Recommendation to request the City Council to oppose Senate Bill 50 (Weiner), which would preempt local zoning laws to allow higher density housing near "transit-rich" and "jobs-rich" areas, including in single-family neighborhoods, and take a "one-size-fits-all" to addressing land use for housing throughout the entire state.
Fine. Do have any public comment on this item? CNN, would you please cast your vote? Now we're going to move to item 31, if you please, with the item. Item 31 Communication from Councilman Austin and Councilwoman Mango. Recommendation to request the City Council to oppose Senate Bill 50. Councilman Orson. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So, first of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember Mongo for joining me on this item. I believe it's very important that the council weigh in on one of the most significant bills this session that could have a long term impact on our local land use in our city. I'd like to thank city staff for working expeditiously to prepare a very detailed memo that I believe each of the council members received. And that memo was under iteration because this this bill has been amended a couple of times over the last couple of weeks. So they worked very, very hard, even over the weekend, to prepare that for the council. And as I mentioned, the memo came out today as well as some maps. I'd like to have city staff provide a brief summary of the memo for the public that may have not had a chance to to to see the memo as well as the council. So Diana Tang is all up to speed on this. Sure, Mayor. Members of the city council, as you see before you, we have a short memo on SB 50. This is based on the May 1st version of the legislation. And so very briefly. I'll provide an overview on that and then perhaps go over the maps because that might be the best way to through illustration show what is in the bill as it currently stands. So SB 50 is state legislation that's proposed by Senator Scott Wiener. I believe that the. Purpose. Of this legislation is to help address the state's housing crisis, which we all agree is an issue. SB 50 proposes to do this by enabling density increases, particularly here in transit oriented corridors. Also, major transit stops in what they're defining as job rich areas. And then there is a program that would allow density increases in single family neighborhoods that are not historic districts, flood control channels in a flood zone or along a fault line as well. So in short, that is what SB 50 is. It would supersede local land use control even in charter. Cities to to allow. These density increases. And again. The bill does propose to. Increase housing supply in an effort to increase affordability, which is something the city generally supports. The bill also. Would supersede. Local land use authority and. Prohibit us from. Doing studies that. Would look at neighborhood compatibility. Design standards, everything that the city councils done through our land use element as well. And so generally we would oppose legislation that. That supersedes our local. Land use authority in that way. I'm really briefly, I'll go over. There's a chart in the memo that has been provided. One column is the Neighborhood Multifamily Housing Project. The second column is the Equitable Communities Incentive. I'll go over the Neighborhood Multifamily Housing Project first, because I think is the most expansive portion. Of the bill. Neighborhood multifamily housing projects would be eligible in all single family residential units that are not located in a coastal zone wetlands high fire zone, historic district, flood zone, or along a fault line that is recognized by the state. This program would allow up to four residential dwelling units on vacant land or through conversion of an existing home. The legislation currently would require at least 4.5 parking spaces for every housing unit on site on heights. This is where I believe the Senator is recognizing that local cities would like to keep, at least as to the extent possible, the look and feel of a single family residence. And so height limitations and things of that nature would stay the same. There is a streamlined ministerial approval permitting process for this type of project if it qualifies. And it is important to note that if a single family home has had a tenant living in that home any time in the last ten years, it would not be eligible. For the. Density increases that I just described. So that is the neighborhood multifamily housing project portion of this bill. The second portion of this bill is the Equitable Communities Incentive, and this is in areas that are a quarter mile from a high quality transit corridor, a half mile from a major transit stops over four alignments that would be the blue line stops. And then. Within jobs rich area again which jobs which area will if this bill passes be defined by the state. And so we don't have those particular areas in Long Beach, if any, at this time for you now. But if density. Increases or housing developments that qualify for density increases per the Equitable Communities incentive would receive density waivers through projects in high quality transit corridors, major transit stops and in job rich areas. So. These would not be allowed to require more than 2.5 spaces per housing unit built. We would not be able to set maximum height limits below 45 feet for projects within a half mile, but outside a quarter mile of a major transit stop. And we cannot set maximum height limits below 55 feet for projects within a quarter mile of a major transit stop. There is similar to the previous program streamlining ministerial permitting approach. There is inclusionary requirements in the Equitable Communities Incentive program if there is more than 20 units proposed in the housing development. In the Equitable Communities Incentive Program. The tenant protections are seven years. So if you are working on a parcel where there has been a tenant in in the home for the past seven years, that would not be eligible for the benefits that I have just described. And the affordable housing that affordable housing requirements that are required from this program are included in a tenant or I'm sorry, in the inclusionary inclusionary housing ordinance portion of the program. So for Long Beach, I look in your pockets. Do you have some maps for a Long Beach? We'll talk about the neighborhood, multi-family housing projects first, and that is it in all of your single-family residential neighborhoods. And I believe we all know where those are. But that does exclude your historic districts. It does exclude the fault line that runs sort of north west along the corridor there through districts. Three and. Four. It looks like it does exclude the flood zones. So areas near Naples, Belmont Shores, the peninsula that all is excluded. And then, of course, we don't have housing in our wetlands or the rivers, but those are also areas that are excluded. So that is where the neighborhood multifamily housing projects would apply in Long Beach. For the Equitable Communities. Incentives. We worked very closely with Lummi to translate, and so I'd like to thank them for their assistance on this map. Based on the definitions. Currently in SB 50, a major transit corridor is defined as one that includes a fixed bus route that has ten minute headways or less. And so for us, that is Anaheim Boulevard. And so that is in the map there. The major transit stops, as we had mentioned earlier, is along the blue line at each of the blue line stations. And in these areas. The the. Housing developer would be eligible for density increases, particularly. In multifamily. Stops. And that concludes my report. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. A great update, Councilman. All right. So thank you very much. And Diana, I appreciate your your diligent work. I think we can all acknowledge that California has a housing crisis and Long Beach is no different. Like other cities throughout the state, our residents are experiencing overcrowding and is in need of significantly more housing here in our city and throughout my tenure on the city council, my record shows that I've supported building new housing and adding residential density, even in the face of opposition. The land use element maps that the City Council approved just last year after an unprecedented public engagement process significantly increases the opportunity for housing density along our corridors. In fact, the development services now projected that the elderly alone would accommodate more than 17,000 additional units in our city over the next couple of decades. That may not be enough, but that is in addition to the more than 11,000 units that will be accommodated in the city's downtown plan and Midtown Plan, among other land use plans . However, based on the overwhelming feedback of the residents of Long Beach, our residential neighborhoods were left largely intact. Long Beach is a diverse city, and and that is why many people love the city. That's why we live here. We are a beach city. We're an urban community with a thriving, growing downtown. But we're also a suburban community with many strong single family neighborhoods. This is the diversity of neighborhoods, each within their own distinct characteristics and charms that make Long Beach such a great city. And that's why the one size fits all approach that SB 50 has handed down by the state does not work, and it's not good for our city. That's one of the primary objectives of Long Beach's state legislative agenda is also to oppose legislation that preempts the city's existing control over local matters. That's why the city opposed SB 827 last year by Senator Wiener. I had the opportunity to meet with Senator. Winner last year, and we discussed with him the Long Beach's concerns with this approach to creating housing throughout the state. Long Beach is also working to create more affordable housing and is working with implementing many other policies adopted by the Council as part of the plan for production of Affordable Workforce Housing. But SB 50 undermines the entire local planning process for the city to determine how to best fulfill its housing needs and obligations. In particular, SB 50 would allow high density housing of a minimum of 4 to 5 storeys within a half mile of the blue line stop or high quality transit stop even within single family neighborhoods. This density would also be allowed near job rich areas, which wouldn't even define unless B defined. Unless the bill becomes law, they will have to go through a rulemaking process. Just about any neighborhood in Long Beach, with limited exceptions, would be required to allow a minimum of four units per property. Long Beach cannot not require more than 2.5 parking spaces per unit has mentioned for any of these new housing developments in some cases could not require any parking to be provided. These measures would undermine many of the principles and decisions that this Council has already made in its land use planning and do away with a lot of our local control. That's why dozens of cities throughout cities throughout the state, such as the city of Los Angeles and San Francisco, the American Planning Association and the League of California Cities and in the South Bay Council of Governments have all opposed this bill. And I would like to thank my colleague, Councilmember Urunga, who is also on the board of Lead California cities for voting to oppose this measure in just recently as well. As I stated before, the state has an important role to play in addressing our housing crisis. It can provide resources to smaller cities that have don't have the planning expertize of cities such as Long Beach and largest cities to update their general planning zoning codes. And it should hold these cities accountable that are not working to accommodate their share of the new housing. But for Long Beach, which is working to accommodate new housing, including affordable units. SB 50 is only counterproductive and can have a disastrous long term consequence. I'd ask my colleagues to join in opposing this legislation and giving our state lobbyists and our our our team the ability to work in Sacramento to oppose this this legislation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Before we get to Councilwoman Mango, we're going to go to your public comment. So please come forward through any public comment on the item. Please come down some public comment. Courtesy of Harrison record. I'm here to voice opposition to SB 50. SB 50 is nothing but the discredited trickle down economics applied to housing. SB 50 is being proposed or talked about as a means to fill the huge gap in housing, primarily affordable housing in the city. And in the state. Except that the effect will be to add. To the already huge gentrification that is being caused in part by the city's pay to play atmosphere. The same corporate developers who stand to benefit from the SB 50 windfall are the same who contribute to the mayor and to the council members campaigns. There is no question that we need affordable housing. But this isn't an issue about NIMBYism as. Councilmember Gonzalez. I mentioned last night at the forum, the city has identified a deficit of about 28,000 affordable housing units. And and that deficit is not being closed at. Given the gentrification that is existing, that is occurring. At best, it's going to take 150 years to fulfill at the pace that we're going. But, you know, gentrification continues apace in part due to those corporate developers. Yet yesterday we heard from Councilman Councilmember Gonzalez that she created 2000 affordable units. In downtown Long Beach. That kind of caught me by surprise. I. I don't know where she pulled that number out of, but I would like to see. Because I haven't seen 2000 units of affordable housing being created by her or by the city of Long Beach in downtown or anywhere else. It would be fantastic if it was on the line. Coincidentally, I see that she's not here to ask for the vote. I'm sorry, but I don't trust you guys had the dice. I urge you to vote. In unequivocal terms, opposition to SB 50. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And then, Ms.. Ley, you'll be the last speaker, I think that's. Good evening. I want to thank the council members and persons mongeau in Austin for having the backbone to agenda SB 50. I only hope that other cities have the strong council people that are that are that brave, regardless of what some of the clarifications are on what will be exempt and what aren't exempt. Let's talk about what SB 50 isn't and what if it isn't is many people think that the crafter, Senator Winer up in Sacramento, crafted this benevolently with, you know, you know, and minimalist people in his mind in affordable housing, in his heart. And it isn't. That's not what SB 50 is, as we know, is also not considered is also considered to be a blanket for the whole state. And it isn't. Again, it doesn't blanket the whole state. It isn't for everyone or everywhere in California. Senator Weiner conveniently exempted many affluent people and affluent cities. Most of them are oceanfront. This includes places like Malibu and Manhattan Beach. So evidently, if you or your city have enough money, you don't have to comply with any part of SB 50. I think an acronym is in order, don't you? SB 50 is meant to take over governance for all cities that aren't. We'll call him Nim Rocks, Nim r0c, which stands for Not in my rich oceanfront community. What it is according to Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. SB 50 also allows developers to choose choose friends, choose council people the density at which they build, potentially allowing them to maximize profits by building large luxury units instead of smaller, lower price units. It does exactly the opposite of created needed affordable housing as we FIFO also takes away all local control. And according to the author Joe Fox, this controversial bill is designed to grant state authority to override. I used the word override all local zoning laws in order to build density. And who approves our local zoning laws? You do? Councilman Richardson, you were quoted in the Long Beach Press recently as stating how excited you were about involving your community in the revitalization of your business corridor. I was excited when I read the article for you and your community. But if you do not opposes SB 50, you or any of your other council people who want to get your city and community involved in revitalization will abandon your community involvement in any development project in your community. Miss Gonzalez, who conveniently is not here, finally stated her position last night to oppose SB 50, but she did so with a cortisol ad. She said, As it is written today, that's a lot like me serving you raw eggs and telling you, go ahead, eat them tomorrow. I think they'll be an omelet. You must vote to oppose this as the bill is written in front of you today. In conclusion, terms like override bypass cities that can that cannot limit state controlled developer sugar. All of them result in one thing. Sacramento overreach. Do not make us Sacramento South. Thank you. Thank you. That's a lot of energy to follow. Ray Gavlak, eighth District. I want to thank both council members, Mungo and Austin, for putting this on the council agenda. I wanted to see and I was hoping to see a90 vote tonight, and now it'll be eight oh, unless Miss Pearce isn't coming back. But all ten of you, which also includes our mayor, you saw the concerns of thousands of your constituents. When our local Luy was in the limelight, thousands of people came out and told you what they didn't want in their neighborhoods. You each may have your own political reasons to not be a leader on this or on any other state issue. You may not want to step on any toes in Sacramento. You may feel more comfortable having Sacramento tell you what to do so that your hands are clean. However, you were elected to lead. You were elected to understand what your citizens in Long Beach want to see as the future of Long Beach. So I ask you to say no on SB 50. I've had the opportunity to talk to a couple of you about well, maybe not the way it stands, but maybe it could be . I believe you said. Guten Amend, Rex. No, we don't want any amendments to SB 50. Mr. Weiner should not be allowed to drag our cities through this horrible process and get any credit for it whatsoever. Last year, the state large committee brought before you, the entire council, the motion to oppose all. Isolation that interferes with local control. You voted eight zero to support this recommended action. I hope that you will stay. What you. What you. What your decision was with what your decision was last year. I'm sorry that Jeanine is not here, but SB 50, I believe she probably does support it. It attacks her verbal concerns for parking. The Broadway project is a nightmare. It's an accident waiting to happen. If you know anybody that lives down there, have a conversation with them, I would ask her that she not add this to the list of mistakes that have already been made. Lina last night said that she was against SB 50. As it stands, unfortunately, she chose not to be here tonight to put it on the record. And Rex, I just think that anything that you could hope to change would be too lenient. It's not a party issue. It's not a union issue. It is a quality of life issue for all the residents of Long Beach and the state of California, please vote no on SB 50. And since I do have 30 seconds, I'm going to change the subject. I'm not coming back next week to talk about streamlining agendas or your meetings. I think that this is the only opportunity that you have for public participation. And I am so offended when the talk when the talk time for public is reduced from a lousy 3 minutes to 90 seconds, try saying what you had to say. You took public comment for 25 minutes and you talked about the issue for 55 minutes. So, you know, please consider that when you have that discussion next week. Thank you. Natalie's job guide. Joe Sopko, fifth District. And I. Want to thank. Al Austin and Stacey Mungo for bringing this issue forward that we all face it here together. I know how your constituents feel on it. I hope you vote that way tonight. You know what? One of the biggest mistakes this city ever allowed to happen was building those cracker boxes in the later 1980s, I believe. And then we suffered in trying to find a way to get rid of them, to turn them into single family residence, to have someone buy them. But we really couldn't do that because there wasn't enough parking. The the issue about 0.5 parking per unit, it's not even talking about bedrooms, at least right now. What do you have to provide? One parking space per bedroom, something like that. People living in these low income housing units, they're going to have cars. And if it's anybody's district, it's going to be a real problem with parking, because we know how difficult it is in the second district right now. And it will probably always be a problem in the second district. We like to think about the future. Don't build more cracker boxes. Don't allow that to happen. Don't give up your control. If you give up your control, you're giving up our control. You're there representing us. This. If there's eight of you here tonight, we want to see an eight oh vote against this. You know, I was wondering why it was so late on the agenda. Now you understand that Sacramento is in the same timezone that we are and they're not sleeping right now. So they're going to see how you vote. You know, how your your constituents would like you to vote. Thank you. Thank you. Next place. Point of view. And I think my I just might be on record somewhere. Well, I applaud those council members that have realized that SB 50 is essentially a handout for developers, as difficult as that may seem to the rest of you, I hope you all vote against it. I know that many of you are receiving contributions from many of those developers that will be greatly appreciative of this SB 50 if it does pass a bill that SB 50, a bill that as many of as many of the other ill planned city or state initiatives such as the rent control or relocation assistance, will have an incident and intended or unintended consequence consequences that are not in our city's best interest. SB 50 will take away local control, local planning that all residents of Long Beach demand. It essentially takes away our ability to plan our future. It waters down our democracy. My greatest concern is that SB 50 will gentrify. Long Beach at an even faster. Rate than is already being taken. It's already happening, especially in District one and downtown area, and it will this and it will continue to. Disproportionately impact. Our low, modest income and working class minorities and residents of Long Beach. So I urge all of you to please vote no on SB 15. Thank you. Thank you. Next year. Good evening carelessly District five. I also would like to congratulate Stacey Mungo and Austin for getting this on the agenda tonight. We really appreciate that. I got into the weeds a little bit on this bill and went and looked at the bill analysis of SB 50. And I thought we had two areas here in this city that would be a problem. The high quality transit corridors, as has already been discussed, is along the blue line. But along the blue line, we also have the Callan, VA, Carol, and viral screen scores that are in the top 25%, which means that they have really bad air down there and they already have problems. This would increase their problems. You know, if you add more buildings, you're going to be adding more cars, you're going to add more pollution. So on behalf of the West Side, you know, I'm sure they don't want it. And I can tell you on the east side, I've looked at the jobs rich description and part of it says high area median income relative to the relevant region and high quality public schools and then close to jobs. So the jobs rich thing is just a trick of messaging. This is really saying, yes, we're going to invade the areas that don't normally have multifamily buildings in them. And I can tell you the east side does not want this. And Stacy knows that. Well, parking and traffic are always the two biggest issues brought up when you talk about high density. And this would bring a nightmare of parking and traffic. If this is really about creating more housing, especially more affordable housing. The city of Long Beach needs to lead that effort. As Mahatma Gandhi pointed out. I don't know of any people that would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an outsider. So this council has affirmed each year that they will oppose state legislation that reduces city controls. And with that, all of you should oppose this law. Thank you. Thank you so much. That concludes public comment. Let me go back to the queue, Councilman Mongo. I just want to make some clarifying points. I want to appreciate everyone who's called my office and the many discussions I've had over the past several weeks. This council's state legislative agenda as it stood when I was on the committee, which I am no longer on the committee. Thank you. For those of you who have clarified that misinformation that was in the in the public discussion and dialog. Our position has always been to maintain the local democratic process in everything. So whether that is ordinance related to zoning or what types of businesses you can have in your city, all of those things really should be , in our opinion, as according to our current state legislative agenda. Decisions made locally. And so when we are silent on an item, it doesn't mean we're silent. We have a state legislative position that we always prefer local democratic processes and neighborhood input. Many of you remember that over a year ago I attended an item about the gathering of input from our community. Actually before our Louie process, because I feel as though we could be a a best practice across the country of a methodical and consistent way that we communicate with our community and that we receive input from our community on items. The current version of this SB 50 is not what it will be on the last day, and we need to be able to communicate out to our communities regularly, and we each have different methodologies for doing that because every community is different. But the city as a whole also has that responsibility. Separate and apart from the council members responsibility to do that. So I want to thank Council Member Austin for joining me, for joining joining together on this item. We served on state ledge together. I learned a lot from him on that. I continue to learn a lot from Councilmember Austin and his comments both publicly and in closed session on many items that come before the city. And then also the collaborative spirit that he took with our KOA, our op ed that we put out recently. I think that it's really important to be able to communicate clearly the detail that's necessary, because unfortunately, the world we live in today is in six word increments, so, so much so that even though individuals have seen the headline, I've received messages that said, I can't believe you support SB 50. And I said, Please, please. Click here to read that. And they wrote back. I did read it and I said So I think that a couple of things just need to be said. Today, many members of our public asked us to oppose SB 52, oppose SB 50 I. Asking my colleagues for a yes vote tonight. A yes vote means opposing SB 50, and that can be very confusing to the public when they're not clear what the motion on the floor is and the current motion is. Please councilmembers join us Councilmember Austin Knight in opposing SB 50. With that, I appreciate everyone's comments and for coming out tonight and I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a lot of thoughts on this bill and this entire conversation. You know, I've been having this conversation. So I serve on a subcommittee for RINA Regional Housing Needs Assessment as a my role as CAG. I serve as second vice president SKEGG and we in a Southern California Association of governments. I represent six Southern California counties. And their regional planning agency. They take on the conversations that are a bit broader than cities take on. And and I think what I think we should be thinking about is maybe not having, you know, every response to every crisis, not using the same type of instrument on every certain situation. I think this is a this bill is not ready. This bill is not good. I don't support it. But I also want to say that we already took a position on this. It's in our state legislative agenda to oppose bills that take away local control that's already there. And currently, we're tracking 1500 bills in the state legislature. To assume that because we haven't lifted up all the scary ones, because there are some scarier bills out there, because we haven't lifted up this bill to assume that we're not taking our position or advocating publicly. It's just false. We have a very, very, you know, a very limited sort of staff here. So we have to be strategic in how we do it. I think there's been enough public outcry on this issue. So thank you, Councilman Austin, for raising this and Councilman Mongo for raising up this in this particular bill. I think it warrants some conversation. So here are my thoughts. So the conversation we're having at Sky AG and the regional housing needs assessment is about this concept of regional equity and that essentially, you know, we acknowledge that there's a three and a half million home deficit in California and the housing crisis crisis is real across the state, but some cities are not doing their part. As a matter of fact, they're, you know, are trends that cities are taking taken on that essentially are, you know, an example here. Some cities are actually taking steps to limit housing in their city. There are some modern trends that are fairly new that essentially say we only want single family residential in our city or we won't adopt a land use plan that allows for growth or considers growth. And in those cases, I think that's considered an abuse of local control. And on the other hand, Long Beach has been a leader. People look at Long Beach and what we've done in terms of thinking through and planning for our growth, trying to attempt to have this conversation or equity not perfect, but we're ahead of a lot of other cities. And as relates to this conversation on equity and we're having a very robust conversation about what else needs to happen. SB 50 is not a solution to any of the problems here in Long Beach in terms of the need to produce housing and the need to produce housing that is affordable. Also, I think how we send the message makes sense. There's no way that we should let these cities off the hook that are essentially conducting modern day redlining. They're essentially saying, we want none of you people in our communities. And there was some of that that happened in our land use element conversation. So let's not say let's not pretend that our process was perfect. We got through it as a community, but it wasn't perfect. That activity is happening with sort of no opposition here in here in Southern California. And in those cases, the states should take action and say cities like Long Beach who are already complying with transit oriented development requirements, who are already looking at transit rich communities, who are already planning for growth. We want to encourage you and incentivize you to continue doing responsible planning. And you cities who are creating or essentially have bad habits. We want to limit your ability to continue to do that and encourage you use so carrot and stick. If you plan for growth, if you're responsible about it, you can maintain all the character of your community and all those different things. But if you don't plan for plan for growth, there is a stick and that stick could be tied to your your local control. And so that's that's the conversation, a very delicate conversation that's happening on a regional level through the arena process. And so and so I support that. I think that's a regional approach to this. So here's what I think should happen. So I think we should vote together and have one position. I think the position should be we should sharpen the pencil on it a bit, and the position should be we issue a letter or statement that essentially says, here's why we oppose it unless amended. And it needs to say something very clearly that Long Beach and communities like Long Beach that are doing the right things or planning for growth and being responsible should simply be exempted. If anything, incentivize just help us fund some of this planning. We should be incentivizing these communities and we should put our put our focus regionally on those communities that are simply, categorically, categorically opposing any housing project that happens because that's what's actually happening in these communities. So that's what I think we should do tonight. What do you think about that, Councilman Austin? I think that is consistent with the spirit that we are moving forward with again. I don't want to be completely unreasonable to standpoint where we are just saying no, we are saying no, we want to maintain our local control. And I certainly would would support doing a joint letter from the councilors, the alleged committee supporting an amendment that exempts Long Beach. And I think that's important that our message is is is very clear and that we pay attention to the conversation, because the reality is, you know, the polling shows that 60% of Californians support SB 50. And the reality is they support it because of the affordability issue. And people expect that this is a solution to that. But in reality, it's not. It's a one size fits all approach to planning, and it will change as as it moves forward. And what I hope to see is that Long Beach cities like Long Beach, as defined by cities who are doing the right thing, planning for growth , creating pathways to housing, they are exempted and actually incentivized. We give more resources to those cities and those cities who are not doing their part, not approving these documents, not embracing this reasonable conversation. Those cities are the ones where we should, you know, place a real focus on. So that's where I think we should go. But thank you so much. Those are my comment. Those are my thoughts on this issue. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember, your income. Thank you. One of the things that that happened that occurred at the League of Cities when I attended the board directors meeting last month, was that Senator Weiner did come to the board and did address the concerns that many of the cities had in regards to the Senate bill. And at the at the at that meeting, there were questions directly related to the well, what about those cities that are moving towards dealing with gentrification, that are dealing with homelessness? We are dealing with changes in their zoning so that you will create more opportunities to create housing. And his response was that those cities will not be affected by it, by the Senate bill 50, because you already have working toward making progress towards addressing housing. So the the end result of that discussion was that the vote that was taken at the League of Cities was to oppose unless amended. That was concerning to me as well, because obviously what were the amendments that we're going to be address? And there was it was very clear in regards to what what the amendments are. So I just had one question to a to. She's lost her name already having a moment. Diana and Diana, the you put in your last note here in terms of next steps that the Senate appropriations will be hearing it before May 17. Is there an estimate as to actually when it will be heard and as well as whether there have been any amendments made to the to the bill as it currently stands? Councilmember the. The. Bill was amended on May 1st after robust discussion in Policy Committee right before. And so it is unlikely that new amendments will be made available before the vote in Senate appropriations. I do not have a date for when that Appropriations Committee will take place, but May 17th is the deadline for all fiscal bills to pass the fiscal committee, otherwise not move forward. And so we are expecting that the bill will be heard in Senate Appropriations before May 17. In its current form. Correct? Yes. Well, that that's something that obviously I think that Councilmember Richardson's amending motion here to include a letter that was a friendly, friendly amendment. Excuse me. Let's use the proper terminology that would have us address a letter saying that those of those the cities that are already in the loop for making those adjustments should be exempted. Because the bottom line here is that, you know, there are cities that are abusing it. We saw Governor Newsom come, what, two months ago and basically chastise the city as Huntington Beach for their not making any kind of progress or effort in addressing their housing issues. And we also have dealt with the issues of the armory in North Orange in north San Diego County, who also are making moves like this, although cities are getting away with not having to address their their housing issues. So this bill would basically reward them, if you will, if if or not rewarded, would actually force them to address the housing crisis that we have across the state. But at the same time, penalize cities like us who are doing our best to try to address this issue. So I'm a supporter of the other friendly amendment. Thank you. On price. Thank you. I am supportive of the item which is to oppose SB 50. I agree there's a lot of legislative proposals pending in the state legislature and certainly we can't, in the words of Councilman Richardson, you know, we can't lift them all up. But certainly if we see ones that are concerning to us or ones that we think are beneficial for the city, we should, in my opinion, call them out as we have in the past. We have on numerous occasions as a body supported legislation that's been very much in its infancy and amended multiple times after we voted to support. So I think it's it's the it's the intent or the the concept that we're proposing to oppose or support. It's not necessarily the exact language because we know it's going to go through changes. I don't support the concept of this particular bill, not because I don't support additional housing, not because I don't think we need more affordable housing. But I do not believe that a city like ours, a charter city, should be giving up local control on issues of land use and development. When we have the opportunity to maintain local control and still effectuate the goal that the state has, which is to build more affordable housing, we can do that. We're continuing to do that. We as a city are committed to that. But I don't want us to lose control over what, when, where and how these developments will occur. I believe that is very much a city function. We have a team in place that is able to make those decisions and implement those necessary land use changes and less Ussery housing changes with the unique nature of our neighborhoods in mind when it does it, you know, I really don't care what the polling suggests. I know where my residents are on this issue and I am a solid no. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Vice Mayor Landrieu. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I truly myself, you know, I oppose SB 50 because I think reading it in SB, you know, 50 is designed to provide for new housing in the state of California, which is a worthy goal. But I think it goes about it in the wrong way. You know, I think it would tie the hands of the city council and our Development Services Department by denying the right to use our judgment in setting a new housing loan, which had done a great job in approving new housing projects. In fact, like they said during a governor, you know, even praised the effort of several weeks ago when he came in, spoke about the need for new housing in California. We have been very careful in the development of our new land use elements, the balancing of demands for new housing against the concerns of our neighborhood. SB 50 would destroy those efforts. And in our past, we have seen what has happened when we ignore our neighbors. My district has suffered the effort, the overcrowding. When the crack of boxes was built in the sixties and seventies, single family neighborhoods was designated in in a hodgepodge of the density without the concern for our adjacent homes . We should not ever make that mistake again. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Hooper. Well, I don't think you to express it any better than Councilwoman Price and Vice Mayor Dee Andrews. I'm in complete agreement with them. And since the vice mayor mentioned the sixth district, that's where my grandparents home was. Beautiful California Bungalow 21, 20 Locust Avenue on the eastern edge of Wrigley. And that was destroyed. And a triplex went in. And Councilman Allen on call back in 95 expressed that one of these buildings can destroy a neighborhood. And I totally agree with that. But we don't talk about the families that are destroyed by this movement. And I have very personal experience with that. So I'm a solid. No. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I was not here for the stock presentation, but I was listening as I was having another conversation. So I have already said that I support in concept the idea of SB 50. I think that we absolutely have to figure out ways to build more housing, particularly around transit corridors. I think the comments made by my colleagues around local control and the fact that Long Beach has stepped up and done more than a lot of other cities is an important point to make. I support the idea of opposing SB 50 as is, and I understand that is always challenging when when these state bills come to us , because it's always a conversation of, well, what might change and when might it come back for us? But it's an important to send a message that we need to do policy. The right way. I think the balance in California is that we have a lot of areas and a lot of cities that are not stepping up. And so sending a message that we support more affordable housing, we support more density, more construction is important. But in Long Beach, we are moving moving the dial. I do want to say, you know, I appreciate the the years of effort that went into the land use element. And while in my district, we did increase density. I was frustrated because I do see that we still have a housing crisis and we will continue to have a housing crisis for the next, you know, decade. We're not going to build ourselves out of it quickly with the density that we have now. I will close and say I'll vote with my colleagues in opposing SB 50 as currently written, and I will continue to have conversations after it comes to vote at the state to see where we're at and how we can continue to improve it. Thank you. Then before I go to Councilman Awesome to close this out and we'll go to the vote. I just want the one thing I'll add and listen to the conversation is Long Beach is doing incredible work in building. I think you just drive around, you see all the construction we're doing. There are it wasn't mentioned, but I think it's important. There are there are over 250 housing bills right now active in the legislature. I believe it's 250 bills that are active in the legislature. And, you know, I think it's my hope and I certainly think it's most mayors wishes that these that are building housing, that these bills would be directed to the cities and communities. They're choosing to not build actual housing. And for those of us that are that are doing the work, there is an onslaught of bills that are consistently coming down. And I think the attention needs to continue to be on the majority of communities out there, both rural and those that are closer to the coast, that are not meeting, not not just some are building housing, but building no affordable. Others are choosing to build nothing. And and these and these communities are both communities of both high income and low income. And so I just think that we're going to continue to see hundreds of bills each legislative cycle until these mayors and cities step up and start doing some of some of the work that we're doing. So with that, let me close with oh, actually first Councilman Mongo, then we'll close with Councilman. I think you. Councilmember Richardson. I guess I have some challenges with understanding the incentives that would be offered to the smaller cities, because we did it without incentives. I'm up to an open to some ideas related to cities taking on that process when they work with their neighbors. Because what I also would like to see is if state funds are going to a particular city to do this planning process that they are mindful of the city they're adjacent to. So you and I border more cities than anyone else. And what I would like to do is I currently border a city that's putting some things out of what they'd like to put on our border that we're not okay with. But they don't have to currently listen to us. And I would definitely not be okay with the State providing them funding to do such things, if that makes sense. And I know you're in similar positions with a couple of cities. Yeah, I would just wanted to keep it simple that I think the intent of the bill I get it. There is a housing crisis and cities are doing some very sneaky things to get out of building housing. We don't want to let them off the hook. That's the point. So I think we oppose it. We take the position of opposing it as a city like Long Beach, but our message is oppose. You know, we acknowledge the intent, right? We say we acknowledge with the state trying to do oppose unless amended to reward cities like ours and and essentially place your focus on the local control of the cities who are not behaving the right. Because it's a real it's a real regional issue. Hours and hours of conversation at a regional table, at regional tables about this in Long Beach. As a leader, we should at least acknowledge that when we take this action and if anybody is watching this, they should know a city like Long Beach, as large as we are, as forward thinking as we are, we you know, we're leaders in the region. So as long as we're clear, because I think that some people were unclear on what was said earlier, that our letter would state our clear opposition to SB 50 as worded today, and that we believe that in any version of SB 50, the city of Long Beach and other cities like ours that have taken on planning processes would be completely exempt from SB 50. Yes. And that that still maintains to me and my Eastside voters and my community. We've already gone through this, and the hard work of the Louis shall not be forgotten. I can't see how we would oppose a bill that takes some of the burden or the pressure off of a city like ours to deliver all the housing. So that's why I oppose. Unless you fix it, you need to go fix it. Don't apply it to our cities. Exempt not just Long Beach cities. We're doing this right. That's the idea. Understood. And as long as those adjacent cities that are potentially getting the incentives would also I. Think we just leave Diana. I think she gets the city. I think she does as well. I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. Councilman. Austin, to wrap up. Well, I want to thank for all my colleagues, I want to thank the public, want to thank everybody for their thoughtful colleagues comments around this very important issue. I think we're clear moving forward that we are hopefully unanimous in opposition to SB 50. I just wanted to speak on the smaller cities as somebody who served on the Council of Governments. There are a lot of cities who don't have the professional technical expertize that we do as a large city. And so if Sacramento is going to impose these planning standards, I think it's important for them to provide some. And this is where where I may be speaking for those small cities. Some some some support to them to help them develop their plan so that they can they can build those housing and meet the needs throughout the region. And so that's it. Thank you for your attention to this and request your unanimous vote. Thank you. Member Chip Brown. Thank you. I'd like to request clarification because it's confusing to me, so I can't imagine how confusing it is to members of the public. And I go back to this because there is a major misunderstanding on the item. When it came forward, I got emails. Why aren't you supporting this? Well, there's there's a reason. If I'm not asked to sign on to an item, I can't sign on to it. So it might have appeared that I wasn't supporting the original item. So I appreciate the people who actually emailed me and asked me my position. I have a very strong track record on this topic and please look to my record, but I guess I don't understand the very premise of the friendly. We are Long Beach. We are speaking for Long Beach. Long Beach is opposed to SB 50. Why are we trying to set policy at the state level? I don't think that's our job. We want to speak for our city. So I just think the original objection to supporting SB 50 is the right message to send for our feelings, and that will be completely understandable by the public . Thank you. Okay. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Members, please cast your votes. Oh, clarity. The clarification, in my opinion is that we are taking him to oppose position to SB 50. We're asking also that that Long Beach be exempted from the process. There's been a whole lot of other conversation, but we be exempted from from any any, any, any bill because we do have a planning process in place. Okay. Please cast your votes. Thank you. Motion carries and Q Motion carries. Next we're going hear item 39.