WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 21.15.050, 21.15.063, 21.15.930, 21.15.1720, 21.15.1770, 21.15.2400, 21.15.2410, 21.31.360.B, Table 31-1, 21.51.110.A, and 21.51.275; and by adding Sections 21.15.045, 21.15.447, 21.15.915, 21.15.935, 21.15.2165, 21.25.903.C.5, 21.41.233.A.3, and 21.51.276, all related to accessory dwelling units, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)
Motion carries. When moving on to hearing item three The last hearing please. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and accept statutory exemption. 17-136 Declare ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to accessory dwelling units. Read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program and adopt a resolution modifying the established development impact fee structure for accessory dwelling units in accordance with the California Government Code pertaining to accessory dwelling units citywide. Okay. Before we go to this is a question. So right after this item will go the regular agenda of which item four from consent will be up first and then we'll go into all the other items. Okay. Just for the folks that asked, we have the hearing up the last one. So turn this over to staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report on this item will be given by again, Linda Tatum, our planning bureau manager, and Carrie Tai, our current planning officer. And at this time, I'd like to acknowledge Carrie Tai, who's the our current planning officer, who will give the presentation. And this is the item that both Alexis Oropeza and Scott Kinsey participated in. Providing staff support hearing. Thank you. Good evening again. Mayor Garcia and City Council. This is a city initiated ordinance pertaining to local regulations for accessory dwelling units, which, as you know, the state of California is requiring local jurisdictions to allow. And so just some brief history for the audience of what is an accessory dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit is a unit that's in addition to one single family home on a property. It may be attached or detached from the main house. Accessory dwelling units are complete units, so they are distinguished from rumpus rooms and you may have seen detached bedrooms that might have a half bath, but these are complete units and they include separate exterior entrances, kitchen bathing and living facilities. Some other common terms for accessory dwelling units used over the years are second units, granny flats in law units, teenager units. But from here on out, we'll be referring to them as accessory dwelling units. And just to clarify, per state law, accessory dwelling units do not count as a unit for density purposes. And so some background. The first California state law addressing Adus was enacted in 1982. A number of amendments have been made to state law over the years five to be exact, and each time increasing the permissibility for ADAS and reducing local control. ADU regulations were first adopted by the city of Long Beach in 1988 and they were called secondary housing units or granny flats. So Senate Bill 1069 and Assembly Bill 2299 were approved by the state of California last year and took effect on January 1st. And what these bills did was streamline the approval process and basically set forth development standards that cities had to approve accessory dwelling dwelling units under. So basically, if they had a set of standards and if a unit met that we had to approve it. So no public hearing, no conditional use permits, and they require what's called a ministerial approval, which means it's a building permit or it's an over-the-counter or plan check, which is they submit plans to the city staff. They check them in accordance to the code. And if everything is good, there's approved with no discretion. Long Beach is existing 1988. A granny flat ordinance was deemed null and void because it was no longer in compliance with the new state legislation. And then until adoption of a new local ordinance, only state law applies, which means we are required to approve them under under state law. So state law does allow cities to adopt their own ordinances to refine the state regulations. There are some things we can do. There are some things we can't do. But local ordinance can or ordinances can designate a lot size for properties that qualify for an 80 you. Local ordinances can specify the size of accessory of the edu. We can refine processing requirements and require covenants and the like. And also we were we had to look at our impact fees to ensure that the impact fees that we were charging were consistent. And one of the overarching goals is that. The. Ordinance would be consistent with state law, but also be customized to Long Beach in accordance with the character of the neighborhoods, with the city's policies, the city's general plan, and the city's housing element. And so that one overarching goal is certainly to allow additional housing production. So some of the differences between the state and proposed local regulation. The state law mandates that cities allow to use in single family zoning districts, but allows cities to permit them in multifamily districts that are proposed. Local ordinance would allow 80 use in 17 residential zones and that includes single and multifamily zones, but only on properties developed with a single family residence. So for example, a property already developed with two units would not be eligible. The city can also designate areas in the city where 80 youths are allowed. So the proposed local ordinance designates that areas within the designated parking impacted areas or the coastal zone cannot have an 82 unless they provide parking. And I'll talk about parking and because there is provision, there are provisions in state law that govern how and when the city can require parking. And so just some just a little tangent here on the parking impacted area that was established by the City Council in 1988. And it was established based on on street parking conditions that were found to negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community, as well as impeding and obstructing traffic flow. It was last updated as part of the mobility element in 2013. The proposed local ordinance for ADA use would prohibit any use in the parking impacted area unless parking is provided then to the coastal zone because the state law mandating approval of ADA use is a state law, it does not automatically supersede the Coastal Act, which is also state law, but it does specify that we cannot conduct public hearings in order to approve them. The city's local coastal program, which all development must comply with, seeks to maximize access along the coast and therefore staff finds the development of adus without onsite parking that has the potential to conflict with the policy and therefore staff is proposing that in order to allow ADA use in the coastal zone that parking would be required. I would also like to add that in terms of processing requirements, most development along the coast requires some form of a local coastal development permit, which requires a public hearing, and the proposed ordinance would add adds to a list of categorical exclusions to coastal permits so that a public hearing would not be allowed and that would allow us to comply with state law. So moving to some of the proposed development standards, the table on the screen compares what the standard is. And development standards are lot size, lot with setbacks, height, floor area ratio, lot coverage, which all in totality govern, how much building can go on a property. If you look at the column for state law, you'll see that generally there's no standard for most. Of these categories, with the exception of the side and rear setbacks for certain instances, the proposed city standard would specify that any aid you must comply with the development standards of the zoning district. And I would point out that specifically that any property qualifying for an 80 you has to be a minimum of 4800 square feet in lot area and it has to be at least 27 feet wide. Also, I'd like to point your attention to building height. Currently, the state is silent on building height. The proposed local ordinance would designate that any proposed ADU would have a maximum of two stories or 25 feet. And one thing that's important to understand is that these development standards are used in totality. None of them are used singularly. And so then I'll take us on to unit size. So the state law allows for an 80 you to be 50% of the existing living area of the primary dwelling with a maximum of 1200 square feet. So for example, if somebody has a 2000 square foot home, they could they could propose an 80 U of a thousand square feet, a detached one could be up to 1200 square feet, regardless of what the primary unit size is. So the proposed city standard would require that 80 is basically be proportional to what is on the lot already. So four so that any adu attached or detached could only be 50% of the living area of the primary dwelling or 1000 square feet, whichever is less. And so if somebody had a 1000 square foot house, they could have up to a 500 square foot 82. And that's only if they meet the setbacks, the lot coverage, the and the floor area ratio of that particular zone. There is one exception and that is for properties that have a primary dwelling of less than 1280 square feet. And in those cases, an 80 U of 640 square feet could be constructed. The reason for the 640 square feet is that is what our current 1988 granny flat ordinance allows now. And it was deemed to be a unit that was large enough to ensure livability. And so for four properties that have a primary unit that's a bit smaller, it would at least allow a second unit that's livable. So now I'm back to parking. State law prohibits cities from requiring parking for 80 youths under five conditions. And the most significant condition for the city of Long Beach is any property located within one half mile of public transit. There are other conditions, but I'm going to focus on that one because on the map in front of you, colored in gold or gold is the area of the city that is served within a half mile of a transit stop. And that is overwhelmingly I mean, it's over. It's an overwhelming part of the city. And so as part of the proposed local ordinance, there would be no parking required for 80 use, with the exception of the parking impacted area and the coastal zone. Now in those areas, the AEW parking requirements would be one space for 80 ewes that are 640 square feet or smaller, and it would be two spaces. For anything over 640 square feet. One important element of this is that replacement parking for the primary unit is required. That means if you have a primary unit and you have a two car garage and you legally convert that two car garage, you must replace those two spaces somewhere else on the property outside of required setback areas. But it can be outside of a garage and it can also be tandem. And that's what the last bullet referencing the state requiring flexibility in in providing parking is about. In other words, replacement parking does not need to be in a new garage. I did mention that covenants are required for A2 use. One of the reasons is that accessory dwelling unit is supposed to function exactly as it's called accessory to a single family property. And in order to ensure that the character of single family properties and single family neighborhoods retains its integrity and remains intact, covenants are required for properties. Proposing an ADU covenants would require that the property be owner occupied, that the 80 you cannot be sold separately from the primary dwelling, that there is continued availability of the on site parking that is required prohibiting short term rentals and by short term that means 30 days and restricting the size and status of the ADU. And that would prevent somebody from coming back years from now to add on to an 80 that has already been built to the maximum allowed size. With regard to development impact fees, staff is proposing to adjust the city's development impact fees to be commensurate with the size of 80 use. AIDS are typically smaller than a traditional home, and the state does not allow the charging of impact fees that is disproportional. So in other words, charging the same impact fee for a home that's 2000 square feet versus charging that same fee for something that's 500 square feet. And so staff is proposing the adoption of an interim fee resolution with a fees that are specifically sized for use to ensure that those those fees are proportional. The Planning Commission. Recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning code amendment on July 6th as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. They did ask that the adus be a maximum of 1000 feet, as opposed to the originally proposed 12 1200 square feet, and also recommended that that second parking space for 80 use over 600 square feet in the coastal zone and parking impacted areas be increased to two two spaces. Public notification was published in the in accordance with the Long Beach Municipal Code. That means it was published in the newspaper, also posted to libraries and sent out to an interest list that we have been keeping for the past ten months or so, maybe more, maybe a year now. And we received four letters of opposition. The letters of opposition. I received for the first letter stated that a maximum size of 80 is should be 600 square feet. The second and third letters objected to the change of zoning to allow multiple residents on one property. And the fourth letter was regarding how to use would affect equestrian zones. So with that stuff is recommending that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance which adopts a local standard for its use as proposed by the Planning Commission, and that does include the zoning code amendment and local coastal program amendment, which will need to be certified by the Coastal Commission and also modify the established development impact fee structure for any use. And that concludes steps presentation and we can answer questions. Thank you very much. We are going to go ahead and do public comment first and then we'll do or I know this hearing is a little bit different. So we just do the council first and then public comment like a regular item. Mr.. City Attorney We do that. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, staff, for this presentation. I think sometimes when issues are presented by staff, people assume that staff is the entity that's initiating the concept or the idea. And I think in this situation, it's really important to point out that staff is reacting to state legislation and really has done an excellent job of trying to mitigate the impacts of that state imposed legislation. So I want to be very clear and appreciative of staff for making that effort. Having said that, I think the current proposal still has some opportunities for improvement in terms of the concerns that have been raised by our residents regarding the impacts of the additional density in some of the proposed neighborhoods. So just a couple of things I support. Well, let me just go to the staff report. So on page three of the staff report, you outline the development impact fees. And I think this is a really I'm going to I'm going to be honest. If this has been part of projects that we have approved in the past, we certainly have not spent as much time talking about them this particular impact fee as we should. It is absolutely true that when we add density, we have a whole host of new needs, increase needs for public services such as police, fire, public works , Parks, Rec and Marine. As a result of the increased density. And so I'm happy to see that we're specifically talking about the development impact fees here. And I'm wondering if you could maybe use this opportunity to talk to us a little bit about what those fees are and how it is that we can ensure that the funds that are obtained from the development impact fees, whether it's on a development of a residential property or the development of a commercial property, that those funds are routed directly into the departments that are now needing to service the additional impacts of the additional density. Certainly. Thank you for that question. Councilmember Price. The way that the process, the development process works is that when applicants come to our counter and pay their fees, they essentially pay at a central location and we have a computerized system for issuing permits. And as a part of that system, the fees that are allocated to each of the departments and we've you've briefly summarized those. It includes the school fees, the police and fire safety fees, the public works traffic impact fees and the open space or park fees. Those are all built into the system. And when the the applicant pays their fees, the system essentially codes in those fees. And those fees go directly to those departments. They do not go into our department's budget, the development services department, even though we collect the fees, they are coded and go directly into the budgets of the the other or the appropriate departments. Okay. And how long have we been doing that? It has been quite a quite a while, a long time. I would say more than 20 years. 20 plus years. Do you have any sort of estimation of how much of a department's budget is based on development impact fees? I'll take a crack at that. So it doesn't pay for a lot of the it does not pay for operating costs, though, because they are based on new development. They are also regulated by state law. And so we use them for basically new services. We're not able to use them for current services. But if we're, for example, building, doing park projects, we would look at increasing open space to allow for additional opportunities rather than just funding maintenance for an existing park, for example. It is not a significant portion of their budget, but it is definitely a very needed funding source to plan for additional police, either equipment or or facilities that need to be improved to handle additional police officers. Those types of examples. I think that's fantastic. And moving forward, I, I expect to ask a lot more questions about that when we move forward with development projects because it really when I was reading this item and studying up on this item, it really was when it came to light for me that, you know, whether it's building a new station or a new substation or enhancing the capacity of a station that we have or or our building more open space, as Mr. Modica said, whatever the case may be, development projects and additional density should go hand in hand with those new services. For the residents, there's got to be something that makes it worthwhile for people to have to deal with the increased density. And so I'm glad to see that we have this development impact fee. And like I said, it's probably just me who was not plugged into it prior to reading this item and getting familiar with this item . But I expect to be a lot more plugged into it now, so thank you for educating us on that. So I support the covenants that are outlined in the proposed ordinance. So the actions of Planning Commission. I would like to ask my colleagues to approve this item with the following changes. I'd like to reduce the square footage that is allowable from 1000, which is currently proposed to 800 square feet or 50%, whichever is. Less, which is the. Same exact language as we see on page two of the item the staff report. But instead of the 1000 square feet, I'd ask that it be 800 square feet. I'd like to increase the open space requirement from 25% to 30%. And beyond that, I'm open to hearing from my colleagues on what other changes they'd like to see to this. But in my opinion, these changes are at a minimum what would be required to make the additional density something that's bearable for our residential communities. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Pearce. Yes, thank you. Staff. I wanted to thank you for doing a great job presenting all the details. Obviously being in a parking impacted area. The details on parking was really important for me and a couple of residents reach out and also did my research on the reducing the square footage and adding the green space to 30%. It's something I definitely support. And so I want to thank you all for this work and thank my colleague for making that motion. Thank you. Councilman Andrews? Yes, thank you, Amir. You know, I think the state has created a lot of promoting, you know, more housing opportunities for the city and can only exercise some of, you know, directions as how this law is administered. You know, I think our focus should be on enforcement of the neighborhood protection under this law that provides, you know , prevent them from being rented out short term. You know, I would urge my colleagues not to, you know, create limitations in size of the setbacks and would be trying to would discourage these, you know, accessory dwelling units for, you know, from happening. You know, I think everyone can agree that it is better to live in a 1000 square foot unit with a bedroom and a kitchen rather than a four square feet unit with the bathroom and kitchen. You know, if we allow the natural market to create these housing opportunities, my guess is that the state will take away the directions and regulate these, you know, accessory dwelling units. So that's one thing I think we have to really be careful of because of the state. As you know, it's trying to mandate something, which they do. And if we go against that, I think they can come in and take over and now they take all the little things away from us. So this is something I think we have to really take time and look at it. And so this is my recommendation. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, staff, for the presentation. And, you know, we had a conversation at Scaggs, Southern California Association of Governments about the ways that cities are starting to address and, you know, the accessory dwelling units. Some of the things that were brought up tonight in terms of making sure we have a really tight process and making sure we have some type parameters and support. But I do want to say that there's a reason for this. And the reason is, you know, as people, you know, there's this there's this concept, this NIMBY, not in my backyard concept that the state has said literally, yes, in your backyard, we will provide housing so that as people age in place, maybe they can, you know, shift to a smaller, you know, team up with families, shift to a smaller unit and open up the home that they might have lived in on a different at a different place for maybe a family can who can use those additional bedrooms. What I'm most hopeful and my question tonight is going to be about, you know, in North Long Beach and all over town, people have been illegally using accessory dwelling units. Anyway, when I bought my first home and had a, you know, had a legal structure in the garage, I got my sledgehammer out and knocked it down and, you know, went through that process. But how can we make sure we have a process that allows people to come out of the shadows? People are living in garages. There are illegal garage conversions today. So my question is, how does this process help people who are already treating their garages as accessory dwelling units? Is there a path for them to modernize, bring an end to code and to and to come out of the shadows? Yes, I, I can respond to that from a staff perspective. I think we did take a look at that issue because some other cities are providing different approaches to how they address that. And I think the approach that we considered here is that if a unit can indeed meet the standards that the council adopts in this ordinance , they would certainly be able to legalize any units that meet the standards. However, if a unit does not meet the standard, I think that as a part of the process of notifying the property owner that they need to bring that particular property up to code. I think it will be incumbent upon staff to work with them to make sure that they understand the provisions and that they're pretty they're really clear on how they can bring their current unit up to code. And if not, then we would just have to work with them and go through our standard code enforcement procedure. So I just want to keep folks in mind. Keep, keep keep in mind the intent here that it's to create legitimate housing opportunities for folks. I don't want to be overburdened with a process or fees that that diminish someone's ability because because reality is people are going to do this, they're going to do this. And some may do it because they have the capital, they have the space, and it's an asset or an amenity. But some people are doing this out of necessity. And we've seen the tragedies when, you know, when our laws are too rigid and it forces people to do things sort of underground. So, you know, I can I can, you know, I'm going to support this, but I'll make sure that we do have ability to tweak it as we learn and correct. We will have opportunities to tweak this. Right. Vice mayor. Yes. Once this is adopted, certainly there is an opportunity. I think it will be appropriate for us to see give it some time to see what comes out, what the demand is for these structures and how workable they are, and even to identify if there are any particular issues or problems. There are particular issues or problems with the standards that we've developed. So the suggestion would be to give it approximately 12 months or maybe 18 months to see whether we think that they are functioning in the way that this council intended. And we can certainly go back and take another look at the standards and modify them as appropriate. I would like to make one other comment related to the two councilwoman surprise requests for the a reduction in the size of the unit or two to reduce the minimum unit size. The recommendation was for 800 square feet. And I would like to just point out that if that recommendation moves forward, we would need to modify one of the provisions in the detailed ordinance itself, which is on page 11 of the actual redlined ordinance. We one of the things we did was correlate the minimum unit size to the bedroom count and should the council proceed to adopt the 800 square foot minimum. Or whichever. Is less the 50% of the lot area or the 800 square feet we would need to strike line number 21. That refers to. Three or more. Bedrooms being 1000 feet. But I would just like to go on the record of acknowledging that in terms of coming up with a unit size, staff thought very long and hard. We actually thought long and hard about each and every one of the standards. But there was a. Lot of consideration given to the unit size and generally we arrived at the standard of 1000 feet. Based upon the the primary issue. Of proportionality. The other factor or. The consideration was that the the size of the lot, the size of the existing unit, and even the whole issue of quality of life based upon the open space that was required, the the lot size itself and the unit size that all informed us arriving at the 800 square feet because we also thought about the comfort based upon the size of the unit and that was our recommendation. So we felt that. The standards, all of the standards, when you take them into consideration, the lot size, the primary unit size and all of the other considerations, we thought that the eight, the 1000 square feet was appropriate because it was proportional, however, that if the will of the Council is to reduce that unit size, we would need to strike that statement regarding the three bedrooms as a part of the ordinance so that that could be a part of the motion if. The motion goes forward. And so I'll just conclude so that Councilmember Kim can respond. So it sounds to me like there is. So, first of all, that that actually was good because my my next question was specifically about the up to 800 with less or more. And I would just suggest that if it's whichever is less, I would think we should flip and say whichever is more. Right. And why having the 800 cap, I think would be easier to understand if we said 800 is the max, right. Eight hundreds of max? I don't know. I don't know. Whichever is less, whichever is more. I want to give the floor. I want to err on the side of if we're going to limit it from a limit it from 1000 to 800, then people should be able to capitalize on 8000. That's that's my thought. And with the standards in place in terms of proportionality, it means that people won't have a mansion in their backyard. I actually like the idea of not having three bedrooms in the backyard. It's kind of you know, my first apartment was about 600, 700 square feet, clear room for me. So I would be okay with going down 800. But I think we should say no more than 800, not whichever is less. That would be my suggestion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We'll just keep going right now and through the other the other members. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I appreciate all of the comments thus far. I want to commend staff for doing a lot of great work. When we brought this item up for several months ago. We asked you to come back with recommendations. And, you know, I appreciate the process going through the planning commission, having public comment throughout that process and bringing us here today. This shows a lot of great professional work. I'm I'm thrilled. I'm glad you brought up the impact fees. We had development impact fees on the most recent project approved in the eighth District, the Riverdale Project. And we collected significant fees on that one. I'm I'm really kind of caught on this 800 versus a thousand square feet. So I have a couple of questions as well. The the average and to staff, if you've researched this if you have that question answered, I think that would be great. But I'm curious to know what the average lot size for for single family homes in Long Beach actually is. I think we have some data on that. From a reader. Um. Councilman Austin, thank you for your. Thank you for your question. Let's see, I have a chart here. I'm going to focus in on the r one and lot, if that's okay with you to use as an example that is the city's most prevalent single family zone. There are a total of 53,718 R one end lots in the city. The median lot size is a 5912. And so in terms of the percent that is above the 4800 square feet that we are proposing for the minimum lot size for it is 54% of the cities are one and lots are above that. And that means they would be able to accommodate an 80 you that's 54%. And then of the we have I have data on the ones that are smaller, but they I don't think that's relevant to this discussion. So hopefully that gives you a little bit of data that. That does help. And then I'm really curious about the the conversation regarding density. Obviously, it's something that many people care about, but the proposed parking requirements that that you have staff has recommended. Isn't that meant to help limit the density? And doesn't that help manage that? Actually, the the state. Limits our. Ability to provide parking. And it says that if you're. Within transit, you cannot require parking except. In very specific. Circumstances. And so generally throughout most. Of the city, even though there they are within transit, we can't require parking. But the state does give us special circumstances where we can allow parking. And that is what we've done by requiring parking in the parking, the designated parking impacted areas as well as within the coastal zone. The state's coastal regulations are preempted by they preempt the the current ADU legislation so we can require parking in the coastal zone. And those are the two areas there where we are requiring parking and it's not intended to limit them so much as to just address existing conditions and essentially the parking scarcity in those areas. It is not intended to to limit the their availability. That is not the intent. But the practical result will be that they will be limited. So going back to the slide where you had three cars in a driveway and the single family home and accessory dwelling unit, are the three cars or three parking spots not required or or is only required in the parking impacted areas. For example. And yes, and I don't know if we need the slide, but the slide that Councilman Austin refers to is the the slide that shows a single car wide driveway with three cars stacked tandem. So back to back. And I think that situation would be if you had a single family home that had a two car garage, maybe the detached garage in the back. As Common is commonly found in Long Beach. You converted the garage legally in the back, and then you had to replace the two parking spaces that are in that garage because those are for the primary unit. So those go on the driveway. Plus, if you are in the parking impacted area, you need to add one more. So in that instance, that driveway is deep enough to accommodate the two that were displaced by the ADU, as well as the one additional that would be required. And I hope that explains what that was. Yes. And I really like the fact that we were thoughtful enough to to limit or prohibit short term rentals to 80 years from being used for short term rentals. But I would love some a little bit more clarification for my benefit, as well as the Publix over the limited accessory accessory dwelling units versus conforming. What what what is that? Sure. So there are two categories of accessory dwelling units. One, we've called limited and one we've called conforming. And the reason for that is the limited ones are the ones that are designated by state law as the city, basically not having any discretion other than to approve them. And those are the ones where. You carve out the. Existing you carve out from the existing home or the existing any existing space on the property. Basically, you carve out and cut out a new entrance, build a kitchen, separate it out for the accessory dwelling unit. And so that doesn't change the footprint of anything on the property because all the structures are already existing on the site . The conforming ones are the ones that have new construction or whether you're building a new detached one and those you do have to meet all of the setbacks and height limit and floor area ratio and lot coverage that we've put forth because those you are changing the footprint of the site and you are changing the intensity of . A development on the site. Okay. So thank you very much for that clarification. I'm going to support this motion, but I also want to just just give my my opinion on what the intent these were accessory dwelling units. Units. They've been called granny flats. I do not believe that the the intent was to to build extra single family homes on on on lots. I think they were the intent was to to to accessorize and to allow for a single individual or a couple or to live. I'm not sure that the intent was to create single family homes on single family homes. And so I do and will support the the the motion provided by Councilmember Price to reduce the 800 to 800 square feet and 50%, whichever is less. However, I do have a question. One last question for staff of somebody who has a relatively large lot, you know, does 2000 square feet or would that be permissible under a variance? No variances would not be permitted because the state law requires unusual circumstances such as a slope on the property or topographical issues or an irregular shaped lot. So assuming that it's a standard rectangular shaped lot, a variance would not be permitted to waive the standard that gets established by this ordinance. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. I want to thank so many people who I've spoken with in the community about this matter. I think that I'm of the mind that when you look at the standards of 80 well, when you look at the standards of 80 years and what other cities have approved, they range from 600 up to 800, but not many are at a thousand. And so at least in the staff report, is there a specific reason why we're not going closer to the standard of the other cities provided in the Stuff Report? The reason is just looking at the this is a very large city and just looking at the vast variety of lot sizes in this city. We just talked about the the lot size, the average lot size and the most numerous are one in zoning. But if you think about the low Cerritos or other neighborhoods, for example, there are very, very large lot sizes. So the the we arrived at that 1000 square feet based upon looking at the the very wide variety and the lot sizes throughout the city. So I guess my thought would be if we could come up with something where if the lot size was 4500 and below, you would get the maximum allowable build of 600 square feet. Then if you're between 4500 and. 6500. You could be in the 800 square feet and then that would give the room that you needed on, say, a 12,000 square foot lot. I just recognize that even in the fifth District today, we have 5000 square foot lots with 961 square foot homes on them. And so in that particular case they wouldn't be able to go above 481, I would guess, because that's 50% of the current dwelling. Well, I think that certainly could be an approach. But again, if you go back and look at the intent of how the the structure of the standards that were recommended by staff, we think that the lot size in and of itself, combined with the size of the existing unit, will self limit the size that's allowed for the accessory dwelling unit. And I think you could get to a point where you I dare to use the. Term, overthink it or overregulate it. But I think. That if if the direction from the council is to be able to limit the unit size, we think that that's a that's a fair approach. And and we think that the the limit that has been proposed of 800 square feet would certainly achieve the council's general objective of allowing uses, but still not allowing them to be too significant. So I think it could be cumbersome to try to go to a tiered system. But if that's councils, those are it's something we could certainly look at. I'd hate to try to craft what that would look like up here. At the DYAS, but we. Already have. So. There was so much said. And I appreciate you so much, Linda. I think that you're one of the one of the stronger staff members that I've spoken with on anything planning. I respect your history and and. All the work you do. And I appreciate that staff has a position. And I think that that. I appreciate you advocating for that position, but I think that the staff report is sufficient in that area. And so I think that what we're doing now is trying to engage in a dialog among those of us who represent the community and have heard from the community what their concerns are and as much as overthinking it. Sounds terrible. I actually don't think it sounds terrible at all, because if we don't do that significant amount of thinking, someone is going to be living next door to something that's not. Appropriate. And so I'll hold off on a friendly amendment and listen to my colleagues before I decide where I want to go from here. Thank you. Councilman Supernanny. Thank you. I'd like to get to a part of the presentation involving parking. And actually, Kerry Ty described a different scenario from the presentation. But in the presentation I think it was stated that if a two car garage is converted, parking for two cars must be provided. So my question is, considering our muni code states that you cannot park in the driveway once a garage is converted, where would those cars park? Uh, Councilman Supernormal. Yes. To clarify that. With. Traditional structures and uses. That is correct. However, based on what the state law limits our ability to do, we have to allow parking in various configurations that otherwise would not be afforded to, say, a duplex or a single family home or a triplex. So for accessory dwelling units, for example, tandem parking is allowed, but that wouldn't be allowed for a single family home or a duplex. And so parking in the driveway is allowed. And also as long as you I mean, there are certain setup regulations like in the front set that nobody can park in the front setback and that that would not be made available to ADAS. But certain exceptions and changes have to be made to accommodate parking onsite for a to use. Okay. So if we let that the scenario would be an attached garage where there's only one car unattached to car garage only one car length on that double car pad in front of the driveway that would be allowed once the two car garage is converted to allow parking right there in front of the house. That's correct. Okay. So that that does not apply to any other situation. So I think if you understand that from the council position, this would be a tough one to explain to constituents why is it allowed for my neighbor but not for me? So that's I would like to have an official explanation so I can pass it on to the neighbors. So anyway, you've clarified it. So thank you for that. Also another topic would be parking impacted areas. And you had a map up there for just a second. But I believe parking impacted areas do not include necessarily preferential parking districts. Would that be correct? Yes, there are some preferential parking districts that are within the parking impacted areas. But my question, it's just the opposite. There are some that are not. That is correct. That is correct. Okay. Therefore, we can designate that an area is so impacted that you have a preference of parking districts, but it doesn't qualify under under this ordinance. That is correct. It would not qualify as being exempted now. Okay. So based upon current state law. Now, if we change that here, would that comport with state law? My understanding is that. We are that we. Can make findings for special local circumstances and conditions that would have to be valid and measurable and adopted by the City Council in order to do further exemptions such as the parking the designated parking impacted areas. Okay. So since my district does not have is not a parking impacted area, but we probably have more preferential parking districts than any other district in the city. I guess I could add that be added as an amendment that I would support this given that designations if I if my colleagues accept that, if not, I wouldn't be able to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you for the information and staff report. So I would also like to support the motion by Councilwoman Price. I. I actually sat down with all of our respective historic districts about a month ago and had a really good conversation with each of them and in the Wilmore City area and the First District, but we spoke in length about many of these issues. And of course, about 800 feet was brought up and also being able to provide green space because you figure in downtown, I know in the Willmore City area, we are very dense. We do have about 1100 students coming to the downtown area and I'm sure even more they will have housing, but they'll be more attraction to the area and thinking about how to provide more housing in a way that would be mindful, not just throwing, you know, a thousand square feet or, you know, a large lot in back of another large house. You know, I think this is a really reasonable concept. And I think, Maureen, I know we spoke in length about this, I think the Belmont Heights Group as well. And so I like that motion. I think it's fantastic. I would also like us to just think, of course, overall about historic districts. I know we constantly do, but just to continue keeping that in our discussions here. So I'll be supportive of that measure. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. So I want to follow up on a few of the comments that were made by my colleagues. So if I think council member Supernova's friendly, if we can implement that additional parking factor into the ordinance, is something I would welcome wholeheartedly. So for staff, is that something that we can fold into the ordinance or are we precluded from going there? I would defer to the city attorney, but my general understanding is that you can, as long as their findings made as a part of the statement as to its impact on the surrounding neighborhood in the area. And I would agree with that. I think the obviously we don't have any case law or test case on this. So we would have to make significant findings that it is impacted to in order to include that. But we could certainly attempt to do that. We certainly can't do all of these amendments tonight. We would have to bring it back to you for a first reading again after depending on how your motion goes in the amendments. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. So and I too, appreciate the report given by staff. And I think I started my comments with that. But I think it's worth mentioning that when staff presents a report to us, it need not be stated that staff has done an incredible amount of work in reaching the proposal to begin with . I think our job as policymakers is to listen to our constituents and then implement the will of our constituents in light of staff's recommendations. So, you know, I will say that kind of volunteering again, why staff chose 1000 over the others is definitely not necessary in this situation, because we understand that staff has done the work and made that recommendation. And while we respect it, the questions are really targeted at what can this policy bear in light of what our residents are telling us? So I think there's there's a level of advocacy there that maybe isn't as productive to the conversation, because I understand that staff's recommendation is a thoughtful one. And generally speaking, I think. In the three and a half years that I've been here, there have been very few staff recommendations that I've tweaked or made any changes to. But this one, I think, based on talking with my residents and understanding that this is a state mandate that is really being imposed on the communities, this is really something that they are now having to deal with as a result of state action, that it's our duty to try to mitigate as best we can. So while I appreciate staff's position on it, I want you to know I understand that the thousand square feet was a recommendation that was made out, made with a lot of thought and consideration. And I respect and appreciate that. I will say that, you know, one of the questions was asked, if other cities are going with less square feet, why do we need a thousand? And the response was will work or a big city. That was one of the one of the responses given the size of the city per say is one factor, but the size of the dwelling as it relates to the neighborhood and the neighbors living there is a whole separate analysis. And certainly there are cities that are larger than the city of Long Beach that are adopted, maximums that are far less than what staff was proposing. Oakland at 800 square feet. San Jose at 6 to 800 square feet with a maximum of one bedroom. Newport Beach with 750 square feet. Santa monica with 650 square feet. Sacramento County with 400 to 600 square feet, depending on the lot size. So I certainly think that it can be done. And while I understand that a thousand square feet would provide more living space for individuals, I think if we're truly talking about the intent of this legislation, which is a granny flat, a thousand square feet, is is not necessary, is it would it be great to have as an option? Absolutely. But I don't believe that it's necessary, nor do I believe that at 800 square feet, people are going to be living in substandard conditions. 800 square feet is certainly not a matchbox living condition by any stretch of the imagination. I was talking to some of my colleagues and the very first home I was able to buy was slightly larger than that 800 square foot limit. And we had a child in that space and we started a family there. So I really don't think that 1000 square feet is is a magic number and anything below that is substandard. So while I appreciate and respect staff's recommendation, I think what what staff should be hearing is that we as policymakers are making an effort to effectuate the will of our constituents in light of a state mandate, and that that is no reflection at all on the the the lack of care that was put into staff's recommendation. It simply is responding to our community. So thank you very much. And I ask my colleagues to support me. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. So is the current. The city attorney stated that a current standard at the current motion would have to come back. We're not prepared to pass anything tonight, is that correct? Yes, it would come back if passed as currently amended with the three amendments that I have listed. We would need to just update the documents, update the ordinance, and make sure we have it all as directed and we bring it back to you for first reading. Would you mind reading those three amendments as you have them? Certainly the motion is staff recommendation. With the change to reduce from 1000 square feet to 800 square feet or 50%, whichever is less to to increase from 25% to 30% the open space requirement. And three, to add preferential parking districts to the parking impacted areas under the restricted where they would be required to provide parking. And what is the timeline that you think that this would take to come back? And I'm not asking you to rush. I actually see that there's a couple of other major things that are going on in the city and that the time might bring some value in terms of our better understanding where this fits into things. We're talking two weeks. We're talking a month with only in six weeks. 30 days or less. Okay. I think there are places in the city and I get that there's overthinking, but I think there are lots of places in the city where 800 is even too much. As I've mentioned, we have. 961 square foot homes on 5000 square foot lots. And I think that 800 square feet can be, in some cases, too much. I think that lots under 4500 square feet should be less than 800 square feet to use. And I also believe that. More than one bedroom is unacceptable. I think that one bedroom is more than enough for. An edu, for a granny flat or a mother in. Law's quarters. And so I think that there's going to be more time to think about this. And I worry that if it comes back again, that I'm not set on where I want to be on that on that part of it. Because I don't hear from the council that we're we're far enough along in terms of all of those details. And I recognize that you don't have too many details, but if you don't, I feel that the character of our neighborhoods could be in jeopardy. So with that, I don't know that I'm gonna be able to support this yet. Councilman Rago, if I may on I think if I heard you correctly, if a lot is 4800 square feet or less, it would not an 80 you would not be allowed on that lawn, period at all. At all. I appreciate that. I didn't. What is the minimum lot size for the Adu at this time? 4800. That is better. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go back to the main motion and that we have the adjustment sort of made by Councilwoman Pryce. So just to be clear, it's 800, which is the maximum. Correct, Mr. City attorney. That is correct. Okay. That's that. That was a motion made by Councilman Price. Can I just make sure we clarify also? There is also we're going to clarify so that the parking issue that Councilmember Supernormal that was added is a friendly amendment as well. Mr. City Attorney we have that. We have that. And the third item that I have is to increase the from 25% to 30% the open space requirement. Okay, great. So, members, just go ahead and cast your votes, Mayor. If you need public comment. I'm so sorry about that. And actually, no, the reason why I did that is because we actually have more council comment. So I'm sorry. We'll be right back. Councilman Mango. So what is the bedroom requirement we're at now? We went down from three, so that makes it two. That is correct. That's my understanding. We eliminated the three bedroom as an option. So we're still allowing up to two bedrooms. As currently is. Yes, that is the current proposal. Are they okay? I'll hear from public comment. Thank you. Okay. Now we're gonna go to public comment and please come forward. Thank you very much. Grammy. Right. I am Francis. I am Francis. Emily Dawson Harrison. I reside in District one. I listened to a lot that was sad and I want to kind of look at it with a wide vision. And although I 800 is some bad dilemma now I'm going to ask you to look at 900 in terms of the number of bedrooms. I want us to look at the possibility because no one knows from moment to moment, you can wake up and be disabled and you may need more square footage because you need a place that has a larger space for the specific issues that you need to have on hand. The other thing too is lighting units, although they're not wanted, so much might be needed because you have some individuals that cannot afford to pay higher rents. And so you have families that are like living in a household and you say two bedrooms, one bedroom. But unfortunately, you have families that cannot afford to have a smaller unit because you have too many people in the house and there's too many people that are going to be just cramped into the house. So I understand what you want to do, but we have to look at what's happening right now. Today, we don't know from moment to moment what's going to happen in terms of federal funding or anything else in terms of parking. I want you to also look at the fact that there are some families that have a person that's disabled and they're going to need to have a handicapped parking space. And so to have a limit on parking for housing is wonderful. But you've got to have an open door to have parking for handicapped parking space in terms of additional parking in terms of launching units. There's a concern about the fact that there needs to be loading and unloading zones because there are some persons in need to have access service are down there, come to pick them up and if you limit the parking space, then you're limiting the area possibly for them to be loaded. They're unloaded because not always. Can family members or friends intervene in terms of helping people to get to where they have to go? I know you have a really awesome amount of information before you, but I'd like you to look at the things I've suggested to you, and I wish you the best, and I believe you'll make a good decision. But please keep these things in mind. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Next week, please. Hey, I am Karen, retired resident of the First District. I live in subsidized HUD housing. I live in a 375 square foot studio apartment, along with two other 200 other people in the building. Some of them have one bedrooms, but we're all being moved into the studios so that they can charge market rate for the one bedrooms . The granny flat is they are poor. Originally were for elderly family members that needed to be have some help and to keep them close by so they could engage with their families and not be socially isolated and. If I can live in three 375 square feet, I think that 640. Is more than adequate. 800 is luxurious. Now, I've seen some of the existing granny flats that were built in the early section. I would be more. Than happy to live in a. Number of them, especially the ones, some of them in Bixby Knolls or in Belmont Shore. The reason that nobody's talking about rent costs of rent this initial discussion was because we're in a housing crisis with a 2% vacancy rate. We're in crisis in terms of people being able to find affordable housing. Larger buildings are going to cost more in terms of rent. So the buildings need to be smaller. And seniors. I'm going to talk on behalf of the Gray Panthers. Seniors are being disproportionately affected by these increases and rents and they're being removed from their places because they tend to stay in facilities for a longer time. They don't move, particularly when they reach a certain age. And as a consequence, they're paying very low rents, that the landlords are kind to them, they're quieter tenants so they don't have and don't pay higher rates. So the landlords, when especially when buildings are purchased, are they're the first ones to go. And if the true intention is to help with our housing crisis, because I see that the people that are going to want granny flats are going to be single mothers. They're going to be students. And they're going to be seniors. And if the rents aren't controlled or monitored, it's not going to help our housing crisis. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. I'm Fred Boettcher. I'm a general contractor out of San Pedro, and I'm representing my clients here regarding this a deal. He has three pieces of property in hour in your community, Long Beach. And the things he asked me was ownership, which is a topic which is touchtone for your staff, is that if you have an ownership of a you, that's the only piece of property you can own in the city. And I'm not sure if everybody's aware of that and because if you have anything more than that. You can't because the ring that you're going to sign the grenade you. We'll say that you can have only 180 you and only one property in a steady state. That's my understanding through talking to Mr. Scott, who I've talked with a couple of times already, who telephone and once in person. And I came by to check that this morning to be sure I was on base and I am to say that there can only be one ownership of your assets. My client has three pieces of property and he wants to put a deal on each of them. Now there's a way to do that, of course, and a way to do that would be to form a corporation. And that entity, which is the corporation, would own it and not him directly. So I don't know how that's addressed in the paperwork that you have in there. So if my client forms three corporations and the three corporations own the property, how can they live on the property? That would be another question. So those are the things I'm concerned about. As far as the general contractor goes, and that's my responsibility and my lifetime and I build what you tell me I can build and don't build things you don't tell me. But if you approve something with whatever we like regulations has with regard to parking sizes, I comply because that's the only way I can get a permit to build what you would like me to build or I can build. As far as being in the size of something, just to add my own personal opinion on that. I think everything should be at least 4000 square feet. I was raised in a place that was about 700 square feet. Two brothers and a sister, mom and dad. So a thousand square feet would surely be great to have as we grew up. Thank you so kindly for listening. Thank you for your comments. Mike. Speaker Police. Hello, all. Thank you so much. My name is Kevin when I come to town. First of all, I'd like to thank the staff for doing so much work. Thank you. Also, I move. In 2004, I bought this house in West Palm Beach, and I'd like to thank Councilwoman Price for bringing up the topic about the size a lot, and that is build the 1941. So it's a small 800 861 square foot house in the back of the lot, rectangular, all usable lot, 69 square foot lot. So there's a lot of room. And I've been waiting for this this moment here to see if I can. Now I'm getting older, my wife and I getting older and mid-fifties, and we're looking to buy to build on something bigger and our lot. Hopefully we tie on that and we'll rent out our existing home. But if you put a 640 square foot or 50% of that, it doesn't make no sense for us. Have been waiting so long and Long Beach. There were and I've been living here so long and I've been just happy to be in a nice big lot that I found. So thank you so much and put in a lot of thought. And and Councilwoman Mingo, I'd like to also thank you for thinking up the of largest staff and putting the research and limits on the size and what you can build to have. Good night, gentlemen. Thank you. Next week, please. Good evening in Cantrell. Grammy Flatts give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling. Doesn't have granny living in the backyard. She can help take care of the kids. She can cook for you. But as you've heard by from these last two speakers, that isn't what a lot of people are envisioning. One wants to be a corporation so they can build a rental house. The other wants to build a bigger house and rent out his second house. That is not what accessory dwelling units are supposed to be about. And I think the bigger you make them, the more likely it is that this is what's going to happen. They're going to be rented out. I notice on this chart that it says that a one bedroom can be 450 square feet and a two bedroom can be 750 square feet. So 800 sounds like it's excessive. I think a lot of cities have you mentioned some of them. Councilmember Price but Thousand Oaks has 222 660 square feet homes and. And Beverly Hills is 650. So you could go a lot lower than 800 square feet. I'm a member of Carp and I think we recommended 500 square feet. I'm also very concerned about the part. I'm I think I heard that your parking map with the impacted parking was from 1989. Is that correct? Things have changed a lot since 1989. I think there's a lot more parking impacts and all over the city. And if you allow these granny flats to come, there's going to be flight parking compaction in places that aren't impacted now. So I I'm concerned about this parking issue. I think you should do a reevaluation of where the parking impaction is and make some kind of accommodations for the parking that's going needs that are going to be coming with a granny flat. People parking there on the street. Thank you. There's not going to be any place for parking. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. I am carelessly from the fifth District and I belong to three separate groups in the city. I belong to carp citizens about responsible planning. And I am also on oh, let's see, we have our neighborhood organization and then I have one other that I'm involved with. So all three of those have been involved in this density issue. And I will tell you that we have not gone forth trying to sell the public against density. All we have to do is show them a map. If we show those density maps to people, they lose it. And I know that Stacy and Daryl have both been to the to one of those outreach meetings. And you have seen the outrage, how upset people are that you're messing with their property, that you're messing with their life. There are three things that are hot buttons that are affecting density, and it's crime. More people is more crime. It's parking is the other one. And traffic. So those three things, if you can solve those three things, you can move as many people as you want into the city. But pay attention to those three because people are not going to vote for you if you if they see you as supporting density. Nobody wants increased traffic, increased parking or increased crime. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Kathleen Brady and I live on the border between the second and third district. And I would like to ask that the city council reduce the allowable size of the aid used to 800 square feet or that 50% of the existing primary dwelling, whichever is less. I helped deliver our Belmont Heights Community Association newsletters so I have access to their real residences. The ideas that have already been added to the single family residence, lots under that are two of 20 years ago and frankly, most are too big and they're incongruent with the neighborhood. I know these were built under. Previous rules, but I fear for. The future of livability in our communities if the 1000 square foot adus are approved. And I would also like to ask that the amount of accompanying open space be increased to 30% from the proposed 25%. When I'm on. The delivery route for the newsletters, I've. Noticed many of the homes with Ada's in the rear are completely cemented in. And with very little landscaping. Perhaps along with the increased open space requirement, the city could encourage even more unpaved areas. This would allow for the rains to soak into the earth rather than flood our streets and run into the ocean and used in this summer. Mine paved areas around the homes with Adus would cut down on the heat from the added buildings, and I think the above adjustments to the proposed plan could lead to a more sustainable city for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. I'm speaking to parking, traffic and parking is going to be impacted with these IOUs with the minimums that they have to have for their own parking spaces. Keep in mind that they have visitors coming into the communities as well. And I think that the highly dense communities need to have permits and time limits that they can't park in the residential areas because with the three new buildings that are being built in the area here, it's just getting impossible to find parking in the community. So I ask that you take that into consideration parking permits for your residents that are in densely populated areas as well, as I noticed on one street, fourth, fourth, alamitos. Two blocks of that. It's only one hour of parking. And then you go one block over, it's two hour parking. And I thought that that's extremely odd, that that's a primarily residential street and that they would get an hour on a street and a business area, get 2 hours. It just doesn't seem right. So fourth Alamitos. And in addition, again, traffic turning signals boggles my mind why there is not a left turn signal on every major intersection in the city. That's something so simple that you could do. When we got the countdown, traffic lights, I thought, okay, money thrown at that. Why not turning signals? You have the bike. I mean, like on one street, there's eight or nine, ten traffic lights where the bikes are. But yet we cannot seem to get from each district turning signals on the major intersections that would at least alleviate some of the traffic when people are coming and going during rush hours. In addition, I would really love to see those bike lanes be rid of on the on ramps and off ramps to the freeway. Of all the places you all could have put that, it makes no sense given all the activity, given all the events that Long Beach does, given all the popularity, all the people that have moved into Long Beach being now the city that we should have that there, when you have the off ramp from the 710 coming and going, third, sixth, seventh, put them somewhere else. I'm not against bicycling, but I just it just I don't see a slew of people going on those bike lanes. And you've taken a lane away from from commuters. That's not fair to the community. It really is not fair. So that's what I would love for you all to please please help us with that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Come up here, okay? Yeah. My name is Robert Peel in the name of Jesus. Okay. And I want to show you something that deals with this, for one thing. I don't know if you know him, so I want to show you. This is the guy who runs stuff, right? And dealing with this. Everybody, this is Jesus. This is God Almighty right here. So, see, this is what I represent. And I don't know a lot about this, but I heard the vice mayor, wherever he ran somewhere he's talking about was. Sometimes you have a structure on your life and he had to bust it all down and it was illegal. Well, it's just like, you know, sanctuary city, this stuff is illegal. Is this dealing with this structure as a principle and all this? You know, and so sometimes we have to take something that was put in and we have to break it down, break the things that aren't right, you know, aren't right, and deal with that now. As far as this, I don't know. So I just wanted to get this in and I'm going to say this before I go. She has to go. Ginny Pierce has to go. And that's in the name of Jesus. What's right and justice. Justice. If I do that, I go to jail. Well, she did all drunk driving and all that. So I'm going to get out of your hat to tell me I'm out of here. But in the name of Jesus and what is right, you know what's right right here. She got to go. And you ain't going too far behind. Love you. Thank you. Just, you know. And Mr. P, you can actually always speak all the amount of time that you have. Just want to make sure it's on the topic. That's the that's the important thing. Okay, sir. So it's not about going. It's about just staying on the topic. I just want to get that out. Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hi. I live in City Santana and my opinion is the one. Redskins goes high. Goes high. When it goes up, then people start cramming up into apartments and that's why you can't find parking. And so I can understand why people are moving into garages or moving to the back houses because it's hard to find affordable housing. So the more you let these greedy landlords raise the prices, you're going to see more, more traffic. And also, I want to congratulate the city council members that support Black Lives Matter, the support sanctuary city that supports the football players to stand up against racism. And now there is a hate group here today and we have to stand up to hate. And thank you very much. Okay. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Hello. I will. I will identify myself. I hope future speakers do, too. I'm Joe Weinstein, president of Citizens About Responsible Planning or carp. We sent you a letter earlier today. And I must. Say that. Our principal concerns with density, you have heard plenty about the traffic impacts, which are magnified because the state is operating under a rather silly theory that the less parking you have, the less traffic you're going to have. So you are trying to creatively cope with that. And I think that what Councilman Supernova suggested is maybe one of the tools you would have, namely to proceed to find that more areas indeed are parking impacted. But the principal tool you have is indeed to cut down the size of the units so that they really conform to the original idea of a granny flat. The proposal. I'm I'm glad to see the direction of movement on the suggested sizes, but in reality the granny flat does not have to be anything like 800 square feet. And I know this from my personal experience. My son constructed himself a one storey full service house. Comfortable for permanent living for himself and at least one other person. And it was all done on a footprint of under 400 square feet, a very attractive house. It can be done. So if, in fact, you really want to go for the concept of a granny flat rather than an excuse to bring in intolerable density, it can be done. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Maureen Neely. I'm the president of the Belmont Heights Community Association. And I would like to thank the council and staff as well for consideration of this ordinance. I know what the state was asking and requiring, and the staff has done a good job of hitting all the spots and trying to make it unique to Long Beach. We have an overarching observation about the ADU ordinance as it currently is presented, and then a couple of specific suggestions which I think we've heard tonight. We'd also like to note that several of our residents did speak at the public comment period at the July six Planning Commission. So we I think the Planning Commission heard us there as well. As a volunteer leader of one of the city's oldest neighborhood associations, I've had the experience with how two homes on the lot impacts the community. Our board understands that accessory dwelling units do not just affect individual parcel owners. The ramifications include impacts on sunlight, breezes, noise and pollution. Housing. More people on a single lot increases the school population, utility needs, parking and traffic. So for these reasons, we urge you to weigh carefully the size and the placement of the additional units ten, 20 years down the road, as lots as more lots include secondary units. It makes sense that we plan today for less concrete and more open space. These attributes make for good neighbors. Specifically tonight, though, we hope you amend the ordinance to what Councilwoman Pierce Price has suggested, which does reduce the ADU size to 800 square feet or 50% of the existing primary dwelling, whichever is. Less increase the required. Amount of accompanying open space from 25% to 30%. And we do think that these minor amendments will still achieve the state's intent to create more available housing. And the smaller size. Should translate. Into. More affordable housing. Especially for young adults just starting out, new graduates getting on their feet. Studios extended family. Needs even for older residents who want to downsize, yet still live in their neighborhoods. So these make sense. So thank you for consideration of this request. We know that every district does have different needs, but we do think these two small changes will work well throughout the city, achieving the intent of the state's legislation that keeping our Long Beach neighborhoods desirable, sustainable and ultimately livable. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please enjoy the last two speakers and the public speaking list is closed. Hi. Mayor and City Council. I have to be honest, I'm not that well read on this subject because of the many, many issues that City Development Services has going on with regards to like the general plan and land use elements and c CIP. So I really didn't know that much about it and I've just recently read up on it and I just want to talk to you about some of my questions and concerns. And that's why I showed up today and didn't wasn't able to write anything in advance. My district is district three. I live in Bluff Park. Susie is my council rep and her initial statement that staff is reacting to the state regulations or state mandates regarding this issue, and that's why it's a city initiated. I am really confused about that. I'm just learning. That we are we operate under a charter and so we're a charter city. So I read about being a charter city, and one of the foundational aspects of being a charter city is that when it comes to municipal affairs, a city's charter overrides state regulations. And a lot of times, especially when it comes to core issues, this is especially true with land use and zoning decisions. So I keep hearing that the state has new regulations and that we must adopt these. So I just have questions about that, if you could answer that after my, my, my period of talking. The primary advantage of being a charter, as I understand, is that allows greater authority for a city's governance than provided by the state laws. We know best what what should be done in our city. And I think that we need to have a larger conversation about what it means to be a charter city. Lynda Tatum from Dolans Services kept talking about what the state requires and the state law limits our ability on what to do. And I'm just confused on being a charter city and state regulations. So I appreciate when Miss Price asks for making what she called increased density variable for our neighborhoods. Yet I'm confused. With regards to the document that was put out by Development Services on October 10th from city staff regarding the recommendation on this ordinance 88, their statement is an 80. It is not considered an additional unit for density purposes, and that's really concerning to me, especially since we're having such an uproar with regards to land use elements and density. I'm not sure how that applies here and that is very confusing to me. The document states that 82 areas may be designated based on criteria that can include like water and sewer and the impact of issues on traffic flow and public safety. As Susie. Probably remembers from our community. Meeting, I'm very concerned about Redondo Corridor, Fourth Street Corridor and traffic flow bike lanes getting into my neighborhood. Have studies been done with regards to this issue before or is this going to be done after some of those things. Come into effect? Thank you. Very much. So we would just appreciate it if you would answer some of those questions with regards to that. And also, thank you very much. Are these covenants going to be. Thank you. Time is up. Thank you. We got to keep it time. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Ali Shibley and I am at Moral Poles because I am a residential architect in the neighborhood and in Long Beach, and I also am a citizen currently living in an accessory dwelling unit, a legal course. First and foremost, I want to commend staff on their hard work. I would not I do not envy your position at all. And I think what you guys have done to regulate local ordinances and address the state mandate is awesome. Additionally, I want to commend the Council on the points that they made in addressing what they're calling the three amendments to what the staff is currently doing. I do want to address a fourth point that I don't think is spoken for that I think would address some further concerns that the community has and still allow for their adus in conformance to what the staff is proposing. And that is to add another overlay and that being that your existing. Home. And the property should be conforming before you add a secondary unit. I think an issue that that we have in the third district and a lot of the parking impacted areas is that a lot of the garages are only one car. The housing a house in our one district technically needs two garage spots. So if we address the main house before allowing an accessory dwelling unit, that would help a limit limit the A2 use and the density and address our current situation, which is leading to a parking impacted zone. I also I think the map of the the access to transit areas is phenomenal. I love that. I think it you know, it puts a chip on my shoulder being a resident of Long Beach and having that much access to to public transit. However, I think the reality is not everyone's using it and that is why we continue to have parking impacted zones. So addressing the existing home non-conformity before allowing an accessory dwelling unit would also help the situation, I think, at hand. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go back to the council. I just want to just make a comment and then I have a question as well and then enter this back over to Councilwoman Price one. Let me just let me just add to the the letter that just spoke. I think the issue I'm not on the nonconforming or possible non-conforming related issues to the property is that addressing that, that's actually a great idea. Is that a dress in the an ordinance? Mayor That's a great question. It is not currently addressed. And again, I would defer to the city attorney. However, the city's land use and development regulations have long rested on the premise that what we call legal nonconforming structures are vested, meaning that the use was legal, legally permitted and comply with the laws at the time it was built. There's always been a presumption of protection for those units and those legal non-conforming cases result when a unit is permitted and the code or some standard changes subsequent to that approval. That creates essentially what we call a non-conforming status, and property owners generally have long relied on the protection of them when they go through the process and get a permit and and legally construct a unit that they have the protection, the protection that the city isn't going to change the code later. And they then have to be required to come up to speed retroactively to some new requirement. So to your question, yes, that is something that the city could do, but that is not anticipated in the ordinance as it's currently written. Mr. PARKER, is that is that something that we would we would able to do? Yes. I think what Lynda indicated is there is such a thing as a legal non-conforming use. It's allowed and we wouldn't require that to be changed during this process. But if during the permitting process or during the inspection process, there was found to be illegal conversions or some sort of other code violation, then yes, that could be addressed at that time. It would seem that I mean, for the benefit of building an accessory dwelling unit, that the property owner would have to have a property that is conforming to all the other requirements that before we would address of giving them a permit to move forward. That would that would be something that obviously. Make her the most. You would have to. But I think that's we have so many. I think one of the big issues which I know is harder to address is the numerous non-conforming properties that we have, that there are folks that aren't going through the process. And I think that this would be a great way of addressing that in this way. Can I ask a question to staff too? Because I just want to make sure I'm mentioning this right. And I obviously support the reduction to 800 square feet. I'll tell you personally, having owning a property that's about 800 square feet, that's enormous. So I think I mean, square feet is a very comfortable, large living area. And so I think the idea of this is always to build, I think, a small unit possibly for a transitioning senior or a family member, that it's part of a family. I think certainly it wasn't to create a second home in backyards. So can I ask you on the bedroom issue, because I'm a little bit just confused. If you're planning to do one bedroom, Ms.. Tatum. Can you only build up to 450 square feet? And if you do, too, it's it's. Can you explain that piece to me? The third the chart we were referring to. Is actually, if you go to let me call the page, page 11 of the ordnance, which is attached as let's see, it's going to give you the number. I presume that that's the table you're referring to, Mayor? Well, I think you had mentioned that, which is why I was looking if you hadn't mentioned. So I just want to make sure you can walk me through that. So if I am applying for it for an accessory dwelling unit and I only want to build one bedroom versus, let's say a contemplated to if I want to build a one bedroom, can I still build what I then at that point still be able to build up to the now propose 800 square feet? Or do I have to build two bedrooms to get to 800? No, you can build one. Bedroom up to that 800 square feet. That 800 is a maximum of the unit size and it doesn't. Require a particular room configuration. What happens inside the square footage? Is it not connected to the amount of square feet of the square feet that you can build? That's correct. Can I add then? I was just curious. I know that different cities have a range of different square footage in in San Jose's case, if I just could ask, it's because I think it's a community that's similar to ours where it's you have a lot of suburban neighborhoods, you have a downtown. So they're doing 6 to 800 square feet. And we try to understand what the six 800 is. What requirement is that a range or because obviously you can build below 600 square feet? Or is that is that the the floor? We're not familiar specifically with that. We looked at a number of other cities and we generally looked at it for their maximum allowable size. So where there is a range, it's not entirely clear to us the kind of what drives that range. And it could be a number of factors. Generally, I would I would kind of speculate that it might be something like the unit size or even I'm sorry, the property, the size of the property, or it could even be the size of the primary unit that drives how they pass that range. And and. Wow, and what's that and can you repeat the minimum again? Our current minimum, the minimum lot size that you are could build a unit is 4800 square feet. If you have a lot size that smaller than that, you're not eligible to build a second of the. Minimum square footage total per for the excess of the. Lot. Yeah. No of the unit. Of the unit. Right now our minimum unit size is 640 square feet. That doesn't seem. Do you mean the unit or you relate it to the bedroom? The the accessory dwelling unit. The minimum size is. The. 640. But let me let. Kyra answer that. But thank you. Go ahead. And that's the mini max. We'll get a clarification. Mayor, thank you for the question. Just to clarify, the minimum unit sizes, there's a couple of categories, and I'm not going to try I'm going to try to not overcomplicate it. But for a studio that's detached, for example, it's 300 square feet. So I got into. So the one bedroom there, a 4/5. Correct. Correct. Okay. I just want to just to clarify, and I do think before I turn this back over and I appreciate the conversation, I think the conversation is going in the right direction. I just want to clarify one of the questions that we get asked that question about charter cities often. And there are obviously additional protections for charter cities in many cases and in many cases there are not. Do you want to Mr. City Attorney, maybe explain that? I think. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. You are correct. On a charter city, we have what we call home rule in a charter city, which does allow certain planning and implementation authority beyond what a general law city is capable of. But when the state legislature decides or determines that the matter is a matter of statewide concern, they can pass legislation applicable to both general law cities and charter cities. And in fact, that's the case with the EU law. They specifically found that it would apply to local agencies, both charter cities and and county charter, city county charter counties pursuant to Government Code Section 65 eight 52.2. So it is applicable to the city of Long Beach and the state has over time determined certain things that used to be a home rule or a charter city purview as a municipal affair has become that of a statewide concern. And an example of that would be in the area of voting and elections. And that and I think that and that's correct. And I just wanted to just to add so I think we oftentimes whenever a state law is passed, the very first thing we look at is whether charter cities are included or not included. And sometimes we're not and oftentimes we are. Of course, after your analysis. So we'll go. Let's go. Keep going. I know we have a motion on the floor right now, Councilwoman Pryce. I'm going to withdraw. I was going to explain municipal affairs versus statewide affairs. So thank you. I was I was going back to, you know, public policy school. I was very excited to answer that question. But thank you. Gentlemen. Yes. Yes. My question is, if you have an illegal wallet in the back and all of a sudden they and it was only 300 and somewhat feet, could we bring it up to code like, say, if it was illegal, could they start and and they wanted to bring it up to like, say, another 300? Would that be possible? Would they have to tear it down and start all over? They the the laws that are. Adopted in this. Ordinance would apply. To that unit. So they would have the option to if it did not comply as it was currently built, they would have to modify. It to a point where it. Was compliant with the law. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Shipowner. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank Councilwoman Price for accepting my friendly on the parking lot. And also, I just want to address one statement that was made there suggesting that council is supporting density. I don't think that frames this issue correctly. We are trying to mitigate a state mandate. If you want to spend that as supporting density, I guess you're free to say that. But I certainly don't see it that way. But there just seems to be a lot of moving parts here. I appreciate the city attorney's going to craft this and come back at 30 days. We'd have another shot of it. But one of the last things I heard was we can have a one bedroom unit up to 800 square feet. Am I correct on that? That is correct. Okay. So much of my district is impacted by Cal State, Long Beach. That's a lot to do with the parking issues. The other thing we have an issue with is bedroom splitting and it's very hard to detect these once they're done. I believe if you allow one bedroom units of 800 square feet, you're inviting bedroom splitting. And so I'm going to rethink my support of this item based on just so many issues here. So I'm going to reserve any comment stuff with you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongeau. I'd like to make a friendly. I was looking at page 11 of the. Written document and I think that the 4800 square feet for so my original intent was that there would be a graduated scale 600 square feet. 800 square feet. I'm trying to mitigate the impacts to our neighborhoods. And so first, I think that. Because of so many things going on in our city right now. Not now is not the right time to take on this issue. So I'm also rethinking my support of this item. Even though I generally wanted to have this dialog, I just think that there's so many moving parts of things going on that I'm hesitant to get on board. But I would be. Potentially more supportive when it comes back. If we were limiting the lot size, if you did not have a lot greater than I would say 50, 200 square feet. So if you're a lot was 50, 200 square feet and above, you could potentially have an ideal. But if it was below that, then I think that we should restrict it. I'd be open to hearing the the. 600. That people. I'd be open to hearing the maker of the motion's ideas on that. Would you be open to a friendly that would research so the 4800 as the minimum lot size going up to 5200. Yes. Wonderful. And just to clarify, I think I think and I want can I clarify this, Councilwoman? I think what we're saying is, is possibly if it was between 48 to 52, maybe I would misunderstood. It could you could build up to 600 square feet. But if it was up over 52, you could build 800. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying in in in this new phase, this is kind of giving us a trial period where I would say 5200 is the minimum lot size. Let's look at this. Let's bring it back in a year. Let's see how many people built 80 use. Let's see where they requested them. Let's see where they didn't and let's learn. But when we have a majority of the units in the city. Andre is confident. But when it comes to. Touchdown, I think that's a support. I'll take it with that. I don't know how I could beat that. I think what I'm hearing as the as the maker of the motion is that properties would not be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit under 5200 square feet. That's what I'm hearing. That that would be the friendly, I believe, to the motion, and. I would accept that. Okay. So just let's let's go ahead and clarify the motion before we have an advice is up next. Mr. City Attorney, can you clarify the motion? Just about everyone knows where they are. I will certainly attempt to do so, Mayor. Thank you. The motion would be to adopt staff's recommendation with now four amendments. One is to reduce from 1000 square feet to 8800 square feet or 50%, whichever is less for the unit size to increase from 25% to 30% open space requirement to add preferential parking districts to the parking impacted areas as defined previously. And number four, I believe is, if I understand correctly, is to increase the minimum lot size from 4800 square feet to 5200 square feet. So the impact of that would be if your lot is 5000, 5000, 199 square feet or less, you would not be allowed to have an accessory dwelling unit. Yes. Is that correct? I believe that's the motion. Okay. Okay. So let me go ahead and go back to Vice Mayor Richardson. A couple of questions. So I get it. Folks want to make it tight. I'm all about that limited and limit the impact on neighborhoods. But where did the 4800 number come from? Where did that how was the 5200 number justified? And what is the average lot size in Long Beach? What I what I don't want to do is inadvertently create a policy that that half the city is excluded from participate. Absolutely. Absolutely. Why don't we have. Why don't we go ahead and have staff answer the questions on that to the best Richardson place? Mayor Richardson, thank you for your question. Just to clarify, so your first question was, where did the 4800 square feet came from? We used our existing granny flat ordinance as a starting point, and that is the existing minimum lot size that are not that is in our ordinance. We use that as the starting point. Furthermore, as earlier actually furthermore as earlier state. Actually, I didn't state this earlier. I apologize using the r1n lot inventory of the city as an example. So that's. With over. 53,000 or one end lots in the city representing the traditional single family zones. There are 87%. Of. Properties that are over 4800 square feet, which means, conversely, only 13% of lots would be excluded from building an ADU. Furthermore, in the current are two zones of the city which are duplex zoning. The minimum lot size is 4800 and that the zoning ordinance basically has an existing. Q that that says 4800 is a minimum lot size to allow for two units. And therefore the three. Reasons I just stated were compelling enough evidence for us to use 4800 as the threshold. Thank you. So 48 square, 4800 square foot lot can actually have two full units on it, but not an accessory dwelling unit under the current friendly that we were telling me. That is correct. However. That is not a guaranteed number of units because any proposed development has to comply with all of the development standards the floor area ratio. The setbacks, the. Parking, the height and open space so that two units for the 4800 is a theoretical maximum. It is not a guaranteed number. So what I don't want to do is continue to create policy out of numbers that we we're just tossing out there. I like that you have the justification for 4800. I'm okay with evaluating 5200, but I'd like to see what that analysis is on 5200, the way that you broke down. Hey, this is what percentage in R one in and the other zones. I'd like to understand that. But you know the difference between 4850, 200 and what? How that fundamentally changes the program. So so is a way that we can come back with some data on that before we cast a final vote on something like this or , you know, kind of open to. Councilmember, if you want to just address how you would reconcile that or where you came. From, some. Okay. So Vice Mayor, I. Like I'd like to have a back and forth if that's. Okay. But also Councilman Mongo. So I was actually mining data on the assessor portal and I was trying to go back and forth on some of the S.F. hours and the square footage on them, because I'm trying to be able to carve out the ability to try this and then but not necessarily at 90% of the city. I'm saying let's try it. Let's try it at a more reasonable amount. And I thought 5200. Carved out another. Percentage of the city that actually gave us some good data. I don't want actually. Makes a lot of sense. You want to pilot it on a smaller set of properties. That makes a lot of sense. So is there a way, Steph, can we can you tell me the difference? Like how many, how how you know, between 4850, 200, how many housing units are excluded between now and then? Do we have that data available or Stacey, is that available on your. That's a lot of number. So I would be shocked if staff can't pull it. I'm sure that I'm that data. Yeah. Yeah. So when you go in the portal, you can do a filter. And then when you filter, you can filter for temporary residents and we can let up. Right now, let's just agree on the number and move it forward tonight while. We keep going through and see this stuff and find out what the number is. So next. Next up is actually Councilman Mongo. I was going to answer the question we have. Okay. So we move on to Councilman Austin. That takes us some of my questions were answered. I just wanted to go back because I asked the question originally, what was the average lot size and and I get numbers on our went in and that were there was you gave me a 54% stuff. To figure out the answer to the first question. There hadn't. So the number was 54% of homes available in our women would be eligible for accessory dwelling units. Was that the answer is I got a 54% number. Oh, you said 87%. Was the councilman. Austin, thank you for your question. To clarify, you've asked, as the ordinance is presently proposed, how many. How many, what. Percentage of the cities are one and lots based solely on lot size. So not on anything else. Like law coverage or or floor area ratio would be eligible. For an 80 you and that would be 87%. That would be based on a 4800. Square foot lot size. And so what we're trying to figure out is what would be the eligibility under 5200? And the. Number for the 52 is is. Roughly. The numbers that we have here are very general, because what. We did is in our data mining, we mined it for. Each we took out. We didn't consider all the properties in the city. We considered the properties that had. One unit on it because you have to have one existing unit to be eligible. So it's not the entire universe of. Lots, but we have. A total of looks like. Roughly just around. 30%, just over 30%, and that's. Very rough. So then I'll. Just just say that, that I'm I'm challenged with the direction we're going in right now because this started out and I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Mongo, who originally brought this forward as a as a solution to our housing crisis, not only in the city and in response to state legislation. Yes, correct. 30 excluding we we have, I think of a responsibility as a city to to help solve this this crisis as well. I don't know. We're looking at other other avenues. We're studying our land use element. You know, housing is going to be a key issue of discussion not only tonight, but for many years to come. And let's just keep in mind that this is a this is a Tuesday night. This is a recommendation that is coming from staff. There's been a lot of dialog. I think there is a will here to to get somewhere. But I don't I don't want to get to the point where we're not we're restricting our ability and restricting our residents ability to to help their family members with housing. Right. To to restrict our ability to to truly start providing answers to the the issues of homelessness. Right. And let's keep in mind with the intent of these accessory dwelling units. Are those keep in mind the intent of the state legislation. We get to the point where we're just trying to restrict it down so that it doesn't fit in everybody's backyard or or next door neighbor. And that's not going to that's not going to really fly with, I think, the intent of the legislation and or what we have asked staff to come back and study. So I just want to keep keep that in mind as well. And so so I appreciate that I was a person who in this first past of the state, I brought this to council to say, let's get our arms around this and see where we are. I definitely feel that. But what I'm feeling is a considerable hesitation on too many open items and questions. So there are residences, single family residences throughout our city that have already. And I don't want to jump in front of Councilmember Super last question. Six people living in a single family residence that is a two bedroom. And we have, like you mentioned, the nonconforming and an opportunity to get these properties in income from income to conform would be ideal. And this is a huge shift and a huge change during a time that is uncertain. We don't have a current approved area. We we don't have a current general plan. We don't have any of these things. And so for me, I'm happy to say bring it back as it is in January or February, when we've had time to nail down all the other components of our city, and we've had additional healthy dialog , but we're not there yet. So I still don't know if you have the single family residence on the front and you add an accessory dwelling unit. What is the maximum occupancy of people living on this property? I don't actually know. But I think I still have the floor. Though. Like you're asking me. I do want to ask a question of staff on this. This law has already gone into effect. Is that correct? That's correct. And if someone today wants to build an accessory dwelling unit, can they do it? Yes. Until the city adopts its own local ordinance, the more the more the state regulations are applied. So right now, the the exercise we are going under is to to to to actually get some local control. That's about the item six. But pushing it out will limits our our ability to. Absolutely. I get that. I will. Again, I want to get back to the intent. Well, I appreciate that. And I'll I'll wait till my turn again. Let's go let's go through the rest of the those folks that are cued up. So I come from a soprano. Thank you. Just one question and one follow up. And that councilmember, Mongo, just touched on it. So on the ADU, is there a limitation on the number of residents to occupy the ADA? That's a really good question. And essentially. The zoning. Regulations and anything that we're doing here will not speak specifically to the occupancy of the unit. And again, I'm going to specify this very generally in the city. Attorney can weigh in. But cities are very specifically limited. From. Regulating occupancy by. The the the health and safety code and. Court case after court case. Has resulted in city's. Attempts to regulate occupancy. By. Being declared null and void because the state has a compelling interest. And again, I'm not speaking from our perspective, but just how the state articulates this issue. The state's compelling issue is that people have the opportunity. For housing and they. Are. Typically less concerned with the quality of the. Housing than the fact that there they are and do have the opportunity to be housed. So the courts have repeatedly thrown out cases where the cities have attempted to limit occupancy. So we. Have through the zoning. Code, we have absolutely no control over how many people live in a unit. Okay. So that's the first part of the the question. The second part, before I get to that, I just want to commend Councilmember Austin that, yes, we do need to get back to the intent. And I just want to explore the unintended consequences, because we have a duty to the public, I think, to explain what could possibly happen here. So in addition to no controls on the number of folks living in the ADU, a scenario might be that you have a three bedroom residence saying single person occupancy who built the Adu, moves into the Adu and then rents out the three bedrooms. And that's what we've found to accommodate like student housing, whatnot. I guess that's not a question, it's just a statement of reality. So thank you for your time. A Council council member. So with all of these, I recognize that 30% is a small amount, but I think that it is still a large enough amount to see a good test case. So I may ask my colleagues to stand with Councilmember Price and myself. And I see Councilmember Pearce is the second door on the motion and support the 5200 square feet as a phase one and to get a report back from the development services in a year of the number of permits polled and locations and all of that. So we can see where we are. And by then, hopefully we can have seen how many cases where individuals who are non-conforming and became conforming and what the health of the city was and what great things it turned around. Or we can see that if in six months we have to bring it back because there's too many requests that don't meet the requirements because 5200 is too great. We can see it at that time, but I'm going to stand with 5200. I think 30% is a great test case and I'm confident that it's a step in the right direction. Face me, Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. It's been a good, healthy debate. I didn't think this item was going to go so long tonight. So I. I want to say, I think where we started, 5200 square feet. A thousand square feet, we've we've come back a lot and that should be acknowledged. So we had almost unanimous support here for limiting from a thousand down to 800. That's a good step in the right direction. Almost unanimous support from public comment on that. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think we have clarity in terms of our exposure while we don't have an ordinance and that it's in our interest to speed it up. I get that as well. The one place that I do have some rub and I'm going to appeal to the maker of the motion and the maker of the friendlies and see if we can not go into a political up or down on this. I think people want to get to the right place. Going from staff rec staff's recommendation of 78% down to 30% is a big 87% excuse me, down to 30%. That is a big difference. And I feel and I know that certain areas of town do have a lot smaller, lot sizes. Some have larger, lot sizes, and it will completely exclude certain areas of town, which wouldn't be a good sample for a pilot. So I'm going to propose for the amendment that we meet in the middle at 5000. I'm going to ask before I offer it, I'm going to ask staff to tell me what that does in terms of between 30 and 87%. Where does that where do we land with 5000? I'd like to first just clarify that when the when councilman Councilwoman Mongo ask about the the the number of units that were the. 5200 square feet, the response of 30% was that that is the number that is the 30% loss that we have, 30% that are 5200, which means that above that number we have approximately 70%. So I just want to make sure that. That is clear. So there will be. 70% of the city's housing stock that will be eligible to have a second unit on it. That's very, very different. That's not what I heard. So can I get clarification? Get some clarification? You're saying that if we go to 50, 200 square feet, we have about 70% of the city that would be eligible still. Again, that's a very rough estimate. I'm going to say 65 to 70%. That's. Thank you, sir. Last May. Richardson, you have the floor. Thank you. That's a big difference, I think. I think I'm okay with it. I'm okay with going with 52. Thank you. I thought the number looks surprising considering your support. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Pierce. I think my my questions were answered on the percentage. I think staying at around 70% is a good test case. I think coming back down the road and looking at what's being effective, what's working. If we need to make adjustments after land use element and everything else, I think it's a smart move. So I appreciate the good conversation back here on how we craft good policy. So thank you. And Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I appreciate the discussion and the offers by everyone to try to work a solution that's that's acceptable to all of us. What I don't want to do and I and I hope we can move forward on this tonight and get the ball rolling and move into the next step is to just kick the can down the road, because this is a reality. This is a reality that we as a as a result of a state mandate, have to deal with. And I don't want us to get into a situation where we're saying, you know, well, let's study it more. I think we've mitigated it to a place that appeases our residents that staff can live with and that we feel still provides a sufficient housing supply. I have to say I would not have been okay with the 30%. So I'm glad that that was that was clarified because the whole point of this is to provide opportunities to have additional housing. And if there were 30%, it really wouldn't do that. So I asked my colleagues to move forward on this and let's let's get this into motion so that staff can incorporate these amendments with the city attorney's office and give us an ordinance that we can work with. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Excellent comments. There's a motion in a second which is repeated by the city attorney. Please cast your votes. It's good and it's. Adapted to the work. We just have to do the findings. Is Andrews. Motion carries. Great, unanimous. Thank you very much. I think that was a very good discussion. And I want to thank thank everybody. We are just finished our three long hearings and now we go to the regular agenda of the city council. First item up will be the item that was pulled from the consent calendar. So that'll be that's item number four was pulled by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilman Gonzales.