Soft-spoken and fierce, LA City Councilman Paul Koretz led City Hall against SB 50. He joins us Saturday to discuss Scott Wiener's SB 1120. SB 1120 is a reckless rewrite of SB 50 that would kill single-family "zoning" to let speculators jam 4 costly rental homes where 1 home stands now.

SB 1120 is the worst of the Nine Bad Bills (at bottom) that destroy stable communities to erect costly new housing — but very, very little affordable housing. Sacramento has it wrong.

Both the League of Cities and major newspapers wrongly describe SB 1120 as a "duplex" law. SB 1120 is NOT a duplex law. SB 1120 is a "subdivision bill" that does this:

In pretty Paramount, it means one Spanish home becomes 4 "units" without trees
In Torrance, it means a ranch house becomes 4 unaffordable glass boxes, 4 feet apart
In thriving South L.A., it means a lovely home becomes 4 houses, with no garage or yard
In leafy Palisades it means a grand home becomes 4 McMansions, on land stripped bare

Do Westsiders know Sen. Ben Allen voted YES? Do Valley residents know Bob Hertzberg voted YES? Go here to see the shocking names of senators who buckled to Wiener and voted YES.

Please donate today, to help us fight and inform! We deeply appreciate and need your help.

The Assembly Housing Committee votes on SB 1120 on Aug 11. Go to our ACT page to learn how easy it is to MEET & ZOOM with your legislators – a MUST in early August. And Zoom with your senators who voted YES, because the senate, as a whole, must vote again!

This week recap: SB 1085, one of the Nine Bad Bills, was approved by the Assembly Housing Committee. Chairman David Chiu of the Bay Area, a Wiener fan, cut off the mics of those opposed after a few words. On an up note, under public pressure, author Skinner amended the bill to add affordable housing that she had slashed in HALF. We'll keep you posted on SB 1085.

Next week: Huge hearing Aug 6 in Senate Housing: Five of the 9 Bad Bills. Testify by phone!

Here's your call-in info for 10 a.m. Saturday Aug. 1 (Read up on the Nine Bad Bills below):

Via Computer: https://zoom.us/j/6377599629

Dial in: +1 720 707 2699

Meeting ID: 637 759 9629

One tap mobile: +17207072699,,6377599629#

Summaries of The 9 Bad Bills Below, (or read our in-depth OPPOSE letters here):

SB 1120 (by Scott Wiener and Toni Atkins)

Crushes single-family zoning in California, a threat to 8 million homeowners at all income levels. Wiener has called yards and single-family homes “immoral.” SB 1120 allows 4 market-rate homes where 1 home now stands (theoretically it allows 8 units, if cities have local granny flat laws). Requires NO affordable units! No garages! Opens California to broad speculation.

SB 902 (by Scott Wiener):

Allows any city council to overturn voter-approved ballot measures that protect open space, shorelines and other lands — killing a 108-year-old voter right. AND allows any city council to rezone “any parcel” to 10-unit luxury apartments, overriding all zoning including single-family, and inviting gentrification into older, diverse, multi-family areas. Requires NO affordable units. Opens California to broad speculation.

SB 995 (by Wiener and Atkins):

SB 995 is a favor to well-heeled developers that “fast tracks” large commercial projects to let them get around CEQA, our environmental law. It dubs big buildings “Environmental Leadership Development Projects” even if they lack transit. To sell this attack on CEQA, the authors include a paltry 15% affordable housing — another reduction in the 2020 legislature’s commitment to affordable housing.

SB 1085 (by Nancy Skinner):

Today, developers are rewarded a 35% increase in apartment building size — a Density Bonus — if 40% of units in the building are affordable to moderate-income households. SB 1085 slashes to just 20% the required moderate-income units. AUTHOR SKINNER HAS AMENDED THIS OUTRAGEOUS PART OF HER BILL. WE ARE AWAITING THE LANGUAGE.

SB 725: (by Buffy Wicks and Scott Wiener)

A severe threat to 400+ cities who have not attracted enough housing to hit state growth dictates known as “RHNA,” AB 725 brings density and upheaval to areas whose residents have never heard of “RHNA.” RHNA was once a helpful population-forecasting tool. Now it’s used (especially by Wiener) as a state weapon to force density and upheaval on communities.

AB 1279 (by Richard Bloom):

A year AFTER this radical bill becomes law, an obscure committee will THEN identify upscale neighborhood “Opportunity Areas” where 50-unit to 120-unit projects could be built, overriding local zoning if affordable units are included. But if developers don’t want to build affordable projects, they can pay an “in lieu” fee, and build a profitable 10-unit luxury building! This is purely a gift to developers.

AB 2345 (by Lorena Gonzalez and David Chiu)

Lets developers add 50% in “Density Bonus” size to a project if they agree to provide just a TINY bit more affordable housing units than now required. As a reward, developers can ignore well-planned city controls on height, open space (courtyards), parking, design review, setbacks, side yards, trees and other standards. Developers would become their own planners.

AB 3040 (by David Chiu):

It’s a “Sophie’s Choice”: Cities can choose to comply with AB 3040 by sacrificing single-family homes older than 15 years — think South L.A., East L.A., and diverse older suburbs — to satisfy state growth dictates known as “RHNA.” OR cities can try to meet the growth dictates by relying on the Density Bonus program. Stay with us, folks: Unfortunately, the Density Bonus program is a FAIL, preventing more than 400 cities from approving even close to the number of affordable units required by “RHNA.” When those 400+ cities fail, a punitive law by Scott Wiener, SB 35, will let developers ignore local rules, to build as they wish, in most cities.

AB 3107 (by Richard Bloom and Phil Ting):

Wreaks havoc by allowing tall apartments where neighborhood cafés or shops are now, even if adjacent to homes. The towers would contain 20% affordable units. Each city faces a different fate because AB 3107 randomly increases height based on the tallest commercial or residential height allowed ½ mile away. In L.A. it means 9-story towers on retail land citywide. In Inglewood, it means 75-foot towers near some neighborhoods. In Manhattan Beach, it wipes out a citywide 30-foot residential limit and allows 99-foot towers where stores are today.