does not require every project to contain a prescribed number of family-sized units; it prevents local regulation from making those units or households ineligible.
Section 11. Parking.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose any minimum automobile parking requirement on a qualifying transit-oriented housing development authorized by this Act.
(b) A developer may provide parking voluntarily.
(c) A Local Authority shall not require parking provided pursuant to this Section to be enclosed, covered, or structured.
(d) A Local Authority shall not require replacement parking for a qualifying transit-oriented housing development except where expressly required by state or federal law.
This section prohibits minimum automobile parking requirements for qualifying TOD projects. California AB 2097 prohibits minimum parking requirements for residential, commercial, and other development within one-half mile of public transit. Washington HB 1491 similarly prohibits off-street parking requirements for residential and mixed-use development in station areas, subject to limited exceptions.
The model is simpler than those laws. It contains no study-based local exception and expressly prohibits enclosed-parking, covered-parking, structured-parking, and replacement-parking mandates. Applicants remain free to provide parking voluntarily.
Section 12. Local Planning and Certification.
(a) Each Transit-Oriented Community shall adopt or amend its [comprehensive plan, housing element, zoning ordinance, and development regulations] as necessary to comply with this Act no later than one (1) year after publication of the official maps required by Section 5.
(b) Each Transit-Oriented Community shall submit to the state agency, on a schedule established by rule:
(1) a preliminary assessment of transit-area zoning and capacity;
(2) transit-area maps and any locally designated transit centers;
(3) a zoning-capacity and feasible development potential report;
(4) any additional materials required for certification.
(c) The state agency shall review each Local Authority’s submissions and determine whether the jurisdiction is certified as compliant with this Act.
(d) State certification shall govern local compliance status and applicability of the Default State TOD Ordinance as provided in this Act.
A certification under this Section may include certification of a capacity-equivalent local TOD zoning scheme adopted pursuant to Section 9(c).
This section requires each Transit-Oriented Community to update its plans and zoning, assess its transit-area capacity, submit maps and supporting materials, and receive a state compliance determination.
The structure follows Colorado HB 24-1313 most directly. Colorado requires covered communities to calculate a housing opportunity goal, submit transit-area and capacity reports, identify implementation strategies, and obtain state certification. California SB 79 separately provides for state review and approval of local TOD alternative plans.
This model does not allow local planning to replace the direct project rights in §§6 and 9 unless the state certifies a capacity-equivalent Local TOD Zoning Scheme. The certification process therefore measures local compliance without turning the state entitlement into a purely aspirational planning requirement.
Section 13. Application of Default State TOD Ordinance.
(a) If a Transit-Oriented Community fails to adopt a compliant ordinance by the deadline established under this Act, the Default State TOD Ordinance shall apply within all Transit-Oriented Development Zones in that jurisdiction.
(b) A transit-oriented housing development that complies with the Default State TOD Ordinance shall be approved ministerially.
(c) All building permits, site permits, utility permits, demolition permits, grading permits, and other ministerial permits or approvals necessary for construction of a transit-oriented housing development under the Default State TOD Ordinance shall be processed ministerially and without unreasonable delay, subject only to Generally Applicable building, fire, and life-safety requirements.
(d) The Default State TOD Ordinance shall remain in effect until the state agency certifies that the Local Authority has adopted a compliant ordinance.
(e) The [Department of Housing, Planning, or other suitable state entity or agency], with consultation with [the State Department of Transportation or affected transit agencies] shall promulgate and update standards for development in accordance with standards for Local Authorities set forward in Section 7 and Development standards in Section 9 (a) and Section 9(b).
This section establishes the consequence for failing to adopt a compliant local ordinance. The Default State TOD Ordinance automatically applies in every TOD Zone in the noncompliant jurisdiction and remains in effect until the state certifies local compliance.
The fallback follows Washington HB 1491. Washington requires its Department of Commerce to prepare a model TOD ordinance that supersedes, preempts, and invalidates conflicting local development regulations when a city misses its implementation deadline.
This model makes clear that the fallback must provide an actual development pathway. Qualifying projects and the related site, grading, demolition, utility, and building permits must be processed ministerially and without unreasonable delay. The state agency must also maintain and update the standards rather than publishing a one-time ordinance that may become outdated.
Section 14. Reporting and Transparency.
(a) The state agency shall publish on a publicly accessible website:
(1) official maps of TOD Stops and Transit-Oriented Development Zones;
(2) certification status of each Transit-Oriented Community;
(3) submitted reports and certification materials;
(4) certified Local TOD Zoning Schemes adopted pursuant to Section 9(c);
(5) model ordinances and guidance adopted under this Act; and
(6) any additional materials required by state rule.
(b) Each Transit-Oriented Community shall annually report to the state agency, in a form prescribed by the state agency, the number of applications received, housing units entitled, building permits issued, and certificates of occupancy issued pursuant to this Act during the prior calendar year.
(c) Each Transit-Oriented Community shall make its adopted TOD zoning, maps, planning submissions, certification materials, and any certified Local TOD Zoning Scheme publicly available.
This section makes implementation visible to applicants, residents, public officials, and the state. The state must publish official maps, local certification status, submitted compliance materials, approved Local TOD Zoning Schemes, and implementation guidance.
Colorado HB 24-1313 requires covered communities to submit recurring reports and requires the state to review their compliance. California SB 79 requires TOD maps and public identification of the sites governed by the state standards or an approved local alternative.
The annual reporting requirement goes further by tracking applications, entitled units, building permits, and certificates of occupancy. That allows the state to distinguish theoretical zoning capacity from projects that are actually approved, permitted, and completed.
Section 15. Rulemaking.
The state [housing / transportation / planning agency] may adopt rules, maps, model ordinances, technical guidance, and reporting templates necessary to implement this Act.
This section gives the state agency authority to adopt the rules, maps, model ordinances, guidance, and reporting forms needed to administer the Act. Colorado HB 24-1313, California SB 79, and Washington HB 1491 all assign state agencies an implementation role involving mapping, guidance, compliance review, or model regulations.
The authority is limited to implementing the Act. It does not permit the agency to reduce the minimum project entitlements or local capacity obligations established by the Legislature.
Section 16. Severability.
If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.
This is a standard severability clause. If a court invalidates one provision or its application in a particular circumstance, the remaining project entitlements, mapping rules, development standards, certification requirements, and fallback provisions remain in effect wherever they can operate independently.
Section 17. Effective Date.
This Act shall take effect [____ months] following enactment.
This is a standard effective-date provision. The implementation period should give the state enough time to prepare the initial maps and rules without unnecessarily delaying the direct project rights established by the Act.
[Optional Appendix A. Affordability and Incentive Options.]
Nothing in this Act shall require a mandatory affordability set-aside as a condition of receiving the base Transit-Oriented Development entitlement.
A state or local jurisdiction may adopt separate affordability incentives or programs applicable to Transit-Oriented Development Zones, including bonus intensity programs, tax abatements or exemptions, fee waivers or reductions, land assembly or public land disposition tools, infrastructure support, or other affordability strategies approved by the state agency.
A state or local jurisdiction shall not impose an affordability requirement, condition, fee, exaction, or other obligation on development within a Transit-Oriented Development Zone that has the effect of rendering development authorized by this Act infeasible or that otherwise reduces eligibility for development or allowable development capacity below the minimum standards required by this Act.
This appendix gives states the option to separate the base TOD entitlement from mandatory affordable-housing requirements. Under this approach, qualifying development receives the underlying height, density, FAR, and approval rights without first satisfying a project-level affordability set-aside.
This differs from both California SB 79 and Washington HB 1491. California SB 79 generally requires qualifying projects to include lower-income housing, while Washington HB 1491 generally requires station-area projects to provide affordable or workforce housing unless an exemption applies.
The appendix instead allows states and Local Authorities to offer affordability bonuses, tax benefits, fee reductions, public land, infrastructure support, and other incentives. Massachusetts §3A provides a useful comparison because its statutory as-of-right zoning requirement does not itself impose a project-level affordability set-aside.
A jurisdiction may still adopt a separate affordability requirement, but it may not use that requirement, a fee, or an exaction to make the development authorized by the Act infeasible or reduce its minimum capacity. That protection follows the general structure of California SB 79, which permits inclusionary requirements only where they do not prevent a project from achieving the development standards granted by state law.
Lessons from other states
Since 2021, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington have all enacted transit-oriented development laws. Approaches vary: some states set minimum density standards; others create by-right approval pathways or tie state funding to local compliance. Where laws have been clearest and most direct, results have come faster. Massachusetts required nearly 180 cities and towns to zone for multifamily housing near transit, and 60 percent were in compliance within three years, with some going further than required. Where laws gave localities more flexibility, implementation has been slower and more contested.
About a third of land near transit stops is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, and nearly half requires off-street parking, making apartments financially impossible in the places best suited for them.
Reports and further reading
- Generating Affordable and Abundant Transit-Oriented Development in Washington State, Urban Institute (2025)
- Tracking Transit-Oriented Housing Development, Urban Institute (2026)
- The Financial Feasibility of Transit-Oriented Development, Urban Institute (2025)
- Making Room for Housing Near Transit, Urban Institute
- Mandating Density Near Transit, Urban Institute
- Updates on the State of Statewide Housing Policy, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2026)
Washington — enacted 2025
Washington passed House Bill 1491 in 2025, requiring cities to allow higher-density housing near transit, with 10 to 20 percent of new homes priced for households earning up to 80 percent of area median income. It sets minimum density and permitting standards and establishes a planning grant program.
"We need to build one million more housing units to meet our current demands. This kind of smart development around transit hubs is not only going to get us the units we need but it's going to provide denser, more walkable neighborhoods that reduce pollution and help residents stay healthy." — Rep. Julia Reed, sponsor of HB 1491
- State Senate Greenlights Sweeping Transit-Oriented Housing Bill, The Urbanist (April 2025)
- Washington Takes Statewide Zoning Reform to the Next Level, Sightline Institute (May 2025)
- Next Stop for Washington Housing: More Construction Near Transit, Washington State Standard (May 2025)
- A win for transit-oriented development in Washington state A conversation with state Rep. Julia Reed and Alex Brennan of Futurewise, Volz Podcast (June 2025)
Utah — enacted 2024
Utah enacted Senate Bill 208 in 2024, creating an opt-in Tax Increment Financing program that lets municipalities and transit districts establish transit-oriented development zones. A portion of increased property tax revenue is reinvested locally in housing and transit infrastructure. Zones must be at least 10 acres, and qualifying projects must reserve at least 12 percent of units for lower-income households.
"Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones are designed to help Utah tackle its housing affordability challenges by facilitating mixed-use, multi-family, and affordable housing," — Jefferson Moss, Executive Director, Utah Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity
- Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones, Wasatch Front Regional
- HTRZ White Paper, Wasatch Front Regional Council (2024)
California — enacted 2025
California passed Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, in October 2025 after nearly a decade of attempts. Authored by Senator Scott Wiener and sponsored by California YIMBY, the bill requires cities in counties with major transit systems to allow midrise multifamily housing within a half mile of qualifying transit stops, using a tiered approach based on transit type and frequency. Local Authorities can opt out of the state's default standards by adopting their own transit-area plans, subject to state review.
"A historic step toward tackling the root cause of California's affordability crisis." — Governor Gavin Newsom, on signing SB 79
"SB 79 unwinds decades of overly restrictive land use policies that have driven housing costs to astronomical levels, forcing millions of people to move far away from jobs and transit, to face massive commutes, or to leave California entirely." — Senator Scott Wiener, Author of SB 79
News coverage
- SB 79 Explained: More Homes Near Transit, California YIMBY
- Governor Newsom Signs SB 79, Unlocking Higher Residential Density Near Transit, Holland & Knight (October 2025)
- SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development, California Department of Housing and Community Development
Issue tags
Related model legislation
More model legislation