A controversial bill intended to promote a boon of housing near major transit stops in several California counties is on its way to Gov. Gavin Newsom after narrowly passing both houses of the state legislature this week.
The idea behind SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, is to address California’s housing crisis by allowing multi-family apartments and condos several stories tall to be built near major public transit stops — even in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes.
The legislation, which has been amended over a dozen times, applies only to certain “urban transit counties” with heavier or more frequent transit services such as trains and rapid bus lines; that includes Los Angeles and Orange counties but not the Inland Empire.
The bill, which needed 41 “yes” votes in the Assembly, advanced out of the lower house on Thursday, Sept. 11, on a 43-19 vote.
The state Senate then voted 21-8 on Friday to forward the bill to the governor. It needed 21 votes in the upper chamber to move on.
It will now be up to Newsom whether to sign the bill into law.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the bill’s author, has said millions of new homes need to be built in California to meet state housing goals, but overly restrictive zoning codes make it impossible to build in certain areas.
The goal of SB 79 is to build more units — including affordable ones — near major transit lines that encourage people to use public transportation. Supporters say not only is this better for the environment, but it would help boost ridership numbers and sustain public transit agencies.
“SB 79 authorizes more housing near our highest-quality, highest-capacity public transportation stops. It will allow us to build more housing, to reduce traffic congestion and to support and strengthen our public transportation systems,” Wiener said in floor remarks just before Friday’s Senate vote.
But critics of SB 79 worry that allowing multi-story apartments next to single-family homes would not only be out of character for certain neighborhoods but also adding high-density housing might strain local infrastructure and city services.
Others say the bill would weaken local control by stripping away some authority that municipalities have in making land-use decisions.
Under SB 79, in communities with heavy rail service or where trains stop 72 times or more per day, developers would be allowed to build up to nine stories if the project is next to the station. They would be able to build up to seven stories within a quarter-mile of the station or six stories if the building is a quarter to one-half mile from the station.
One example would be the LA Metro B line that runs between North Hollywood and downtown L.A. While downtown is already zoned to allow mid- or high-rise apartments, the law would impact neighborhoods along that route that aren’t currently zoned for taller buildings.
At light rail stations and stations where trains make between 48 and 71 trips per day, housing up to eight stories high may be built next door to the station. Buildings within a quarter-mile could be up to six stories, and those between a quarter and a half mile could be five stories. This would include LA Metro’s A, C, E and K lines and its Orange (G) line in the San Fernando Valley.
There is one caveat.
If it’s unsafe to build high-density housing in a neighborhood because the area is considered at high risk for fires, local officials could relocate the project to another part of the city — but they would still need to allow the same number of units to be built, according to Matthew Lewis, communications director for California YIMBY, a sponsor of the bill.
‘An existential crisis’ of housing
Lewis said California’s housing crisis started years ago when the state stopped producing enough new homes to meet growing demand. Los Angeles, he said, is in such a deep hole that it’s facing “an existential crisis.”
“The only way to increase housing supply in an urban environment is to allow multi-family housing to be built in those single-family areas,” he said.
“It’s an unfortunate truth that our local government hasn’t managed to approve nearly enough housing developments,” said Carlos Singer, senior vice president and chief policy officer for the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, which backed SB 79.
SB 79, he said, prioritizes greater housing density near transit.
“It makes sense for all of us,” Singer said. “It creates housing. It creates jobs. It decreases commute time, which makes it easier for employees to get to work, for businesses to attract employees to be nearby. It lowers emissions.”
‘Attempt to hijack local planning’
But critics of SB 79 say the bill would strip cities of their authority to regulate massive development projects and instead apply a one-size-fits-all policy across all neighborhoods.
The League of California Cities described SB 79 as the state’s “latest overreaching effort.”
And last month, a divided Los Angeles City Council, by a vote of 8-5, passed a resolution, which Mayor Karen Bass then signed, opposed SB 79 unless it was amended to exempt municipalities, including L.A., that have a state-approved “housing element.” Such plans identify a city’s housing needs and lay out goals and policies to meet those needs. That exemption was not included in the final version of the bill that passed Friday.
L.A. Councilmember Traci Park, who pushed for the council resolution, described SB 79 as “Sacramento’s attempt to hijack local planning” while denying local residents from having input.
“Los Angeles is already leading on housing through programs like our Citywide Housing Incentive Program,” she said. “What we don’t need is Sacramento overriding our plans and erasing the communities that make this city unique.”
L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto also wrote to lawmakers earlier this year, saying SB 79 would result in billions of taxpayer dollars going to expand water, sewer or stormwater systems; upgrade power grids, roads and traffic signals; and pay for emergency responders and other services to accommodate the needs that come with higher-density housing. And local jurisdictions would incur these added expenses without state reimbursement, she feared.
“Our city recently experienced the tragedy of the Palisades Fire which highlighted the need for properly funded and staffed first responders,” Feldstein Soto wrote.
“Cities facing declining or unpredictable federal support will be even less able to absorb new unfunded obligations imposed by the state,” she added. “SB 79 could not be more poorly timed for Los Angeles.”
Some cities in Orange County also opposed the bill, including Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Orange and Santa Ana.
Not voting along party lines
During Thursday’s Assembly vote, legislators noted that SB 79 had bipartisan support — but also opposition from both sides of the political aisle.
Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat from Hollywood, said his office has gotten more calls about SB 79 than any other piece of legislation since his election in 2022. The feedback in opposition to the bill, he said, has been 10 times greater than the input he’s gotten from people who supported it.
SB 79 could result in seven-story buildings in the middle of single-family neighborhoods throughout large swaths of his district, he said.
“We need an L.A.-focused solution made in consultation with L.A. legislators and stakeholders,” he said. “This top-down approach with politicians from Sacramento coming in, forcing policies that my community does not support, is not a good path forward.”
At the same time, some Republicans spoke in favor of the legislation.
Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, said although SB 79 would not apply to the communities he represents, he supports it as the representative of Placer County, one of the fastest growing areas in California, with a number of new housing developments springing up in the county.
Placer County, he said, is doing its part to address the state’s housing crisis while other communities get exempted from housing policies.
“We’re not going to reach our housing goals if we keep making special exclusions. … We need to push the local governments to do their share, especially if they’re taking money from the taxpayer to build transit,” Patterson said.
During Friday’s Senate vote, Wiener noted a number of changes had been made to the bill since it was first introduced based on feedback from colleagues and stakeholders, including a provision that allows for more flexibility for cities to come up with an alternative local plan that would still meet the bill’s intent.
Wiener said that he and Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, who chairs the Senate Housing Committee and had previously opposed the bill, had committed to working on a future bill to provide protections for mobile home residents that weren’t addressed in SB 79.
A spokesperson for Newsom, when asked about the governor’s position on the bill, said Friday that his office typically doesn’t comment on pending legislation.