The Brief

In a close vote following a pointed debate, a slim majority of the Los Angeles City Council voted to formally oppose a California bill that aims to put more housing next to train stops and rapid bus lines.

Eight council members voted to oppose Senate Bill 79, written by Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco. The bill would override local land-use restrictions and let developers construct apartment buildings up to six stories tall, as long as they are within a quarter-mile of a light rail station or a rapid bus stop.

Sacramento upzoning bills regularly have met resistance from local politicians in cities across California, including Los Angeles. In Tuesday’s council meeting, many L.A. council members again argued that state lawmakers were trying to wrest control from local leaders.

“Sacramento is hijacking local planning, stripping away neighborhood voices, ignoring safety and infrastructure, and handing the keys to corporate developers,” said Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades and who introduced the resolution to oppose SB 79 alongside Councilmember John Lee of the San Fernando Valley.

Joining Park and Lee in voting to oppose SB 79 were councilmembers Heather Hutt, Ysabel Jurado, Tim McOsker, Imelda Padilla, Monica Rodriguez, and Katy Yaroslavsky.

‘Our actions have not met the moment’

Other council members said L.A.’s unaffordable rents and out-of-reach home prices prove new approaches are needed.

“We talk a lot about our housing crisis in this body, but our actions have not met the moment,” said Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose district stretches from Encino to Los Feliz. “The only times that they have met this moment are when Sacramento forces us to do something.”

Raman said she believes lack of housing growth currently is the city’s biggest problem. She noted that L.A.’s approval process for new housing regularly takes years, and the city recently has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in failed efforts to kill 100% affordable housing projects.

Raman voted against opposing SB 79, along with councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Curren Price, Hugo Soto-Martinez, and Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

Two councilmembers — Bob Blumenfield and Adrin Nazarian — were absent.

Soto-Martinez, whose district includes much of Hollywood, as well as Silver Lake and Echo Park, had strong words for his colleagues who stood against the state bill.

“You can't have your cake and eat it, too,” Soto-Martinez said. “If you want the solution to these issues — the homelessness, permanent supportive housing sites — then build them in your district.”

State bill exposes fissures on the council 

The vote was not split entirely along ideological lines. Jurado — whose district includes Eagle Rock, El Sereno, and Boyle Heights and who frequently allies with Soto-Martinez, Raman, and Hernandez on tenant rights and other housing issues — expressed concern that upzoning could lead to the redevelopment of older, rent-controlled buildings.

“I'm not willing to gamble losing Boyle Heights,” Jurado said. “That's a gamble I don't want to take considering the lack of clarity around the issues of tenant protections, how it may or may not impact my district.”

During the meeting, SB 79 opponents argued the city already is doing enough to spur the construction of more housing through its recent housing plan update.

That plan left areas zoned for single-family homes — representing 72% of the city’s residential land — untouched. An analysis from the advocacy group Streets for All, which supports SB 79, found that 45% of the land surrounding L.A.’s “high-quality transit stops” is zoned for single-family homes, duplexes, or parking lots.

Before Tuesday’s City Council vote, local opposition to SB 79 came from an unusual source: L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto. In a letter she sent to a state senator in May, Feldstein Soto argued that local taxpayers would have to foot the bill for increased utilities, trash collection, and other services connected to the new housing.

Supporters of SB 79 have argued the new housing would help working- and middle-class Angelenos stay in the city and would help cash-strapped transit agencies boost ridership.

L.A. currently is falling far short of achieving its state-mandated goal of planning for nearly a half-million new homes by 2029. Last year, the city permitted about 17,200 new homes. More than triple that amount would be needed annually to meet the 2029 target.

LAist transportation correspondent Kavish Harjai contributed to this report.

California law requires banks to let homeowners delay their mortgage payments for up to one year as they recover from the January fires. But that period rapidly is coming to a close, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass says the timeline should be much longer.

On Tuesday, Bass asked mortgage companies to voluntarily extend relief for another three years, which would bring the total forbearance period to four years after the Palisades and Eaton fires destroyed thousands of homes.

“Many impacted residents remain in temporary housing and face mounting financial strain,” Bass said in a news release. “They're piecing life together while having to negotiate with contractors and wait for insurance claims to come through.

"Asking them to shoulder mortgage payments on top of all that would force them into an impossible — and unacceptable — choice.”

How mortgage relief currently works

Under Assembly Bill 238, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, homeowners affected by the Palisades or Eaton fires can request mortgage forbearance for up to 12 months. The law extended a previous 90-day forbearance period that banks agreed to honor after the fires.

Bass’ office said she wants the banks to agree to let homeowners take another three years of deferred payments and put them on the back end of their mortgage.

The mayor also is requesting that banks refrain from charging fees or penalties and leave mortgage holders’ credit scores unaffected by the extended relief period.

‘This is not like a free lunch’

Richard Green, director of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, said he’s not sure Bass will convince banks to agree to these terms. And he said homeowners would need to closely scrutinize any relief plan.

Depending on the details around interest payments, he said, some homeowners could exit the forbearance period owing more on their mortgage than their property is worth.

“Consumers would have to understand that this is not like a free lunch,” Green said.

He compared Bass’ proposal to President Donald Trump’s recent suggestion about creating a 50-year mortgage to address nationwide housing affordability concerns. Both plans adjust financing terms without tackling the fundamental reason housing costs so much, he said.

“It's not a great deal,” Green said. “We need to be able to build more housing faster, whether it's in the aftermath of a disaster or not.”

Temporary relocation money is running out

Last month, a nonprofit group called Department of Angels released a survey of thousands of fire survivors that found about 80% of residents displaced by the Eaton Fire and about 90% of those displaced by the Palisades Fire still have not returned to their previous homes.

Many now are paying rent for temporary housing in addition to their regular mortgage payment. The survey found that within the next year, 23% of Altadena residents and 29% of Pacific Palisades residents will run out of insurance payments that cover the cost of that new rent.

The Trump administration unveiled a sweeping plan Tuesday to sidestep Congress and outsource large pieces of the U.S. Department of Education, telling lawmakers and staff that it would shift work dedicated to, among other things, elementary and secondary education, postsecondary education and Indian education to other federal agencies.

All three of those offices were originally placed at the department by Congress when it created the agency in 1979, and these moves are being made without Congress' consent.

According to two people who were briefed on the plan by the Trump administration, and who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, the administration has forged six new agreements between the Education Department and other agencies, offloading day-to-day operations of congressionally-required programs while retaining a small contingent of staff at the department.

For example, under these new agreements, much of the work of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which includes managing Title I, a key federal funding stream that helps schools support low-income students, would shift to the U.S. Department of Labor, as would much of the work of the Office of Postsecondary Education.

The U.S. Department of the Interior would take on much of the work of the department's Office of Indian Education.

The U.S. Department of State would take on international education and foreign language studies programming.

Responsibility for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program, which offers childcare on college campuses to low-income student-parents, would move to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In a USA Today op-ed published Sunday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote of this kind of agreement: "We'll peel back the layers of federal bureaucracy by partnering with agencies that are better suited to manage programs and empowering states and local leaders to oversee the rest. These partnerships are commonplace across the federal government to improve service delivery and increase efficiency."

In July, the Education Department announced one such agreement with the Labor Department, in which Labor took on responsibility for adult education and family literacy programs previously administered by the Education Department, though an Education Department release insisted, "The programs will be managed alongside [Education Department] staff, with continued leadership and oversight by [the Education Department]."

Tuesday's agreements do not include a handful of the department's signature responsibilities, including special education, student civil rights enforcement and student loans.

Opponents of the administration's move say, given that Congress created these offices and explicitly located them inside the Education Department, the White House cannot legally move their work without Congress' approval.

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., a senior member of the Senate education committee, said in a statement, "This is an outright illegal effort to continue dismantling the Department of Education, and it is students and families who will suffer the consequences as key programs that help students learn to read or that strengthen ties between schools and families are spun off to agencies with little to no relevant expertise and are gravely weakened—or even completely broken—in the process."

In briefing lawmakers and staff, the department insisted that these programs' statutory responsibilities would remain at the department, even if the work would be done elsewhere. 

It's unclear if retaining a modicum of department staff, in partnership with other agencies, will be enough to convince the courts the administration is following federal law.

According to NPR's two sources, the briefing was led by Lindsey Burke, now deputy chief of staff for policy and programs at the department, who also co-authored the education section of the conservative government blueprint, Project 2025, outlining how to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

"The federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government," Burke wrote.

There will likely be legal challenges opposing Tuesday's moves.

Copyright 2025 NPR