Opposition Melts Away as Durazo Announces Major Changes to SB 1361

With the way advocates, and news reports, were talking about Senate Bill 1361, legislation written in response to cities balking at supporting transit projects to avoid last year’s Senate Bill 79, a new law facilitating greater density near major transit stops, one would have thought that a hearing on the bill would have been a major confrontation. Instead—thanks to behind the scenes work by advocates, senate staff, and Durazo—a heavily amended version of SB 1361 produced a kumbaya moment instead.

Amendments to SB 1361 dramatically reshaped the tone—and the coalition—around the bill in committee, turning what had been organized opposition into a near-universal shift to neutral or support.

Author State Senator Maria Elena Durazo opened by emphasizing that the bill had been narrowed, calling it “a narrow, practical bill to protect transit expansion projects from unintended consequences” of last year’s SB 79. 

She stressed that the measure no longers alters existing housing requirements, but instead addresses a growing problem: cities resisting transit projects because new stops can trigger state-mandated upzoning.

“SB 1361 simply says transit decisions should be based on legitimate transportation planning issues,” she said, “not opposition tied solely to SB 79 height or density standards.”

That framing was reinforced—and sharpened—by committee amendments. Rather than revisiting SB 79’s land use rules, the updated bill takes aim at specific local behaviors. Under the revised language, cities and counties would be barred from using SB 79 as a justification to delay or obstruct transit. This includes prohibitions on requesting reduced service, conditioning or blocking approval of transit stops, or withholding support for state and federal funding applications because of the law’s density provisions.

A range of groups—including environmental advocates, housing organizations, and even sponsors of SB 79, Streets for All and Abundant Housing Los Angeles—formally withdrew their opposition during the hearing. Several cited the amendments directly, with one speaker acknowledging the law’s “growing pains” and saying the changes were enough to move to a neutral position. 

There was also a shift from supporters of the original draft of SB 1361. The League of California Cities shifted their position to “no position” and vowed to continue to push for reforms to curtail some of the mandates of SB 79.

But some supporters stayed on board. Supporters, including Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and building trades representatives, argued the changes still address real-world consequences already emerging—where local opposition to housing density is translating into threats against major transit investments.