Opposition to Transit-rich Housing Bonus Bill [Wiener, SB 827]

Opposition to Transit-rich Housing Bonus Bill [Wiener, SB 827]

Proposed by WRAC Land Use and Planning Committee on January 17, 2018
Formally adopted by WRAC in February 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council (modified version)
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council


Whereas the City Charter-mandated Neighborhood Council system of Los Angeles, and the Community Councils of the City of Los Angeles, represent grass roots democracy,

  1. Whereas the newly introduced California State Senate Bill 827 [Scott Weiner] as written constitutes a top down pen stroke planning measure which completely removes land use and planning authority within one half mile of high quality transit from jurisdictions and charter cities,
  2. Whereas removal of said authority clearly abolishes local input into land use planning and therefore constitutes an attack upon local democracy, upon neighborhoods, and upon the Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils in the City of Los Angeles,
  3. Whereas SB 827 as written trashes the density bonus and wage provisions of the JJJ TOC ordinance which were recently enacted by the people of Los Angeles—in good faith—in order to guarantee transit close housing opportunities would actually be available to working and low- income persons and families in the City of Los Angeles,
  4. Whereas the lack of analysis of infrastructure and other costs associated with this pen stroke planning creates grave uncertainty that a local agency would be able to “levy enough service charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code”,
  5. Whereas, given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution “No reimbursement” clause is cited inappropriately in this legislation,
  6. Therefore, the _____________ Council opposes SB 827 in its present form.


Note that whatever amendments to SB 827 are proposed, the unfixable problem with the bill is that it strips local municipalities of their ability to do land use planning in these areas—overriding any community plans, specific plans, etc.

Download additional background


SORO NC added a provision urging City leadership to officially and vigorously oppose SB 827.

PPCC futher called on the City, through its official representatives, to vigorously oppose SB 827 and protect local authority and control over land use and planning.


Go to Top