The Committee vote was 4-6-3: Yes = Gaines, Morrell, Skinner, Wiener; No = Allen, Beall, Cannella, Dodd, Galgiani, McGuire; No Votes Recorded = Roth, Vidak, Wieckowski. The Committee did grant the measure "reconsideration" [the author could theoretically bring it back in some amended forms, but Sen. Wiener's comments (below) indicate he's more inclined to wait until next year.

Several Committee members commended the author for raising the issues AND indicated that they plan to work with him to address concerns raised by the bill's opponents in seeking to address housing goals that they indicated they share with Sen. Wiener.

Senator Wiener said (in a statement released after the vote) that "While I'm disappointed that Senate Bill 827 won't be moving forward this year, I'm heartened by the conversation it has started...[M]y job is to take the conversation started by SB 827, and get to work on developing a proposal that meets the ambitious goals of this bill, while incorporating what we have learned since we introduced it. I will continue to work with anyone who shares the critical goals of creating more housing for people in California, and I look forward to working in the coming months to develop a strong proposal for next year." (Parts of SB 827 could re-surface in other bills in the coming months...and Sen. Wiener clearly intends to move something similar to SB 827 next year under a new Governor and new legislative )leadership.)

And Senator Wiener added: "I have additional housing bills this year to reform our Regional Housing Needs Assessment process (SB 828)..."

[Scroll down for further.]

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, SB 828 (with amendments added on April 16, full text here) carries major long-term local and regional impacts...and is scheduled for an April 24 hearing in the same state Senate Committee.

SB 828 would basically require cities that haven't produced the number of "needed" low and very low income housing units (numbers decided by a regional gov't body, locally meaning the So. Cal. Ass'n of Gov'ts/SCAG) to double of such units such cities must produce and simultaneously make it harder for cities to appeal for reductions in the SCAG decreed number.

Sponsor

Sponsor

SB 828 would [legislative counsel digest text] "require [a City'e General Plan] program to identify actions that will be taken to accommodate 200% of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need that could not be accommodated on the sites identified in the inventory of land without rezoning of those sites. The bill would also require those actions be taken to make at least 100% of the city’s or county’s share so identified be available for multifamily housing located within developed areas."

SB 828 would also "prohibit the final allocation plan from considering the prior underproduction of housing from the previous cycle, as calculated, to justify a lower allocation for a particular local government. The bill would also require the final regional housing need to demonstrate efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities throughout a region, including by demonstrating a high housing allocation for households located within particular communities, efforts to alleviate a median market rent that exceeds 30%, and a high housing allocation for all income categories."

SB 828 would also "define the vacancy rate for a healthy housing market for those purposes to be considered no less than 6% of both rental and ownership housing, as provided. The bill would also require the council of governments to include data on the percentage of households paying more than 30% of their income on housing."

The bill would "require the [state Dept. of Housing and Community Development], after making the final written determination described above, to add the difference between the previous cycle’s housing allocation and the reported housing production based on an annual production report submitted by the local government" and "the bill would provide any determination of that nature is unappealable."

Sponsor

When combined with Senator Wiener's SB 35 (enacted in 2017, effective now), the net result could in some cases make it nearly impossible for some cities who've fallen behind in producing low/very low income housing to avoid the "streamlining" mandates of SB 35.

To date, neither the LB City Council's "State Legislation Committee" (Austin, Mungo, Gonzalez) nor the full City Council have discussed in detail the Land Use impacts of SB 828 or taken a specific voted position on SB 828 (introduced Jan 3, 2018 with its significant amendments added March 14) despite SB 828's upcoming April 24 Committee hearing.

In 2017, the City of LB took a neutral ("working with the author on local control issues") as Senator Wiener's SB 35 advanced to enactment despite verbiage in the Council adopted 2017 "state legislative agenda" stating that the City would oppose measures weakening local decision making control, including on land use issues. However the Council's "State Legislation Committee" (Austin, Mungo, Gonzalez) didn't meet between Jan. 10, 2017 and Nov. 21, 2017, and the Council didn't explicitly discuss the impacts of SB 35, as it advanced to passage in September 2017.

LB resident Janet West (4th dist. constituent) tried without success to get the Council's attention on the advancing bill. She contacted her Councilmember, Daryl Supernaw, by email, and received a polite response with no action. Ms. West then sounded the alarm on SB 35 when LUE density increase maps came to the Planning Commission for a stormy August 2017 meeting. Ms. West tried yet again with the full City Council (public comment for non-agendized items) with no response.

The net result: no LB Councilmember(s) or Mayor Garcia agendized an item to put the City of LB on record against SB 35 (which had the backing of Sac'to Dem legislative leadership.) To date, no LB Councilmember has publicly inquired how and why the City failed to oppose the SB 35 despite the Council's "state legislative agenda" stating that the City would oppose measures threatening local decision making control.

Shortly before SB 35's final enactment votes, Mayor Garcia [via an individual Tweet] and Councilwoman Price [at an early September community meeting reported by LBREPORT.com] indicated they opposed SB 35; Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, LB) also stated his opposition and voted against SB 35 (one of few Dems to do so) but State Senators Ricardo Lara (D, LB-Huntington Park) [now running for State Insurance Commissioner] and state Senator Janet Nguyen (R, SE LB-west OC) [now seeking re-election] both voted in favor of SB 35.

City Hall's record on SB 35 became an issue cited by members of the public in opposing then-advancing city-staff drafted density-promoting Land Use Element maps. (In response to puhblic push-back city staff, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council reduced a number of proposed density increases by voted actions on March 6, 2018.) .

Also on March 6, the Council voted 9-0 [action first agendized by Councilmembers Mungo, Austin and Supernaw] to oppose SB 827 (joining multiple other CA cities as well as the League of CA Cities in opposition.) On March 13, the City sent a respectful but firmly worded letter of opposition regarding SB 827, signed by City Manager Pat West, to Senator Wiener (cc'd to Sac'to LB-area lawmakers and the Transportation and Housing Committee.) To view the City of LB's letter, click here.

Developing. Stay with LBRPEORT.com for continuing detailed coverage of locally impacting Sacramento developments. As with last year's SB 35 ("streamlined" approval of certain developer-desired housing projects), LBREPORT.com reports LB impacting Sacramento developments in detail. With LBREPORT.com, you don't miss a thing.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor