For on-demand extended audio of the state Senate Housing Committee's proceedings on SB 902, click here.

Senator Wiener described his bill as a local control measure as it speeds the process by which a city's City Council (by a Council majority vote) can change their city's zoning to allow up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the Council, in parcels deemed "transit-rich," "jobs rich" or "urban infill" as defined by the bill (below.)

SB 902 speeds the rezoning process by eliminating some currently required opportunities for public input and appeals, including eliminating CEQA environmental and neighborhood impact review of the impacts of the proposed rezoning.

SB 902 lets local cities decide whether to allow or not allow the increased housing density, and if a city chooses to allow it in what "transit rich," "jobs rich" or "urban infill" areas it should be allowed.

This could effectively invite city staff to propose, and a majority of LB's nine Councilmembers to vote, to rezone portions of ELB's 4th and 5th Council districts (currently represented by Councilmembers Supernaw and Mungo) to allow multi-unit multi-story residential buildings in areas designed for and long-zoned for single family homes.

[Scroll down for further.]

State Senator Tom Umberg, whose state Senate district includes parts SE LB's 3rd, 4th and 5th Council districts on the map to the right, is a member of the Housing Committee, didn't speak before the Committee vote...and joined in voting "yes" to advance the bill.

In some respects (including its goal of increasing allowable housing density), SB 902 is similar to Sen. Wiener's former SB 50 that came within just a few votes of passing the state Senate in January 2020. At that time, Senator Umberg declined to cast a vote on Sb 50, a key action that effectively helped stop SB 50. With SB 50 just a few votes short of advancing, Sen. Umberg's move not to cast a vote on the measure was the equivalent of casting a "no" vote. (LB's other state Senator, Lena Gonzalez, voted "yes" on SB 50.)

LBREPORT.com provides SB 902's current text below as advanced by the state Senate Housing Committee:

Sponsor

Sponsor

SECTION 1. Section 65913.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

65913.3. (a) (1) A local government may pass an ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction, including restrictions enacted by a local voter initiative, that limit the legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in one of the following:

(A) A transit-rich area.

(B) A jobs-rich area.

(C) An urban infill site.

(2) An ordinance adopted in accordance with this subdivision shall not constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "High-quality bus corridor" means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following criteria:

(A) It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday.
(B) It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday.
(C) It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday.

(2) (A) "Jobs-rich area" means an area identified by the Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research that is high opportunity and either is jobs rich or would enable shorter commute distances based on whether, in a regional analysis, the tract meets both of the following:

(i) The tract is high opportunity, meaning its characteristics are associated with positive educational and economic outcomes for households of all income levels residing in the tract.

(ii) The tract meets either of the following criteria:

(iii) New housing sited in the tract would enable residents to live near more jobs than is typical for tracts in the region.

(iv) New housing sited in the tract would enable shorter commute distances for residents, relative to existing commute patterns and jobs-housing fit.

(B) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall, commencing on January 1, 2022, publish and update, every five years thereafter, a map of the state showing the areas identified by the department as "jobs-rich areas."

(3) "Transit-rich area" means a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor.

(4) "Urban infill site" means a site that satisfies all of the following:

(A) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.

(B) A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.

(C) A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring the adequate production of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Although the City of Long Beach routinely takes positions on bills, it hasn't done so on SB 902 (which has been pending since Jan. 30, 2020.) The City Council's "State Legislation Committee" (chair Rex Richardson, vice chair Roberto Uranga, member Al Austin) hasn't discussed SB 902 or any bills pending in the 2020 state legislative session. The Council's State Legislation Committee hasn't met since Dec. 17, 2019. At that meeting, it approved and forwarded for Council approval a 2020 "state legislative agenda," a list of general policies (not specific bills) that city management is supposed to apply in supporting or opposing pending state legislation.

The full City Council can also separately vote to take positions on specific bills without a recommendation from its "State Legislation Committee" and has done so on multiple bills in the past.

To LBREPORT.com's knowledge, no LB City Council incumbents -- including ELB Councilmembers Mungo and Supernaw whose neighborhoods could be impacted -- have alerted their constituents to SB 902 via the Councilmembers' mass emailed "newsletters" or taken steps to put the City of Long Beach on record opposed to the bill.

Long Beach has experience with similar housing density issues. Parts of Long Beach continue to feel detrimental impacts (including parking and other chronic issues) of 1980's Council actions that allowed developers to put multi-unit "crackerbox" apartments in former single family home neighborhoods in parts of the 2nd and 1st Council districts. That history fueled public pushback to city staff proposed density increased in a then-proposd 2017-2018 revised Land Use Element (LUE).

If SB 902 becomes law, it would enable current or future LB City Councils to expedite rezoning areas in ways that could override height and density limits included in 2018 revised/adopted LUE maps.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The State Senate Housing Committee's Legislative Analysis of SB 902 can be viewed here. and lists the bills supporters and opponents indicated below:

SUPPORT:
California YIMBY (Sponsor)
Habitat for Humanity California (Co-Sponsor)
350 Sacramento
All Home
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Community Builders
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
East Bay for Everyone
Facebook, Inc.
Hollywood YIMBY
House Sacramento
League of Women Voters of California
Livable Sunnyvale
Monterey Peninsula Renters United
New Pointe Communities
Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California
North County YIMBY
Peninsula for Everyone
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Silicon Valley At Home
SLO County YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
TechEquity Collaborative
The Greenlining Institute
TMG Partners
Ventura County YIMBY
Westside Young Democrats
YIMBY Action
YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County
YIMBY Voice
1 Individual

OPPOSITION

A Better Way Forward to House California
City of Dublin
City of Livermore
City of Newport Beach
City of Pleasanton
City of San Ramon
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Orange County Council of Governments
San Francisco Tenants Union
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Town of Danville
4 Individuals

SB 902 now heads to the state Senate Appropriations Committee, putting it one step away from a vote on the state Senate floor. In 2019, the state Senate Appropriation Committee chair, state Senator Anthony Portantino (D, Glendale) blocked Senator Wiener's SB 50's advance to the state Semate floor by declining to bring it to a Committee vote. But in January 2020, after Senator Wiener amended SB 50 to allow City Halls some flexibility in where to allocate housing density increases, the state Senate's Dem party leadership pulled SB 50 from the Appropriations Committee and brought it to a state Senate floor vote.

When SB 50 narrowly failed passage in the state Senate, state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D, San Diego) voiced dismay and declared that some form of "housing production" legislation would pass in 2020. Senator Atkins is now the co-author of SB 902.

If SB 902 passes the full state Senate, it goes to the Assembly where the Committee and amendment process repeats before a full Assembly vote. If it passes the Assembly, it returns to the state Senate for voted concurrence in any Assembly amendments. If it passes the state Senate on concurrence, it goes to Governor Newsom, who voiced disappointment earlier this year when SB 50 failed passage.

LBREPORT.com will continue to bring our readers detailed coverage of developments on SB 902. Further to follow.

Sponsor

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.