Although the state Senate voted in June to approve SB 1120 by a 39-0 margin, it didn't return for concurrence in Assembly amendments by the Aug. 31 midnight deadline. As a result, SB 1120 failed (despite having passed both houses of the state legislature separately.)

Livable California, the non-profit group that led opposition to the measure, cheered the outcome.

YES! #SB1120 died good and dead, after getting a bare majority vote of the California state Assembly — but TOO LATE past midnight to become law!

We'll take the technical win! Thanks to eloquent speakers against the bill, Assembly members Al Muratsuchi, Adrin Nazarian, Sydney Kamlager, Laura Friedman and Chad Mayes.

Laura Friedman's story of how the bill could allow controversial Tejon Ranch to QUADRUPLE in size without a single new hearing or environmental review, if SB 1120 became law! I almost fainted!

Then to hear from Adrin Nazarian, that 10,000 houses in the San Fernando Valley are ALREADY owned by huge rental investors and this bill would let them take over thousands MORE homes!

My God, the Assembly members knew more horror stories about SB 1120 that we did, at Livable California!

Sydney Kamlager talked with passion about how the communities in South LA area would be ripped apart, and NO FAMILIES would go into the subdivision business as claimed by the bill's authors! Ridiculous, that the authors said that.

And finally Chad Mayes, who pointed out that in trying to spin the bill's positives on the Assembly floor late Monday night, a proponent said it would "allow ADUs." As Mayes pointed out, California approved a sweeping ADU LAW LAST YEAR!!

In the end, this bill died because the authors did not write a serious bill with serious ideas in it. They had to exaggerate and obfuscate just to get it onto the floor.

Very proud of the legislature today, Sept. 1, 2020!

And thanks to all, from grandmothers in the Inland Empire to young couples in East Los Angeles, to homeowners in Torrance, to activists in San Francisco, who helped fight SB 1120. A law written by and for developers. YAY!!!!!!

[Scroll down for further.]

Noteworthy in LB grassroots efforts against SB 1120 was Eastside Voice led by Corliss Lee. Ms. Lee (A 2018 5th dist. Council candidate) sent mass emailings and social network communications to alert neighborhoods to SB 1120

ELB Council incumbents Stacy Mungo and Daryl Supernaw, whose districts include large areas of single-family homes, didn't use their periodic "newsletters" to alert their constituents to the bill (introduced in mid-Feb. 2020) or agendize any single family zoning protective opposition to SB 1120.

Sponsor

Sponsor

SB 1120 passed the state Senate on June 24 with 39 "yes" votes from LB's two state Senators, Lena Gonzalez (D, LB-SE LA County) and Tom Umberg (D, SE LB-west OC). The Aug. 31 Assembly floor tally showed 42 Assemblymembers voted "yes" (41 needed for passage) with 17 opposed but the final tally (after others Assemblymembers added on, which they can do before adjournment) was 44-18 with 17 .not voting.

Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D LB-SP) defied Sac'to Dem leadership and voted "no." Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D, NLB-Paramount) and Assemblyan Mike Gipson (D, NLB-Carson) voted "yes."

But even with O'Donnell's "no" vote, SB 1120 had sufficient votes to pass the Assembly. And since it received 39 or 40 "yes" votes in state Senate, it would have requierd nearly half of the state Senate to flip their positions to prevent a concurrence vote that would have sent the bill to Governor Newsom. The only thing that prevented SB 1120 from enactment was that time ran out.

All or portions of the bill could be reintroduced in the 2021 Sacramento legislative session. What will LB electeds in Sacramento and at LB City Hall do then?

Sponsor

Sponsor /center>

SB 1120 proposed to preempt aspects of local control. It contained both "duplex" provisions and "urban lot split" provisions. Its duplex provisions required cities to grant "ministerial" (checklist type) approval to proposed housing development projects with two residential units on parcels zoned for single-family residences. Its "urban lot split" provisions required cities to hramt ministerial approval to subdivide an existing parcel to create two new parcels of equal size no smaller than 1,200 square feet (unless a local ordinance allows a smaller minimum.) Garages and yards weren't required.

The Assembly Committee's legislative analysis acknowledged: "Under this bill, a property owner could independently seek ministerial approval for an urban lot split, a duplex, or the owner could seek approval for both an urban lot split and a duplex."

In other words, under SB 1120 an owner or developer could take a single family zoned parcel with one home on it, subdivide it into two equal size lots and then build two homes on each lot (four residences on what had been a single family home lot.).

SB 1120 allowed cities to require one off-street parking space per unit but prohibited any parking requirements if the parcel (with up to four homes) is within half a mile walking distance of public transit or a car share vehicle is within a half block from the parcel.

Sponsor

Sponsor

For the record, the City of Long Beach didn't take a position on SB 1120. The LB Council's "state legislation committee" (three members that can recommend but not enact positions) never discussed it. No individual Councilmembers used their ability to agendize Council items to take a City position on SB 1120.

LB City Hall effectively let SB 1120 progress through the legislative process despite the City Council's voted policy in the City's adopted 2020 "state legislative agenda." It states in pertinent part that the City of Long Beach will: