The Council's July 14 vote was its second vote on the changes and legally enacted them. The July 7 and July 14 Council items were both previewed in detail in coverage by LBREPORT.com.

Mayor Garcia (presided initially before exiting); Vice Mayor Andrews (presided then exited) and ultimately Councilman Al Austin (final presiding chair) could have taken the item earlier in the Council meeting but didn't (and no Councilmember asked them to do so.) As a result, the neighborhood-impacting item didn't come up until roughly 11:36 p.m.

Councilwoman Pearce moved approval; Councilwoman Zendejas seconded the motion, and public testimony followed.

Ann Cantrell questioned whether the agendized title gave the public adequate notice of the substance of the proposed action under the Brown (open meetings) Act. [The agendized title was "Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 21.15.966, 21.15.2290, 21.15 2795, 21.15.2810, 21.15.2985, 21.15.3095, Table 31-1, Table 32-1, Table 33-2, and Table 34-1; by adding Sections 21.15.1475, 21.15.2382,21.15.2793, 21.45.153, 21.45.163, 21.51.278, 21.52.238, and 21.52.269.1; and by repealing Section 21.15.2475, all relating to interim housing, read and adopted as read."] Ms. Cantrell urged the Council to allow additional public outreach before an enactment vote, to give the public a better opportunity to learn the proposal's details.

Corliss Lee (founder of the Eastside Voice likewise urged additional public outreach.

Public testimony in email comments was overwhelmingly opposed.

LBREPORT.com includes emailed/"e-comments" not publicly heard at the Council meeting (because the City Council has declined to direct the City Clerk to read the emailed comments aloud. LBUSD and other government bodies read emailed testimony aloud.) LBREPORT.com includes this "silenced" public testimony as part of our coverage of this story.)

[Scroll down for further.]

Richard Noble: Item 26 is a backhanded attempt to reintroduce the LUE. Here it is on the docket without any public outreach. I oppose this matter as presented by the City

---

Vicky Najera Long Beach went from having very few homeless people to being overwhelmed with a homeless population that is causing an influx of property crimes, theft, vandalism, and our children are no longer safe walking the streets alone, or being in our City parks. Long Beach residents don't even bother to call the police when their property is stolen by the homeless because the police do not do anything about it. They say that their hands are tied due to Props 47 and 57. Quality of life in Long Beach has decreased because of the influx of homeless into Long Beach, and yet our taxes keep increasing. We have one of the highest sales taxes in this Country, and for what? Our streets are a mess, and getting worse daily. Furthermore, there has been no public outreach to inform citizens, he have to find out through neighbors and scramble to understand the issue. Create drug rehab/mental health facilities to really help homeless in need instead of putting a bandaid over the real issue.

---

Peggy Lelesi Please vote no on #26. Changing zoning to accommodate Homeless installations does not solve the problem of drug abuse and rampant mental health issues in this sector of our community. The residents spoke out against increasing density during the LUE and the sentiment has not changed. Opening the door to changing zoning goes against the wishes of the citizens and only benefits the developers. Please vote no on #26

---

Linda Scholl VIOLATION OF THE LAND USE PLANAll of the plans in Agenda items 19 and 26 seem to violate the Land Use Plan that was approved in Dec 2019, with respect to land use, building heights and density. Changing definitions in the zoning code after the plan has been approved and those changes in turn changing the LUE implementation is a violation of public trust.People that purchased their homes made those decisions based on many factors, but zoning is an important facet of that decision. We passed a Land Use Plan in Dec 2019 that restricted building heights in the suburbs to 2 stories (with exceptions). Density bonuses that come with laws passed (example AB1763) allow 3 stories to be added. City staff is suggesting adding additional incentives. This violates our Land Use Plan.

---

Guy Pakenham Strongly disagree with the re zoning laws that will pave the way for low income housing and homeless housing as it will turn good areas into crime ridden areas that are unsafe for our children and ruin property values. Our property tax rates climb each year and these new laws would be a disaster. Do not turn Long Beach into a "San Francisco" or "Seattle". Give homeless people drug and alcohol rehabilitation and enforce current laws

---

GLennis Dolce No changes to Zoning until after City Council can have proper outreach and can resume public council meetings to ensure the Public's understanding and participation in these matters. Vote no.

---

Anne Proffit The LUE should not be changed at all. To do so, you invite the ire of the public. And the public is voting this November to exclude as many current members of city clowncil as we can. Don't go here. You will regret it. And we will recall Robert Garcia, Robert Luna, Tom Modica and remove you all.

---

Diana Jones Vehemently oppose.

City staff's materials noted that state law required some of the changes, but LBREPORT.com notes that many of the LB neighborhood impacting details, including the types, extent and allowable locations, were discretionary; a Council majority could have tweaked, amended, changed or modified some of them...but the Council approved them as proposed by city staff.

The changes are indicated below:

Emergency Shelters include kitchens and property storage. They'll be allowed "by-right" in the Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) zone as well the Light Industrial (IL) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones. In addition, they'll also now be allowed with a Conditional UJse Permit (CUP) within (1) Multi-family Residential (R-4-H, R-4-N, R-4-R, and R-4-U); (2) Commercial (CNR, CCR, CCN); 3) Institutional (I) and with an "Administrative Use Permit" in the General Industrial District (IG) zone.

Those new areas are shown on the maps below:

Emergency Shelters are currently allowed as an accessory use to an existing religious use in all zones (Institutional zone areas with existing public schools aren't shown on the maps.)

Regarding the vacant ELB parcel along Los Coyotes Diagonal south of Wardlow Rd. [owned by LBCC], the newly approved Land Use Element (LUE) designates the site as a Commercial type that doesn't allow residential uses. However the parcel's underlying zoning hasn't been adjusted yet to match the LUE, and the parcel is currently "Institutional" with a Commercial Placetype.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Supportive Housing will be allowed in certain industrial and commercial zones. Permanent supportive housing combines "low barrier affordable housing, health care and supportive services. City staff's agendizing memo says state law mandates permitting supportive housing by-right in all zones permitting residential uses and LB's Planning Commission recommended expanding Supportive Housing uses by-right in the commercial zones CNR, CCR, and CCN and with an AUP (administrative use permit) in industrial zones IL, IM, and IG.

Sponsor

Sponsor

---