Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit organization sponsored by the California Association of Realtors (CAR), has filed lawsuits against the cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Montebello that accuse the municipalities of trying to impose limits on a new state law facilitating housing development near transit.
The lawsuits seek to enforce provisions of Senate Bill 79, a 2025 bill that enables the development of housing near major public transit, such as metro and commuter rail. Under the law, housing developments that meet certain criteria are allowed on sites zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial uses within one-half or one-quarter mile of a qualifying station. Cities can delay the law’s effect in certain areas, and can exclude other sites altogether, but only if they adopt valid local implementation ordinances.
The lawsuit against San Diego challenges the city’s use of a “walking path” exemption in state law to exclude a broad range of sites, including sites within blocks of San Diego Trolley stations, based on small gaps in sidewalks or the need to walk along multi-use alleyways. The San Francisco lawsuit challenges the city’s exclusion of areas that it has designated “industrial employment hubs.”
The lawsuit against Montebello challenges a complete moratorium on developments under the new state transit-oriented development law. The lawsuit argues the city’s ordinance violates several state laws, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which banned moratoriums on housing.
In addition to Californians for Homeownership, the nonprofit California Housing Defense Fund is a plaintiff in all three lawsuits, and nonprofit YIMBY Law has joined the lawsuit against San Francisco.
“Cities throughout California must play by the same set of rules established by our legislature for the development of housing,” said CAR President Tamara Suminski, a Southern California broker and realtor. “Through these new lawsuits, Californians for Homeownership continues to play a vital role in addressing housing affordability through impact litigation.”
0 Comments