California Cities Scramble to Respond to New Transit Housing Law
California cities are facing a critical deadline as they decide how to respond to Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), a new state law that allows developers to build larger apartment buildings near major transit stops.
Approved last year and taking effect on July 1, SB 79 permits mid-rise housing developments—some reaching nine stories—in neighborhoods close to train stations, subway stops, and certain dedicated bus routes. While the law significantly expands housing opportunities near transit, lawmakers included provisions that give local governments flexibility in how and when they comply.
As the deadline approaches, cities across California are pursuing different strategies. Some are embracing the law, others are crafting alternative local plans, and some are seeking to delay implementation for as long as possible. Cities that take no action will automatically be subject to the state’s transit-oriented zoning requirements.
Los Angeles Chooses Delay
Last month, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a strategy aimed at maximizing delay. By revising portions of the city’s zoning code, officials secured additional time before fully implementing SB 79.
The law allows cities to postpone major zoning changes if they already permit at least half of the housing capacity required under SB 79. For Los Angeles and many Southern California communities, that delay extends until 2030. Additional exemptions apply to lower-income neighborhoods, wildfire-prone areas, flood-risk zones, and historic districts.
To qualify, Los Angeles approved modest increases in density in several higher-income neighborhoods that are currently dominated by single-family homes. The changes permit small multiplex developments of three to four stories, allowing the city to surpass the threshold needed for the delay.
Supporters argue that this approach provides time to develop a more comprehensive local housing strategy.
“This adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of the density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.
By 2030, however, Los Angeles will still need either to adopt a compliant local alternative or fully implement SB 79.
Mixed Reactions from Housing Advocates
The city’s decision disappointed many housing advocates who wanted immediate implementation of the state’s transit-oriented development goals.
Scott Epstein, policy and research director at Abundant Housing Los Angeles, questioned whether the city’s approach would result in significant new housing production. He argued that small apartment projects may not be financially viable in high-cost neighborhoods where land prices remain expensive.
Others viewed the move more positively.
Aaron Eckhouse of California YIMBY, one of the organizations that supported SB 79, acknowledged that the delay slows the law’s full impact but noted that Los Angeles has historically resisted density increases in single-family neighborhoods.
According to Eckhouse, city leaders are effectively choosing to implement change on their own terms rather than those dictated directly by the state. Nevertheless, he argued, the state law has already succeeded in forcing the conversation.
San Francisco Pursues Its Own Version
San Francisco is considering a similar strategy.
City officials are exploring exemptions for industrial areas and some lower-resource neighborhoods while increasing allowable density in selected low-rise districts to qualify for a delay until 2032.
Unlike Los Angeles, however, San Francisco intends to introduce its own version of the transit-oriented zoning framework before the July deadline. Officials have an advantage because they recently completed a major citywide rezoning effort under Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan.
The proposal is expected to be reviewed later this month by a Board of Supervisors committee.
State Oversight Remains a Factor
Cities that create their own alternatives must still receive approval from state housing regulators.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has not publicly evaluated any specific local plans. However, Governor Gavin Newsom has criticized efforts by Los Angeles and San Diego to exempt certain neighborhoods from the law’s requirements, though he has not suggested that either city is violating SB 79.
Some Cities May Simply Accept the Law
Not every city is pursuing exemptions or delays.
Sacramento is considering only minor procedural changes and appears prepared to accept the state’s zoning framework largely as written.
Jason Rhine of the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill, said many smaller municipalities lack the staff and resources needed to develop alternative plans. Some are still trying to understand key details of the law, including how future transit projects will be treated and how distances from transit stops will be measured.
Rhine has urged lawmakers to extend the July 1 deadline, though no proposals have emerged to do so.
Oakland Debates Urgency
In Oakland, city officials are divided over whether to delay implementation or move forward immediately.
Planning staff recommended using available delay provisions to allow time for a broader zoning overhaul already underway. Planning Director William Gilchrist described the debate as one focused on timing rather than goals.
Several council members disagreed.
Councilmember Zac Unger argued that neighborhoods already meeting the density threshold should not receive exemptions. He said residents should accept that change is inevitable rather than creating the impression that the city can avoid state requirements.
Councilmembers Charlene Wang and Ken Houston also supported immediate implementation in their districts, arguing that Oakland should exceed the minimum density standards established by the state.
Still, Oakland’s debate may ultimately have limited practical impact. The city is already working on a comprehensive zoning update expected to be completed next year, meaning it will likely have a compliant alternative plan by 2027.
For Unger, the issue is largely symbolic.
“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings suddenly appearing overnight,” he said. “It’s a matter of urgency and a statement of values.”
Resistance May Come Later
A final group of cities may choose outright resistance.
California saw similar opposition after a 2021 law allowed homeowners to split lots and build up to four housing units on residential properties. Some cities challenged the law in court, explored charter-city status, or pursued other creative tactics. None succeeded.
Housing advocates believe similar resistance to SB 79 is possible but unlikely before the July deadline.
For now, cities are generally focused on either implementing the law, delaying it, or designing local alternatives.
As Eckhouse put it, cities that simply want to say “no” may not reveal their intentions until the new zoning rules officially take effect.