Nine stories anywhere in the state near a bus stop seems abit much, most small towns don't have anything over 2 or 3 stories(nor do they have a housing shortage).

CA lawmakers seem to pass laws focused on cities, and ignore the fact that maybe this isn't such a good idea in smaller towns & rural areas.

I don't think we're going to see much of that:

* The projects won't be profitable in smaller towns, because rents aren't high enough to recoup the cost.

* Tall buildings cost MORE per square foot than short buildings, so tall buildings only get built where land costs are very high.

* This law's top density (7-8 floors I think?) only applies in a narrow window (0.25 to 0.5 miles) around major transit stops with LOTS of service, like < 15 minute bus intervals with dedicated BRT lanes, or trains with > 48 arrivals per day each way. Small towns don't have that kind of infrastructure.

* The law only applies in cities with > 35,000 people.

No one is going to build a 9 story building in a small town or rural area, it wouldn’t make any economic sense. Only places where land is valuable and scarce are economically viable for a 9 story building.

9 stories buildings are only for areas with heavy rail.

It's a lower limit for bus stops, and my understanding is that bus stations only count if they have dedicated bus lanes, <15 minute headways, and meet some other requirements. I've never seen dedicated bus lanes in a rural area (which are basically exempt for the law for other reasons) and you're lucky if your headways are under an hour lol

I don't believe it applies in any smaller towns or rural areas, the area has to cross some threshold.

If not for that the headline we might see in the news: California towns rip out transit systems. Already this might create some weird incentives to oppose transit expansions.

What developer is going to throw up a residential high-rise outside of Bakersfield?

You are spreading basic misinformation, please read the article so that you do not continue to do more of it.