A capacity crowd on hand for the Planning Commission as they consider the latest version of the proposed update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan at City Hall in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)

A capacity crowd on all sides of the growth issue attends the Planning Commission as they consider the latest version of the proposed update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan at City Hall in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)

A capacity crowd, some carrying signs, watch the Planning Commission as they consider the latest version of the proposed update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan at City Hall in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)

Sound The gallery will resume in seconds

A couple sits nearly alone in the overflow crowd area of City Hall and watches the Planning Commission meeting on television in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)

Planning Commission members, including Chairman Erick Verduzco-Vega, 2nd from right, listen to public input as they consider the latest version of the proposed update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan at City Hall in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)



A capacity crowd, some carrying signs, watch the Planning Commission as they consider the latest version of the proposed update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan at City Hall in Long Beach on Monday, December 11, 2017. (Photo by Scott Varley, Press-Telegram/SCNG)

The Long Beach Planning Commission advanced controversial changes to the city’s land use maps after a lengthy meeting Monday night that was mostly packed with neighborhood groups opposed to the plan.

The 6-0 vote on the latest Land Use Element proposal—with a few suggested tweaks—sends a formal recommendation to the City Council. The land use plan and design maps would create new building heights and use types for hundreds of parcels across the city.

In closing comments after the vote, Commission Chair Erick Verduzco-Vega encouraged the public to continue asking questions of staff and expressing their suggestions about the plan to the council, who will have the ultimate say.

“This item is not finalized,” he said. “Our action tonight is simply a recommendation to the city council. It is not a final action.”

The commission recommended the following changes to four district maps:

District 2: Seventh Street between Walnut and St. Louis streets – reduce proposed building height from five stories to three stories to remain consistent;

District 4: Sears site at Atherton Street and Bellflower Boulevard – change proposed land use from mixed-use to community commercial to prevent housing, but maintain proposed three-story building height; Traffic Circle area – revert land use designation to community commercial for properties flanking the Traffic Circle and reduce proposed building height from six stories to four stories, but keep the proposed mixed-use designation on parcels farther away;

District 5: Lowes / Kmart site at Bellflower Boulevard and Spring Street – change proposed land use from mixed-use to community commercial to prevent housing, and reduce proposed height from three stories to two;

District 6: Pacific Avenue between 20th and 25th streets – reduce proposed building height from four stories to three stories; Pacific Avenue between 19th and 20th streets – reduce proposed building height from five stories to four stories;

Councilman Dee Andrews’s office submitted four additional suggestions for District 6, all of which the commission advanced to the council for consideration. Those include:

Reduce height from five stories to four outside the Midtown Specific Plan borders, roughly bounded by Pine and Earl avenues and Burnett and Willow streets;

Reduce height from five stories to two stories in area bound by Earl and Pacific avenues (alley behind) and 25th Street, and change use from transit-oriented development to single family;

Reduce height from five stories to four stories in area east of Midtown Specific Plan, bounded by Pasadena and Linden avenues and Nevada and Vernon streets;

Reduce height from four stories to three stories on Pacific Ave between 25th and 28th streets (outside of the Midtown Specific Plan) from four stories to three stories and change use from transit-oriented development to neighborhood mixed-use low density.

What is the Land Use Element?

The Land Use Element portion of the General Plan, adopted in 1989, sets basic rules for the kinds of structures that can be built in a given neighborhood. The proposed update is expected to guide development in Long Beach through 2040.

The city has been working to revise the existing plan since 2004, but community outreach efforts increased in recent months as an upswelling of opposition spread through several neighborhoods, primarily located in East Long Beach. Wrigley area residents, who live north of downtown, are also concerned about the height and density proposed in their neighborhood, which is up to 10 stories in some areas near the Metro Blue Line.

The Land Use Element update would re-designate parcels across the city, converting them from industrial to neo-industrial or commercial to mixed use, for example. It also seeks to up building height limits so some of those uses could coexist, with housing on the upper levels and business on the ground floor, similar to developments that have occurred throughout the downtown in recent years.

The maps were brought to the Planning Commission for review in February, and revised multiple times before the latest update released in November, following direction from the Planning Commission and Mayor Robert Garcia, who said the plan released over summer allowed too much density too close to single family homes.

Officials said they fielded over 1,000 comments in recent months about the plan.

The November update included several lots that had been scaled down by one to two stories in proposed height as well as the land use reverted to commercial where a variety of uses had been proposed.

Concerns about ‘crackerbox’ construction

But many residents, still haunted by the “crackerbox debacle” of the 1980s, called the plan “flawed” and said it would open the floodgates to developers looking to build under the streamlined process created in Senate Bill 35, one of 15 housing bills signed by the governor in September that aim to ramp up affordable housing production across California.

In the 1980s city planners rezoned several areas from single-family residential to multi-family, which cleared the way for developers to tear down historic craftsman homes and put up boxy, cheap apartment units to maximize profit, which devastated the character of several city neighborhoods, especially in central parts of the city.

Residents worry this update, coupled with the state housing bills, could allow the same type of unchecked development to occur. The one most mentioned on Monday night was Senate Bill 35, which some residents referred to as a “Trojan Horse.”

“Maybe we don’t know all the impacts and there could be some value in waiting to find out what that is,” resident Susan Lundy told the commission on Monday.

Representatives from neighborhood groups, the Eastside Voice, Council of Neighborhood Organizations, Los Altos Center Adjacent Neighborhoods, Wrigley Area Neighborhood Association, Roosevelt Linden Historic District, and advocacy groups including Citizens About Responsible Planning all spoke in opposition, with many asking the commission to ask the council to “receive and file,” or essentially take no action to update.

Many were also worried about how multi-family developments could impact their neighborhoods, including with increased traffic congestion, parking problems, and limited privacy, all of which, they said, could decrease property values.

There were about a dozen residents who asked the commission to advance the recommended plan, including Karen Reside of the Long Beach Gray Panthers, a group that advocates for seniors.

“I represent poor seniors that are being displaced at an unprecedented rate,” she said, explaining that she often talks with people at the senior center who are either homeless or on the verge of it due to the current housing climate, which has seen staggering rental increases in recent months.

She argued that those in attendance at Monday’s meeting were not representative of the Long Beach Community, which triggered some boos from the audience.

“One of the reasons why the state did away with redevelopment was because affordable housing was not distributed equally within our community,” she told the commission. “It’s time that we recognize this protest for what it is: it’s modern day redlining. And if we are truly going to be the second most diverse city in the United States, we need to recognize that.”

Long Beach development boomed in the mid 20th Century, when discriminatory housing policies carved up communities and created disparities seen in many American metropolises today.

In the late 1930s, in the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation decided to grade neighborhoods in four color-coded categories, based largely on the racial makeup of a community. Low-income communities of color, for example, were deemed high risk and therefore outlined in red to warn banks not to offer a home loan to those applicants.

Coloquially known as “redlining,” the practice continued until the 1968 passage of the Fair Housing Act, but most of the damage had already been done. Low-income, minority renters were concentrated in inner cities, with no generational wealth, while white middle and upper class families built equity in the suburbs and single family neighborhoods.

The proposed update to the Land Use Element seeks to undo some of that inequity by encouraging multi-family housing in all parts of the city, including in areas where it has never been built before.

Officials say that expanding housing opportunities for all families is a “vital public health concern” for the city, given that neighborhood factors, such as access to park space, grocery stores, and quality schools directly impact quality of life.

The need for housing

California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and Long Beach is seeing the effects. Housing advocates working to bring a rent control initiative to the voters regularly raise awareness about resident displacement due to rising rents. In fact, the limited housing supply coupled with a growing demand have made Long Beach a statewide leader in housing unaffordability.

And city planners say they need guidelines that facilitate development to fulfill those needs. Since the Land Use Element was adopted in 1989, for instance, the population has increased by about 44,000 people. During that same time span, one housing unit was built for every 10 people. For context, Long Beach has a population of about 470,000, according to 2016 U.S. Census data.

One thing the document doesn’t address or require, however, is affordable housing. Some who have advocated for the plan have said it would allow for more affordable units to come on the grid. But there is no guarantee that is what developers will want to build, officials said.

The plan creates opportunities for housing but does not delineate whether it be market rate or include a percentage of affordable units. That would be up to the discretion of a developer.

Development Services Director Amy Bodek told the commission that affordable housing is maintained through the Housing Element, a separate portion of the General Plan. It allows for affordable units to be built in any part of the city that is zoned for residential development, she said, explaining that her department is responsible for procuring and protecting affordable housing.

Officials now estimate the city needs to build approximately 28,000 housing units in the next 23 years to accommodate for anticipated population growth, according to city documents. A unit could be anything from a studio to a two or three bedroom condo.

“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 is an important step forward toward that goal.”

A previous version of this article said the Long Beach Area Peace Network is opposed to the proposed Land Use Element. A member of the group spoke against it on Monday, but the organization does not have an official stance.