We were distressed recently to hear someone complaining that a new law, known as SB 79, would lead to high-rise apartment buildings in Manhattan Beach.
That was maybe arguable early in the bill's journey, but it's clearly not true with the final bill (now law).
Let's see if we can help end any confusion.
What's SB 79?
SB 79 is law. It was signed by the governor almost 2 weeks ago, on October 10, and takes effect July 1, 2026.
SB 79 is designed to allow lots of new, dense, high-rise style residential construction near transit stops, regardless of local zoning. Supporters at California YIMBY refer to the policy in the bill as "Transit-Oriented Development & Upzoning."
Building heights can reach 55 feet to 95 feet, depending on how close a location is to defined transit stops. The law provides for different rules if a property is within 1/4 mile of a stop, or 1/2 mile of a stop. (Closer = higher, for instance.)
But Manhattan Beach simply does not have any of the kind of transit stops that would allow such high-rise development.
The law defines "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" transit stops, with Tier 1 locations enjoying the heaviest transit service, and Tier 2 locations also seeing reasonably heavy transit service. Per a state Senate analysis, here are shorthand definitions of the tiers:
- Tier 1: Major transit stop, heavy rail transit, or very high frequency commuter rail
- Tier 2: [M]ajor transit stops served by light rail transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or bus rapid transit
If you're reading along, you want to know more about that Tier 2 definition – what is "bus rapid transit?"
It's a term defined in existing law, requiring all of 5 separate criteria to be met, including a "full-time dedicated bus lane." Do you see one of those on Sepulveda or Rosecrans? You don't.
We found the same, highly limiting definition of the kinds of bus stops that could trigger SB 79 development all the way back in the first version of the bill introduced in January.
It would appear that Manhattan Beach was never much at risk.
City Opposes SB 79 Throughout 2025
Still, the city of Manhattan Beach was alarmed.
In three separate letters of opposition (April, July and September), our mayors have expressed a number of reasons to say "no" to SB 79, centered on the loss of local control for all communities impacted by the bill.
Specifically, Mayor Amy Howorth warned in her April and July letters of a heavy local impact:
Manhattan Beach has a significant amount of property that lies within ½ mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop. This land contains a number of different uses including open space and single-family residential uses. SB 79 would allow development of multi-family housing at a density of up to 80 units per acre, which is higher than any other property in the City. The 55-foot height limit established by the bill in and of itself would be significantly greater than that of much of the property in the vicinity.
A "significant amount of property" near Tier 2 stops?
Where's that dedicated bus lane, again?
Someone picked up the ball and ran with it. We've seen an image shared online by local opponents of SB 79 that warned of how basically all of Manhattan Beach could be subject to the law. The image – reproduced here for fair criticism, and not to suggest that it's an accurate map – shows roughly half-mile circles drawn around every normal bus stop in the city, leaving precious little real estate "untouched" by SB 79.
(In one post, a commenter labeled the map image "misinformation.")
Changes on the Road to Passage
SB 79 did evolve over time, with substantial amendments made to get votes.
The reach of the bill was limited to 8 urban counties with transit – Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento.
A population-based limit was created, narrowing the scope for cities with population below 35,000. Instead of allowing denser development for up to a full 1/2 mile around specific transit stops, the reach would be only 1/4 mile in smaller cities. That rule has been derided as the "Beverly Hills loophole" because it seems to help that city. (The 2020 census count showed a population of 35,123 in Manhattan Beach, FWIW.)
In a final letter of opposition, urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto SB 79, the city of Manhattan Beach dropped that paragraph referencing Tier 2 transit stops. (Did someone tell them that it was never accurate?)
Instead, the arguments advanced by Mayor David Lesser focused on local control ("SB 79 doubles down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing elements") and worries about rogue "transit authorities" gaining development rights on land they own – a separate part of the law.
(The city's April and June letters noted that "no transit agency currently owns or leases land in Manhattan Beach," while expressing worry about Metro's "large yard and maintenance facility immediately adjacent to the City." Mayor Lesser's letter made no reference to any potential local impact from the "transit authorities" provisions of the law.)
Realtors' Post-Passage Reactions
We've seen comment of all stripes since SB 79 became law, including from local real estate professionals. Realtors share their takes because they know their readers may wonder about impacts on communities and property values.
One wrote that the South Bay is "largely unaffected" and that local cities "appear largely outside the designated upzoning areas."
Another posted that the local impact would be "not much," and said that our area "lacks high frequency transit" and is therefore "outside of the 9-story zone."
A third stated that "most" Manhattan Beach neighborhoods were "exempt," specifically shooting down any idea that there would be huge buildings in the Tree Section. But they also went on to say "there are going to be areas that do hit this half mile radius," and in those spots, "big changes are probably in store."
They made reference to the Metro train's K-line, but this seems not to impact any Manhattan Beach neighborhoods.
Metro's Douglas station in El Segundo (near the Bay Club) could be subject to a 1/4 mile radius for housing development, due to that city's population being under 35,000, and the edge of that 1/4 mile circle seems to barely reach the parking lot of the new Erewhon on Rosecrans. (Who knows? Maybe they'll build up?)
Even if you draw a 1/2 mile radius out from the Douglas station into Manhattan Beach (with a population > 35K), you mainly just sweep in more of the Rosecrans commercial corridor, possibly touching the Westdrift golf course and a few townhomes in Manhattan Village. (Other rules in SB 79 might rule out any claim that Manhattan Village is at any risk, and, can we just say, new development behind the gates would seem unlikely.)
Meantime, Metro's K line stop on Marine Ave. in North Redondo Beach is substantially more than 1/2 mile from Aviation Blvd., the eastern edge of Manhattan Beach.
In sum, no Manhattan Beach neighborhoods seem to be impacted. But until some local government agency publishes final maps to show the areas reached by SB 79, perhaps there's no final answer.
On balance, we take seriously the concerns people raise about how to achieve new housing development, and the impact on communities from several new laws. We've got some live issues here in MB coming out of various pro-development laws. (A story for another day.)
But one thing we do not have to worry about – for now – is SB 79.
