As currently amended, SB 50 (full text here) would effectively upzone single family home neighborhoods to allow multi-unit buildings (including four plexes, apartments, condos or townhouses) where they're not currently permitted. It would simultaneously also reduce or in some cases eliminate entirely locally required levels of parking spaces accompanying such new multi-unit residential buildings.

In a January 17 release, state Senate President Pro Tem Atkins stated:

I believe there is a good faith effort being made to enable California to reach SB 50’s goals of building more affordable homes that increase access to jobs, reduce the time people have to spend in their cars, and help meet California’s climate change targets. To help ensure these conversations continue, I asked the Senate Rules Committee to pull SB 50 back from the Appropriations Committee prior to the January fiscal vote deadline. While many communities still have clear concerns about SB 50, our affordable housing crisis demands we make every attempt to reach agreement on potential solutions. I hope the additional time afforded by this action contributes to the ongoing efforts being made by Senator Wiener, housing advocates, and community leaders.

As initially introduced, SB 50 sought to put the increased density in what it called "jobs right" areas (middle income and above) with well-performing schools and locations within a half quarter mile of frequent bus stops or a half mile of rail transit as locations for overrides of local zoning to enable Sac'to approved /SCAG mandated multi-unit residential buildings (apartments, condos, townhouses.) However under intense pressure on multiple fronts statewide (including opposition by the Los Angeles City Council and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors), and with Senate Appropriations Committee chair Anthony Portantino (D, Glendale-Burbank-Pasadena) blocking SB 50's advance to the Senate floor, Senator Wiener unveiled amendments to SB 50 on January 6.

One of the amendments would give cities two years to adopt a local plan that, provided it meets with Sacramento's approval, would let a City put Sacramento's mandated housing increases (in numbers decided locally by the "Southern CA Ass'n of Gov'ts" (SCAG)) in locations the City specifies (presumably decided by its City Council.) If a city fails to adopt such a plan (or it's not to Sacramento's liking), SB 50's mandated locations would apply.

Sponsor

Sponsor

In May 2019 (after the Los Angeles City Council and SF Board of Supervisors voted to oppose SB 50), the Long Beach City Council voted 8-0 (then-state Senate candidate Gonzalez absent) to oppose SB 50 unless amended. However on January 6, 2020 it was amended...but as of Jan. 17, neither LB Mayor Robert Garcia nor any City Council members had agendized an item to take a position on SB 50 as amended. The Jan. 21 Council meeting (on which the deadline has passed to agendize items) is the last regularly scheduled Council meeting in January; there are no other regularly scheduled Council meetings remaining before the state Senate acts on or before Jan. 31.

However the Mayor or a City Council majority (five Councilmembers) could schedule a Brown Act-allowed "Special Meeting" on as little as 24 hours notice. (It doesn't require any special findings of an emergency; it's actually done quite frequently in scheduling Council meetings at other than 5 p.m. on Tuesdays.) At such a Special Meeting, Councilmembers could discuss SB 50, hear public testimony pro and con, and ultimately take a recorded vote setting a City of LB position on SB 50 as amended.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Statewide, the League of CA Cities (a non-governmental advocacy group in which the City of LB pays membership dues) urged cities on Jan. 14 to oppose SB 50 unless further amended citing issues enumerated in a position letter here [Although the bill is no longer in the Appropriations Committee, the League's points remain unless SB 50 is amended further.]

A number of other cities remain opposed to SB 50, noting 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 multi-unit residential buildings in areas where current local single family home zoning doesn't allow them.

The statewide advocacy group Livable California and an associated Stop SB 50 Facebook page, as well as the Coalition for Livable Los Angeles remain opposed to the bill as amended.

SB 50 is also opposed by a number of advocacy groups favoring more below market/subsidized housing; they argue that SB 50 practices "trickle down" economics by letting developers build dense upscale or luxury housing units that fuel displacement and gentrification.

Sponsor

SB 50 also faces opposition from grassroots neighborhood homeowners and homeowner groups in various cities that cite its impacts on family home investments as well as on taxpayer costly city infrastructure, police/fire/public service levels and traffic. In Long Beach, Corliss Lee's Eastside Voice sent a Jan. 14 mass emailing (while SB 50 was still in the Senate Appropriations Committee) stating in pertinent part:

It doesn't take a genius to determine where [SB 50's] "jobs rich" [areas] would be in Long Beach. That is the eastside - all of it - as well as other parts of the city that have above average income or housing values...

Recent Developments: Scott Weiner (author of the bill) is kicking hard to get it passed. He recently came up with an amendment to the bill that would allow cities 2 years to implement their own upzoning equivalent to what the bill would produce. That was his answer to the pressure put on by cities that are angry about the State trying to take over zoning. Under his latest bill amendment, if the cities do not re-zone enough area to allow high density development and get housing starts that support that it is happening, then the terms of the [original] bill kick in. Wiener is pushing for 3.5million new housing units in the State when experts advise that 1.5 million are needed.

As you can well imagine, the developers, who are the silent partners behind politicians, have been pouring money into the coffers of Governor Newsom and Scott Weiner. In spite of all the rhetoric about a housing crisis, this bill does little to require affordable housing.

More explicit information on what this bill will do to neighborhoods is contained at the [Livable California]] website [link included: here] Send an email, letting the legislators know that you are watching, you are aware, and they can lose their job if they ruin our State.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Supporters of SB 50 as amended include the CA Ass'n of Realtors (a sponsor of SB 50 as originally introduced), which issued a Jan. 17 statement by its President, Jeanne Radsick:

The California Association of REALTORS® thanks Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins for her outstanding leadership and her commitment to continuing the conversation on SB 50. As proud co-sponsors of SB 50, we firmly believe that it continues to represent the most significant effort to address California’s housing affordability crisis. California lawmakers have the opportunity to make 2020 the year of housing supply and we're encouraged by the Legislature’s focus on this in the first few weeks of the year. We know that increasing the housing supply is the best long-term solution to making the dream of homeownership a reality for millions more Californians. We look forward to working with the governor, the pro tem and other lawmakers in the coming weeks to get SB 50 across the finish line.

SB 50 is also supported by self-described "YIMBY" ("Yes in my Backyard") advocates and allied groups that favor increasing housing density.

Among those voting on SB 50 on or before Jan. 31 will be state Senator (for 1st dist. Councilwoman) Lena Gonzalez (D, LB-SE LA County) who in May 2019 publicly declared herself a "YIMBY" in seeking Sac'to office. State Senator Tom Umberg (D, SE LB-west OC) (elected in November 2018) voted "yes" on SB 50 in April 2019 in a state Senate committee that advanced SB 50 in the legislative process..

State Senator Gonzalez (who faces no opponents on the 2020 ballot) has endorsed two candidates in March 2020 LB City Council elections: Suely Saro in the 6th Council district and Cindy Allen in the 2nd district. To LBREPORT.com's knowledge, neither Ms. Saro nor Ms. Allen have publicly stated how they'd vote if they were on the City Council and set City policy on SB 50 and its housing density mandates. 2nd dist. Reform Ticket candidate Robert Fox (who in the 1980's fought City Hall-enabled crackerbox density) opposes developer-driven density in Long Beach and 8th district Reform Ticket candidate Juan Ovalle has called SB 50 "essentially a handout for developers."

8th dist. Council incumbent Al Austin co-agendized the May 2019 Council item to oppose SB 50 as then written but, as chair of the Council's "State Legislation Committee" held no meetings of his Committee during the 2019 Sacramento legislative session. In a December 2019 action re-shuffling members of a number of Council committees, Mayor Garcia named Councilman Rex Richardson to chair the Council's State Legislation Committee, chose newly elected Councilwoman Mary Zendejas [an outspoken advocate of spreading below market subsidized "affordable" housing to areas citywide) as a member of the State Legislation Committee [replacing exited Gonzalez] and retained Austin as a Committee member.

Discussion or approval by the Council's "State Legislation Committee" isn't required for a Council vote to take a position on SB 50; the Committee recommends but doesn't set City policy; a Council majority sets policy (and has done so on pending legislation without a Committee vote.) Any Councilmember(s) can agendize an item seeking a Council vote to set City of LB policy on state legislation. p>To LBREPORT.com's knowledge, as of midmorning Jan. 18, apart from Corliss Lee's grassroots Eastside Voice, no other LB neighborhood group has taken a position on SB 50 as amended OR (very important) what action they want their LB City Councilmember(s) to take in adopting a City position on SB 50 as amended. .

The state Senate Rules Committee (chaired by state Senate President Pro Tem Atkins) is next scheduled to meet on Jan. 22. SB 50 isn't currently listed on its agenda, However, under the Committee's rules stated on its website: "There may be additional items added to the agenda, traditionally referred to as "walk-ons." Any additional items added would not be subject to the 4-day file notice "

The Committee's are Senator Atkins (D, SD), (chair), Senator Scott Wilk (R, Antelope Valley/Santa Clarita, vice chair), Senator Pat Bates (R, parts of OC-SD counties), Senator Bill Monning (D, Central CA coast) and Senator Richard Roth (D, Corona-Riverside).

The state Senate deadline for acting is Jan. 31.

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.