Long Beach City Hall took a position on SB 35 of "neutral" on the measure while "working with the author on amendments, consistent with the City's state legislative agenda as it relates to local control." City Hall's Manager of Government Affairs, Diana Tang, has told LBREPORT.com that she made the decision to take the "neutral" position on SB 35 noting that it was then undergoing amendments.

This was despite a City Council-approved "state legislative agenda" that declared the City would "Oppose legislation that preempts the City's existing control over local matters"..."oppose policies and legislation that preempts the current authority possessed by the City and delegates that authority to the State or other government jurisdiction"..."oppose policies and legislation that diminishes the City's local control over land use, planning, zoning and development decisions, and oppose legislation in conflict with the City's adopted General Plan or other Council adopted land use policies."

LBREPORT.com finds it hard to believe that any city management level person (including City Manager West) would steer the City onto a course so clearly at odds with what its policy-setting City Council had voted to approve unless it was with the tacit or explicit approval of Mayor Garcia and at least some Council members. We think it's brave of Ms. Tang to fall on her sword for the outcome, but we believe other factors drove City Hall's "neutral" stance on SB 35.

[Scroll down for further.]

Sponsor

Sponsor

It's seems more likely to us that Mayor Garcia and some Councilmembers decided it was best not to oppose SB 35, which might annoy Sac'to Dem leadership, who might prove useful to them in future races. For some electeds, we suspect the relevant calculation wasn't made on the merits; we believe it was more likely career-driven and political.

In addition, development interests (that can also prove helpful to ambitious politicians) had long wanted changes in the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to curtail pesky public hearings, neighborhood impact reports and appeals. SB 35 was the vehicle to do so.

And while some city planners might genuinely want local control over the outcome of proposed city projects, we doubt city management will miss contentious public hearings, EIRs and other labor-intensive steps in project approvals. In those respects, SB 35 means less work for city staff.

Sponsor

In May 2016, Gov. Brown used his annual proposed budget revision to support major changes to CEQA without mentioning CEQA, framing the issue in different political terms:

Source: Gov. Brown May 13, 2017 FY2016-17 budget revise text] Despite the state's sizeable investment in housing, the number of new units developed continues to be very low when compared to the demand for housing.

Development costs and the local review process are barriers that reduce the number of units that can be developed. The average total development cost was $332,000 per unit for new construction projects that received housing tax credits from 2011 through 2015.

...[A]reas, such as streamlining local reviews, present a significant opportunity for savings...

The state's investment must incorporate policies to control development costs, given the high cost of housing construction...

The state's housing affordability and homelessness problems are long-standing, and solutions will not be easy.

Ultimately, policy changes that will increase the housing supply will be most effective at reducing housing costs. To this end, the Administration proposes legislation requiring ministerial, "by-right" land use entitlement provisions for multifamily infill housing developments that include an affordable housing component...

Under the proposed legislation, a local government could not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval for qualifying developments that include affordable housing, provided they are consistent with objective general plan and zoning standards and, where applicable, are subject to mitigating measures to address potential environmental harm.

It is counterproductive to continue providing funding for housing under a system which slows down approvals in areas already vetted and zoned for housing, which only delays development and increases costs...

On December 5, 2016, the first day of the new legislative session, newly elected state Senator Scott Wiener (D, San Francisco) introduced the type of legislation that Governor Brown invited, which became SB 35.

The bill ultimately underwent ten amendments, but its core elements (curtailing the public's CEQA rights/reducing local land use controls) remained intact. Reduced to its essentials, SB 35 provides a mechanism letting developers avoid CEQA environmental (neighborhood) impact hearings/appeals and can require cities to grant approval to certain large multi-unit residential buildings, regardless of community or city staff or City Council concerns or opposition, in specified circumstances. To view SB 35 in full, (click here..

Regardless of what city management did or didn't do, nothing prevented the City Council from taking an explicit position opposed to SB 35. The Council took explicit positions on other bills (including support for SB 54 [the CA Values Act/"sanctuary state" bill], LBREPORT.com coverage here.) As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, the City of Long Beach also supported (without explicitly voted Council approval) passage of SB 1, the bill that will raise gasoline taxes effective November 1 (LBREPORT.com coverage here.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

The League of CA Cities consistently opposed SB 35. To see a full list of SB 35's supporters/opponents on final passage click here.