I’m here in the belly of Southern California’s worst acronym for what could be a key vote over how the region grows over the next decade. Here’s some background on what’s happening: 
For 50 years, the state has required local governments to set aside land for new housing to accommodate projected population growth. This process is deeply flawed and hasn’t led to nearly enough housing, but does require cities to zone for growth latimes.com/projects/la-po…
The process begins as a back and forth between the state and regional agencies over a) how much a region should grow and then b) where that growth should be. We’re now going through this for the Southern California Assn of Governments, which represents half the state’s population
In June, the regional government, which is made up of local officials from Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura, said they wanted to plan for 430k new homes through 2029, citing potential “chaos” if the state pushed for more latimes.com/politics/la-po…
The state, at Gov. @GavinNewsom’s urging, has said local governments have to do a lot to accommodate growth as a remedy to California’s housing problems. So a few months later, the state responded by tripling the region’s housing allocation to 1.3 million latimes.com/california/sto…
Now, the fight moves to where that growth should be. Some local governments say it should go inland where there’s more vacant land and provide less disturbance to existing development. Others contend, for climate change and housing demand reasons, it should go nearer to the coast
A lot of things could happen today, but there could be a key vote between two very competing visions. The inland growth option pushes the responsibility to zone for about 130k homes to Riverside/San Bernardino. The coastal one puts those homes in LA and Orange County.
Unlike many of these big decisions, I’m hearing that it’s truly uncertain what’s going to happen today. Either of these two options could pass or something else could happen. Regardless, while this is a key decision, any zoning changes as a result of this are a long way away.
Nevertheless, today’s action is important a) symbolically for whether the region will continue to embrace inland growth or higher density in coastal neighborhoods and b) how the state might respond in continuing to crack down on local governments
State Assembly Speaker @Rendon63rd — from LA area — is here. He says he understands local concern about a large housing allocation but: "It has to be that way. It has to be that way because the state cannot by itself solve California's housing crisis."
As a sign of how significant today’s vote might be, 10 LA city council members are at the hearing for the housing decision + Mayor @ericgarcetti. This is unheard of attendance at an agency that’s traditionally been ignored
TIL that the regional government, SCAG, has a “hotline” for cities and counties discuss the regional housing supply goals, a process which I imagine functions like this
I’m now told 11 of 15 LA city council members are here + the mayor for the housing vote, which should be about 20% of the total today. Wesson, Rodriguez, Lee, Cedillo, Ryu, Blumenfield, Krekorian, Koretz, O'Farrell, Bonin, Martinez are here.
As SCAG staff finishes its presentation on the two options for housing growth, we learn there are 22 people here for public comment causing the room to grumble deeply.
Bad Housing Acronyms Ranked by Badness
1. SCAG
2. RHNA
3. CEQA
4. VMT
5. RTP
1. SCAG
2. RHNA
3. CEQA
4. VMT
5. RTP
Shoutout to this SoCal city official who brought his kid, who seems to be enjoying himself, to the SCAG meeting.
I’m told that’s LA councilman @mikebonin with his kid, which reveals that I’ve only lived in LA for a month.
Of the 22 public commenters I’d guess that those pushing for more coastal growth outnumbered those pushing for more inland growth about 4:1, which, as a longtime veteran of public comment at 2 pm on a Thursday, is a remarkable ratio.
Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey, who has put forward the option to push growth to the coast, called Gov. Newsom “dad”, the state housing department “mom” and the counties at play “six kids”: "We’re under pressure right now to figure out the best way to put that puzzle together."
Riverside County Supervisor Karen Spiegel says she often hears that jobs should just move inland, but says that’s not realistic: "How many of you are business owners? Would you want to move to Riverside county from wherever you are?"
Culver City Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, whose city would get a huge increased housing allocation under the coastal option, is arguing for it for climate change reasons: "This is the Titanic. It is not too late to steer away from death."
Councilman Clint Lorimore of Riverside County’s Eastvale will have his city’s housing allocation go up under the coastal option (it’s complicated) & says his city can’t accommodate it bc they need tax dollars from retail: "I fear for our longevity as a city as we move forward."
City Councilwoman Peggy Huang from Orange County’s Yorba Linda says that housing is more affordable inland so jobs should be pushed there: "Don’t look at us (on the coast), go over there."
OK. We’re ready for a vote. This could get kooky
Looks like we’re going to get a vote on the coastal option first.
Incredible. Coastal growth option passes 43-19
To recap, Southern California city leaders voted to a significant chance of its 1.3m housing allocation away from inland cities toward coastal ones.
Here’s the vote breakdown. 12 LA city votes for the coastal-growth option, which was the idea of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey.
I’m going to post the city-by-city breakdown shortly, though it is subject to change before it’s final in the spring. But if this stands the actual city by city rezoning is going to be something else. Beverly Hills’ current housing allocation is 3. Under this new one it’s 3,100
Like you think they’re going to be pumped about having to zone for 13,300 new homes in Huntington Beach?
I’m not joking when I say I don’t envy any city council member in a small SoCal coastal community that has traditionally opposed growth and now has to deal with this. Either they try to defy state law or get absolutely hammered — probably for years — by their constituents
It’s proving complicated to post the city-by-city breakdown in a clear and comprehensible way. For now, check out the “M Modifed” option in this chart for the allocation
I found the new Westside LA rezone plan
For an easier to follow version of the potential city-by-city zoning requirements in SoCal, it's here (h/t @matthewplan) The column that was approved today is "10/7 substitute motion" scag.ca.gov/programs/Docum…
Update: They are not pumped in Huntington Beach about having to zone for 13,300 new homes. facebook.com/groups/9245322…
