Recommendation to find that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Land Use Element update EIR 03-16, SCH NO. 2015051054, that no further environmental analysis is needed, and that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and Request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to: (1) repeal Title 21.60, Division IV - Voluntary Incentive Program to Create Housing for Very Low- and Low-Income Households, and (2) Adopt a new Citywide mandatory incentive-based Inclusionary Housing program based on policy components recommended by staff, as modified by the Planning Commission. (Citywide)
Motion carries. Thank you. Item 19, please. Report from Development Services recommendation to find that the project is within the scope of the previously certified program, Environmental Impact Report and request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to adopt a new citywide mandatory incentive based inclusionary housing program citywide. It evening Mayor and Council. Stated I'm going to make some just some generic comments and I'll turn over to you really quick. I just want to I want to open this up. This is a policy, obviously, that the staff and working on now for for many years with the community, actually this started with a lot of discussions from within members across the city about how to ensure that we continue affordable housing production in the city. There are a lot of challenges right now, we know, with folks needing access to affordable homes and and we have additional challenges with COVID that are causing new challenges around housing construction, how we get folks back to work, but also in at home, that same problem that I expect there's going to be a lot of discussion tonight about, about the policy. And certainly I think we're all open to seeing what's presented. Staff has put together, I think, a really great policy and starting point. And I think at the end of this, we're going to end up with with a great inclusionary housing policy for the city moving forward. I just want to thank staff for their work. And it's really it's it's really time for this policy to be in place. And with that, Miss Tatum, I'll turn over to you. Thank you, Mayor. We appreciate that, that background. And I'd like to introduce our director of development services, Oscar Orsi, who will present the the team that will be making the presentation for tonight. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm very delighted to bring this matter in front of you. As the mayor just indicated, we've been working many years to put this program together. This program began as a recommendation for the mayor's 29 recommendations. And with that, I want to introduce the team Patrick here and Christopher Koontz. Both will be presenting tonight's item. Thank you. Patrick. Thank you, Oscar. An honorable mayor and city council. Tonight, we're here to present a proposed framework for an inclusionary housing policy and to seek approval to prepare an inclusionary housing ordinance. I wanted to point out that we have Cathy Head, managing principal of Kaiser Marston and Associates, here with us tonight to help answer questions. The zoning code includes an existing voluntary inclusionary housing program to create affordable housing. The program offers a density bonus to encourage participation and an option to pay in and Luthi in place of providing the affordable housing units. The program has never been used. The City Council has directed staff to develop an inclusionary housing policy, and staff recommends replacing the existing voluntary program with a new inclusionary housing program. We engage Lazard Development Consultants and Kiser Marston Associates to assist with this effort. The preparation of an economic analysis is a key component of the development of an inclusionary housing policy. Kaiser Marston prepared an economic analysis to analyze the feasibility of an inclusionary housing policy. It assesses the impacts on development created by the imposition of inclusionary housing requirements, determines the feasibility of a program in the Long Beach housing market and estimates supportable in Lucy amounts. The analysis also provides information on other programs in California, reviews relevant state law and discusses state density bonus incentives to present recommendations for a policy. Over 170 jurisdictions in California have an inclusionary housing program. Recent state law has enabled cities to adopt inclusionary housing policies, provided that they do not act as a constraint to development or deprive a property owner of a fair and reasonable return. And inclusionary housing program must balance the interests of property owners and developers against the public benefit created by the production of affordable housing units. We included here a 2020 income chart for your information, so that you will know what what the incomes equate to when we're talking about incomes. The economic analysis determined the maximum supportable inclusionary percentages for single and mixed income alternatives shown here. The inclusionary percentages presented percentages for rental. Single income alternatives are 11% for 100%. Very low income. 12% for 100% low income. And 19% for 100% moderate income only the moderate income alternative was tested for ownership housing. The maximum supportable in lieu fee is calculated in the economic analysis are shown here. They range from 223000 to 383000 per unit for rental units and 270,400 for ownership units. State housing element law requires adequately zoned land to accommodate a share of the region's projected housing needs, or what we call arena for the planning period. The arena is divided by income category. The top chart shows the city's current allocation and production progress through 2019. As you can see, very few moderate income units have been produced. The 28 that were produced were negotiated through the sale of successor agency owned sites, and the bottom chart shows the expected range of over 26,000 units for the next planning period. And we're working on the housing element for that planning period now. The the housing elements renamed requirements will increase the city's production requirements substantially, as you saw from that last chart of 26 over 26,000 units. In terms of meeting current Rina goals, staff expects the city to do well in the above moderate category and fairly well in the very low income category. But we will fall short in the moderate income and low income categories. And inclusionary policy is critical to addressing the next housing element requirements. There are currently five subsidized, affordable housing projects under construction or recently completed. Those are shown here. These projects all contain a combination of federal, state and county funding, and these funding programs heavily target the inclusion of extremely low and very low income units. As a result, 295 or more than two thirds of these 439 affordable units are set aside for very low and extremely low income households. There is no funding for moderate income units. And I'm going to hand it over to Christopher at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. So with that background, I'm going to go over the detailed proposal that was first developed by staff. And then our planning commission spent a good amount of time at multiple meetings to refine that policy based on public input. It's based on submarket designations. So that's really where is development occurring and not occurring today. A differentiation between mandatory and triggered requirements, legally required alternative means of compliance and then the general program requirements. This map is a map of two different sub areas that have two different requirements. So inclusionary does or will exist and be required in both locations, but there's different triggers. So area one, which is broken down as one and one B could be called downtown and midtown, but it could also be described as those areas where development is occurring today. The vast majority, over 90% of all the units built in the city over the last ten years are in this area. One area two has a different trigger related to legislative action, such as zone changes and general plan amendments that would trigger the inclusionary requirements. So I just talked about the downtown plan area and Midtown Plan area. Those requirements would be triggered on all projects over ten units. Some have asked why the other requirement does not apply to less than ten units. There's two critical reasons those very small projects, one through nine units, have much higher fixed cost and in a nutshell are less profitable, particularly on a per unit basis. If we were to include those types of projects in our analysis, they are high cost of those projects would drag down the total amount of inclusionary that we're able to impose. Also, those projects serve an important purpose but are extremely rare in terms of the type of projects produce. All of these requirements will take effect on January 1st of next calendar year. I think there's one inconsistency in your written packet that references October, but we would synchronize all the requirements to trigger on January 1st. Area. Two is the remainder of the city. It will be triggered on applications for zone changes, plan amendments and exceptions. It would also take effect on January 1st. We are working on a separate but parallel track on an enhanced density bonus program, which is going to be delighted for the first time at our Planning Commission on Thursday . All of those efforts will come together on January 1st. So this gives you an idea of where staff started and we presented Ops and A, B and C to the Planning Commission and they made changes to that which are on the next slide. What was adopted by the Planning Commission, based on their analysis and the public testimony, was a inclusionary requirement that 12% of units in any project would be affordable, and within that subset of affordable units, 25% would be very low, 25% will be low and 50% would be moderate. The Planning Commission made these changes in specific response to testimony and their own analysis for the need to address all three income levels in the adopted policy. Which brings us to today. What in your report is referenced as option B? Which staffs the recommended option is what was approved by the Planning Commission. We have also presented other options. If the Council wish to go in a different policy direction, that may emphasize different income levels differently. There is a different amount of subsidy required for a very low income unit versus a low income unit versus a moderate income unit. And if you think the sum of all of that subsidy, we can't exceed that sweet spot or that bubble because that would make development not feasible at all. And any percentage of zero is zero, as we all remember, from high school math. So what we're trying to do is keep the development and investment in the city going, but to have a public benefit of creating those affordable units. So again, this is just a staff recommendation which says that 12% of rental housing units would be affordable and that would be split among the three income levels at a 25, 2550 split and ownership because of the nuance of ownership projects. That would be a 10% requirement and that would be at the moderate level. Faison is an important component of any inclusionary policy. So while Inclusionary has been a discussion in the city since at least 2012, we're going from having no inclusionary policy at all to a fairly robust one which has presented to you today. That requires the market time to adjust. That adjustment happens both in the product that they are delivering, their expectation of cost and profits, as well as changes that will occur in land values as land is bought and sold. For that reason, there's a five year phase in recommended for you, and we would highly recommend that you stick to the phased in schedule. There are a number of alternative means of compliance. I'm not going to spend time on this other than to tell you that these are legally required but not anticipated to be used. And our focus is on having the housing built and included within the projects that come forward, and that is the goal. We heard loud and clear from our partners in the development community as well as from the public, and an earful from our planning commission that they inclusionary policy is the stick, but we also need carrots. So we are looking at a number of incentives that would go along with this policy. So that includes existing fee exemptions for for low income units in terms of their impact fees. It includes providing priority plan services without any expediting cost. And providing projects that have robust affordability levels would be given priority entitlement processing. And on a separate but parallel path, we are updating the city's density bonus ordinance and that would all come together on January 1st, as we discussed. This is a situation that has not occurred, but we have thought out all of the possibilities. So in terms of condominium conversions there, that is dealt with in this ordinance and we can go into detail later if there's a council question on that. Density bonus law does apply to all projects in California, so that would include projects that are built pursuant to this ordinance. So in addition to requiring the affordable units, the developer, if they include enough affordable units, would be eligible for incentives under state law. And as I mentioned previously, the city recognizes the need to update our local ordinance, and that effort is ongoing. In case you're wondering, the logistics of how this works, a project will come along. Let's say it's a 100 unit project. 12 of those units would be required to be affordable at various different rates. They would record a covenant against the title. Their covenant would run for 55 years for rental units, for ownership units. It would run for 45 years. This is consistent with best practices up and down the state. We do monitor each and every covenant in the city. They pay a small fee to cover that monitoring and any fees that we're paid, either because the project was small enough to pay fees or because of a fractional unit would be accumulated in the inclusionary housing fund , which would be used in concert with other funds to fund 100% affordable projects through a competitive process. As currently drafted, this program will be reviewed in year three and presented to the Planning Commission, and then the entire program will be reevaluated at year five and presented to this Council. We will be adopting a number of administrative procedures that will exist within Emanuel because they're not required to exist in the municipal code itself. This gives you just the recent history. This project has included community engagement and that took part between December of 2018 and our Planning Commission hearing in February of 2020. So I just want to provide counsel some closing comments and then we are glad to answer your questions and within reason make any adjustments to the program. We really do need your clear direction tonight so that we can go back and be doing the work with legal counsel to do the drafting of the ordinance itself. That all occur over the next two months while you're in your budget deliberations. And once you've adopted a budget, we would come back with the ordinance itself for first and second reading. We believe this policy has broad support from housing advocacy groups and residents who have encouraged the city to require onsite production, which is what this ordinance does. There has been a desire for this policy to go further, for this policy to have higher percentages or to apply more broadly within the city. That's certainly an opportunity for the city over time, but we feel that it strikes the correct balance based on that economic analysis for this moment in time for the city's first inclusionary policy. If we strike a policy that is too aggressive, will actually end up with less development, including fewer affordable units. The development community expressed a desire for a flexible, voluntary approach. So in the end, whether you were a housing advocacy organization or representing developers, you'd not get everything you wanted in this policy. But what this policy does reflect is everyone's input and a sweet spot between those extremes that is workable for the city. This project's not subject to secure. The development that will occur is consistent with the land use element that was adopted by the city. And with that, we're excited to answer your questions. And again, what we're here for today, the recommendation is to give staff and the city attorneys specific direction about what should go in this ordinance that we would return to with those amendments to the municipal code. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Koontz, and thank you to the staff for all the work on this. We have a motion by Councilmember Pierson, a second by customers and day house customer piercing is going to make some some comments but then wants to go to public comment first. Customer Pierce. Thank you here. Thank you, staff. I wanted to make some brief comments before the community has an opportunity to speak and then bring it back so that we can ask some questions of staff. You know, the staff just mentioned this would be our very first inclusionary policy, which I think we long many of us have long waited for. In 2009, we advocated for an inclusionary policy in our downtown plan. We know that cities like Irvine, Los Angeles, Seattle's and other have an inclusionary policy that allow for our communities to be diverse and to thrive alongside each other. We're in a moment when we've spent months talking about how black lives matter and the fact continues to be repeated. The 63% of black women are rent burdened. We have a new study that came out from USC that expects our homeless numbers to rise, and this COVID situation has continuing to get worse. We know that there's fear from many of a recession, and we also know that there's fear of many of homelessness. And so I wanted to make comments tonight. I know that this is a citywide policy. I know there's impacts directly for the downtown and surrounding areas, but really a comment of inclusion and dialog. I hope that we can work together as a council to meet the needs of our entire city. I know that my district is 70 80% area too, even though I do have the downtown. And so I definitely want to work together to get to an agreement that brings all of our residents to a place where they can have affordable and safe housing. So with that, I'd also like to just say that we received several letters from the Dolby Iam, CMA and others asking for us to be thoughtful about how we're including those at the bottom end of the income bracket. So with that, I look forward to hearing from community members and then bringing about. Thank you. Madam Clerk, why don't we go ahead and do the public comment then? First we have Elsa tongue. Your state. Your time starts now. Let's try to start my time now. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Ailsa Chang from Long Beach Forward. And I'd like to start by asking you all, what kind of city do you want? Do we want for the future? Do we want integration or segregation? Inclusion or exclusion? Homes or homelessness? In this moment of racial reconciliation and housing catastrophe, I hope we all share the same vision. What that means in terms of tonight's item is that council must adopt a citywide mandatory inclusionary policy with the same triggers that require new development in every corner of the city to build or contribute to the supply of affordable housing. The map and attachment e is redlining 2.0. That not only does not help to desegregate housing, but also exempts the vast majority of the city because the policy triggers are vastly unequal to ensure no displacement. The policy must institute a no net loss requirements for each and every project, which means that new developments must replace on a 1 to 1 basis existing units that are affordable to lower income folks. So if you have a 100 unit building and all 100 units are occupied by lower income folks, do you want to redevelop this building? You have to preserve 100 units of affordability, not just the 11 or 12 units under the inclusionary requirement. Finally, 100% very low income targeting. The fact of the matter is very low income folks have three times. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jan Victor Anderson. Your time starts now. Honorable council member is my name is Jan Victor, an organizer with East Yard. I work with residents across the nine districts and an overwhelming majority of our residents are renters. I stand with the Housing Justice Coalition letter submitted and would like to highlight these three points. We need to adopt a citywide mandatory inclusionary housing to require affordable housing and new developments. As someone who immigrated to the United States and first settled in Long Beach 27 years ago, we need to give opportunities for long time residents and new residents who want to call this city home, not just in the downtown and midtown area , too. We need to ensure no more displacement with a no net loss requirement for each project. And three, the city needs to target all rental inclusionary units to very low income families. My aunt, her partner and son have lived in Long Beach for 30 plus years. She's a renter and has never been able to buy a home. The rent for the small apartment that is one bedroom is 1150 with her Social Security income. They are barely able to make rent. She's one of many Filipinos and other black PRC residents that can barely make income to support the multiple people in their household rent to the huge burden. Owning a home doesn't seem like a possibility. If you're going to make an inclusionary housing policy for residents that are committed to living in this great city, for people, whether they are born in the US or integrated like me, who want to call this city home, a better inclusionary housing policy needs to be made. Please make the changes articulated in the Housing Justice Coalition letter. Don't move forward with a policy that falls short by thousands of residents that want to continue to be part of the community. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, we have Susan Brown. Good evening. My name is Suzanne Brown and I'm a senior attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles in our Long Beach office. In light of covid's disproportionate impact on black residents and the city's reconciliation process, equity should be at the forefront of inclusionary housing policy decisions being made this evening. The city should target 11% of new rental units to very low income households who earn $56,000 a year. These are Long Beach working families who are struggling in our rental market. This also aligns with arena numbers, which state that we need over 7100 very low income units to meet our existing housing needs. This is almost double the amount of our low and moderate income Rita numbers, which are at 4000. Anything less than 11%, very low income rentals is not an equitable policy to address the housing needs of moderate income households. The city should target 10% of new ownership projects to moderate income families earning up to $93,000 a year. This approach is a fair compromise and equitable because it addresses both the needs of residents struggling in our rental market, as well as residents struggling to purchase a home. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Thank you. Your next speaker is Victor Sanchez. Your time starts now. Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Victor Sanchez, the director of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs in a Healthy Community. I'm asking that you think about the laid off workers tonight with respect to this item. The one to financial security have been destroyed by this pandemic, the ones who have to rebuild their livelihoods and only hope to be able to afford to stay in the city they have called home for generations. These are your hotel, retail and other critical service sector jobs that have made Long Beach what it is. They need an inclusionary housing policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because they should be able to afford rebuilding their livelihoods in the city they call home. That's only possible if we center the challenges of the most vulnerable in this item. Think about the very low income working families and consider these amendments. Once the inclusionary requirement for rental units should be 11% and 10% for ownership units. This was recommended as part of the original study and is not only reasonable but balanced to include no net loss and net gain requirements for all development in all submarkets. We want addition, not subtraction, especially given Long Beach's greener goals. Three. Remove the phased in approach. Exempt projects that have entitlements at the onset of this policy. But don't press pause unilaterally when the need to build as many affordable units is too great. And lastly, make this a citywide policy to directly combat the legacy of redlining in this city. New development across the city must be required to build or add to the supply of affordable housing so we don't repeat our history of mistakes. Remember the workers and please meet this moment by passing this policy with the aforementioned amendments. Thank you. Next we have Dave Shukla. Your time starts now. Hello. Dave Chappelle, third district. I'd like to speak now in support of the item, but in support of the Housing Justice Coalition letter. Three points. We've already heard about them. But very quickly, we definitely need income for local residents at 11% and 10% to moderate income families. Second point. But we definitely need a no net loss requirement to replace affordable housing 1 to 1 or every project. And then third, remove the phased in approach, make it apply to the whole city and in specific to my case. I grew up in the third in a really nice neighborhood. My parents, after renting for more than ten years, grateful to buy a house that we've lived in for the past 20 years. That was only possible because Margaret Brown, the first black college counselor in the city at me City College in the late fifties and early sixties, fought the FHA redlining in our neighborhood across the street from Cal State, Long Beach and nice neighborhood. And for years paid our mortgage and five vicious covenant. Racially restrictive language and culture. And I would like to see a fourth option at it to remove these absolutely unenforceable legal restrictions. Racial restrictions on who can live where. Because that didn't work for my family. I turned out fine. I went to the best schools. I'm here helping out my town, like should work for everyone. Our goal should be to keep people here. That should be our goal. First and foremost. Those most fun. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan Win. Your time starts now. Hi there. Jordan Winn, second district. I would like to cover all of the points that everybody has previously addressed. First and foremost, we don't need a phase timeline. We've been working on this in 2012, as was remarked, to waste another five years until this action take full effect is absurd. We need to make sure that in lieu fees match dollar for dollar the actual market cost of the units that are being sacrificed on the ground so that we are not losing out on the money that we need to actually create affordable housing. We need to make sure that this inclusionary housing policy, the 12%, applies citywide. And more importantly than that, we need to make sure that our focus on these rental units, on these affordable developments, is deeply affordable for very low and extremely low income earners. When we're talking about moderate income, we're talking about families that earn at least $90,000 a year in the median. That kind of income should be focused towards ownership. We should be trying to move families that are earning that much towards home ownership, towards building wealth, instead of focusing our efforts on creating more rental units for them to waste their money on landlords, especially corporate landlords, are likely going to be affected by the policy. We need to bring these people into homes that they own. And save the rental units for those who are struggling in our city right now. There are over 60,000 individuals who are paying 90% of their rent to their housing right now. And that number is going to go up way more after COVID 19 is over. It's going up right now as we as we sit here. So we need to make sure that our units are dedicated to very low and extremely low. Thank you. The next speaker is and Cantrell. Your time starts now. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello. Your time started. I'm sorry. I'm concerned about the recommendation that this project is within the scope of the previously certified E.R.. I do. Not think that that is the. Case. Low cost housing. Has very. Different height requirements than those in the elderly. A document in the staff report indicates that to be economically feasible for a developer, it will be necessary to build a 185 units per acre. What height building does this require? And what about added traffic to residential neighborhoods with the added number of people? Air quality schools. Not only an amended E.R., but more public. Outreach is needed. Before you approve these changes. I'm not opposed to low income housing being a part of my neighborhood. If there are few. Units in a building and the building locations are spread out, the building is. Constructed in. Accordance with the height and density that were defined in the Louis. Environmental reviews are conducted. And the public has an. Opportunity to comment in the. Planning phase. Staff indicates there was a notice of this hearing published in the DG in May and written notices were sent to all city libraries. May I remind you that many libraries, many citizens do not read the press telegram and that libraries. Have been closed since March. Thank you. Our next speaker is Robert Fox. Your time starts now. Hello? Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, good. Thank you. That's a little confusing here. My first time. I have to echo a lot of what people have talked about. I totally support the no net loss issue here. I've been doing the math and the section one A and one B. These are the areas where we have already the most affordable housing in Long Beach. So I'm concerned about the new fees and other projects like Park Improvement, etc., that they can developer can use in order not to provide the low income housing. Low income housing is 5050 $6,000 a year. Very, very low income is $34,000 a year. If you're talking moderate income housing, that's about 85 to $90000 a year. And you could buy a $500,000 condo with that kind of a salary. So I'm concerned here about displacement more than anything else. If we're going to build 180 units, they'll take a block normally on a block in midtown. You have over 150 people living in moderate to low income housing. So where can they get rid of 180 people? And we're going to produce 22 units inclusive of moderate income. Out of those 22 units, only five are very, very low income and five are low income. So there is going to be an exodus of people who are already suffering now having no place to go. I don't like that. And the and the cost factoring on this is pretty disturbing. Thank you. Our next speaker is Benita Shah Malone. Your time starts now. Thank you. It is my understanding. Thank you, first of all, for hearing from us at District four. We want to thank Mayor Garcia and our wonderful councilman, Darrell Supernova. We are concerned that under item 19 would allow developers to get density bonuses to build low income housing in our city, including areas regarded largely residential. The density bonuses could increase height with more smaller units. No parking guarantee. And I have to echoed the sentiments of our earlier caller that shared that our neighborhood is extremely. Concerned that there was really no public. Input. We as a community would like to have. Public. Input on this matter because we are concerned. We are concerned about the traffic, the density. We all agree that we definitely do need more low income and low, low income and moderate income housing in Long Beach. But where and how is the question? And so we would like to be included in on that discussion. Because of the pandemic and many places being closed, we have not had the opportunity to have input and we would like to ask that this item be put off until there is more community input. Thank you. Our next speaker is Clark carelessly. Your time starts now. Hi. This is calling. Leave this district. Although I do not object to adding low income housing in our city or in my neighborhood. I do urge you to vote no on this because of how it is structured and also because there are changes to definitions under. Agenda. Item. I think it's 26 that affect the land use plan and will greatly change. All the plans. My objections are as follows. Zone one and Zone two idea should be removed. It contradicts the Everyone Home policy. That. Says that homeless facilities. Should be built. Across the. City. Your document excludes downtown and midtown from low income housing installations going forward. Downtown has been this has already displaced the low income population and has installed high end luxury housing. It is considered to be gentrified. We would be rewarding bad behavior by excluding the downtown area from an issue that requires our united efforts. If the term is inclusion, let's include downtown and let's look back at no net loss. We have lost a lot of our low income housing through what downtown has been up to. Do's and don'ts. There are laws such as AB 1763 that encourage large development by providing height and density bonuses if a developer will commit to 100% affordable housing. As I understand it, large tracts like the Kmart area in the South could obtain a density bonus and have three stories to become a five story or more facility. Thank you. Our last speaker is Mike Merchant. In your time starts now. Good evening, mayor and council members. As you all know, I've represented multiple developers over the past ten years and Long Beach. I've only seen two market rate projects outside of districts one, two and six, and that was in five and eight over the past, probably about past five, five or ten years. The reason why developers are not building in those districts three, four or five and the east side of Long Beach is because the cost of the land, the cost of construction, the fees associated with it makes it extremely difficult to do market rate housing and pretty much impossible to do. Low income and moderate moderate housing. So the council's looking for more low income, moderate income housing. They need to take that into account. The cost of the land. The developers have to focus on that. The developers focus currently today on districts one, two and six due to the old housing stock in our city, and that will continue . So I just want to let you know that my clients support staff's recommendations. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes. We'll be coming. Back. We're going to go back to the council and I'm going to start with make of the motion councilor of yours. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to all the community members that spoke today and sent us public comments as well. In 1/2. I think as I as I mentioned, I have some questions for staff. I asked for the PowerPoint to be sent, but I haven't seen it yet. So I'm going to ask that staff go back to the slide that had the amendments. Yeah. We could have the PowerPoint back. We'll do that. You know. And while we get that up, I think, you know, I definitely agree with a lot of the comments that I that I heard tonight recognize that we've done a lot in the downtown because we did maybe our housing stock is different. The property values are different. And whatever we can do to make sure that. That this policy is a policy that affects us citywide, even considering that there are different triggers. So I know that there was two different numbers that were out that I've seen. So I have in front of me a very low income army of 56,000. But what you have here. So we do have the same numbers. 56. Very low. 67. Sorry. Low income, 67. Very low of 56. So the. I know Christopher the. That we had a little bit of conversation about this. So you're confirming that the low income is not 90,000, that it's 67,000. Correct. So low income in this report was defined as 60% of AM I. It is described different ways and different reporting, including up to 80% of AMI. But AMI is about $77,000. So whether it's at 60% or 80%, it's going to be less than that. And my own number of 77. So in our use of 60% in a four person household, low income is an income of 67,560. There's an HD publication on the Internet floating around that has a typo of the hundreds of statistics in the chart. The one that is incorrect is the four person low income in Los Angeles County. I wish that were not true because that number seems to have been repeated in a number of documents that are available online. But these are the accurate numbers at this point in time, and they were the basis of our study. But these numbers change every year. We get them from a CD. And they would be adjusted in the program on an annual basis. Okay. So one more question about data, and I wouldn't so hard about these numbers, but if we're going to be all of us tonight that are looking at how to adjust, the percentage needs to all be based on the same information. So the list that I have and possibly it's from the data that you're talking about, has that very low income bracket as 31 to 50% of am I. And that low income is 51 to 80%. And so that 90,000 is the 80%, not 60%. It's the high end. But but again, it's still an incorrect number because area median income in Los Angeles County is about 77 to $77000. So 80% of 77,000 would have to be less than 77,000. So obviously, it's not going to be 90,000 number. And we use the midpoint and I'm going to ask Kathy from KMA to explain why we use the midpoint rather than the range. And the midpoint on all of the brackets. Right. I mean. That's that's correct. So if we could have just one moment. Kathy heard from Kaiser Marson, our consultant is going to provide you some additional information. Good evening, council members and Mayor. I'm not going to belabor this point, but it is a very strange circumstance that HK actually ends up with a low income that is higher than the median. This is this started in 2002. And what it relates to is if you look at the chart, if you look at the OECD chart online, you'll see the very low income line. If you take that and multiply. It by two. Then you'll get what. They call for the. Purposes of then calculating low income. They call that the median, and then they take 80% of that. The problem is, is that the low income, which is actually numbers produced by HUD, very low and lower, produced by had because of situations having to do with Section two, Section eight program. It is now actually 112% of the median. So what the city has done here on the chart and in their policy is they've actually used a mathematical number of what the actual median is. And then and then 60% of that, that's absolutely appropriate. And in in fact, it's the way affordable housing cost is calculated. And so it's very confusing. I can spend a long time on it if you want. But the numbers for how you would calculate rent are the numbers that they have on the chart here. Okay. That is helpful. And I needed to show that we are clear on that because I wonder if we thought there was a difference of 2000 and between low income and moderate that would change what our conversation was moving forward. So I appreciate that clarity. Let me go back to my questions. And so understanding the AMA numbers that we have, looking at the sky numbers that are current, I show that are skog numbers, very low income is 7000, roughly low income 4000 low and moderate 4000 is that. What you reported on. So that's for our next round of arena. But that does sound roughly correct from a percentage standpoint. If we exclude the market rate units and are looking just at the income restricted units, it's 47%, very low, 26% low and 27% moderate. Thank you for that. And looking at the numbers that we've developed over time, I see the difference in those and in appreciate that you brought up the five projects and that we've got a 144 loan developed and 129 very low developed. When we talk about the percentages, your report shows that we could go as high as 11% for very low income households and submarket. One being able to do that is something that I personally would would love to be able to get to. It is my goal to get as close to 11 or 12% in very low income as possible. And that reason is for the reasons I mentioned above previously, which is that we have a homeless crisis that's already here and on the cusp of getting worse. We know that we have a great need for this population and that there needs to be additional resources for this. And so when we're looking at the percentages, if we wanted to get to 10% of very low income, but I understand there might be other conversations about moderate, what is your recommendation staff to be able to get to as opposed to 10% very low income. So the the policy consideration about that mix is for council to decide. You know, we have provided some options and the planning commission considered this and has provided their input to you. If you're solving specifically for maximizing very low income units, there is a scenario by which we have a 12% inclusionary requirement that is made up of 80% of those units being very low income and 20% of those units being moderate income. So that's one option that's available to the council, among others, in addition to the options that are outlined in your staff report. So I know some of our my constituents have asked this question. When you say 12%, you're really talking about 10%, very low and 2% moderate of the whole process. Sort of it gets tricky because of the size of the denominator, but we start with the whole project. So a project has 100 units if there's a 12% inclusionary requirement. 12 of those units are going to be affordable. And then we get into what level of affordability among those 12 units, and 80% of them would be very low and 20% of them would be moderate. So because of the different denominators, I think it actually comes out to 9.6% and 2.4%. But if around then your number of 10% is correct. Yeah. Just try to make sure it's easy for for easy as possible for everyday folks to do. Think about what this looks like in real time. I would like to ask about a no net loft policy. It was brought up by several people. It's something that I fully support. Is that something that we could include alongside passing this tonight, or is that something we should include in the actual inclusionary policy? So council member from the stop table. The city is already subject to knowing that loss. If it's the desire of the Council to enumerate or elicit that in our municipal code, we'd be glad to do that. We'd work with Mike and Charlie to make that happen from the legal side. It wouldn't necessarily go in the exact same section of the municipal code as this policy, because it would apply to the development of projects, sort of with or without this inclusionary policy. So I think it's going to go in different sections of the code. But if if that's a part of the council's motion tonight, we'd be glad to work with city attorney to make sure it's included. Great. Thank you for that. And I saw that when we talk about the in lieu fees that we talk about an in loofah account or fund. Is there a reason why we're not putting that into the housing trust fund? Or can you legally talk about the difference between those funds and where those funds will be used? Councilman, this is Linda Tatum. And essentially the funds that are generated by this program would be established in a separate account. However, both of the current housing fund and this fund, would you be used fundamentally for the exact same purpose, which is leveraging any other outside funding sources for the purpose of constructing affordable units? So we say creating a fund, but it would be used in the same way that the city's current affordable housing funds are used. Okay. There's not a reason for just making it. Putting it into that background and not really. I mean, it's it's it can be done either way. Okay. I'm not particular. I just I know we've talked for ten years plus about having a housing trust fund with no money in it. And wouldn't it be great to stop talking about that and put money into it? Okay, I'll continue on my mind. I'm almost done, guys. I really appreciate everybody's patience with me today. For Area two, as I mentioned earlier, the city of my district is an area to when we did the land use element. It was critical for me to be able to increase density on areas like Sylvan Street so that we would be able to have an inclusionary policy that would really address that corridor's dire needs right now. I do have two developments on the street currently that people are looking at that aren't. I think one of them's entitled and one of them isn't. Can you walk through how this policy, if past as it is today, would affect my seventh and Redondo corridor? Sure. Councilmember So in both of those scenarios that you're talking about and within Area two, those projects require zone changes. So the requirements of the inclusionary that is in front of you would apply to those projects. So there's two different scenarios that are important to understanding Area two. The most common is the land use element has changed, but the city has not changed the underlying zoning. So that's going to be the case on your seventh street property for something on Redondo. They need a legislative action from the city and that legislative action would trigger the inclusionary requirements at the same rates and same requirements that apply within Area one. There's a more narrow circumstance where the city has changed the zoning and the general plan amendment and all that project applicant needs is to obtain what's called their site plan review and build their project. Under that more narrow circumstance, the requirement would not apply for inclusionary at this time. This will be evaluated annually and at such a point as there are sufficient activity outside of downtown, the policy can be updated to eliminate the difference between Area one and Area two. But to go back to sort of the zoomed outlook, the whole reason that we have an area one in an area two is because there is a statistically insignificant, very little development in area two and we have to make a finding and present what the impact of this policy would be on development. If there's not development to speak up to start with, it's very hard, actually impossible to show that the inclusionary policy would not further diminish that development. I think we've worked cooperatively with this council to pass the land use element to do a good amount of planning, and I think we have some exciting projects coming up in actually Council District eight, which I know it's not your district, but I think over the coming year, two years, we will see a good increase in the activity in what's known as Area two and that would provide a future council the flexibility to revisit the differentiation between the two. Okay. And I think that I hear I hear that comment, and I also recognize that we've done a lot of work to get development in downtown, and that's why we have such changes there. You mentioned in the plan and you mentioned in your presentation the density bonus conversation that's going to be coming up our. On Thursday can if the density conversation happens, what are some like for Seventh Street for the ones that don't have entitlements yet or might not need to do a zone change or density bonus would still pertain to them because it's citywide outside of the inclusionary policy. That's correct. Correct. So there's a state density bonus law that applies in all of Long Beach and in all of every city and county in California. Those bonuses allow for up to 35% additional density and allow a developer to request up to three incentives. An incentive could be a slightly reduced setback in some circumstances additional height. It could be an adjustment to a minimum balcony size. But it's it's fairly narrow. But it is the incentive program that exists. It's not being used to the degree that we would like it to be used. Today, in the 29 recommendations, mayors 29 recommendations, there was discussion of increasing the utilization of density, bonus and marketing. That program to that end were updating the city's own ordinance and it will have additional incentive. So you would have to put in more affordable housing, but you also would be eligible to get more than a 35% bonus . You'd be eligible to get more than three incentives. We have to work through all of those details with the Planning Commission before we bring that back to this city council in the fall, other cities such as Los Angeles and Oakland, you may be familiar with Los Angeles. A program called Tier C or Transit Oriented Communities, has been extremely successful in expanding development, including in areas where they weren't seeing development and producing a large number of affordable units as a result. So we have similar aims and that work is ongoing on a on a separate parallel path. Thank you for that. And my my last question is about the phase in I know that some people on council, it might be their end all die on a situation. Others might want it to happen right away. I think I recognize that in the next year we probably are not going to see a lot of development, but that I also recognize we're going to have a lot of need. And so I appreciate the way that this inclusionary would help clear the path to make sure that permits are going faster, that we can fast track this without additional costs. What would happen if we. If we if we shorten the timeline from what do you have now five years. It's a four year phase and as per year. For your two or three year. All right. It's it's hard to evaluate exactly what a change from 4 to 3 would do. It would increase the amount of what we call market shock, which is during the first year after the policy. That's just projects can't happen. Transactions can't happen because the market has not been given enough time to adjust. I can tell you in the extreme, if we had no transition whatsoever, so if we went from zero inclusionary requirement overnight to a 12% requirement, what happens in that scenario is that you have some period of time where you have no development because existing property owners have certain expectations for either the development of that property or the sale of that property. And all of those expectations change with the inclusionary policy. And it takes sellers time to make peace with the reduced potential sales price of their property. And actually, development can't happen until the transaction occurs because you have to, in a way, reset the underlying land cost so we can go into more detail if if the full council would like to. It's hard for me to say that exactly what would happen in that three years instead of four years. But it is highly critical that there be a transition. We felt that four years was appropriate. The Planning Commission thought that it was appropriate. But it's up to it's up to the council to make that final decision. Understood. Okay. I think that that is the majority of my questions. I, you know, closing remarks before I make my motion. I, I do think that the downtown and midtown, which covers the first district, the second District, the sixth District, and a sliver of the seventh could burden a lot more of the lower income housing. I don't think that it's redlining, but I think that it could definitely exasperate some situations and understanding that if we have lower density buildings in other areas, maybe it's a four story building that has inclusionary, but that's still a lot of great opportunity. And so I'm going to make my motion, but I really want to make it so that we can have a point of conversation for the entire council. I look forward to hearing from my council colleagues. I hope that they take this comment with genuine partnership, and so I move to amend the stock recommendations as follows. Target inclusionary rental units at 11% of very low income and submarket one. Add no net loss requirement just so that developers must replace any units that are occupied by affordable or lower income households. I'm okay with that being along the same track. However, staff sees that that should be done and I'm open to other council conversations on that. Apply the inclusionary housing requirement. Actually, I'm not going to. Not going to do that once based on staff reports and increase the in lieu fees so that they are set at the economic equivalent of providing affordable units on site. This is extremely important. I want to make sure that we are not incentivizing people paying a fee instead of developing the units that they need to develop. Remove offsite compliance is a mean of providing units. Require affordability covenants for both rental and ownership units to be set at 55 years or the life of the project, whichever is longer. And. That is my my current motion. I leave the rest to hear from my my council colleagues as it pertains to the rest of area too. And I might have some additional changes as we go on. So I look forward to the dialog. Hours in day out of the second. You, Mayor, and thank you very much, Councilwoman Pierce. And it has been a long time in coming, so thank you. First of all, I would just like to also thank the staff who have been working for a very, very long time and have been trying to bring something to us to the council. I know that inclusionary housing was a topic of conversation for a very, very long time. So I'm happy to be able to be here at this moment and be able to participate in in the decision making of inclusionary housing. I also have been hearing a lot from residents in my district that this is a big issue in my neighborhoods that we face every day. Right now we are facing a crisis. And I firmly believe that we we must address this crisis with all the tools that we have and use this inclusionary housing policy to bring to bring forward some. You know, change in the positive way and relief for all of our all of our neighbors. Based on the key findings about the the needs in housing, we can all see that a very, very low income is needed very much, twice as much as others. So I think that's very important. I believe that in order for a policy to be successful, we we can we can. We must actually we must need to devote a lot of time and effort into providing and bringing forward an inclusionary housing policy. With that said, I support Council Woman Pearce's motion of 11% for very, very low income. And I also would like to hear from the rest of the council, our colleagues on this and may have more thoughts later. Thank you. Thank you. Customers in Dallas. I do have some customers of queued up. I'm going to go ahead and jump in. Obviously, this has been a policy that a lot of folks have worked on, including, obviously, the staff and a lot of the council members. So I want to thank Council Member Pearce and customers in Dallas for their comments. I want to just I want to make sure also that I heard the motion, but I want to make sure that I'm also clear on exactly what the motion was as being presented. I think staff may have had like staff to respond to them just to make sure that there weren't. I thought there might be a legal issue I had understood with staff earlier in the day, but maybe staff can clarify that. Maybe they've clarified that already. Can we maybe Mr. City Attorney, can you reread the motion or staff? And then I'd like to have Christopher kind of go through each one of those and then I have some comment as well. Mr. something and Mayor Garcia, it's Mike Mays. As I understood. Councilwoman Pierce's motion, it would be to. Include an area one. 11%, very low income, a requirement of no net loss. Number two, eight, number three, an increase. In the in lieu fee. To be equivalent of the construction costs for actually building the units on site. Number five, there would not be an ability to do offsite. Construction as an in new. Measure. And number six. The the. Properties. That qualify would be restricted for 55 years. Or the life of the project. Whichever is longer. That's what I got. And Mr. Mayor can have. Thank you very much for that. Can we can I start asking just I know we had some discussion on the offsite issue. Can we get some legal clarification on that? Because I thought I thought that I had heard that that was not possible. So if I can start from from south and then we can help from the attorneys to things, just so we have clarification on the the motion that the fees actually relates to the net value of the unit and we understand the instruction to maximize those fees in terms of the offsite, that's an option that's available to smaller projects. On a 10 to 20 unit range, we are required to provide alternative means of compliance. And this was an alternative means of compliance. We have written the policy to comply with that state law and at the same time provide every incentive to provide the units on site and every disincentive to providing them offsite. In order to provide the units offsite, the developer would first have to entitle their affordable project and begin construction on their affordable project and then obtain the permits for their market rate project. We don't believe that any developer will do that, but our hands are somewhat constrained in our ability to remove that provision. We do understand and share the desire to have the units located within the project and we think that our policy goes as far as possible on that. The 55 year, the 55 years comes from state law. That's not to say that we can't do something different, but we would end up with a policy where these mixed income projects would have a longer affordability range than our 100% affordable projects. I think we need to do some work with the attorneys to think about whether that's defensible. And then we also would be creating an obligation which doesn't exist in other projects throughout the state. And we have to think about whether our construction lenders and permanent financing would be available to builders in that unique circumstance. So we would not recommend that, but it's up to the council and and we may not have all of those answers at this time. And the other part about the motion is we understand the 11%, if the council went with that, it would apply to both area one in area two, because we're trying to not have a difference between the two. Thank you. And I'm fine. I'm sorry. I think it's might. Yeah. Thank you. So. So I want to go. Just continue so I know. Okay. So that clarifies my questions on what I thought were some of the legal challenges on on those issues. And if the attorney can clarify those, that would be great. Just moving on from those issues, the increase to two in lieu of just 2 to 4 for parity, I think that's a that's a good idea. I think that's that's something that if there is not concern to establish concerns from staff, I'd like to hear from I haven't heard any concerns on that issue. We obviously want as much we want people to get to build affordable housing. I certainly like what was said around a housing trust fund. And Councilman Pearce, I want to thank you for or for the comments on that issue. Mr. Koonce, did you what did you on the no net loss policy, can you explain how that would how that would the relationship between a policy like that and the one we have in front of? And would they be separate. So they would fall within separate sections of the municipal code. But it's perfectly staff can certainly work with legal on that and we believe that under state law we're already subject to knowing that loss. But if there's a desire by the Council to also adopt that as a local ordinance, we'd be glad to work with Mike on on doing that. We were just disclosing that it won't be in the exact same architecture or part of the code as the inclusionary policies because it would apply and it already applies to any project sort of regardless of if inclusionary applies. So for example, inclusionary is not going to apply to a unit projects, but no net loss applies to eight unit projects. If someone proposes to demolish an eight unit building that has six affordable units in it, the new project must have at least six affordable units in it and must have at least eight total units in it . So that's the concept of no net loss. The concept has existed for a long time and density bonus, but it was applied more generally to all projects, beginning with changes in state law that took effect this year. Thank you. And that was my question. I was under the impression that we were already working with some type of no net loss. Rule step by step by step. I wasn't sure if it was statewide or if it was a federal HUD related issue, but obviously if we want to have our own no loss policy to kind of mirror what's already state law, you know, I think that that's fine, obviously. And I think that just kind of reinforces what the what the policy I believe already already is. And so I thank you. Thank you for that. I'm just to other broad comments and of course, I want to hear from, from, from everybody else as well. Uh, I want to, I know that staff on the using in and that's been, I've heard from you Mr. Koonce multiple occasions in this Tatum on how important that is from a perspective of easing in the market. Obviously we want to get housing created quickly, but I know that that's been something that as far as when I asked when I asked all of you what was the most important feature of, uh, of the report in your best opinion, um, as staff you are, can you at least came back to me and said it was the phasing in? Is that correct, Mr. Koontz. That's correct. And if the goal is to create affordable units, we have to have the phase in. So I understand the immediacy of the issue and the need for housing is is huge in our city. But if we don't do the phasing correctly, we end up with what's called a market shock, which would be no development, which would be a failure in terms of the immediacy need for housing. And then lastly, and I think I'm obviously open and I think for the councilors as well, I think Councilman Pearce brought up shifting the percentages as presented by staff and moving those around. So I look, I'm looking forward to seeing what the council has to say. I just want to make sure that I certainly would support what would. I'm just curious if we were just to use like the Reenen numbers as a guide, what would be kind of percentages be as they relate to the staff proposal? Sure. Have you met Mira at all or. No. That is an option that's available to council. We there's many options and we just need a clear direction on what we're doing. So if we were to go with Rina, it would be 47%, very low income, 26% low income and 27% moderate. Okay. So okay, that's that's the overall. And when you say 27, what I mean is within the bucket percentage that staff is proposing. So yeah. So it would we have not run that exact scenario, but I can tell you would be between 12 and 14% would be the overall inclusionary requirement. And of those affordable units, 47% would be very low, 26% would be low and 27% would be moderate. Okay. So okay, that's that's helpful. I appreciate that as well. We'll get it. And I'm open to that discussion. Just do what the council's got to say there, too. So why don't I just keep going? I'll have I might have more at the end, but I have a long list. Let me get to the list of folks and I'll start with Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to if a few comments may come back and make more later on after reading from our comic colleagues. So let's start off with. So I feel like we got some clarity. But Mr. Collins, if you could just clarify what is. I know there was again that this discrepancy that these numbers in 90,000 was low income. What is the low income number? So the low income number for this program and for all statistical purposes, for a family of four, the low income number would be $67,560. Okay. So for very low income, that's a family of four making 56,300 and below and a family of four under low income is 67,063 or 67, would you say? So I'm going to just go through all three numbers so I'm less confused, at least the for a four person household. Very low income would be $56,300. Low income would be $67,560. And moderate income would be $92,700 for the full household. Right. Okay. So the next thing, I'm just going to keep going here. So I heard the proposal come in lieu fee. I think making that consistent with what the market rate of the on site affordable rate is, I think that makes sense. So there's no gaming of the system. So support for that recommendation is on the discussion on the covenants. Why did staff recommend 45 separately from the motion on the floor, which is 55? That's what's recommended under state law. But that's up to the council to make a final determination on. Okay. So there's no economic impact on that. The longer the affordability covenant, the greater the theoretical cost to the holder of the property. But the asset is largely depreciated at year 45, so I don't know that the difference in those ten years is significant. But we did not do that analysis. Okay. Let. I agree that, you know, it's probably negligible the difference in if it adds ten more years to where the city is, in fact, those units, I think we should certainly stick with 55. I'm not supportive of the phased in timeline with the motion. With the motion, the four years of was it to go down to three years on the phasing? There wasn't anything in the motion regarding the change to the phasing. Okay. Well, just to be clear, you know, I think a phrase phased in is important. But I think given all that's happening, we're going to be reviewing this ultimately anyway. I'm okay with going to three years on phasing, but sort of maintaining the reporting that's that's proposed here. I know it has a three year check in to come to the Planning Commission. I'd love if the motion were to reflect the checking that comes to the full council and maybe some annual two from for a report on how we're doing. I feel like the reporting there's there's some work that needs to be done there. But you know, if there's interest in making it three or four phased in in front of sort of four, I'm okay with that. I think a phasing makes sense. We don't want to shock the market, but I think three years is enough time for us to sort of evaluate and if we make changes, we can onward to know net loss. I'm supportive of the discussion that we've heard on the net loss, whether it's connected this policy or separately. I'd love to hear back on that, but I'm supportive of no net loss. I have some discussion on Area two. I love that. I'm glad to hear that the council districts and Area one of District two, industry one we've heard from already. But my district and sirene area two. Now the idea that inclusionary would trigger a certain set of triggers that wouldn't trigger inclusionary. I know that every housing development that's taking place, whether it was rehabs or new development, it's in my district. It's taking some sort of incentive from a city, whether it was a redevelopment property where we have leveraged land, revetment land to make it happen or if it's an incentive. For example, the Ramona Senior Apartments, I think we gave a $1,314 million loan to help make that project happen. We haven't had any any development that's just simply been driven by the market. So I understand I understand and support the the idea of making it a trigger. If there are incentives, then it triggers the inclusionary requirement. However, one of the biggest triggers is to be able to take advantage of the density, and the land use element would require a zoning change. While in uptown we're going through the up planning process and that means it's going to be an entirely new set of zoning documents that developers and everyone can benefit from and modernize some of the very outdated zoning the north lobby. What that means is that trigger would essentially be eliminated. So if you're already guaranteed those benefits through the land use element and the planning process, there is no trigger to trigger inclusionary. And I'd like to see inclusionary, especially if there are specific, you know, specific plans that allow benefits, you know, incentives. We should tie those to some some level of inclusionary housing. Now, I also know that not every area in Zone two has specific plans. I know there's work being done down on Anaheim and Pacific Highway and up North Long Beach. Have some. Is there a way, Mr. Coombs, for us to look at Area two and figure out a way or the specific plans in Area two to address inclusionary housing so that they don't just eliminate the trigger? It's it's, in fact, calculated and factored into whatever specific plans we do. And then conversely, make sure that there is some reference to specific plan areas in the area to inclusionary plan, include what that's going to draft. How would you approach this issue? So, Councilman, I don't think we can do a theoretical analysis on every neighborhood of Area two as part of this process. But let me tell you what I think we can do. Area two today does not support viable development, at least in numbers that that we can analyze. But you are correct that the city is making a number of zoning changes to increase development capacity. And it's also looking at our incentive structure, including density bonus. So specific to the zone changes that are occurring in your district and Councilman Austin's district that comes back to council in September. And I'd be glad to work with a consultant team to do a specific analysis of what, if any, inclusionary requirement could be placed on those specific properties. It's going to be different on a project and Councilman Andrew's district, it's going to be different on the other different project. And Councilman super nice district. So certainly the ordinance that we bring back to you could say that. Area two is triggered by a zone change, central plan amendment or other triggers as specified in specific area plans or zone changes so that you have an opening. But I just want to be careful not to prescribe what might be right for your district, may well not be right for a different district. And we don't have the logistical ability or the finances to do those theoretical pro forma as on every unique neighborhood in Area two. But I do have the capacity to address it for the instant projects in your district and to provide some greater flexibility in the program per area, too. When we come back with the ordinance. And I think the right way to go about it, if we have an opening created in this ordinance and then the economic analysis is done on a neighborhood level. Sure. That those neighborhoods go through a specific planning process like what we're doing in uptown. That way we can sort of tailor what inclusionary housing looks like based on those market conditions in those areas. I can tell you that the dynamics in North Long Beach are going to be, you know, in a project that say uptown comments going to be very different than a second. PCH is going to be very different, but they're both in area two, I think. I think we need to be intentional about making sure we address the connection between our specific plans and those our specific plans and the inclusionary. How important is supportive of that approach? I think want to hear more from the council about about what the levels are. I think there's I think there's certainly. I certainly want to see an increase in very low income. I think that's important. I want to also make sure that we we address low income as well. I know that our arenas, we have arena requirements that I'm supportive of that sort of trigger that sort of stagger it across different levels. And I know that very likable, very low income is hard to approach, hard for us to build. I know that that's what represents a lot of our essential workers, our home care workers. A lot of our frontline workers are very low income. I also know that, you know, the those the numbers that we're just provided in terms of $67,000 for a family of four is still also low income. And that that could be a teacher. That can be, you know, a lot of many of our city employees, you know, and acknowledge that know that our city employees, our nurses , our teachers wrote a letter actually advocating for very low and low income targeting in this policy. I want to acknowledge that that the workforce and working families are speaking up and telling us what they need. I think it's important that we're responsive to that. I think it's important that we sort of we listen to the four council members that represent those four districts, just the way that I would expect people to listen to me if we're talking about the ninth District, North Long Beach. So I want to hear a bit more from the council, but those are my comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up is Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I want to thank the city staff for their work on this. Councilmember Richardson took the words out of my mouth that the letter was excellent and our teachers with a stay at home parent could be in this low income category. So I just really appreciate the work. I've talked to a lot of residents about it and it is frustrating when I hear certain individuals, whether it's at a community meeting, which I went to one last night and it was socially distanced and outside or whether they're calling in for public comment, but stating things that are factually incorrect or fearmongering. And so I want to make sure that when I go to a meeting that people are getting good information. So I think it's important to kind of highlight that. No projects are yet starting and that this is a step in the right direction for us to address some of some of our issues. The median rental price in Long Beach is low because there are so many individuals who are in buildings or units that have not had rent increases in a very long time. But individuals who are trying to get a rental unit often do face a harder, more challenging processes and competition. And so we do need to make additional housing. And $60,000 per employee isn't what people typically think of as low income, especially with the number of families that are fortunate enough to have a stay at home parent with their young children. This is is the right thing to do. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, staff, for the discussion and for the briefing that I'm sure we all got before council meeting tonight on this topic. I know this is something we've been talking about for a very long time, and I appreciate the council comments on it, especially the council members who whose districts will be most affected positively, hopefully, as a result of this policy. I do have a question for staff. Is there anything regarding the motion on the floor that's concerning at all about realistic implementation? Because I know that when we look at these policies in other jurisdictions, there are some who have been very successful and other cities that were very, you know, had high aspirations but were not very successful. And I just want to make sure that we're we're not being too aspirational with our motion tonight. Thank you for the question. Council Member I think we already discussed with the Mayor that the offsite has to stay in the ordinance for legal reasons. The change from 45 to 55 years. I totally understand that the desire to have longer periods of affordability that will have some dampening effect to make the construction of ownership projects less desirable to potential developers. But we cannot quantify that. So we certainly can implement it and and would be glad to do that whatever the Council's final instruction is in terms of the motion on the floor. It is a different affordability mix than than what the Planning Commission and staff recommended, but we would have no logistical or legal problems implementing it if that was the desire of the whole of the Council. Okay. And then what about the three year phase in. I. We think a four year phase end would be better. But if the the whole of the council would like to do a three year phase, then we can make that work. Okay. So it's not impossible for staff. We're not setting you up to achieve goals that are not possible with the motion. Councilwoman Pryce, this is Linda Tatum. I just wanted to weigh in a little bit further regarding the 45 versus the 55 year period. I know we often talk about the the ownership mix here in the city. And one of the other frameworks, frameworks for that policy, aside from the financial implications, is that it's that's also an incentive for ownership. I think, you know, in the most recent years, we have not had a lot of ownership projects built. So in a sense that that lower number of 45 for ownership projects is by policy, a way of incentivizing ownership projects. And we think that that's a good thing. So staff still firmly supports maintaining the 45 year period for ownership units because we think it'll help incentivize the option for or the opportunity for additional ownership units in the city. We just don't get a lot of those. So every opportunity we have to to push that, we think it makes sense as a city policy. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then I think I spoke with Mr. Koonce about this earlier yesterday. I think I want to talk a little bit more about Area two. I know that when we talked outside of council meeting, but as you were educating me on the topic and I think you've alluded to it tonight, there is the reason we have to approach different areas differently is because of really a lack of data. And I think what you've kind of described as really you have to have a different approach for each area based on the circumstances and the factors. So can you speak to that a little bit more in terms of why we can't have general policies that would go to all areas in the city? So there's a requirement under state law that while you can adopt an inclusionary requirement, it cannot be burdensome to development. So I'm going to invite Cathy back up to the microphone to talk about how we did the analysis. And in my late summary or in my summary, because we don't have data from area two, it's it's very hard to draw conclusions. Good evening. Again. I'm Cathy Head. I'll just amplify what Mr. Quinn said is it's not only a lack of data, the reason there's a lack of data is because there hasn't been development. And a key component of inclusionary ordinances from the state's perspective is that you not create a constraint to development. And so if you're already not seeing any development and then you add another set of restrictions that in a way act as another impediment to development because they add to the cost without adding to the value. Then there's a very strong argument that you're constraining development. The other issue is the way we do the economic analysis is we look at what's actually being developed in a community. So in each community, I do this and we look at the actual types of projects being developed so that we can assess what the impacts are of imposing an affordability restriction. Well, when you don't have any development to assess, then you don't have any way to figure out the impact. And so the only way around it in a community where really through multiple real estate cycles there hasn't been development, is to try to do exactly what the staff recommendation is, which is to say we're going to try to create a carrot to incentivize development in these areas. And then as part of that, we're going to impose affordability restrictions. And then to then added codicil to that even is we're going to stay vigilant on that to then figure out if development starts happening in a part of areas of area two, then we're going to be able to jump in and modify the ordinance accordingly. So I think some of the comments that were have been made by the council people have been really excellent, including the notion of, you know, what do you do if you've changed planning requirements, etc., is to then be sure to look at what those impacts are at the time . But really, as we sat and I looked at all over all over the city when I did the analysis and as I believe was mentioned earlier, there's just been such a negligible amount of development that you can't reasonably impose another restriction on it until development starts occurring. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate that and I look forward to hopefully having more developments in different parts of the city that would warrant and welcome some of the housing that we talked about tonight, specifically in regards to workforce housing. So thank you very much. And I have no additional questions. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews. And yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank everyone for this. You know that conversation all the time to people and it's, you know, a community environment with Liam thankful that we have having this conversation. The camp is not your idea. This is a conversation that is long overdue. I'm disappointed again. The fact is that in midtown and downtown, we talk about equity and everyone's taking responsibilities to help with the housing crisis. Yet we make no effort to expand policies across the board. I think you do need to have a second look at. I want to be supportive of a policy that adds housing units, but those that is most need but also for our working class families along with worldwide cardboard as a prime example of the need the workforce housing for our nurses. I think there's a cost and metro drivers. We do not know how fast we're going to come back from the economic downturn. The Corvette is taking a center, but I want to be supportive of a policy that would be clear and conducive for when times are appropriate to build again. We need a policy that is fair and does not allow the bills to pay their way out of accommodating low income residents. Because I can remember the years when I wasn't allowed to afford to buy a house and it lets me know and I am looking forward to hearing from all of my colleagues. And thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor Marie Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank my colleagues for the great, great discussion. I think that we worked through everything that I had in mind and guides to even the phasing worked out. At least three year plan is workable and if concerns happen and I'm glad to see that staff is agreeable to that as it is with a lot of things that we're recommending tonight. In terms of the the some of the amendments that were made to the set of recommendations, I think that the staff has been very flexible and workable with with everything that's been presented so far. And I can certainly support all the items that are being put forward right now. But just to be clear out, when we're talking about low income member, very low income, what are those those figures yet? Low income and very low. Are we talking about 57,000 or $86 million figure? Councilmember for very low income. A four person household income is 56,300. A low income household with four persons is 67,560, and a moderate income household is 92,700. Okay. Well, I would like to see if we can increase the very low income. I know when you talk about a family of four, it might seem like a lot, but it's not. I mean, those are when I look at my district, I have a very robust. Working Families district in West Palm Beach. And I and I think that we need to have a little bit more of a flexibility on that. I know there are some housing projects that may be coming up in my district that I think would be benefit from. From a very low income recommendation there. So I think I will push that a little further in terms of the very low income. And in regards to the. The Area eight, area 11b, I have a very small sliver of that. But it's still important, obviously, for residents in the district because it does touch it. And I hope that we can work with that as well. But the majority of my of yes, both of us, it's an area, too. And I'm hoping that as projects come forward that we still have some flexibility with, especially in zone changes and those that require zone changes. So we could incorporate a lot of these these recommendations into those new projects as well. So I'm very supportive of the motion on the floor and looking forward to what. Thank you, Councilmember. Let me bring this back. Councilmember Pearce, so maybe we can make some clarifications on the motion as well. So just to clarify what I think what we have so far on the floor is the no net loss policy or kind of adjacent type of policy to kind of reinforce what the state has in place . And we have that on the floor. We have the in lieu increase to kind of raise that so that it's more more equitable. We also have let me just get to really briefly, customer appears on the on the 55 year question that is in front of us. What where are we at with that issue? You're asking me or you're asking stuff. I was asking you. It seemed like Linda spoke to wanting it to be lower because of home ownership. I mean, I'm good with 50 years. I think while State allows us to go to 55, I recognize the home ownership part, but it sounded like 55 have support. So unless there's a motion to reduce that, I'll go with 55. Okay. And then the the the offsite issue, the just legal concerns. Can we just I think we need to get some clarification on that piece. If we could get clarification on that when this comes back, that would be great. Okay. And then let's go back to, I think, the meat of of the proposal. I think you proposed I think your motion was 11%, a very low income period. No low income and no moderate on the rental. Is that was that your proposal? That was my proposal, yes. Okay. And so then on the home ownership, the mix. So the just as I'm quoting, I think staff had proposed 12% affordable. So you're going down to 11%, but making it all very low income and not going to 12%. Correct. So the staff's recommendation was 12, but it included 50% of that was moderate. I could do 12, Mayor, if I'll even know the even though it's the council. And even though I have a large push for 11%, what I could do is do 12%. Very low. I'm sorry. You 12% with 80% of that very low and 20% of that low. And that way we would get that next income bracket. We know that that nurses might start off at very low, but then they move up as their income changes. So I don't necessarily want to make everybody go through another round of changes unless there's another substitute motion on that. Okay. No, but we're not I'm not just I'm just just more question. So we're not doing so that the proposal is to do very low income, but no low income. But also on the floor right now. Mm hmm. Okay. All right. Let me keep going through that, through the council. I just wanted to just clarify what's on the floor, I think. Mayor. Yes? It's Mike Mayes. Well, I just heard Councilwoman Pierce say is that she would be willing to go with 12%, 80% of which would be very. Low and 20%. Of which would be low. Is that correct? Percent would be would be the workforce, moderate housing or whatever that category is. Yeah, I would be good with that if there's a second motion to that. But if folks, you know, I recognize there's been some conversation, but even though there hasn't been public conversation about it. So. Well, let's let's let's just hear what people folks have to say. Okay. I try to make sure we're clear on what the motion in front of us. Yeah. So, yeah. Yes. There's one other. Issue that wasn't raised and that is the phase. And we talked about a three year phased in or a four year phased in. And I want to be clear that I think Janine's motion is to include a three year phased in. I'll accept Rex's suggestion for a three year. So, yes, we include that. Yeah. I think that I think that was understood. Let me let me just keep going down and then we'll go from we'll go from there. Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I was just chiming in. I heard Councilwoman mention either 11% at very low or increase the percentage, the increase in the low. I like that approach of getting more of the project protected and offering more units of affordable housing. And, you know, I'm not going to fight between low and very low. I acknowledge this incredible need at very low. I was that also know that 67,000 a year for a family of four is not a lot of money. Those are three months kids we're talking about, and they need housing, too. And so, you know, I'm okay with seeing some portion of this split go to low income housing. I think that's fine for me. I would ask that. Do those numbers reconcile 80 and 20 or what reconciles what rank and file? Yes, like a big percentage of the you know, you know, higher than 11%, you know, with that split, get us closer to 12 or 13% of a project. Okay, Councilman, there were as a compound question, but I'm going to do my best to answer it. So at 11%, you would do only very low income. And then there was a discussion of 12%. The way to make 12% work would be 80%, very low and 20% moderate. And then I also heard if you wanted to hit all three categories. So, for example, at 14%, you could do one third very low, one third low and one third moderate. So there are a number of different scenarios. I also did hear in the discussion the idea of at 12% doing 80%, very low and 20% low. That scenario does not work. That would result in a cost that is burdensome. So at that 12%, if you were doing 80%, very low, the 20% would be in the moderate category, not the low category. So I think I'm one of them. I think what I'm interested in is some split between the like a majority on a very low three in the number show that that's where, you know, probably two thirds of our need is but I'm okay with including some as as low. So did I hear a number that increases 11% to 13 by having a portion it because I know low income before income is a bit more affordable for a developer to bear. So he keeps at the same economic threshold by perhaps getting us a different additional percentage or two, it costs the developer the same. So is there a way to grow it from 10% to 12 or 13 by including a percentage toward a. So the the difference in subsidy is similar but is not the same between very low and low. So. I. There's a million different permutations, but what we would recommend is if you want to do 12% and you're trying to maximize the very low you would do of that 12%. 80% would be very low and 20% would be moderate. That would get you the 12%. If you're trying to get a higher total number of affordable units, the amount of very low would have to come down. So that's where we have the 14% and that would be split. A third, a third, a third. But what I'm hearing from. Like the 12% and this small percentage. Okay, I would I would recommend that to council and the peers. I don't want a split between, you know, whose poverty is worst poverty. I think folks are in poverty in the free lunch kids. These are working families, I think carving out a portion of this 20% for low income and 80%, which is significantly higher. What is that recommendation was I think is gives us a bit of a spectrum here. But you know, I'm not going to do a subset motion, so I'll just offer that, which is something you brought up from years 18 to 20. So, Councilman Pearce, what do you think about that? Well, I brought up 8020 whenever I mentioned 80%, very low, 20% low. And stop is saying we can't do that. No, that's what just that we can do. No, no. Council councilmembers Pierson Richardson at 12%. If you do 80%, very low, you're pushing the limit of what the development can bear. So that 20% would need to be at a moderate level. I believe, based on the comments we heard from all the council members, that the idea was to maximize the very low units, but a get above 11%. So to get to the 12%, that 20% of units would be at the moderate level. And just as a reminder, a moderate unit, a moderate, moderate income family is $92,700, which may be a lot for an individual's income, but that's an income for a family of four, you know, so conceivably of raising children and paying for a two or three bedroom apartment. They're significantly rent burdened even at that income level today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Christopher. If it you know, 1% doesn't make much of a difference. I'd rather just keep it clean. And our ordinance, you know, it supports it creates very low income housing, which is the gap. We've built a lot of low. A lot of the incentives and subsidies around low. And the we're targeting the ownership around moderate. I've talked about homeownership. We need to add more incentives, down payment assistance. I'm okay with where we are. 11%, very low. So I'm supportive of the motion. Okay. So just to clarify that, the motion on the floor is 80% very low, 20% moderate income. It's a three year phased in. There is a no net loss provision. There's a new increase. We're at 50 years and the offsite issue will come back for a legal analysis. Mr. City Attorney, did I get that all correct? I think so, Mayor, although I'm not. I'm still not sure about the split between the 80 very low and the 20. But I'm not sure. The staff has the staff has that breakdown, though, that can get you the exact. Mr. Mayor, can I have Christopher respond to that a little bit? I think we've got a little variation in the motion. Christopher Well, first of all, what we heard in the audio here was Councilman Richardson say, no, I'm okay with the original motion. So we believe that the discussion on the floor has to do with the 11% very low. That said, we did discuss a different scenario, which was 12%, which was 80%, very low and 20% moderate. But what we just heard was Councilman Richardson say to Councilmember Pearce, no, I think we'll keep it with the 11%. There's a need at very low. So we do need clarity from the staff table about that. And there has been much discussion about that three years versus four years. But in the original motion, there was no mention of that three years versus four years. So we from staff need clarity on that. And the motion was 55 years, so not 50. You know, and I get the 55 years wrong. So we have 55 years. Well, let me get Councilmember Pierce. Are we a 55 or 50? We talked about 50, but we're 55. And so I do want to clarify that emotion, right, myself. Everything you said is correct, except we're at 55 and we're still at 11%. I think that some people might be getting confused because we had a lot of dialog about it, but the motion on the floor is 11% with 55 years and everything else that you mentioned. Okay, we're good. Okay. So so just to clarify, then, we're 11%. That's very low. No net loss in lieu 55 and the offsite legal analysis. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney. Gotcha. Is that correct? We. We. As the phase in. Is there. Anything in the motion about the phase in three or. Four years after recommendation? The phase in is at three years. I think the correct answer appears yes. Okay. Okay. All right. So I think we got I just want to make sure that staff attorney do have all of the the bullet points. Yes. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and go to a vote. That's the motion. There's a motion to second on the floor. Madam Clerk, please do a roll call vote. District one. Yes. District two. Yes. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I am district eight. I call District nine. I. Okay. Thank. Thank you. Now we'll go to item. Wait, hold on 1/2. Did we get the whole. Did you get the whole roll call? Yeah. This. Okay. Thank you. And. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you all. The vice mayor is going to go ahead and take over here some of the next items. So, Mr. Vice Mayor, thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Now, item 20 plate. Could you please me? That is.