SB 79 would allow residential buildings up to seven stories around transit stations, including those on Metro’s new D Line subway project. (photo by Edwin Folven)
The Los Angeles City Council approved a resolution on Aug 19 opposing pending state legislation that would add more housing density around transit stations and rapid bus lines on major corridors.
The council voted 8-5, with two members absent, in support of a resolution introduced by Councilman John Lee, 12th District, and seconded by Councilwoman Traci Park, 11th District. The resolution puts the city on record in opposition to Senate Bill 79, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would permit multi-family buildings up to seven stories in neighborhoods around Metro rail stations and major streets with marked dedicated bus lanes. In the local area, Wilshire Boulevard and La Brea Avenue have dedicated bus lanes, and numerous rail stations are located on Wilshire Boulevard as part of Metro’s new D Line subway extension project.
“We all agree that L.A. is in the midst of a housing crisis, which is exactly why we as a city have done the hard work over the course of many years to adopt the housing element and implement a plan unanimously approved by this council and accepted by the state earlier this year,” Lee said. “SB 79 is a blunt tool that does not take into account the years of painstaking work all of us have put into crafting and adopting our housing element and citywide Housing Implementation Plan with extensive public engagement with our communities and technical department staff. Why would we not take a stand against Sacramento trying to take local control away from us? No one knows the city of Los Angeles more than the local leaders that represent it.”
The resolution was supported by Lee, Park and Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky, 5th District; Heather Hutt, 10th District; Ysabel Jurado, 14th District; Tim McOsker, 15th District; Imelda Padilla, 6th District; and Monica Rodriguez, 7th District.
“I want housing density, but I don’t believe that SB 79 in its current form gets us there in a way that is smart or responsible,” Yaroslavsky said. “It’s a blanket approach that overrides the targeted, context-sensitive local planning tools we have just implemented here in Los Angeles. Our housing process is not going to be solved by one piece of legislation, which is why we’re still working to eliminate barriers to housing construction. We’re working to fix our broken permitting process that takes way too long, where departments don’t get out of their own way. We’re modernizing our building codes with policies like single staircase reform. These policies matter, and they’re going to make a real difference, but these conversations should be happening here in Los Angeles and not in Sacramento.”
Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez, 13th District; Nithya Raman, 4th District; Eunisses Hernandez, 1st District; Curren Price, 9th District; and Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, 8th District; opposed the resolution. Prior to the vote, Harris-Dawson called for the motion to be sent back to committee for more consideration, but a majority of council members were eager to weigh-in on SB 79. Raman said she supported sending it back for more consideration because there is a dire need for more affordable housing and the state law would create opportunities for more housing to be built.
“I will be voting against this unilateral ‘oppose’ resolution, not because I am in agreement with the design of SB 79 in its current form in totality, but our housing crisis is too dire for us not to engage constructively with this bill and its goals, which is to build more housing near transit, which L.A. does not currently do in adequate amounts,” Raman said. “We have not been responsible with our efforts to really spur housing growth, which I believe is the biggest problem facing Los Angeles over the near term. And until we demonstrate that responsibility locally, I am going to oppose any effort that doesn’t engage constructively on these questions.”
“The majority of people in Los Angeles want to see more housing. They want to see those projects being built with as much affordable as possible. And I myself want to see those projects being built and make sure that they have labor standards,” Soto-Martinez said. “Either you are going to be part of the solution, or you are going to impede progress. But whatever the council decides, we have to respect that decision.”
Mayor Karen Bass signed the resolution on Aug. 20.
Wiener continues to call for the housing solutions he believes will come with SB 79. He said the law will increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion and help the state meet climate goals while providing avenues for sorely needed affordable housing. A spokesman for Wiener said the next major update on SB 79 will likely be announced on Aug. 29, when the Assembly Appropriations Committee makes a decision on whether to advance the bill to the Assembly floor.
“Sadly, we’re seeing significant misinformation being spread about SB 79, including in Los Angeles. [The] vote by the City Council happened without the benefit of a public hearing, which would have allowed an opportunity to dispel that misinformation. SB 79 is a narrow and focused bill, and it applies only around high frequency rail and subway lines and rapid bus service with physically separated lanes. Regular bus service is not included in the bill,” Wiener said in a statement. “Opponents of SB 79 are offering no real solutions to address our housing shortage at the scale needed to make housing more affordable. California’s affordability crisis threatens our economy, our diversity and our fundamental strength as a state. SB 79 is an urgently needed piece of legislation, and I, along with a huge coalition that includes major Los Angeles organizations such as the Inner City Law Center, Streets For All and Abundant Housing LA, will continue to fight for it.”
Many homeowners associations and neighborhood groups oppose SB 79 and were pleased to see the Los Angeles City Council take a stand.
“I’m thankful to the council for passing the resolution. It’s long overdue,” said Sam Uretsky, founder and president of Larchmont United Neighborhood Association. “SB 79 would decimate neighborhoods as we know them. It would take away all city and community control. It’s a gross overreach by the state that must not be allowed to pass.”
1 Comment
The article fails to mention some important information that helped to support the Council resolution against SB 79 and that have nothing to do with siding with or against homeowners. The truth of the matter is that SB 79 is a bad bill. It is an unfunded mandate that requires the City to provide infrastructure and services for developments that could be placed anywhere in the City within a one-half mile of transit without regard as to whether infrastructure is adequate to support it. The cities are left having to pay for improvements scattered here and there without a plan as decisions as to where projects are built would be left to developers, speculators and investors whose driving criteria is to maximize profit —not build livable, sustainable communities. That is the City’s job and SB 79 overrides the City’s Housing Element, the City’s State-approved housing plan crafted with significant community input and participation.
Many have commented that by exempting projects of 10 or fewer units from any affordability requirements, that the measure would foster the construction of market rate and luxury projects—not the workforce and low-income units needed.
For larger projects, SB 79 required only 10 percent affordable units to be included.
Wiener’s bill also would allow the developments to be built within a half mile of where transit routes are planned. However, a plan which is a line on a map and that has no funding may not be built for many years. Such is the example presented by the president of the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council at the hearing held Tuesday. SB 79 projects could be built in their community without the benefit of “planned” transit to serve the added density for many, many years. It was also noted that to gain support for his bill, Wiener has been removing jurisdictions to gain support of lawmakers and their votes. Finally, Council President Harris-Dawson attempted to send the measure back to the Council’s Rules Committee to avoid timely action needed to influence Sacramento lawmakers. The resolution has been in the Rules Committee since March when it was made. Harris-Dawson failed to schedule it for a hearing since that time.
The debate should not be framed as one that sided with homeowners; it represents a much larger battle over the rights of local governments vs. the overreach of the state with one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the diversity and needs of cities and counties across the State.