Tag: politics

Back in April, I reported on two bad housing bills working their way through the 2025 legislative session. The worst of the two bills was SB-79, which I’ve continued to watch very closely.

The biggest thing you need to know about SB-79 is that it will undo all of our hard work to save our single-family neighborhoods.

And for what? More market rate units we don’t need. SB-79 is such a threat, it was featured recently by Councilperson Traci Park during her townhall regarding density in our community.

We nearly killed this Bill in the Senate, where it needed 21 votes and only got 20. Scott Wiener, the Bill’s author and Public Enemy #1 when it comes to stupid density legislation, held the vote open and managed to wrangle a 21st vote. We need to make the most of our next opportunity to make this Bill go away. The longer it hangs around, the bigger the threat that Wiener gets it amended yet again to sneak in even worse provisions.

Wondering how our own State Senators voted? Neither one cast a vote (Ben Allen and Lola Smallwood-Cuevas). They know how we feel about this Bill, but refused to make a statement and vote NO. They are ok with abdicating local control over planning??? We aren’t. And they live here, for crying out loud. I get Scott Wiener (San Francisco) not caring about LA’s local control, but Ben Allen and Lola Smallwood-Cuevas???

Throughout the senate process, the Bill was amended significantly and is now called the “Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act.” Cute, right? Some very clever marketing agency was undoubtedly paid a small fortune to come up with that name. The Bill is with the Assembly now, where additional amendments are still possible. The Assembly is on summer recess, and will start taking votes at the end of August.

The Bill’s Details

SB–79 creates three tiers of “transit-oriented development:”

• Tier 1 applies to heavy rail
• Tier 2 applies to light rail and Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) lines
• Tier 3 applies to Metrolink stations

The Bill is just plain bad because it overrides all local planning. If a developer proposes a project compliant with the statute, nobody can say no.

Of primary concern to us right here in Westchester & The Playas is Tier 2 (due to the planned Lincoln Boulevard Transit Corridor) and Tier 3 (due to our light rail station on the K Line).

For Tier 2 (BRT), the upzoning will be:

• Within 1/4 mile – up to 65’, 100 units/acre, F.A.R. of 3.0
• Within 1/2 mile – up to 55’, 80 units/acre, F.A.R. of 2.5

Just to give you an idea about those F.A.R. numbers, 15,000 square feet can be built on a 5000’ lot if the F.A.R. is 3.0.

For Tier 3 (light rail), the upzoning will be:

• Within 1/4 mile – up to 55’, 80 units/acre, F.A.R.of 2.5
• Within 1/2 mile – up to 45’, 60 units/acre, F.A.R. of 2.0

The Bill also encourages development on land owned by transit agencies, but this starts to get in the weeds. Let’s just say that the crazy numbers above are the best case scenarios.

The image below, provided by Westchester resident John Birkett, demonstrates that light rail station rezoning in our community under SB-79 will impact nearly 2200 parcels (inclusive of certain Inglewood parcels), removing them from city oversight and turning them over to corporate developers to target you with incessant offers to buy. Maybe you won’t sell, but how fun will it be to live here when your neighbor does?

This map doesn’t even show you the impacts of the BRT density. Our community will be a hot mess.

And to remind you, these projects will only be built as lots become available, resulting in random middle fingers all over our neighborhood for a very long time. And who exactly is giving up their car to walk to our buses? No, those residents will be clogging our streets with parked cars that may rarely move.

And my new favorite beef — The future is no cars, according to Sacramento; are we all supposed to hop a bus in case of natural disaster?

That’s my rant. Now here are some of the more universally recognized problems with SB-79:

• SB-79 bypasses local zoning and local control of development (the projects must be allowed no matter how bad for the community)
• The Bill hurts real affordability (older, affordable housing stock will get razed to build market rate high-rise luxury units) (+ lots will be priced for developers, not families when a lot is put up for sale)
• Neighborhoods will be disrupted with haphazard density bombs (and infrastructure planning will be nearly impossible by already cash-strapped cities)
• Units can be built under this Bill for planned BRT (cities could start “planning” these routes just to generate revenue (developer fees and increased property taxes when properties turn over)
• Randomly scattering massive SB-79 projects will not produce thriving, walkable communities

This Bill must be stopped!!!

Headwinds For Defeat

Defeat of this Bill is going to take all of us! The Bill is being called “housing near transit hubs” which sounds very benign, so apathy could easily win the day on this fight.

Another issue is Scott Wiener’s power. He needed 21 votes to get this Bill out of the Senate, and only had 20. He held the vote open and strong-armed a last minute 21st vote. He has power and money behind him. Additionally, Wiener is Chair of the Budget Committee and we all know that Mayor Bass (and other mayors) will likely look to him for money.

Further, the YIMBYs are a well-financed machine pushing all these housing bills based on a false narrative that we have a housing crisis (when in fact, the crisis is affordable housing, not market rate housing like SB-79 pushes).

It is going to take every one of us pushing on our electeds to defeat this Bill.

The Fight Ahead

The Senate is done with its version of the Bill, passing it to the Assembly to vote on. The Bill will work through a couple of Assembly committees and then on to the full Assembly for a vote. If the Bill is amended, it will go back to the Senate for another vote.

The Legislature is currently on Summer break, but will return to pick this Bill up again in late August, making right now the perfect time for everybody to write your Assemblyperson in their local office to tell them the Bill is stupid and that you’ll actively campaign against any elected who doesn’t vote NO.

Still need convincing? Read this – Letter To Local Assembly Members In Opposition To Senate Bill 79 From San Diego Community Coalition

And read this – Encino Neighborhood Council SB 79 Action Guide

Still need convincing? Read this – Letter from LA City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto Arguing SB 79 Is Unconstitutional

Now go find your Assemblyperson and give them a piece of your mind!

I’ve been out in the neighborhood since early Spring speaking out about the threat posed by SB-79. I thought I’d pen a quick post outlining what is in the bill (in broad strokes).

And to keep this post relatively neutral, I’ve enlisted Google AI to summarize the bill. I’m not a certified expert on SB-79 by any stretch of anybody’s imagination, but I know enough about it to recognize and confidently represent that the information provided is generally reliable. The cited sources are certainly legit.

Neutral Summary

SB-79, also known as the Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, is a California bill aimed at increasing housing near public transit by allowing denser, taller buildings around transit stops. The bill does not mandate affordable units but makes them eligible for incentives. [1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5] 

Key Provisions of SB-79:

• Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): SB-79 focuses on transit-oriented development, encouraging housing construction near transit stops. [1, 2] 
• Increased Density and Height: The bill allows for taller buildings (up to 7 stories near high-frequency transit) and higher densities near transit stops, potentially upzoning areas previously zoned for single-family homes. [1, 6] 
• Tiered Approach: The level of density and height allowed varies based on the type and frequency of transit service at a given stop. [4, 7] 
• Streamlined Approvals: SB-79 allows certain developments near transit to utilize the streamlined ministerial approvals process under SB 423. [1] 
• Flexibility for Local Jurisdictions: While establishing statewide standards, SB-79 allows local governments some flexibility in tailoring their TOD areas and standards. [1] 
• Focus on Transit Agency Land: The bill encourages development on land owned by transit agencies to generate revenue for public transit. [8] 

Affordability Provisions:

• Incentives for Affordable Units: SB-79 does not mandate affordable units, but it does make developments that include affordable units eligible for density bonuses and other concessions under existing state law, such as SB 1511. [1, 1, 4, 4, 9, 10] 
• Potential for Affordable Housing Development: By streamlining the development process and allowing for increased density, SB-79 aims to facilitate the development of more housing overall, potentially including more affordable units. [1, 1, 2, 2] 
• Tenant Protections: The bill includes tenant protections, such as the right of return for those displaced by development. [2, 2] 

Arguments for SB-79:

• Addresses Housing Shortage: Proponents argue that SB-79 is crucial for addressing California’s housing crisis by increasing the supply of housing near transit.
• Reduces Traffic Congestion: By encouraging people to live near transit, the bill aims to reduce reliance on cars and alleviate traffic congestion.
• Promotes Environmental Sustainability: Reduced car usage contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.
• Supports Public Transit Funding: Development on transit agency land can generate revenue for public transit systems. [2, 8] 

Arguments Against SB-79:

• Concerns about Single-Family Neighborhoods: Some residents and community groups are concerned about the potential impact of increased density and height on existing single-family neighborhoods. [9] 
• Potential for Displacement: Concerns exist about the potential for displacement of existing residents as a result of increased development near transit. [2, 9] 
• Impact on Local Control: Some argue that SB-79 undermines local control over land use decisions. [11] 

Current Status:

• As of June 3, 2025, SB-79 has passed the Senate and is awaiting further action in the Assembly.
• The bill has been amended several times and is subject to ongoing debate and negotiations. [3, 3, 12, 12, 13] 

[1] https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-wieners-landmark-housing-bill-16-other-bills-advance-senate-floor

[2] https://www.dailynews.com/2025/04/21/senate-bill-79-will-legalize-more-housing-near-transit-across-california/

[3] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3248204

[4] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3207750

[5] https://www.encinonc.org/assets/documents/8/committee6838ef487420b.pdf

[6] https://laist.com/news/transportation/denser-housing-near-transit-sb-79

[7] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB79/id/3220243

[8] https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senate-passes-senator-wieners-legislation-build-homes-near-public-transit-improve

[9] https://www.encinonc.org/assets/documents/8/committee6838ef487420b.pdf

[10] https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37603/SB35-Fact-Sheet

[11] https://www.kqed.org/news/12042670/controversial-housing-near-transit-bill-advances-to-next-stop-in-legislature

[12] https://cayimby.org/legislation/sb-79/

[13] https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/a-new-california-bill-is-proposing-a-35-subsidy-for-animated-features-series-and-shorts-246637.html

My closing thoughts

Of course “abundant & affordable homes near transit” sounds like a no-brainer. Hat tip to the highly paid marketing consultant who came up with that title.

But the title is BS.

The bill encompasses parcels within one half mile of “planned transit.” What?

Yes, if a qualifying bus line is “planned,” developers can snatch up lots in a 1/2 mile circumference. Color me skeptical (or a conspiracy nut, if you must), but this smells to me like “planned” bus lines might become something a cash strapped city “sells” to developers.

But even existing bus lines will annihilate existing neighborhoods like Kentwood, being surrounded on three sides by major boulevards with qualifying bus routes.

And don’t even get me started on what Osage becomes with a light rail station.

And how is 1/2 mile “near” to transit?? Do you know anybody who will walk 1/2 mile to our crappy bus system? Even my husband, who is the ONLY person I know who rides the bus, gets in his car and drives down to a park and ride, where he parks mere steps from his bus downtown.

And nothing affordable has to be built. Throwing in a few token units get extra density. 😱

And there are no guardrails to prevent already affordable housing from getting razed for SB-79 market rate units, also known as “gentrification.”

Recent amendments to the bill provide “tenant rights” by allowing displaced people access to the new units, but where are they supposed to go in the meantime, and how are they supposed to afford the resulting market-rate units?

No, those “tenant rights” are lip service and downright offensive.

SB-79 has zero redeeming qualities. Call your assemblyperson stat and let them know you oppose SB-79, and that you will actively campaign against them if they support the bill.

Stay tuned because the Assembly may further amend the bill and then it will have to go back to the Senate.