The action came in an item agendized by Councilmembers Al Austin and Stacy Mungo to oppose SB 50 outright, but Councilman Rex Richardson, who is Gonzalez's state Senate campaign chair, proposed and the Council agreed to add a "friendly amendment" opposing SB 50 "unless amended," effectively approving Sacramento's preemptive stance on local control regarding housing as long as it exempts Long Beach (whose LB officials say the City is already working to produce sufficient housing.)

The Council action came after mounting public pressure after LBREPORT.com coverage detailed the neighborhood-impacts of the bill, introduced Dec. 3, 2018 by state Senator Scott Wiener (D, SF). Until the Council's May 7 vote, LB's policy-setting Council allowed SB 50 to advance through Sacramento's legislative process with no publicly stated opposition by the City of Long Beach despite a November 2018 Council vote to approve 2019 state legislative policies that stated the City would "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 Council's May 7 vote comes after SB 50 had already advanced through its only two scheduled state Senate policy committee hearings, including an April 2 Senate Housing Committee vote in which newly elected SE LB-area (90815/90803) state Senator Tom Umberg voted "yes" to advance SB 50 to a second committee, which amended it to its present form. SB 50 is now one committee hearing (limited to state budget impact grounds) away from a full state Senate floor vote.

[Scroll down for further.]

If approved by the full Senate (with or without further amendments). SB 50 would repeat the process in the Assembly, where it could be stopped or amended further. Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D, NLB-Paramount) is the most powerful member of the Assembly and his district includes part of NLB. If SB 50 isn't stopped and is instead amended further, it would return to the state Senate for concurrence in any amendments. By that time, LB would have a new LB-area state Senator representing over half of LB --- either LB Councilwoman Gonzalez or her runoff opponent, Cudahy Councilman/CPA Jack Guerrero -- depending on the outcome of a special election (with vote by mail ballots flying now, election day in June 4.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

During a May 6 state Senate candidate forum, candidate Gonzalez stated that she opposes SB 50 as currently written (SB 50 AUDIO clip here), made no explicit reference to the upcoming May 7 Council vote (where she was ultimately absent.) However Gonzlez did cite her position on a number of related housing issues (included in the audio clip) including declaring that she's a "YIMBY" ("yes in my backyard") on affordable (below market/subsidized) housing. Runoff state Senate candidate Guerrero stated his firm opposition to SB 50 -- regardless of whether it's amended -- based on its loss of local community control (his views also included in the SB 50 AUDIO clip here.)

Whichever candidate is elected (with vote-by-mail ballots circulating in over half of LB) will have the power to cast Sacramento votes on SB 50 and multiple other locally preemptive bills and other state legislation. (During May 7 Council discussion, Mayor Garcia said there are over 200 bills now pending in the state legislature regarding housing.)

Sponsor

Speakers urging the Council to oppose to SB 50 included retired LB 8th dist. Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, former 5th dist. Council candidate Corliss Lee and LB Neighborhoods First founder Joe Sopo.

Prior to the Council meeting, Housing LB issued a release (May 7) recommending an "oppose unless amended" stance on SB 50 (full text follows):

[Housing LB May 7 release text] Back to the Drawing Board: SB50 Falls Short on Affordability Requirements

Housing Long Beach has joined the growing ranks in Long Beach who are lining up against SB50. The local advocacy organization says the proposed legislation does not go deep enough with its affordability requirements.

"This is a deeply flawed proposal that offers more incentives to build market rate housing in urban areas already threatened by gentrification," said Josh Butler, Executive Director of Housing Long Beach.

Housing Long Beach is taking an "oppose unless amended" position and is encourages the legislation's authors to do more authors to require deeper levels of affordable housing and anti-displacement measures.

While many in Long Beach seem opposed to the legislation due to lack of local control, Butler says "SB50 gives away too much power and value to developers and fails to do enough to protect working class people and communities of color from gentrification."

"Long Beach needs to build, but, we need to build affordable housing, not more market rate housing nobody can afford," said Butler, "SB50 just press down on the gas pedal of gentrification."

In offering his "friendly amendment" to oppose "unless amended," Councilman Richardson said SB 50 "is not ready...is not good...I don't support it" but "I also want to say that we already took a position on this. It's in our state legislative agenda [approved by Council[ to oppose bills that take away local control. That's already there. Currently we're tracking 1,500 bills in the state legislature. To assume that because we haven't lifted up all the scary ones -- there are some scarier ones out there -- because we haven't lifted up this bill, to assume we're not taking our position or advocating publicly is just false...We have to be strategic in how we do it..."

[LBREPORT.com comment: Councilman Richardson's statement is accurate in stating LB's-Council adopted/stated policy but inaccurate with respect to its application to SB 50. Although city staff had interacted with Sen. Wiener's office on SB 50 (in terms of the Council's explicit opposition to its predecessor, SB 827), the City of Long Beach had not in fact taken a public advocacy position pro or con on SB 50 since its introduction in December 2018, notwithstanding the Council's Nov. 2018 vote to oppose Sac'to legislation undermining local control. As previously noted by LBREPORT.com, any of LB's nine Councilmembers, or Mayor Garcia, could have agendized an item to oppose SB 50 "on any Tuesday"; none did until Councilmembers Mungo and Austin did so on April 29 for the May 7 Council meeting.]

Councilwoman Suzie Price didn't let Councilman Richardson's statement stand:

Councilwoman Price: ...I agree there's a lot of proposals...but certainly if we see ones that are concerning to us or ones that we think are beneficial to the City, we should in my opinion call them out as we have in the past. We have on numerous occasions as a body supported legislation that's been very much in its infancy and amended multiple times after we voted to support . So I think it's the intent or the concept that we're proposing to oppose or support. It's not necessarily the exact language because we know it's going to go through changes. I don't support the concept of this particular bill, not because I don't support additional housing, not because I don't think we need more affordable housing, but I do not believe that a city like ours, a Charter [locally governed] city, should be giving up local control on issues of land use and development. When we have the opportunity to maintain local control and still effectuate the goal that the state has, which is to build more affordable housing. We can do that. We're continuing to do that. As a city, are committed to that, but I don't want us to lose control over what when where and how these developments will occur. I believe that is very much a city function. We have a team in place that is able to make those decisions and implement those necessary land use changes and necessary housing changes with the unique nature of our neighborhoods in mind when it does it. I really don't care what the polling suggests. I know where my residents are on this issue, and I am a solid "no."

On April 16, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-0 to oppose SB 50...unless amended to exclude Los Angeles. A few days earlier, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (SF's City Council) voted by a super-majority to oppose SB 50 unless amended (reversing a stance voiced by SF's Mayor.)

At the April 24 state Senate Governance and Finance Committee meeting, state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg (D, Los Angeles-SFV) criticized SB 50, and while supporting Governor Gavin Newsom's housing plans, Sen. Hertzberg cited the L.A. City Council's voted opposition in casting his vote to oppose the bill.

On April 29, 8th dist. Councilman Al Austin (chairs state legislation committee) and 5th dist. Councilwoman Stacy Mungo (formerly a member of that committee) co-agendized a May 7 City Council item to oppose SB 50 ("Request the City Council to oppose Senate Bill 50 (Wiener), which would preempt local zoning laws to allow higher density housing near "transit-rich" and "jobs-rich" areas, including in single-family neighborhoods, and take a "one-size-fits-all" to addressing land use for housing throughout the entire state.")

On or about May 1, Councilwoman Suzie Price became the first LB Councilwoman (to our knowledge) to tell her constituents about SB 50 (in her periodic newsletter, publishing an analysis prepared by city staff.) In response to a follow-up inquiry by LBREPORT.com about the upcoming May 7 Council agenda item, Councilwoman Price told us: "...I will be urging my colleagues to oppose SB50 and to do so as a council. I am not sure where any of my other colleagues will fall on this topic. It's important for the city to maintain local control. As a charter city, we should always advocate for the right to be able to develop local policies that are consistent with our local needs, challenges and opportunities. Obviously, issues of state concern will override local policies, but when we are talking about land use, we have to try to maintain local control to whatever extent we can so that we have some options to work with as development and housing trends change."

On May 2, CityWatchLA.com published an article by former Los Angeles city planner Dick Platkin (a former Los Angeles city planner now a boardmember of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles) analyzing/commenting on recent amendments to SB 50. In his analysis/commentary at this link, Mr. Platkin opens with: "The legislation is complex, even though its essence is clear. If adopted, it would accelerate the construction of tall, dense, luxury rental apartments throughout the entire State of California, including Los Angeles. It puts Wall Street into your Backyard (WIMBY), whether you live in an apartment or a house, by exempting most local land use decisions from zoning, planning, and environmental laws." And Mr. Platkin proceeds to list what he describes as "the grisly section-by-section details of the bill’s most recent amendments." CityWatchLA.com's analysis/commentary piece by Mr. Platkin can be viewed at this link.

On May 6, City of LB Manager of Government Affairs Diana Tang sent Mayor Garcia and the City Council a detailed memo on SB 50 (which LBREPORT.com learned about at late afternoon May 7) and Mayor Garcia invited Ms. Tang to deliver a summarized presentation to the Council.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Councilman Richardson argued in favor of his oppose-unless-amended stance to exempt Long Beach by defending LB's record on housing, but criticized other unnamed cities along with unnamed LB opposition to increased density in last year's city-staff sought Land Use Element revisions, that generated a widespread public outcry and led some Councilmembers to oppose increased density in their Council districts.

Councilman Richardson: ...SB 50 is not a solution to any of the problems here in Long Beach in terms of the need to produce housing and the need to produce housing that is affordable" and added "I think how we send the message makes sense. There is no way that we should let [other] cities off the hook that are essentially conducting modern-day red-lining. They're essentially saying 'we want none of you people in our communities' and there was some of that happened in our [LB] Land Use Element conversation, so let's not pretend that our process was perfect. We got through it as a community but it wasn't perfect. That activity is happening with sort of no opposition here in southern California. And in those cases, the state should take action in saying 'cities like Long Beach who are already complying with transit oriented development requirements, who are already looking at transit rich communities, who are already planning for growth, we want to encourage you and incentivize you, to continue doing responsible planning. And you cities who are creating essentially have bad habits, we want to limit your ability to continue to do that and encourage you so carrot-and-stick. If you plan for growth, if you're responsible about it, you can maintain all the character of your community, all those different things; if you don't plan for growth, there is a stick, and that stick could be tied to local control...Unless amended that says Long Beach, and communities like Long Beach, that are doing the right things, that are planning for growth, being responsible, should simply be exempted, if anything incentivized, should help us fund some of this planning...

Density is an especially sore point in Long Beach, where 1980's City Hall pro-developer policies enabled "crackerbox" apartment density in single-family home neighborhoods surrounding downtown. The result left a number of LB neighborhoods with chronic issues (including parking.) LB's experience with "crackerbox" density was among the reasons cited by grassroots LB neighborhood residents in opposing increased density in the proposed Land Use Element revisions.

Councilman Richardson also cited a poll to the effect that 60% of Californians support SB 50...which isn't quite accurate. One of the April 5-9 questions in an online survey (3,379 Californians) by Bay Area pollster "Change Research" asked about changing the way CA cities zone near major transit hubs, like train stations and bus lines, to encourage taller and denser housing: "A bill called Senate Bill 50 is currently being considered in the California State Senate, which would change zoning codes to allow taller residential buildings near public transit and increase affordable housing and tenant protections. Do you support or oppose the bill?" 615 of those who responded said they supported SB 50, but only 22% said they "strongly support" it and of those who didn't support it, 13% said they "strongly oppose it" and 15% were unsure or had no opinion.

Councilman Austin (who made the Council motion) agreed to oppose SB 50 but said he didn't want to be a flat "no" and said it should be amended to exempt Long Beach.

In a Sunday April 28 Facebook comment, Senator Wiener noted that a New York Times editorial has endorsed SB 50:

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:

Developing...with further to follow on LBREPORT.com

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.