California cities struggling to implement latest housing law
By John Seiler | March 19, 2026
Since 2017, the California Legislature has passed and governors Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom have signed about 215 housing-related bills. There’s no master list. But the Terner Center at UC Berkeley tallied almost 100 from 2017 to 22. Then add 56 in 2023, 37 in 2024 and 22 in 2025. Most were designed to make it easier to build more affordable housing to mitigate the state’s soaring housing prices.
One of the most significant laws was Senate Bill 79 by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. It was signed by Newsom on October 10. Looking into how Los Angeles and San Francisco are implementing it gives us in idea of the struggles all cities face.
SB 79 concerns “transit-oriented developments” (TODs), areas built around public transit stops to make it easier for people to get around without a car. The transit stops can include bus, train or subway stations. Per the Senate floor analysis, “This bill requires a housing development project” near a “major” TOD stop to be built on sites zoned for “residential, mixed or commercial development.” BWS Law provided a chart detailing its specifics.
The law applies only to the state’s eight “urban transit counties,” meaning they have 15 or more passenger rail stations. Those counties are Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. The idea is to force cities to build denser housing near mass transit stops. Support came from California YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) and other housing groups.
Opposition came from numerous city councils and the California League of Cities. The floor analysis quoted the opposition objecting because the bill “defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent easement, regardless of the distance from a transit stop.”
My Southern California News Group colleague Susan Shelley viewed SB 79 as “grand larceny, robbing millions of Californians of their right to own and enjoy what they bought, a single-family home in a low-density neighborhood.” But Free Cities Center Director Steven Greenhut countered that the law promotes property rights by giving owners more authority over their property — and reducing the ability of neighbors to stop new construction.
By July 1 a city must city adopt a compliant Local TOD Alternative Plan and secure certification from the California Department of Housing and Urban Development. Otherwise, SB 79 will automatically override local zoning.
Opposition in Los Angeles
The Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors on January 22 voted to formally oppose implementing SB 79 because, reported LAist, “the law jeopardizes efforts to expand local transportation infrastructure.” The board argued that local residents will oppose any transit expansion if they fear that it will lead to more multi-family housing in their neighborhoods.
The Metro Board’s staff report came out on November 13. Addressed to Mayor Karen Bass, it recommended that the Department of City Planning draft an ordinance to delay SB 79’s effect in specified areas where the city legally can do so, such as:
- Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, especially apt a year after the Pacific Palisades fires;
- Areas vulnerable to a sea-level rise of one foot, which assumes there will be global warming that might not happen;
- Sites with designated historic resources;
- Low-resource areas.
The report also recommended the city acquire staff, technical support and funding to implement SB 79. That will be more difficult after the January 29 release of the city’s latest Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. It found: “The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the city exceeded the liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of fiscal year 2025 by $34.9 billion, an increase of $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2024.”
The city’s unrestricted net position, a key marker, was a negative $6.2 billion, or $1,600 owed per capita. That was up from $5.8 billion in 2024. On top of that, the city must get ready for FIFA World Cup 26 Los Angeles and the LA 28 Olympics, which will be costly.
San Francisco Tries to Soften SB79
On December 12, Mayor Daniel Lurie signed into law the city’s Family Zoning Plan, effective January 12. The plan’s fact sheetshows how even Wiener’s home city is looking to minimize some of SB 79’s provisions:
- In many cases, SB 79 allows taller heights than those proposed under Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan.
- The Family Zoning Plan would qualify as San Francisco’s “Alternative Plan,” allowing the use of local height limits instead of SB 79 heights.
- The Family Zoning Plan is a tailored, neighborhood-driven approach to meet San Francisco’s housing needs. It provides equivalent densities as SB 79 but focuses more of the new housing on transit and commercial streets, with more modest changes in the surrounding residential areas.
There’s no doubt SB 79 is reshaping how the affected cities implement zoning. Because of the volume of new housing laws, it will be difficult to tease out how any one particular law is affecting housing affordability. The January 28 Los Angeles Times reported: “‘Finally, a renter’s market’: L.A. rent prices drop to four-year low.” But is that due to lower interest rates from the Federal Reserve Board? Or the state’s population stagnating? Or something else?
By contrast, SFGate reported on January 26: “San Francisco rents surge at fastest pace in the nation” —$3,156 for a one-bedroom apartment and $3,741 for a two-bedroom, placing year-over-year growth at 13.3%. The culprit? The fantastical Artificial Intelligence surge, centered in the Bay Area. It’s “a return-to-office push and optimism around AI-driven hiring,” which is pulling “high-income workers back into an already supply-constrained market,” said Crystal Chen, a spokesperson for Zumper. Not even the legislative wizards can devise housing remedies when another digital gold rush hits.
Meanwhile, a study by YIMBY Law found that the state’s new housing laws haven’t produced as much housing as predicted. Although these laws move in a deregulatory direction, they still have so many strings attached that that such results — or lack thereof — aren’t surprising. Yet expect yet another flurry of new housing bills as the Legislature approaches its next deadline. Maybe at some point lawmakers will go all in for deregulation and let the market meet the continuing demand.