Relatively minor changes to SB 79 that I think would nullify a lot of the opposition: 1) Remove BRT from qualifying 2) Exempt parcels in fire zones 3) Clarify language to ensure it only applies to transit stops that are open or actively under construction, not planned stops
Man, these don't seem like good ideas to me. If we're going to spend $100m+ per mile on BRT lines, shouldn't that come with economic intensification? Fire zones under local control will also just be escape hatches for the hundreds of small cities that don't want housing.
Fire zones would only qualify if they’re on state fire maps BRT scares people because BRT lanes can be added relatively easily, so it makes it seem like any bus line could one day qualify. I’d much rather see BRT removed vs. qualifying in single family zoning
Politically, does the bill need more votes?
It does not have anywhere near enough votes to pass at the moment
I see. Well it certainly doesn't bother me to trade things away on the margin to get the bill over the line.
For assembly or for senate concurrence?
Assembly
Hmm, isn’t the senate usually where housing reform goes to die though
You may be right that removing BRT would reduce resistance, but what's the point in transit oriented development if you exclude most transit? Fuck the opponents. We need to get this done!
Which votes would those changes get?
Number 3 probably swings Senator Menjivar
The only changes that should be made at this point are changes that would change individual votes of Senators and Assemblypeople to Aye. No speculation—if there is no promise from the legislator, there should be no amendment.
It's already amended to allow alternative city plans as long as they bring about the same amount of housing. If locals don't like an area designated, like a future transit stop, they can use their amazing local understanding to do better
No to idea number one. No, no, no.
Is exempting counties larger than 9 million (or MSAs larger than 12 million) on the table?
Almost all BRT is exempt. The only kind of BRT that qualifies is rail like BRT like the Metro G line.
I do not agree with that assessment
Not sure what you aren't agreeing with. How many full time bus lanes are in existence in the state? Under a generous reading, maybe the G Line, AC Transit Tempo, Muni Van Ness BRT, that weird section of MTS Rapid 225 in Chula Vista, and a couple of miles of the SBX.
J Line too, right? At least the 910 portion from Harbor Gateway Transit Center to El Monte Bus Station?
That is not a dedicated roadway for public transportation since 2+ carpoolers can ride for free as well as anyone who pays the toll.
Hmm that seems to me too strict an interpretation. There are still those sections of the 110 lanes that are fully dedicated for public transportation, that dip in and out of with the Express Lanes. There are maps from bill sponsors of where the bill will apply and J Line stops are on there.
The @cayimby.bsky.social explainer says dedicated lanes like the G line. Certainly local jurisdictions can opt in to more density (as they can right now by rezoning) but I think using it for freeway based BRT like the J, MTS 235, etc. is ripe for litigation. cayimby.org/sb-79-explai...
Yea, J Line has fully-dedicated lanes at the point of stations
That seems like a stretch that you could say that any bus route that enters a transit center would be SB 79 eligible, since those internal roadways will always have more than four buses an hour. It is the same concept.
Do you have any of the maps from bill sponsors? I've only seen unofficial ones, including lots of people sharing one I helped make. Which I'm flattered by but I can't guarantee I got it all right
Here’s a map that was shared in a CA YIMBY toolkit to push back against disinfo spread by MAGA TikTokers.
Sort of surprised at how far this map has gone - I worked with somebody on Reddit a few months ago who was making this map. This uses my interpretation of which stops apply and in which tier. If I've misunderstood SB 79 in any way, then that will be reflected here.
Oh interesting! Yeah it was in a Google Drive folder from CA YIMBY so I thought it was an official version from them. But yes bill language can be in flux and we don’t really know for sure until the bill is passed and, I guess, tested by projects.
(I was pretty confident in my interpretations, but see other points in-thread where we've been discussing unclear parts of the text.)
In LA, weirdly the bus lanes on Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley seem to meet the qualification criteria. The Measure HLA bus lanes in LA should qualify when built
Amend SB 79 to include all paragraphs in 21060.2(a) then. But station-based BRT like the G Line should absolutely qualify.
Given this paragraph in the Senate Local Government analysis of the bill, I would hope that an amendment like this to better clarify would be a slam dunk. Although I'm not sure anything in the state actually meets all of 21060.2(a)? G Line probably does and definitely will soon (TSP ambiguity)
I think the author just threw up a bunch of letters, but the J Line does not qualify under the existing law definition, unless they want to kick all of the cars off the freeway right of way (which would be fine by me!) It makes no sense why the J would qualify and MTS Rapid 235 doesn't.
I've been working with a former member of the author's staff on another issue and although he is a lawyer, he is not known for his language precision. But I could absolutely see including the J Line in SB 79 litigated.
If it's meant to be included, it should also be noted that Carson and PCH stations don't apply to the current text thanks to ~20 minute frequencies. Ultimately fine with that being excluded but it seems like they may not have known what they were writing there
I would be ok with 2 and 3 because nominally this bill already follows those but maybe extra clear language will help. I would keep the BRT application because the definition is pretty strict and we should still maximize opportunities.
I loathe bus disrespect so much
#2 would definitely ymake some political sense to be flexible on...even if apartments built to modern code would be way more fire safe than existing SFHs
If you exclude planned stops I think it jeopardizes the plans
You could add language that states it has to be fully funded on an approved Regional Transportation Plan. This removes speculative or strategic projects.
I think by current phrasing planned stops already are excluded
One of the lobbyists told me they’re included. This really needs to be cleared up
SB 79 points to PRC 21155 for its definition of major transit stop which includes RTP stops and thus stops 20-30 years away from construction. I would consider using the PRC 21064.3 definition instead.
See what I said here - I know 21155 includes it, but imo the SB 79 language filters it out
I could have this wrong! I think the problem there would be that planned stops do count as 21155 Major Transit Stops, but I wouldn't think the present-tense operator "served by" could apply to future service, and I don't remember anything in the bill explicitly including them otherwise
