LOS ANGELES — A coalition of housing, transit and land-use advocacy organizations is urging the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to revise its proposed methodology for implementing Senate Bill 79, arguing that the regional planning agency’s approach conflicts with state law and guidance issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
In a June 2 letter addressed to SCAG’s Community, Economic and Human Development Committee, organizations including California YIMBY, SPUR, Streets For All, Housing Action Coalition, Greenbelt Alliance and Abundant Housing LA contended that SCAG’s draft mapping methodology would improperly limit the law’s reach and create legal uncertainty for cities and housing developers.
The dispute centers on how SCAG intends to identify transit-oriented development zones under SB 79, legislation authored by Sen. Scott Wiener and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2025.
According to SCAG’s draft methodology, SB 79 “establishes statewide standards to streamline housing development near transit by defining and mapping Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zones and stops.”
The law “aims to accelerate transit-oriented housing production by making qualifying projects an allowed use on sites zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development if the project meets applicable requirements.”
The legislation takes effect July 1, 2026, unless local agencies adopt compliant transit-oriented development ordinances or alternative plans before that date.
SCAG, as the metropolitan planning organization for Southern California, is required to develop and maintain maps identifying qualifying transit-oriented development zones.
In their letter, advocates framed the stakes as extending beyond technical mapping questions.
“California is grappling with crises in urban planning—marked, in part, by high housing costs, declining public transit ridership, significant congestion from car traffic and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” the coalition wrote. “To address these issues, last year, the legislature passed Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), signed into law by Gov. Newsom, thus allowing more homes near high-quality transit in qualifying urban rail counties.”
The groups argued that “accurate mapping of transit-oriented development (TOD) station areas is essential to ensure consistent implementation of the law, providing certainty for local governments and other stakeholders and creating progress toward some of the state’s enduring challenges.”
The coalition expressed concern that SCAG is “working to delay SB 79 applicability based on arbitrary findings and to create more conservative definitions of commuter rail service that conflict with state law.”
The letter specifically challenged SCAG’s treatment of planned transit projects.
SCAG’s draft methodology states that the agency will only map planned transit stops when station locations have sufficient certainty.
For purposes of its map, SCAG proposes treating projects as sufficiently certain only after they have completed environmental review under CEQA and, when applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency argues that this standard creates greater certainty regarding station locations and construction likelihood.
Advocates contend that approach directly conflicts with SB 79.
“SB 79 is applicable in TOD station areas upon their inclusion in a locally preferred alternative (LPA),” the coalition wrote. “Waiting for the completion of all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents to apply SB 79, as the methodology and map suggest, would violate the law and also conflict with recent HCD guidance.”
The organizations pointed to statutory language providing that stations qualify if they are “on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected.”
They argued that if lawmakers intended environmental clearance to be the determining factor, “they could have written that standard, rather than referring specifically to preferred alternative selection.”
The coalition noted HCD guidance stating that transit-oriented development station areas may be established through “local implementing document as determined by the MPO.”
According to the letter, “The guidance is clear that LPAs do, in fact, establish the locations of major transit stations for the purposes of SB 79.”
As a result, the organizations argued, “Extraneous requirements about additional environmental documents are unlawful, and SCAG must reject them.”
A second major point of contention involves commuter rail frequency calculations.
Under SB 79, qualifying transit-oriented development zones are determined partly by train frequency. Tier 1 stops must be served by heavy rail or very high-frequency commuter rail, while Tier 2 stops may qualify through light rail, high-frequency commuter rail or certain bus services.
SCAG’s methodology acknowledges that HCD guidance states: “In assessing whether a station meets this threshold, frequency is based on the total number of trains serving the station, including trains operated by multiple commuter rail services where applicable. This approach reflects the overall level of transit access and frequency experienced by riders at a given stop.”
However, SCAG maintains that the statute itself is focused on a commuter rail service rather than the aggregate number of trains serving a station.
According to the methodology document, “SCAG’s interpretation of how to account for frequency is in line with the statute as written and is that frequency is calculated at the station level for a single service or line, not aggregated across multiple services at the station level.”
The agency notes that HCD’s interpretation “expands the analysis to account for every train serving a station” and that affected jurisdictions will ultimately need to determine whether they account for cumulative service or only one line at a station.
Housing advocates strongly disagree with that interpretation.
“Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must calculate train frequency by service at a station, and not according to line,” the coalition wrote. “The current SCAG recommendation calculates commuter rail frequency based on how many times each rail line on each agency departs from a station.”
The groups argued that SCAG should instead “identify SB 79 stations based on the frequency of total trains at each station; HCD’s guidance is unambiguous on this front.”
Quoting directly from HCD’s guidance, the coalition emphasized that frequency should be measured using “the total number of trains serving the station, including trains operated by multiple commuter rail services where applicable.”
The organizations also criticized what they described as inconsistencies within SCAG’s own documents.
“There is no justification for SCAG to conflict with HCD on the definition of a commuter rail frequency,” the coalition wrote. “The determination even conflicts with separate passages from the SCAG’s methodology report.”
The letter further asserted that “SCAG does not even appear to believe its finding on train frequency, as the report also indicates that HCD’s earlier interpretation may, in fact, be correct.”
Advocates pointed to SCAG’s mapping interface, which reportedly includes notices identifying stations affected by differing interpretations of commuter rail frequency and allows users to consider maps with or without those stations included. They argued that “SCAG must eliminate this confusion, follow HCD guidance as the law requires, and direct staff to calculate commuter rail frequency at the station level.”
The coalition warned that failing to align with HCD guidance could create significant legal and planning complications after the law takes effect.
“If SCAG refuses to align its methodology with HCD guidance, it will force cities to choose which directives to believe, create uncertainty and open the door to lawsuits, potentially on multiple fronts,” the organizations wrote.
The groups acknowledged that SB 79 provides metropolitan planning organization maps with a “rebuttable presumption of validity,” but argued that status alone does not guarantee the methodology will withstand legal scrutiny.
“Their ultimate rejection by the courts will only deepen confusion, leaving local governments in the lurch with flawed maps, after SB 79’s July 1 effective date,” the letter stated. “This will subject local governments to otherwise unnecessary legal costs, as well sudden changes to land use that could have otherwise been addressed.”
The coalition concluded by urging SCAG to revise its methodology before implementation begins.
“For these reasons, SCAG must follow HCD guidance and make the modifications described above,” the organizations wrote. “Thank you for your attention to these matters.”
The letter was signed by representatives of Abundant Housing LA, SPUR, Streets For All, Greenbelt Alliance, People for Housing Orange County, Housing Action Coalition, California Housing Defense Fund, Inner City Law Center, Santa Monica Forward, Californians for Homeownership, Yes In My Back Yard, YIMBY Action and California YIMBY.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
It is offensive to me to see a picture of Scott Wiener next to a light rail train. Wiener isn’t really about transit. He’s about using transit-oriented development laws to build dense housing around transit. And let’s not forget that a few months ago, at a congressional candidates forum, he declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, then within days reversed himself and started using the term. The backlash was immediate and he ended up stepping down as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus under pressure. That might have helped him politically in this insane state, but he’s dead to me now. He was already near-dead to me, but now he’s dead to me.
Anyway, back to transit. This state, despite being better than it was during the 1950s-1970s peak-car era, is still pathetic transit-wise. Most people don’t realize this, but LA once had one of the most extensive rail transit systems in the world before ripping much of it out, forcing us to start over decades later at costs measured in tens of billions. The housing cure is to build the transit and let the density follow, not this insane idea that restricting parking and building housing will somehow magically create the high-quality transit needed to support it.
In fact, transit is in serious trouble. BART and Caltrain are staring at major funding gaps because ridership never fully recovered after the pandemic and the emergency money is running out. So tying housing to transit stations does little to reduce car traffic if the transit either doesn’t exist or is heading toward a fiscal cliff. Cart, horse. Horse, cart. California pooched itself when it ripped out so much of its rail system. Muni is one of the few major exceptions that actually kept most of its lines – yay SF.
So no, I don’t see Scott Wiener as some great transit visionary. It’s time to tear down the Scott Weiner statues in the Vanguard town square. He may be politically savvy, but his foundation is sand.
Nevermind that he rides transit rather than driving.
But in any case, SB 79 was his bill and that’s the subject of the article
He rides transit from San Francisco to his job in Sacramento? (On the days when he actually needs to show up?)
Or are you referring to his downtown San Francisco office (assuming he shows up regularly, there)? A locale where you almost have no choice but to take public transit (unless you’re actually a wealthy politician, perhaps).
Public transit works where you’re essentially “forced” to take it.
In any case, I’m surprised that he’s not harassed when taking public transit. Pretty sure that most upper-echelon politicians don’t take it for that reason (part of the same reason they don’t send their kids to public schools – even in highly-rated districts).
I’m not sure that Scott Wiener would want to see someone like me OR Beth Bourne in public settings. :-)
(I watched a video where Beth challenged him, but he was “protected” by staff members.)
In reality, I’d leave him alone, though.
I’m pretty sure the Weiner is able to take the Capitol Corridor to the Capitol each day. I use to ride the reverse of that route weekly for a couple years pre pandemic. Leo McCarthy who was Assembly Speaker and Lt. Governor rode the Greyhound commuter from SF every day for a couple decades.
“Nevermind that he rides transit rather than driving.”
Nevermind is right. Joe Biden also rode Amtrak and actually was an advocate, but Biden still didn’t do squat to actually improve Amtrak any more than Trump. He just oversaw an era during which Amtrak fiinally tried to place an order for long-distance cars that got derailed because disability group’s lawyer’s demanded a spec that no car company would bid on, because it was both impossible and dangerous. The president of the transit group I used to be executive director of used a wheelchair, and he didn’t support such specs. So that probably set Amtrak back a decade on replacing their aging national long-distance fleet. Biden and Weiner were using existing transit in some of the most usable systems that the country has, but both have failed in actually making the meaningful mass expansions necessary to make this state or this country truly transit usable in the way so many other countries are.
Alan
For transit to be feasible, it needs dense housing nearby. They must go hand in hand. Transit will never adequately serve single family sprawl. Increased density will not necessarily follow transit if we continue to subsidize car use with extensive roadways and 25% of urban land use in parking. Transit won’t necessarily follow housing (although it did in the first half of the 20th century before cars were ubiquitous), but neither will housing follow transit. We have separated the housing and transportation decisions (see e.g. Village Farms vs expanding I-80) but we’re not solving that siloing problem tomorrow. Transit will only get more funding when it has a strong constituency living in dense housing accessible to extending lines.
Cart horse, horse cart.
The way this state operates, what we’ll get is dense housing, little parking, and still continue to expand freeway lanes.
Nope, transit has to be created first and part of our psyche and funding at the state level, not constantly running to taxpayers via initiative process.
There’s an article in The Chronicle today, regarding voter support for the Smart Train in Marin and Sonoma counties.
But the article indirectly notes that it’s primarily developers who will benefit from the taxpayer subsidy.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/smart-train-rail-transit-22290342.php
I suspect that the reason for voter support (in this particular case) is not related to “commuting”. This line is viewed as more of a “fun” amenity (taking advantage of the older system’s right-of-way – which also wasn’t a commuter line). A line that goes nowhere near employment centers (unless you want to transfer to a ferry at some point, making your commute even more expensive and longer). I don’t think it runs to the Larkspur Landing ferry terminal, yet – regardless.
The other thing about this line is that it goes through cities that are safe, frankly overwhelmingly “white” and middle class. In other words, it’s safe.
Probably more used for recreation and novelty, than anything else. I suspect you might be able to bring a bike onto the train (but haven’t verified that).
“The other thing about this line is that it goes through cities that are safe, frankly overwhelmingly “white” and middle class. In other words, it’s safe.”
And although no one wants to talk about this, I suspect this is part of the reason that trains in Europe are viewed as a pleasant experience.
Now, think about the NY subway system in contrast to that. Remember Bernhard Goetz (and a whole bunch of Charles Bronson movies)? Or more recently, “The Joker”?
Or that white guy who ended up strangling a black guy on the subway (in which he faced charges), or that white lady (from Ukraine?) who was stabbed/killed by a black guy on a public train? (There’s often some kind of underlying racial aspect regarding all of this.)
Much of Europe consisted of a rather “homogenous” population until more-recently, when immigration was encouraged by officials. And since then, there’s been significant backlash.
There are public transit lines in Sacramento that I’d think twice about taking. And to this day, the same thing regarding (some) public transit lines in San Francisco, though I suspect that it’s less of an issue since San Francisco became more “homogenized”.
I remember when BART first opened, it didn’t have this type of problem. But based on news reports since then, it seems like it may have changed somewhat.
“Now, think about the NY subway system in contrast to that. Remember Bernhard Goetz (and a whole bunch of Charles Bronson movies)? Or more recently, “The Joker”?”
Frankly, ridiculous.
Sure. Let’s compare real life to Charles Bronson movies, or “The Joker.” Is no one else going to call this ridiculosity out?
And the fact that things are way different than the time Bernhard Goetz was active is also a thing reasonable people know. There’s been a big dip in crime since the 80s, but, sure, why don’t you ignore that, too. Not surprising from someone comparing reality to a movie.
The horrible incidents you cite are the exceptions that prove the rule. People who don’t understand statistics throw around “examples” like this. Like it happens every day and is a major concern.
Hilariously ignorant. I don’t care if the OP bleats out. This kind of ignorance needs to be called out.
More self-satisifed, smug, know-it-all pickin’ and grinnin’ (and adding nothing of value to the conversation) that is just plain not true and laughable.
In case anyone wants to see some statistics, though comparisons are relative:
“NEW YORK CITY (WABC) — There was another violent attack on Tuesday afternoon on the subway, as NYPD crime statistics report year to date transit felonies are down 1.5 percent and assaults are down 5.5 percent.
A 27-year-old man was stabbed in the stomach just after noon on a southbound No. 4 train at the Wall Street station.
He is in the hospital in stable condition and the suspect cops say may have been a robber.
Robberies on transit are up 15 percent so far this year, even though cops are stepping up patrols in the transit system.
Although transit felonies and assaults are down, robberies are up this year, increasing to 136 compared to 118 this time last year.
Chief Gulotta attributes that rise to the unusually cold weather this winter, but the NYPD is adding an additional 175 officers underground, on top of the 750 added by the Governor.
Crime statistics also show there have been three murders so far this year, compared to none at the start of 2025.
“They told me if I felt safe when they saw people stretched out along three seats. Loud music, smoking. The general sense of lawlessness that was going on in the subway. So that’s one of the things we’ve really worked on,” Gulotta said.”
https://abc7ny.com/post/nypd-crime-statistics-show-transit-felonies-assaults-are-down-robberies-patrols-increase/18886821/
(Of course, this only includes what is reported. But “somehow” – must be magic – I strongly suspect that none of these problems occur on Marin/Sonoma’s Smart Train. Davis is a similarly low-crime, homogenous community – protected from the “real world” until it creeps in. As such, it’s pretty easy to virtue signal and conclude that the only “problem” is white idiots driving around in trucks with American flags.