LA lawmakers oppose state bill to spur transit-rich development

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to reject a state bill intended to spur development around transit areas, insisting that deferring to Sacramento on local planning decisions is not the answer to the city's housing crisis.

Senate Bill 827, which is still being drafted, would eliminate existing local zoning restrictions around metro and bus stations to allow for the construction of apartment buildings and condos in down-zoned areas.

The resolution adopted by the council on Tuesday cannot supersede state law. Instead, it's meant as a message to Sacramento.

"It's no different than efforts in the past that allows big development to ignore community voices," Councilmember David Ryu, who authored the resolution and represents neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley, Koreatown and Hollywood Hills, said after hearing public comment.

Ryu and fellow critics argue that in addition to stripping the city of self-determination, the bill will ultimately lead to a boom in luxury housing around transit stops, pushing out low-income tenants who are most likely to use rail and bus lines.

Ryan Patterson, a land use and zoning attorney, called the move "shortsighted."

"California will either cut through the red tape of [Not In My Back Yard] zoning or its economy will suffer from its deepening housing shortage," said Patterson of Zack, Freedman & Patterson PC in San Francisco.

The bill, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), has no hearings scheduled, but is beginning to wend its way through committees in the state Capitol.

It was recently amended to include tenant protections, including "right to remain," which allows displaced tenants to return to redeveloped properties at their previous rental rate. The new language states that developments built under SB 827 must comply with local inclusionary housing and demolition rules. Renter's rights organizations, including Tenants Together, remain largely unmoved.

The group's executive director Dean Preston called the bill "a special interest attack on communities of color in hot urban markets like Los Angeles," in an emailed statement.

A similar resolution taken up by San Francisco lawmakers ended with supervisors calling for amendments to protect their city's character rather than condemning the bill.