There have been many housing bills passed in the last few years by our California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown. There are different puzzle pieces scattered among these bills which I believe pieced together creates this scenario followed by the government code.

• Cities and municipalities must prioritize the sale or lease of surplus government owned properties to a housing sponsor for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. The law even allows these properties to be sold at below market value if they are near transit.
• A housing development company will buy or lease and propose building a housing development. They may ask for input from the surrounding community and propose a plan for a project of reasonable density for the area.
• The city or municipality must change zoning to accommodate this housing development.
• The city or municipality must prepare a yearly housing report (per SB 35 passed in 2017) which includes a listing of surplus city owned properties and properties which have been sold to increase housing. One of the categories to list on this report is “Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including the airspace above sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.” This report needs to be completed as of the end of the year. The first year the report will be completed will be as of December 31, 2018.
• Per several bills passed in 2017, non-profit housing groups have been empowered to sue a city or municipality if a housing development is proposed to be built at a lower than maximum density. These properties will be showcased for them on the yearly housing report. The legal penalties are onerous, the city or municipality must pay all court costs, and the city or municipality will lose the case. The city or municipality will cave.
• The housing development company will build the development to the highest possible density. It will be a win win for the housing development company because the profits to be made on this endeavor are very high (there are multiple taxpayer funded subsidies available that the company can collect) and they can say they didn’t intend to build such a large building but were forced to build it.

The following Government Code is already in place.

Bold italics are mine.

11011.1.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 54235) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, the disposal of surplus state real property by the Department of General Services shall be subject to the requirements of this section. For purposes of this section, “surplus state real property” means real property declared surplus by the Legislature and directed to be disposed of by the Department of General Services, including any real property previously declared surplus by the Legislature but not yet disposed of by the Department of General Services prior to the enactment of this section.

(b) (1) The department may dispose of surplus state real property by sale, lease, exchange, a sale combined with an exchange, or other manner of disposition of property, as authorized by the Legislature, upon any terms and conditions and subject to any reservations and exceptions the department deems to be in the best interests of the state.

(2) (A) The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of decent housing for all Californians is a state goal of the highest priority. The disposal of surplus state real property is a direct and substantial public purpose of statewide concern and will serve an important public purpose, including mitigating the environmental effects of state activities. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that priority be given, as specified in this section, to the disposal of surplus state real property to housing for persons and families of low or moderate income, where land is suitable for housing and there is a need for housing in the community.

(B) Surplus state real property that has been determined by the department not to be needed by any state agency shall be offered to any local agency, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 54221, and then to nonprofit affordable housing sponsors, prior to being offered for sale to private entities or individuals. As used in this subdivision, “nonprofit affordable housing sponsor” means any of the following:

(i) A nonprofit corporation incorporated pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 5000) of Title 1 of the Corporations Code.

(ii) A cooperative housing corporation which is a stock cooperative, as defined by Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code.

(iii) A limited-dividend housing corporation.

54220.

(c) … The sale or lease of surplus land at less than fair market value to facilitate the creation of affordable housing near transit is consistent with goals and objectives to achieve optimal transportation use. The Legislature also notes that the Federal Transit Administration gives priority for funding of rail transit proposals to areas that are implementing higher-density, mixed-use, and affordable development near major transit stations.

(a) As used in this article, the term “local agency” means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold real property.

(b) As used in this article, the term “surplus land” means land owned by any local agency, that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.

54222.

Any local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to disposing of that property, a written offer to sell or lease the property as follows:

• A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be sent, upon written request, a written offer to sell or lease surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. All notices shall be sent by first-class mail and shall include the location and a description of the property. With respect to any offer to purchase or lease pursuant to this subdivision, priority shall be given to development of the land to provide affordable housing for lower income elderly or disabled persons or households, and other lower income households.

54224.

Nothing in this article shall preclude a local agency, housing authority, or redevelopment agency which purchases land from a disposing agency pursuant to this article from reconveying the land to a nonprofit or for-profit housing developer for development of low- and moderate-income housing as authorized under other provisions of law.

54226.

This article shall not be interpreted to limit the power of any local agency to sell or lease surplus land at fair market value or at less than fair market value, and any such sale or lease at or less than fair market value consistent with this article shall not be construed as inconsistent with an agency’s purpose. No provision of this article shall be applied when it conflicts with any other provision of statutory law.

54227.

(a) In the event that any local agency disposing of surplus land receives offers for the purchase or lease of that land from more than one of the entities to which notice and an opportunity to purchase or lease shall be given pursuant to this article, the local agency shall give first priority to the entity that agrees to use the site for housing that meets the requirements of Section 54222.5. If the local agency receives offers from more than one entity that agrees to meet the requirements of Section 54222.5, then the local agency shall give priority to the entity that proposes to provide the greatest number of units that meet the requirements of Section 54222.5 at the deepest level of affordability.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), first priority shall be given to an entity that agrees to use the site for park or recreational purposes if the land being offered is already being used and will continue to be used for park or recreational purposes, or if the land is designated for park and recreational use in the local general plan and will be developed for that purpose.

54230.

The board of supervisors of any county may establish a central inventory of all surplus governmental property located in such county.

From AB 2065, as amended, Ting. Local agencies: surplus land. Pending bill 2018

(1) Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines “local agency” for these purposes as every city, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold real property. Existing law defines “surplus land” for these purposes as land owned by any local agency that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.

…

(2) Existing law requires a local agency disposing of surplus land to send, prior to disposing of that  property, a written offer to sell or lease the property to specified entities. Existing law requires that a local agency, upon a written request, send a written offer to sell or lease surplus land to a housing sponsor, as defined, for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. Existing law also requires the local agency to send a written offer to sell or lease surplus land for the purpose of developing property located within an infill opportunity zone, designated as provided, to, among others, a community redevelopment agency.

65589.5

(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:

…

(5) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following:

(A) Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.

(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.

(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

…

(3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.

(4) For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.

(k) (1) (A) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that either (i) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or (ii) the local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, except under extraordinary circumstances in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, “lower density” includes conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.

(B) (i) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017–18 Regular Session is enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.

…

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section.

65400.

• After the legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the following:

…

(2) Provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes all of the following:

…

(B) The progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs determined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.

(C) The number of housing development applications received in the prior year.

(D) The number of units included in all development applications in the prior year.

(E) The number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year.

(G) A listing of sites rezoned to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 and Section 65584.09. The listing of sites shall also include any additional sites that may have been required to be identified by Section 65863.

…

• The number of applications submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 65913.4, the location and the total number of developments approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 65913.4, the total number of building permits issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 65913.4, the total number of units including both rental housing and for-sale housing by area median income category constructed using the process provided for in subdivision (b) of section 65913.4.

65583.2.

(a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential development” includes all of the sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use.

(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development.

(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including the airspace above sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

65584.

(d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent with all of the following objectives:

…

(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns.

…

(4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States census.

I’m very concerned about the approved upzonings to the traffic circle area. I believe that area could be pivotal to future city, county, and state political plans in two different ways.

1) Per state law, if housing for low or moderate income residents is demolished in the coastal area, replacement housing must be provided within three miles of the coastal zone. The traffic circle falls well within that distance. Moderate income is defined as making up to 120% of the area’s median income. That sounds like pretty generous guidelines to me and could cover a lot of people (for instance most retired people because the criteria is income and not net worth) who would need to be provided replacement housing. It also covers the county so housing could be demolished up the coast, for example Wilmington and San Pedro, and high density developments in our traffic circle area could be used for replacement housing. I’ve copied relevant codes here:

————————————————————————

65590. (a) In addition to the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580), the provisions and requirements of this section shall apply within the coastal zone as defined and delineated in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. Each respective local government shall comply with the requirements of this section in that portion of its jurisdiction which is located within the coastal zone.(b) The conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. Replacement dwelling units shall be located within the same city or county as the dwelling units proposed to be converted or demolished. The replacement dwelling units shall be located on the site of the converted or demolished structure or elsewhere within the coastal zone if feasible, or, if location on the site or elsewhere within the coastal zone is not feasible, they shall be located within three miles of the coastal zone.
       =====
       HSC Code 50093
       50093.

       “Persons and families of low or moderate income” means persons and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size by the department in accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended from time to time by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

———————————————————————-

2)  I’m concerned that the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) proposed project area will include the traffic circle area. TCC is a new state program which will receive cap and trade auction money so every time there’s an auction, there’s more money for TCC. There are two types of grants – planning and innovation. Innovation grants are the big money grants. I put in a records request on the TCC program and from the records I received it’s evident Long Beach was working on applying for an innovation grant. However, Long Beach has withheld some of the records. Included in the records withheld may be further information on the five square mile zone they were planning, and may plan in the future, for the grant area. Following is the requirement for what the zone must include:

———————————————————————

At least fifty-one (51) percent of the geographic area of the proposed Project Area must overlap with Census Tracts within the top 5 percent of disadvantaged communities, per CalEnviroScreen 3.0.18  The remaining fortynine (49) percent or less of the geographic area of the proposed Project Area must overlap either with a disadvantaged community (top 25 percent CalEnviroScreen 3.0) or a low-income community as defined by AB 1550. Applicants may propose a Project Area boundary that does not align with Census Tract boundaries.
——————————————————————————–
For the second part of the requirements (the remaining 49 percent of the area) the traffic circle area south of PCH could be included in that because the census tract’s western boundary is Redondo and there is a designated low-income area which has its eastern boundary at Loma Ave., a few blocks east of Redondo. So the traffic circle census tract does overlap with a low-income community and therefore the tract can be included in the TCC zone if the rest of the proposed zone, whatever it might be, meets the rest of the requirements. I’m not sure about the traffic circle area north of PCH because I haven’t located maps exacting enough and the tract boundaries are unusual. I don’t know what was considered for the proposed TCC zone because the city of Long Beach has decided to withhold records. From what I’ve read in the guidelines and I saw a mention of it in the records I did receive, there is no required shape; it just can’t exceed five square miles and it must be contiguous and in one city.

I asked the City Attorney for the reason for why they withheld records and the responding letter is at the end of this blog entry. I don’t think the reason they’ve provided is adequate or legal from what I’ve researched, although I’m not an attorney.

A new LUE is needed to qualify for the TCC innovation grant and the deadlines for applying were all in November and December 2017 and it’s possible Amy Bodek’s unusual determination to get the LUE on the October 3, 2017 city council meeting may have been because of this. By the way, TCC does include funding for building housing developments and there’s a lot of money available in addition to these grants from other sources. It’s important to keep in mind that Long Beach missed the first round of TCC innovation grants because of not passing the LUE but there will be future rounds.

Perhaps the plan is to get money from TCC to fund building high density housing developments for low and moderate income people in order to complete the gentrification of the coastal area of Los Angeles County and central Long Beach and/or wherever the TCC project area may be located. Just a possibility but why is the city withholding informative records?

I’m also thinking that the “powers that be” who are pushing this agenda want to get as many permits issued before the results of the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau which will show that all the state’s population projections used to justify the remaking of our city, county, and state have been way over inflated. And buildings are very long term and close to permanent.

———————————————————————————————————————-

The laws of the State of California will not allow any city to reduce density so once it’s passed, there’s no going back.  The “No-net-loss-in zoning density law” which limits downzonings and density reductions (Section 65863) ensures that we will not be able to decrease density in the future.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65400&lawCode=GOV

After the LUE is passed, the Development Department will likely include the increased density in the housing goals. Per Senate Bill 35 a housing report must be completed by April 1 (government code 65400). The Development Department will likely include these new increased dense housing numbers from the LUE in the report. It’s important to keep in mind that the Development Department has been the driving force behind these density increases. The salaries of that department’s personnel come out of an account funded by developer fees. Are they more concerned about the citizens of Long Beach or the developers who fund their salaries?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65400.&lawCode=GO

The city will be unable to reduce any density levels  because of the threat of, and likelihood of, being sued and losing an extremely expensive lawsuit due to a new law passed by the state effective January 1, 2018. . Once this density increase is included in the Long Beach General Plan, which the LUE is part of, if the city tries to limit or reduce the density of the housing mix, per SB 167 (government code 65589.5) the city will be open to extremely expensive litigation, which the city will lose.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65589.5.&lawCode=GOV

The City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals will likely be dramatically increased by Senate Bill 828. The increased building of density to meet these increased goals can’t be opposed or it will be subject to the above mentioned costly, unwinnable lawsuits. In addition, the City of Long Beach has done its own housing assessment which resulted in much higher housing goals and the Development Department has stated they are using these much higher housing numbers as their goals.

*************************************************************************

Christopher Koontz, Advanced Planner:  “Based on our estimate we may not be able to hit the 28,000 number that’s listed in your staff report,” Advanced Planner Christopher Koontz told the commission. “But that is the goal, and what is in front of you [the proposed LUE] is an important step forward toward that goal.”-Long Beach Press Telegram, December 12, 2017

**************************************************************************

Doing an environmental review will not stop or delay the approval of the LUE and instead will likely help the LUE to be approved. Because of changes to California State Law (based on a previously passed Bill) which will be finalized in March 2018, it is likely that the CEQA (the environmental review) will be based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of the criteria used in the past, Level of Service (LOS). The new CEQA  guidelines state that locating density housing within ½ mile of a high quality transit corridor (bus routes or rail lines), or a planned high quality transit corridor (Long Beach Transit and the Southern California Area of Governments (SCAG) have many plans for such), will reduce VMT which will reduce GHG (greenhouse gasses) and will eliminate the necessity of a CEQA review so most likely no environmental review will be completed. If it is completed, the transportation portion will likely not analyze traffic congestion, parking, or other factors which will reduce our quality of life and the study will instead have the preconceived conclusion that VMT will be reduced because more people will be traveling by public transportation instead of owning and operating their own private cars..

************************************************************************

From the the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA November 2017:  “CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.” page 11

“An infill [infill means development in an already developed area] development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility.  Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network.” pages 15 and 16

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20171127_Transportation_Analysis_TA_Nov_2017.pd

************************************************************************

There’s a lot of money available to build these dense housing units. There are multiple funding sources but the most alarming is the “cap and trade” auction money that has recently been redirected and dedicated to building these dense housing developments. And “cap and trade” auctions are conducted on a regularly scheduled basis so there will be a continuous stream of funds.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1550

I believe this is being dictated and led by Sacramento politicians. The new laws which have been passed in the last few years, including 15 new housing bills passed in 2017, along with SB 827, SB 828 and who knows how many other housing bills in the process for this year, will take local control away from the cities.

Who are these housing units being built for? The American reproduction rate is not even at a replacement level.

I’m also thinking that the “powers that be” who are pushing this agenda want to get as many permits issued before the results of the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau are posted which will show that the population projections used to justify the remaking of our city, county, and state have been way over inflated. This push for more housing is based upon State Population Projections which are much higher than U.S. Census Bureau population projections. What I believe to be the most accurate population indicator, LBUSD enrollment (since school funding is based on school attendance) shows a reduction in the number of students at all grade levels.

Buildings are very close to permanent and forever. There are many laws being passed in Sacramento that I disagree with but most can be reversed if and when the voters express their displeasure and vote in new politicians. But for high density infill developments, the politicians have the process in place and these changes will be rapid fire and permanent. Once the permits are issued they can’t be revoked, and once the buildings are built, well, they’re pretty close to permanent and then this high density environment can’t be reversed.

We need to prepare for Round Two of this fight.

Most of what I heard on the webinar from this link I basically already knew but this made my jaw drop:

  CHRIS GANNON:  “We’re encouraging maps to be made by jurisdictions that essentially paint the areas that are below the significant thresholds, say green [which must be from the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 map]             and make these go zones for development. These areas we presume are less than significant for transportation…”

At 38:30 on the this link:  https://www.sacog.org/post/updates-ceqa-guidelines-sb-743

A middle class neighborhood can never be other than green because the criteria is Pollution Burdens TIMES Population Characteristics. It’s set up so that Population Characteristics will always be zero in a middle class neighborhood (or extremely low) and since it’s multiplied and not added, a middle class neighborhood will never score out of the green zone.

Sacramento wants to push these high density developments in middle class neighborhoods. Local control is virtually gone with SB 35, other housing bills already passed, and more proposed.

In the past, a CEQA (environmental) review was required for any new Land Use Plan or development. Sacramento is putting in new guidelines to push high density forward. They have also allocated funds from cap and trade to pay for these developments. Many, many other policies too.

New CEQA (environmental) guidelines were put out a couple of months ago. Loss of Service (LOS) will no longer be used as the criteria for the transportation study and will be replaced by Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Cities may start using the new guidelines immediately upon the state’s adoption which will be very soon, perhaps March or April of 2018; total statewide compliance must be by 1/1/2020. The transportation impact is deemed to be less than significant if the development is located near transit, or near planned transit, as it is presumed to lower VMT. If it’s within 1/2 mile of transit the guidelines recommend not to even do a transportation study. There are many planned high quality transit corridors in the SCAG Report (there’s also a story on LBReport  about LB Transit adding bus service http://www.lbreport.com/news/jan18/busplan.htm) and according to the Technical Advisory, planned transit not even in place yet also means CEQA can be streamlined, meaning not done. It is pre-determined that housing developments located close to transit will reduce VMT.

We are being attacked from every direction!

Janet West

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/

Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the transportation impacts evaluated by CEQA reviews. Governor Brown’s administration is now re-writing these guidelines. I believe they waited until now in order that the new housing bills would be in place first. Previous CEQA evaluations looked at “loss of service” (LOS) issues such as traffic congestion at intersections. The new CEQA guidelines will evaluate “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) instead of LOS.

All high density developments will pass the VMT criteria as long as they are along a current or planned “high quality transit corridor.”  SCAG has many of these corridors “planned.” Their belief is that building high density mixed use infill developments along high quality transit corridors will reduce VMT and help to reach carbon reduction goals.

In addition, in the plan I quoted and linked below, it says “Because location within the region is the most important determinant of VMT, in some cases, streamlining CEQA review of projects in travel efficient locations may be the most effective means of reducing VMT.” I’m assuming streamlining means no CEQA review is necessary.

I don’t believe these guidelines are finalized yet but they’re well on their way.

From the Report (link at end):

TECHNICAL ADVISORY ON EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS IN CEQA November 2017

This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as a service to professional planners, land use officials, and CEQA practitioners.  OPR issues technical guidance on issues that broadly affect the practice of land use planning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).  The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion.  This document should not be construed as legal advice.
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts.  OPR has proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The proposed changes also provide that the analysis of certain transportation projects must address the potential for induced travel.  Once the California Natural Resources Agency adopts these changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, generally will no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA.    Page 1

Any project that includes in its geographic bounds a portion of an existing or planned Transit Priority Area (i.e., the project is within a ½ mile of an existing or planned [SCAG has these planned] major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor) may employ VMT as its primary metric of transportation impact for the entire project.  (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subds. (a)(7), (b)(1).)
…Therefore, lead agencies may perform a multimodal impact analysis that incorporates the technical approaches and mitigation strategies that are best suited to the unique land use/transportation circumstances and specific facility types they are evaluating.   pages 4 and 5

In other words, vehicle efficiency and better fuels are necessary, but insufficient, to address the greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation system.  Land use patterns and transportation options must also change to support reductions in vehicle travel/VMT.

· New land use projects alone will not sufficiently reduce per-capita VMT to achieve those targets, nor are they expected to be the sole source of VMT reduction.

· Interactions between land use projects, and also between land use and transportation projects, existing and future, together affect VMT.

• Because location within the region is the most important determinant of VMT, in some cases, streamlining CEQA review of projects in travel efficient locations may be the most effective means of reducing VMT.

…

First, as described above, Section 21099 states that the criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”  page 7 and 8

Furthermore, At the State level, a number of important policies are being developed.  Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which called for an update to the metric of transportation impact in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That update to the CEQA Guidelines is currently underway.  Employing VMT as the metric of transportation impact statewide will help ensure GHG reductions planned under SB 375 will be achieved through on-the-ground development, and will also play an important role in creating the additional GHG reductions needed beyond SB 375 across the State.” (Id. at p. 112.)

…The CEQA Guidelines are being updated to focus the analysis of transportation impacts on VMT.  page 9

Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. page 10

Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Stations

Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop7 or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor8 will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

8 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).   page 11

3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use PlansAs with projects, agencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography.  Analysis of specific plans may employ the same thresholds described above for projects.  A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if it is not consistent with the relevant RTP-SCS.   page 15

When evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact.  An infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility.  Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network.  page 15 and 16

                                    Transit and Active Transportation Projects

Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation.  This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.  Streamlining transit and active transportation projects aligns with each of the three statutory goals contained in SB 743 by reducing GHG emissions, increasing multimodal transportation networks, and facilitating mixed use development.  page 19

Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:

· Improve or increase access to transit. · Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare. · Incorporate affordable housing into the project. · Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network. · Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. · Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service. · Provide traffic calming. · Provide bicycle parking. · Limit or eliminate parking supply. · Unbundle parking costs. · Provide parking or roadway pricing or cash-out programs. · Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program. · Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. · Provide transit passes. · Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services. · Providing telework options. · Providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle. · Providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms. · Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. · Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.   page 22 and 23

Click to access 20171127_Transportation_Analysis_TA_Nov_2017.pdf

January 20, 2018

Mayor Garcia
Council Member Supernaw
Council Member Gonzalez
Council Member Pearce
Council Member Price
Council Member Mungo
Council Member Andrews
Council Member Uranga
Council Member Austin
Council Member Richardson

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

If the proposed Land Use Element Plan (LUE) is passed by the Long Beach City Council, funds from the State’s Cap and Trade auctions will be available to fund the building of high density housing developments on the east side and north side of the city and may be used to move low and moderate income populations, many of whom are minorities, away from the more valuable downtown/coastal area of the city. This could result in the gentrification of our city.

NOTE: I use the term high density deliberately because even though the Planning Development Department says “technically” most of what they’re proposing is not high density, it is high density to most people.

The downtown/coastal area of Long Beach may become even more valuable if the west side of the breakwater is removed to return waves and surfing to the west side of the Long Beach coastline.

There are three major strategies, with many additional supportive strategies, which may enable this to happen.

The first major strategy is to create a Transformative Climate Community Program zone (TCC). These zones were enabled by Assembly Bill 2722 which was passed in 2016. The requirements of these zones include that they shouldn’t exceed a five square mile size, need to be contiguous and located in one city, and must contain specified percentages of different levels of disadvantaged/low income communities as determined by CalEnviroScreen 3.0.

See the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 maps at https://oehha.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4560cfbce7c745c299b2d0cbb07044f5

TCC is based on the environmental justice concept which surmises that lower income people are less likely to be able to handle the adverse effects of pollution and therefore must be protected by the government and live in areas with less pollution. Since the areas of Long Beach which have multiple sources of pollution (i.e. the Harbor, the 710 freeway, and oil refineries) are also the more valuable areas of the city and have a large population of low and moderate income people, in our city, environmental justice could mean these populations should be moved out of the more valuable areas of the city in order to protect the people from pollutants which they are unable to do for themselves. The common term used for this type of relocation of populations is gentrification.

Long Beach has been identified as one of the cities with an area which meets the requirements for funding from TCC (Page B-1) on the following link:

Read about TCC at:  http://sgc.ca.gov/resource%20files/10242017-TCC_FINAL_GUIDELINES_10_23_17.pdf

SB 732 (passed in 2008) created the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC), which administers TCC along with other expenditures of cap and trade funds, to increase the availability of affordable housing, among other things, and encourage sustainable land use.

Many people will be enticed to move from the downtown/coastal areas because of brand new apartments with lower rents possible because the developers have received taxpayer funds and cap and trade funds (cap and trade is ultimately paid by taxpayers aka consumers) to help finance the building of these complexes. I believe the traffic circle area will be included in this TCC zone but can’t confirm this. Long Beach has decided to withhold records from me which may include that information. The traffic circle area is important because per state law, in order to demolish or convert housing occupied by low and moderate income people living in the coastal zone, replacement housing must be provided within three miles of the coastal zone.

The traffic circle area, which has massive increases in housing density in the proposed LUE, falls easily within that distance. “Stack and pack” housing in the traffic circle area may be used for fulfilling a legal condition required in order to relocate low and moderate income people from the coastal area. These developments may also be used to relocate this community from other parts of Los Angeles County. The government code specifies that replacement housing must be located in the county and doesn’t specify it needs to be within the same city. This type of relocation is commonly called “gentrification.” In the downtown and central areas of Long Beach, real estate investors have been buying rental properties occupied by minority and low income families and raising rents to force some families to move. These investors could be waiting for this money making opportunity.

NO TCC grant money may be used to provide parking.

When Amy Bodek, AICP, Director, Long Beach Development Services, emphatically stated at the August 2017 Planning Commission meeting that the proposed LUE would be on the Agenda of the City Council meeting on October 13, 2017 regardless of whether it was approved by the Planning Commission, that suggested there was some type of unnamed deadline. That deadline may have been the TCC deadlines which were October 18, 2017, November 30, 2017, and December 6, 2017. The LUE needed to be passed in order for Long Beach to qualify for the TCC innovation grants.

Mayor Garcia has been aware of TCC since at least September 8, 2016 when he wrote a letter addressed to Governor Brown in support of AB 2722 (Burke) and TCC. In the letter, Mayor Garcia wrote: “Long Beach looks forward to partnering with the State and our local community on initiatives and benefits afforded through AB 2722.”

Link to letter:  http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/government-affairs/position-letters—state/2015—2016/support-for-ab_2722-9.7.16_2.0/

Long Beach has decided to withhold records in regard to TCC. I received a reply from the Long Beach City Attorney’s office on June 20, 2018, with this stated reason for withholding records: “The emails in question are employee emails that contain dialogue, impressions, and opinions that illustrate the deliberative process that led to how and why certain decisions were made regarding the TCC Program. Withholding these emails from disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure because disclosing these emails would have a chilling effect on employee email communications. Employees would refrain from having candid discussions via email regarding important topics which would make internal communications more inefficientand impact future negotiations regarding the TCC Program and other grant opportunities.”

That same “deliberative process” will likely be used for round two and future rounds of the TCC Innovative Grant Applications. I believe the public has the right to these records in sufficient time to understand and disseminate the records prior to the City Council voting on the proposed Land Use Element Plan (LUE) on March 6, 2018 as this LUE will enable future TCC grant approvals. TCC Innovation Grants are for large amounts of money and are likely to change the city in crucial and permanent ways allowing gentrification. The grant award Long Beach may have been anticipating applying for was $35 million.

This reply from the City Attorney’s office on the withheld records had a “chilling” effect on me, to borrow that phrase from the letter. A copy of the letter is provided for your perusal.

The second major strategy created the funding mechanism. Assembly Bill 1550 (passed in 2016) increased the percent of Cap and Trade funds used for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10 to 25 percent and added another 10 percent to benefit low income households or communities. These funds can be used to build housing developments. There are also many additional funding sources available to pay for building these housing developments.

Look at the interactive map for AB 1550:  https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm

The third major strategy is the passage of multiple housing bills by Sacramento politicians and the housing bills which are in the pipeline. SB 35, which was passed last year, allows multi-family housing developments, under standard conditions, to be built without local approval (no public hearings and most likely no environmental reviews) and with zero parking if located within ½ mile of public transit (which is virtually all of Long Beach). Not having to provide parking makes these developments much cheaper to build and obviously will create a nightmare for the surrounding neighborhoods.

There are many additional housing bills which have various implications. There were 14 additional housing bills passed last year, many housing bills passed in years prior to 2017, and already three more housing bills put on the docket the first week of this year.

One of the 2018 bills, SB 827 proposes to eliminate single family house zoning in areas ¼ mile from a major public transit route (Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] planning anticipates that this category will be greatly increased) and ½ mile of a rail line (i.e. the Blue Line) and imposing minimum height requirements in those zones.

Another bill on the docket for this year, SB 828, proposes that the responsibility for determining and policing RHNA goals will be taken away from the Council of Governments (COG) and given to a California State Department. The COG members are not directly elected by the citizens but at least they are locally elected mayors and council members who presumably have an interest in local issues. And perhaps this is how the Long Beach RHNA numbers will be increased from 7,048 (our official SCAG number) to 28,000 which Christopher Koontz has stated is already the goal of the Long Beach Development Department.

Christopher Koontz, Advanced Planner:  “Based on our estimate we may not be able to hit the 28,000 number that’s listed in your staff report,” Advanced Planner Christopher Koontz told the commission. “But that is the goal, and what is in front of you [the proposed LUE] is an important step forward toward that goal.”-Long Beach Press Telegram, December 12, 2017.

I’m wondering if the “powers that be” who are pushing this agenda want to get as many permits issued before the results of the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau show that all the population projections used to justify the remaking of our city, county, and state have been way over inflated. And buildings are very long term and close to permanent.

Baked into the already passed housing legislation are laws which will make it virtually impossible to return to our current zoning if the new LUE is passed. Another law makes it virtually impossible for a city to oppose a proposed development because there will be a costly lawsuit that the city will lose.

When this LUE issue first came up, I said it was ideology, money, or power, or any combination of the three. I now believe it’s money, fueled by ideology, with the by-product of power.

Please vote carefully. Your legacy is at stake as well as the future of our city. Don’t be the people whose vote destroys our beautiful city, enables gentrification, and results in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer.

Sincerely,

Janet West
Jayjay76511@gmail.com
http://www.helpsave.blog

What I’m discovering backs up my belief that this City’s LUE action is taken hand in hand with Sacramento and the recently passed Housing Bills.

One of the pieces of the puzzle I’ve found is that one of the housing bills recently passed provides financing from Cap and Trade funds to build low income housing developments in specified areas. Low and behold, some of the proposed re-zoning coincides with those same specified areas. Some of these are obvious choices but others are more brazen selections.

Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) increased the percent of Cap and Trade funds used for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10 to 25 percent and added another 10 percent to benefit low income households or communities. The bill directs:

• A minimum of 25 percent of the proceeds be invested in projects that are located within and benefiting individuals living in disadvantaged communities;
• An additional minimum of 5 percent be invested in projects that are located within and benefiting individuals living in low-income communities or benefiting low-income households statewide; and
• An additional minimum of 5 percent that are located within and benefiting individuals living in low-income communities, or benefiting low-income households, that are within a ½ mile of a disadvantaged community.

Look at the map on the following link. Put a Long Beach zip code in the search and then you can move the map around to see the whole city. Keep in mind, some areas are not showing up as one of the categories on the map because they’re not yet zoned for residential or mixed use. Both the areas around the traffic circle and the Towne Center (both remain on the proposed LUE to be rezoned) fall into the second and third funding category from the above list. And there are other areas of the city with similar circumstances.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm

Let’s ask Council Member Stacy Mungo AGAIN how safe the Towne Center is from being built into density housing developments! They want to rezone it for mixed use six story which with the Density Bonus Law can end up being nine stories. It’s within the ½ mile of a disadvantaged community and it’s within a low income area so funding is available from cap and trade money to build low income housing developments. There’s a reason why they haven’t changed that proposed zoning back to commercial. And there’s a reason why AB 2208 was passed to put it on the list of “land suitable for residential development” which results in putting it on the list of inventory to use to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. Done deal. They have something in mind for that property. Perhaps that empty field and maybe move the gas station out which takes up a lot of area.

And we can’t use the term high density (oh no!) because even though to us, the stakeholders, that’s how we would label it, the Planning and Development Department tells us what they are proposing “technically” is not high density but instead medium density. We don’t want to be labeled misinformed NIMBY’s, do we?!

And now I know why Christopher Koontz (AICP, Advance Planning Officer) threw a panicked look at Amy Bodek (AICP, Director) during the December 11^th Planning Commission meeting when the Commissioner requested that the properties around the inner rim of the traffic circle be kept commercial zoning. At the time, I thought it was because of the reduction in available space for increased density (I’m not going to be called a misinformed NIMBY [STAMP FOOT]) housing developments, which was part of it, but now I realize it was because that’s a lot of the area where the Cap and Trade funds can be used.

More to come!

Fifteen new housing bills have been passed by Sacramento this year and signed by Governor Brown as have been various other housing bills within the last couple of years and more housing bills are pending for approval in the next legislative session. The housing bills passed this year go into effect on January 1, 2018. If the proposed LUE is approved, it will create residentially zoned areas throughout the city where developers can build increased density buildings and under certain conditions, with no parking. SB 35 allows for streamlined permits and once permits are issued, the developments can’t be stopped. The combination of these new bills along with a new LUE will drastically change the future livability of Long Beach.

Per state law, to move low to moderate income level residents in order to convert or demolish housing located in the coastal zone, alternative housing must be provided. Per state law, the location of this alternative housing must be in the coastal zone or three miles from the coastal zone, basically from the coast to four miles inland. One of the most noticeable aspects of the proposed LUE is the major increased density located in the vicinity of the traffic circle. The traffic circle is comfortably within that four mile distance.

Therefore, I am concerned that one of the underlying intents is to move low and moderate income people from the more valuable land located close to downtown, and close to the coast, to the traffic circle area and into “stack and packs.” Long Beach is currently one of the last cities where affordable housing is located close to the coast. There’s also an ongoing study to explore the possibility of removing the Port breakwater. The downtown and coastal land would become even more valuable if the Port breakwater is removed which will bring back waves and high quality surfing to the area.

Anecdotally, in what could be an indication of these plans, I have a family friend who lives at 8^th and Atlantic and whose family has lived there for at least the last fifteen years since we’ve know them. She tells me that some of the apartment buildings in that area have been sold and there are major increases to the rents resulting in many residents moving out. Her rent has increased considerably but is now grandfathered in until all the vacancies in the building are filled. Numerous vacancies have remained due to the high rent amount requested for new tenants so they believe they can remain there for the foreseeable future.

At the August Planning Commission meeting, Amy Bodek, AICP, Director, Long Beach Development Services announced that the LUE would go to the City Council in October regardless of whether the Commission voted to recommend it or not. That seemed to indicate there was some unnamed deadline. I discovered that the deadline to submit an application to The Transformative Climate Community Program (TCC) was November 30. 2017 and I wonder if that was the reason for the rush to get the LUE approved.

TCC is funded by proceeds from the Cap and Trade auctions and was created in Sacramento by AB 2722 from the 2015 – 2016 legislative session. Its mission is to create a zone to transform communities within the most disadvantaged parts of the state as identified by the Cal Environ Screen. Environmental justice belief is that lower economic level families have less ability to cope with the effects of pollution and therefore must be classified at a higher risk level than middle and higher income families. The Cal Environ Screen uses data which includes multiple pollution sources which occur in one area, economic levels, and other data to map out and determine which areas are most at risk. https://oehha.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4560cfbce7c745c299b2d0cbb07044f5

Long Beach has been identified as one of the cities with an area which will meet the requirements for funding from TCC (Page B-1).

http://sgc.ca.gov/resource%20files/10242017-TCC_FINAL_GUIDELINES_10_23_17.pdf

TCC grants are intended to fund planning activities that implement local land use plans adopted within the past five years. TCC funds will be used to support the construction of affordable housing near transit and for low-income households presumably at a greater distance from the pollution produced by the Port, the 710 Freeway, and closely located oil refineries (multiple pollution sources) because of the belief that lower income families have less resources to deal with the pollution.  As outlined in the July 2017 Draft Scoping Guidelines, applicants must define a contiguous project area that is no larger than five- square miles and is within the boundary of a single city and the areas must have a high risk of adverse effects from pollutants. Since inception, there has been a percentage of cap and trade money designated to be spent in disadvantaged communities. That has been changed by AB 1550, passed this year, to some of those funds may be used for disadvantaged communities.

On September 8, 2016, Mayor Garcia wrote a letter addressed to Governor Brown in support of AB 2722 (Burke) and TCC. In the letter, Mayor Garcia wrote: “Long Beach looks forward to partnering with the State and our local community on initiatives and benefits afforded through AB 2722.”

http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/government-affairs/position-letters—state/2015—2016/support-for-ab_2722-9.7.16_2.0/

There are also many funding sources available to build affordable housing in addition to TCC.

Another concerning factor in regard to the proposed LUE is that we’ve been told not to worry if the Towne Center is re-zoned for multi-use and increased density because it’s owned by the City. I always believe bills are passed for a reason and AB 2208, which was passed in 2016, states the airspace above sites owned or leased by a city or county is added to the Housing Element “land suitable for residential development.” Putting it into that category means that it will be evaluated to be placed on the list of available inventory to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. Airspace above refers to the possibility of additional stories being built above the existing stores. Lacking an inventory of city owned land I can’t determine if there are other areas with similar circumstances.

AB 1397 specifies RHNA goals are selected from the category of “land suitable for residential development.” And according to the technique described in Long Beach’s Housing Element, the Towne Center could be placed towards the top of the inventory list. On Page 86 from this report:

“Identifying Sites Suitable for Housing

In identifying the sites available for accommodating the 2014-2021 RHNA, the City began by reviewing and updating the sites inventory compiled for the previous Housing Element (2008-2014). Due to the depressed housing market and associated economic recession, development activities in the City have slowed in recent years. Many of the sites identified in 2008 are still available for development.

The original sites inventory was compiled using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis, staff knowledge, and field survey. Using the GIS, existing zoning (units/acre) and parcel area were used to calculate the potential maximum housing units allowed per parcel for the entire 50 square mile City. Then the improvement-to-land value ratio for each parcel was calculated by dividing the value of improvements (buildings) by the value of the land (from Los Angeles County Assessor data). For example, a parcel with improvements worth $500,000 and land worth $1 million would have an improvement ratio of 0.5. The lower the improvement ratio, the higher the potential for recycling the parcel into a new development. Then, the list of parcels was sorted by maximum housing units permitted. Only parcels with an improvement ratio of less than 0.6 were included. Parcels with improvement ratios higher than 0.6 were considered less likely to recycle than those with lower improvement ratios. This is a fairly conservative assumption as economic studies typically use a ratio of 1.0 as threshold for recycling feasibility. This analysis identified 120 parcels that could accommodate 12 units or more on each individual parcel (the size of a small garden apartment building). This list was reexamined to verify that the GIS analysis was identifying valid parcels. (A density of at least 30 units/acre is needed to accommodate lower income housing targets.) Staff knowledge of existing uses, aerial photos, and field checks were used to screen properties with near-term development potential.

Staff reviewed the 2008 sites inventory, updated status of specific sites, and re-evaluated potential development based on current trends. To accommodate the 2014-2021 RHNA, additional sites are included in the inventory. Ultimately 31 sites are included in the sites inventory (many with multiple contiguous parcels) as having the potential to accommodate the City’s RHNA (Table 39 Error! Reference source not found.). A detailed list of the properties identified is included in Appendix B.

The City primarily focuses in areas where densities can exceed 30 units per acre. Each site is comprised of multiple contiguous parcels with lot consolidation potential. Among the 31 sites identified (see Table 39), seven are vacant, with the remaining 24 sites being developed with existing but underutilized or marginally viable businesses. The majority of the underutilized sites are currently used as surface parking lots, vacated buildings; others are occupied by small independent businesses. These uses do not represent the highest and best uses for the sites and are not consistent with the City’s vision for these areas. Specifically, Sites 2, 3, 6,13, 19, and 22 are interim surface parking lots under City ownership. Several are vacant lots owned by the City (Sites 12 and 24), and several are vacant lots owned by the LBCIC (Sites 27, 28, and 31). In addition, one vacant lot is owned by Habitat for Humanity.”

http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4185

Per SB 35, It has not yet been determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development what information will need to be included on the year end housing report. This report must be completed by April 1^st and a public meeting must be held to discuss the contents.  I suspect that many of these newly classified residential and mixed use properties could make their way onto the list of “land suitable for residential development” and consequently as land designated to meet RHNA goals. This could be due to the unknown, at this time, requirements of the year end housing report and based upon the wording in SB 35 which says to include in the report “local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will not release their methodology for how RHNA goals are determined. There are also nebulous new government codes which refer to housing goals and not specifically RHNA housing goals.

A concern is that if these newly re-zoned properties are included on the RHNA list, housing advocates will make demands that developments be built in some of these locations based on “environmental equity” principles which have been included in many areas of state housing laws and another term used in CA government code – “socio-economic equity.” I have asked for a definition of “socio-economic equity” from my state and local legislators. I received a reply from two of them stating they can’t provide a definition and no reply from the third. In addition, one of the housing bills (SB 167) passed this year allows for very generous legal compensation if certain conditions are not followed. There’s no way for me to understand the extent of the possible implications.

City employees and City Councilmembers have stated inaccuracies about many items, particularly about SB 35. At this point in time, a reasonable person may doubt any information they provide. They have not been upfront with the citizens about 15 housing bills passed by Sacramento this year, and previously passed bills, which will be effective and have a major impact on the implementation of the proposed LUE if enacted. In addition, large numbers of stakeholders have no knowledge about any of this. It’s been suggested multiple times that a notice be enclosed in city utility bills to which one response by the city was: “not everyone gets a utility bill” as if notifying most is somehow inferior to not notifying everyone.

With a few tweaks, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the LUE on December 11, 2018 in opposition to the vast majority of 80 public speakers. Approving the proposed LUE will most likely be on the Long Beach City Council’s Agenda sometime in January 2018. In my opinion, I believe there is no chance for it not to be passed. Once it is passed, it will not be possible to go back due to Sacramento housing bills which greatly restrict local control.  Once a permit is approved, streamlined or otherwise, the development can’t be stopped.

The unintended consequences may be vast and are unknown to us, the stakeholders.

I’m asking for an attorney to get involved to help us stop this insanity. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Janet West

The memo has some accurate and insightful parts but although I’m not an attorney, I’ve looked back at the applicable parts of the bill and I don’t see how he came up with some of his information. Granted, it’s a very complicated bill, probably purposely designed so. To point out one mistake that’s pretty obvious, he says nine units is the cut off. The bill says ten units. Copied and pasted directly from SB 35:

SB 35: “(i) The project includes 10 or fewer units.”

He says earthquake zones are not included but he left out some pretty important details. A lot of Southern California is in an earthquake zone, as is a lot of Long Beach. That section of the bill copied and pasted here says:

From SB 35: “(F) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.”

Same thing with flood plains:

From SB 35: “(G) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issued a flood plain development permit pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

I haven’t included wetlands in my flyers because they’re not zoned residential or mixed use.

He mentioned zoning regulations several times incorrectly instead of stating that the General Plan (which the proposed Land Use Element Plan is part of) is determinant – not zoning.

I don’t agree with his analysis of the prevailing wages section. That is a very complicated part of the bill but I just don’t see how the bill can be interpreted the way stated in his memo.

At least he got the parking right. 🙂

***********************************************************************

City of Long Beach Working Together to Serve

Office of the City Attorney

November 27, 2017

Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers

Michael J. Mais, Assistant City Attorney

Senate Bill 35 (Streamlined Approval Process for Certain Types of Housing Developments)

We have recently received inquiries regarding newly enacted Senate Bill 35 and its relationship to the City’s General Plan and Land Use Element (LUE). Below is a summary of the Bill’s major provisions and we will be available to respond to specific questions regarding the potential impact of SB 35 on the LUE at the time the issue is brought before the Council in mid-December. In the meantime, if any member of the Council has a specific question regarding SB 35 or would like further briefing, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) is one of several housing related bills passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Brown on September 29, 2017. SB 35 creates a streamlined approval process for certain multi-family type developments in cities and counties that have failed to approve enough housing projects to meet their state required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). The new law is specifically applicable to charter cities such as Long Beach. Qualifying projects meeting the strict requirements of SB 35 could be approved on a “ministerial”, rather than “discretionary” basis, and therefore would not be subject to full environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of SB 35 is to facilitate and expedite the approval and construction of affordable housing units throughout the state.
SB 35 requires Long Beach and other jurisdictions to enhance their annual reporting requirements to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) so HCD can determine whether a particular jurisdiction is on track to meet its RHNA allocation. For example, cities will be required to file an annual report with HCD that specifies the number of housing units, broken down by income category, that have been issued full entitlements for construction during the previous reporting period. If HCD determines that a jurisdiction is deficient in approving enough new housing units by income type (or if a jurisdiction fails to file the required annual reports with HCD), then the “streamlined” approval process could be available to a developer if a proposed development meets all of the other ridged requirements of SB 35. SB 35 also requires HCD to create new annual reporting forms for use by cities and counties and requires
HCD to develop new guidelines to implement the various provisions of SB 35. It is anticipated that the new guidelines may not be available from HCD until sometime during the end of calendar year 2018.
To qualify for a streamlined approval process, a project must involve a development that contains at least two residential units located on a legal parcel or parcels. The parcel must be in an area already zoned for residential or mixed residential use development under the City’s existing zoning code and general plan land use designations. If the project is a mixed-use project, at least two-thirds of the square footage must be designated for residential use and the project must otherwise fully comply with the applicable zoning and design review standards for the area of the proposed development. A project would not qualify for streamlining if the Developer is seeking a variance from any of the applicable zoning regulations for the area. The developer must commit to dedicating a specified number of units for affordable housing and commit to paying prevailing wages (or subject the project to a bona fide collective bargaining agreement) to those engaged in the construction of the project, if the project involves the construction of more than nine (9) residential units.
SB 35 will not apply to all proposed projects. For example, the streamlined approval process would not apply to projects located in the City’s coastal zone, wetland or other sensitive habitat areas, hazardous waste sites, land located within an earthquake fault zone or in a designated flood plain area. The streamlined process would also not apply if the project involved the demolition of existing low income housing or designated historic structures, or if the project would replace existing housing that is already deed restricted for affordable housing purposes.
Under SB 35, the City would be required to inform an applicant in writing whether a proposed project qualifies for the ministerial approval process within a maximum of ninety (90) days (depending on the size of a project) after submittal of a development application. If the City informs an applicant that they have submitted a qualifying application, the City would then be obligated to complete design review (including any Planning Commission or other public review) of the project within ninety (90) or one hundred and eighty (180) days, depending on the size of the project. The design review process is required to be based on objective criteria and cannot be conducted in a manner that would inhibit, chill or preclude ministerial approval of the proposed project.
If a project is approved using the streamlined approval process, SB 35 limits the City’s ability to impose certain parking requirements or standards. The City would not have the ability to impose any parking standard if the development was located within one half mile of public transit, was located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district, when on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the proposed development, or when there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the proposed development. If a development did not fall within one of the above described categories the City could impose a parking standard that did not
exceed one parking space per unit. Of course, a developer always has the choice to provide parking even though the law does not require it.
The new laws established by SB 35 will remain effective, unless extended by the Legislature, until 2026.

MJM:kjm A17-03036 Wclbcha1\at$\apps\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d0l 8\p031\00812721 .docx
cc: Patrick J. West, City Manager Tom Modica, Assistant City Attorney Diana Tang, Manager of Government Affairs Amy Bodek, Director of Development Services

SB 35 and fourteen additional Housing Bills have been passed by the California Legislature, signed by Gov. Brown, and will be effective on January 1, 2018. It’s unconscionable that the Long Beach City Council is considering passing a new Land Use Element Plan at the same time.

 The Sacramento Bills have unlocked and opened the doors to the candy store. All of the children are inside selecting candy. If the Land Use Element Plan is passed, the candy shelves will be emptied and the stockroom cleaned out. The candy store will become a ghost of what it formerly was.

The three worst aspects of SB 35 are:

• It eliminates a locality’s (the City of Long Beach’s) ability to examine and conduct public hearings before a proposed development’s permit is issued. SB 35 specifies that if developments meet objective general plan standards, i.e. the Land Use Plan, and objective design standards, the streamlined permit must be approved. Once a permit is issued, it can’t be stopped
• If developers meet these streamlined permit standards and the development is located within one half mile of public transit, which 99% of Long Beach is, then there are no parking requirements.
• No development level EIR which would examine the effects of that development on the surrounding community (traffic, parking, noise, lack of police, fire, schools) will be allowed. No one will be allowed to sue in order to mitigate these concerns.

In addition:

• If the development is on residentially zoned or mixed use land (per the General Plan and not zoning regulations) and is between two and ten units, there are no additional requirements other than that no rental properties be demolished.
• The Density Bonus Law and Accessory Dwelling Unit Law can be added on top of the allowable density in SB 35. Density Bonus is figured by percentage and is always rounded up so even a very small density bonus can have a major impact.
• The bill inserts the Subdivision Map Act which regulates both subdivisions and lot consolidations which then may be used by the developers.
• The coastal zone is excluded.
• Affordable Housing in SB 35 is defined as households making below 80 percent of the area’s median income.
• The development must be compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation.
• If the development is a public work, it doesn’t need to hire union workers. The legal definition of a public work is: construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
• There are a lot of public funds available to help finance these developments – federal tax credits, state money, and city money. Read the memo regarding “The Mayor’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Study Group.” http://www.longbeach.gov/citymanager/memos-to-the-mayor-and-council/
• Some of these streamlined permits will no longer have an expiration date and others will qualify to have the expiration date extended.