SB 50, as introduced in Dec. 2018 by state Senator Scott Wiener (D SF), would increase housing density by overriding zoning protecting single family home neighborhoods in Long Beach and most large CA cities by allowing multi-unit residential buildings (apartments, townhouses, condos or four plexes) in neighborhoods the bill deems "jobs rich" [mainly middle class or above] with well-performing schools, or within a half mile of rail transit stops or a quarter mile of frequent bus transit stops (with heights of roughly five stories allowed a half mile of rail transit.) The bill would also reduce or in some cases eliminate parking requirements for multio-unit housing and provide incentives for developers to build affordale (subsidized) housing

It would effectively upzone neighborhoods by letting housing developers avoid local controls on density, parking requirements, some building height limits (near rail lines). SB 50 would also allow housing developers increased density bonuses and other incentives to build multi-unit housing (market rate and "affordable" (subsidized) housing) in single family home neighborhoods not currently zoned for apartments and other multi-unit residential buildings.

On May 7, 2019, the LB City Council voted 8-0 (Gonzalez absent) to oppose SB 50 unless amended to exclude LB. (The LB Council acted only after City Councils in Los Angeles, San Francisco had voted to oppose SB 50 and only after he bill had advanced through two state Senate committees (one with the voted support of SE LB-area state Senate Tom Umberg (D, SE LB-west OC)).

On May 16, the state Senate Appropriations Committee chair, state Senator Anthony Portantino (D, Glendale-Los Angeles) announced that he was retaining SB 50 in his committee, a move preventing SB 50's advance in 2019. Senator Wiener has responded by seeking to advance SB 50 in the coming days with amendments added on Jan. 6, 2020. Under state Senate rules, SB 50 must clear the state Senate Appropriations Committee by Jan 24 and pass the full state Senate by Jan. 31. If SB 50 doesn't meet either deadline, it dies.

At this point, it's not clear what will happen to SB 50 in Sacramento. And at this point, the City of LB has no stated position on SB 50 as now amended.

One amendment would let cities meet SB 50's density requirements if they adopt a plan that spreads the bill's increased density beyond "jobs rich"/transit-adjacent areas to other parts of the city as long as the net result increases the city's housing density overall (and isn't concentrated in low income areas.) (If a city doesn't adopt a plan to spread the density, SB 50's "jobs rich"/transit adjacent density increase locations would apply.)

A number of other cities remain opposed to SB 50. They note that SB 50 would impose Sacramento housing density dictates that ignore land use factors best understood locally and have historically been decided locally. Senator Wiener has responded that he believes the statewide housing crisis requires single family home zoning to give way to allow mutli-unit residential buildings in areas where current local single family home zoning doesn't allow them.

Sen. Wiener has added other amendments in an effort to placate a number of interest groups. One amendment would prioritize a portion of new "affordable" units produced by the bill for people living areas where those projects are located. That amendment hasn't quieted opposition from some affordable housing advocates and equity interest groups who've consistently opposed SB 50 on grounds it enables "trickle down" economics by letting developers build dense upscale or luxury housing units that fuel displacement and gentrification.

SB 50's full text as amended can be viewed here

So what position -- if any -- will the City of LB take on SB 50 as now amended?

Density is an especially sore point in Long Beach, where 1980's City Council actions (over the objections of neighborhood residents) allowed developers to replace single family homes in neighborhoods surrounding downtown with "crackerbox" apartments. The result left neighborhoods with chronic issues (including insufficient parking) and created chronic infrastructure and service impacts for LB taxpayers citywide. LB's experience with "crackerbox" density was among the reasons for grassroots LB neighborhood opposition to increased density proposed by LB city staff in 2017-2018 Land Use Element changes.

Sponsor

Sponsor

In announcing his Jan. 6 amendments to SB 50, Senator Wiener wrote on Facebook: :

Today we're starting the final push to pass SB 50 - legalizing apartments and affordable housing near jobs and transit - through the Senate by end of January. We're announcing new amendments and endorsements from community organizations, elected officials, and labor unions.

The amendments allow cities flexibility to adopt their own alternative plans that accomplish SB 50’s goals in a local way. If they don't, then SB 50 kicks in. Those local plans must re-zone for as much housing as SB 50 requires. Either way, cities must zone for lots more housing, newly zoned housing must be sustainable (near transit and jobs and not sprawl), and the new housing must include wealthy areas and not be limited to low income areas.

Another amendment requires that a portion of new affordable housing built under SB 50 be prioritized for people living in the community where the affordable housing is built. People should be able to stay in their own community and access affordable housing there.

SB 50 continues to require statewide fourplex zoning, strong tenant/anti-demolition protections, robust affordability requirements, and delayed implementation in low income "sensitive communities." We're continuing to work with housing equity advocates on these equity provisions.

Our momentum is growing. Let’s get SB 50 passed!

Sponsor

Sponsor

If LB City Hall means to maintain its opposition to SB 50 as amended, or chooses to lift its opposition to SB 50 as amended, it has two ways to do so.

City management or the Mayor could sign a letter stating that the City of LB continues to oppose SB 50 as amended. They could do based on the City Council's policy-setting Jan. 7, 2020 voted action that approved a 2020 "State Legislative Agenda" whose policies include: "Oppose legislation that would reduce the City's local land use authority" and "Oppose legislation that preempts the City's existing control over local matters."

The City Council could take up the issue and separately state its position on SB 50 as amended in a publicly agendized Council voted agenda item. However only two scheduled Council meetings remain this month: Jan. 14 and Jan. 21. The deadline to agndize an item for Jan. 14 Council meeting passed on Friday Jan. 10 without three required Councilmembers, or the Mayor or city management agendizing such an item. That leaves only the Jan. 21 Council meeting, requiring one Councilmember to agendize a postion on SB 50 by noon Monday Jan. 13 or three Councilmembers or the Mayor or city management could do so by noon Friday Jan. 17.

Unless city staff, or Councilmembers and the Mayor, move swiftly in the coming days, it will remain unclear if L.A. County's second largest city supports or opposes SB 50 as amended.

Sponsor

In its last Sac'to policy committee hearing (April 2019) -- before the 2020 amendments -- a state Senate legislative analysis listed SB 50's supporters and opponents as follows; In advance of the April 24 Assembly Committee meeting, the Senate's Governance and Finance Committee's legislative analysis listed support and opposition as of April 19 as follows:

<U>Support: 3,025 Individuals; 6beds, Inc.; AARP; Bay Area Council; Bridge Housing Corporation; Building Industry Association of The Bay Area; Burbank Housing Development Corporation; Calasian Chamber of Commerce; California Apartment Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Community Builders; California National Party; California Yimby; Dana Point Chamber Of Commerce; Emeryville; City of; Facebook, Inc.; Fieldstead and Company, Inc.; Fossil Free California; Greater Washington; Hamilton Families; Local Government Commission; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Ms.; Murrieta Chamber of Commerce; Natural Resources Defense Council; North Orange County Chamber of Commerce; Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; Office of The Mayor, San Francisco; Orange County Business Council; Oxnard Chamber of Commerce; Related California; Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce; Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce; Schott & Lites Advocates Llc; Silicon Valley At Home (Sv@Home); Silicon Valley Leadership Group; South Bay Jewish Federation; South Bay Yimby; Spur; State Council on Developmental Disabilities; Stripe; Technet-Technology Network; The Silicon Valley Organization; Tmg Partners; Valley Industry And Commerce Association; Yimby Action

Oppose: 1,850 Individuals; Aids Healthcare Foundation; Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (Acce) Action; American Planning Association, California Chapter; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association; Bay Area Transportation Working Group; Berkeley Tenants Union; Brentwood Community Council - West Los Angeles; Causa Justa :: Just Cause; Central Valley Empowerment Alliance; Century Glen Hoa; City of Brentwood; City of Chino Hills; City of Cupertino; City of Downey; City of Glendale; City of Lafayette; City of Lakewood; City of La Mirada; City of Palo Alto; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City of Rancho Palos Verdes; City of Pinole; City of Redondo Beach; City of San Mateo; City of Santa Clarita; City of Solana Beach ;City of Sunnyvale; City of Vista; Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; Preserve LA; Concerned Citizens of Los Feliz; Cow Hollow Association; Dolores Heights Improvement Club; Dolores Street Community Services; East Mission Improvement Association; East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice; City of Glendora; Grayburn Avenue Block Club; Homeowners of Encino; Housing for All Burlingame; Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco; Jobs with Justice San Francisco; Jordan Park Improvement Association; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; League of California Cities; Los Angeles Tenants Union - Hollywood Local Case Worker; Los Angeles Tenants Union -- Networking Team; Miraloma Park Improvement Club; Mission Economic Development Agency; New Livable California Dba Livable California; Noe Neighborhood Council; Northeast Business Economic Development Dba Northeast Business Association; City of Pasadena; Planning Association for the Richmond; Poder; Redstone Labor Temple Association; Regional-Video; Sacred Heart Community Service; San Francisco Senior And Disability Action; San Francisco Rising Alliance; San Francisco Tenants Union; Save Capp Street; Senior and Disability Action; SF Ocean Edge; Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association; South Bay Cities Council Of Governments; South Brentwood Residents Association; South of Market Community Action Network; Stand Up For San Francisco; Sunset-Parkside Education And Action Committee (Speak); Sutro Avenue Block Club/Leimert Park; Telegraph Hill Dwellers; Tenant Sanctuary; Tenants Together; The San Francisco Marina Community Association; Toluca Lake Homeowners Association; United to Save the Mission; Urban Habitat; West Mar Vista Residents Association; Yah! (Yes to Affordable Housing)

Developing.

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.