Key facts
- Pro-housing groups are suing California cities for allegedly misinterpreting Senate Bill 79, a law mandating denser housing near transit lines.
- Lawsuits argue cities are too narrowly defining 'walkable routes' to transit stops, excluding parcels due to sidewalk gaps.
- Plaintiffs also allege cities are miscounting train frequencies at stations, which affects eligibility for denser zoning.
- San Diego was sued for excluding a parcel near a station due to a sidewalk gap and for using conflicting maps.
- Oceanside was sued for excluding a parcel near a station due to a sidewalk gap and for misclassifying transit center frequency.
- San Francisco is accused of creating 'industrial employment hubs' to circumvent SB 79 density rules.
Pro-housing organizations are filing a wave of lawsuits across California, challenging cities' interpretations of the state's transit-density law, Senate Bill 79. The law, which took effect July 1, aims to increase housing density near public transit. Cities like San Diego and Oceanside are being sued for allegedly creating barriers to this development by narrowly defining what constitutes a walkable route to a transit stop and by miscalculating train frequencies at stations.
One central argument in the lawsuits is that cities are too strict in defining walkable routes, sometimes excluding parcels due to minor issues like sidewalk gaps. For instance, a lawsuit against San Diego highlights a parcel just 375 feet from a trolley station that was excluded because it required crossing about 100 feet of an unpaved alley, despite the station being visible from the property. Similarly, Oceanside faces a suit for excluding a parcel adjacent to a station due to a sidewalk gap.
Another key point of contention is how train frequency is calculated. State guidance suggests combining all rail lines serving a station, but lawsuits allege that agencies like SANDAG counted each line separately. This miscalculation allegedly prevented two North County stations from qualifying for denser zoning tiers, even though one station meets a mid-tier threshold with 48 trains per day and another exceeds a higher threshold with a total of approximately 130 trains daily across four rail lines.
Beyond San Diego and Oceanside, lawsuits have also been filed against San Francisco and Montebello. The San Francisco suit claims the city created 'industrial employment hubs' to avoid SB 79's density rules and then blocked density bonus law applications. The Montebello case is more straightforward, alleging the city violated SB 79 and another state law by passing a moratorium on SB 79 projects.
Instead of suing the state directly, which has proven unsuccessful with other housing reforms, cities are reportedly employing administrative resistance and delay tactics. Pro-housing groups, including Californians for Homeownership, the California Housing Defense Fund, and YIMBY Law, are actively pursuing these legal challenges, sometimes reaching agreements with cities to avoid litigation.