Staff's most recent November 10, 2017 maps -- which LBREPORT.com has made easily accessible on a special page linked in a special banner atop our front page -- simply propose to reduce or modify density increases that city staff previously sought. The MAyor and City Council now face the largest LB citywide public uprising in the past quarter century...as five of nine Council incumbents and the Mayor now seek re-election.

City staff attempted to wrap up the LUE process before LB's April 2018 citywide elections for Mayor and a majority of Council incumbents. Staff scheduled its proposed LUE, density increase maps and a draft "program" EIR for Planning Comm'n voted recommendations on Feb. 4, 2017. This could have led to final Council enactment by mid-2017. It didn't happen because Wrigley residents objected, derailing the LUE timeline and resulting in city staff proposing additional density for ELB. At the Aug. 17 Planning Commission meeting, Development Services Dir. Amy Bodek (to her credit) candidly acknowledged that the LUE and maps were already scheduled (by an individual(s) she didn't name) for the Oct. 3 City Council meeting (regardless of what the Planning Commission voted to recommend.) [The Mayor's office generally oversees scheduling agenda items for future Council meetings.] An Council majority and the Mayor now face a citywide uprising as they seek reelection in April 2018...and challengers have now surfaced in Council districts 3 and 5.

We acknowledge (and have repeatedly reported) that Christopher Koontz, City Hall's Advance Planning Officer, has told us that 18 dwelling units per acre is the absolute maximum in the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods PlaceType and adds that the "vast, vast, vast [reiterates it three times for emphasis] majority of existing single family neighborhoods will remain as they are today...In the event new land comes available, such as a school or church closing, and it is developed as single family, the land use element would guide that future development. These could be traditional single family homes, traditional homes on small lot, row homes or duplexes. They would not include 'condos' as those are typically understood because this placetype is not intended to include stacked or 'multifamily' buildings." We also acknowledge that the City Council could use zoning (the next step after the LUE is adopted) to protect neighborhoods, but unfortunately the opposite is also true. It would be foolhardy for residents to rely on LB City Hall's protection (even with a simultaneously approved "Urban Design Element" reciting certain standards) given the City's record of promoting increased density in this proceeding and its history of enabling damaging developer desired "crackerbox multi-unit" density that created long term problems for a number of previously stable residential areas.

In addition, SB 35 (enacted by Sacramento in 2017 without opposition by the City of Long Beach) invites developers to bypass LB enacted approval standards. SB 35 (full text here) states in pertinent part: "A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial [clerk type] approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies" a number of "objective planning standards" [lengthy definition omitted] "if the density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing being permitted." It continues: "In the event that objective zoning, general plan, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning standards pursuant to this subdivision if the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan." Density increases proposed in the LUE -- when coupled with SB 35, plus other recently enacted Sac'to housing bills (including SB 166 and SB 167) plus existing statutory "density bonuses" -- create a perfect storm that could make it even harder to prevent developer-sought increased building heights and density.

Unfortunately, LB residents have good reason to be skeptical of City Hall assurances that city officials will protect their interests. City staff didn't opposed SB 35 and didn't publicly mention SB 35 until after residents brought it up and LBREPORT.com reported it. City staff didn't discuss SB 35's impacts as it advanced and became law. Now that it's been enacted, city staff has tried (at October "Town Hall" meetings) to downplay its significance. LBREPORT.com's sources tell us that the City Attorney and city staff are now belatedly scrambling to compose a memo that will try to downplay SB 35's effects (similar to the way a City Attorney memo tried to downplay the risks of allowing staff-recommended international operations at LB Airport.)