The Los Angeles City Council Tuesday approved a delayed, phased approach to implementation of Senate Bill 79, a state law that mandates more housing near transit stops.
The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act is expected take effect July 1. It authorizes the development of taller and denser housing projects near transit stops, though affected cities have the opportunity to delay the impacts until 2030, but must enact plans to boost density nonetheless.
Council members unanimously approved a proposal that would delay SB 79 by upzoning 55 single-family and low-density zones, and allowing only 4- to 16-unit buildings up to four stories. These areas include Central, West and East LA and the San Fernando Valley, according to a report from the City Planning Department.
“SB 79 is now law, and we have a responsibility to legalize more housing near transit while making sure we do it thoughtfully,” Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky said. “The approach the council adopted today does both. It legalizes a meaningful amount of new housing now and directs the Planning Department to take the next step so future density is placed where it makes the most sense.”
The strategy, referred as Option C1, expands the city’s corridor transition program across transit-oriented areas, allowing for new multifamily housing including three- to four-story buildings in higher and moderate opportunity, including areas zoned for single-family homes.
At the same time, the city will delay full implementation of SB 79 in lower resource areas, high fire severity zones and historic districts until 2030, according to Yaroslavsky’s office.
The strategy also directs the development of a citywide local alternative plan to take effect in 2030, essentially providing the city more time to control upzoning.
Under SB 79, developers would be allowed to build up to nine stories for buildings near some transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile and six stories for buildings a half-mile away from transit stops.
Councilman Bob Blumenfield noted that “we as a body opposed SB 79,” but said the reason for it “was legitimate, not necessarily the way that it was written, but it’s to create more opportunities for housing construction and to focus development in areas of high quality transit that are less car-dependent. That is a worthy goal.”
Housing advocates have criticized the council’s strategy, arguing it fails to significantly advance the creation of more housing. Homeowners supported the decision, calling for ways to protect single-family zones or mitigate the impact of SB 79 on their communities.
The city considered three options. The second option was similar to that of Option C1, but would have allowed the development of 8-story buildings within a half-mile of 23 transit stops. Meanwhile, the third option, endorsed by housing advocates, would have allowed for the development of 8-story buildings within a half-mile of 55 transit stops.
In 2025, the city enacted its Citywide Housing Incentive Program, an initiative aimed to facilitate the development of affordable housing projects near transit hubs, work sites and other key areas. CHIP established incentives for developers, streamlined review processes, reduced certain environmental assessments and provided protections for residents from being displaced.
The city’s corridor transition program was part of this initiative.
Housing advocates had criticized the city’s strategy, in part because they argued the program has not been as effective. In response, Yaroslavsky introduced two separate but related motions in Tuesday’s meeting to bolster the program.
If approved, the first motion seeks to reform and empower the program to ensure that new legalized housing types are financially feasible, and actually get built. The second motion would direct planning staff to develop a framework focused on increasing density near transit corridors — and gradually allow development into surrounding neighborhoods and areas zoned for single-family homes.
The motions are expected to be heard by Planning and Land Use Management Committee.