Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 21.15.966, 21.15.2290, 21.15.2795, 21.15.2810, 21.15.2985, 21.15.3095, Table 31-1, Table 32-1, Table 33-2, and Table 34-1; by adding Sections 21.15.1475, 21.15.2382, 21.15.2793, 21.45.153, 21.45.163, 21.51.278, 21.52.238, and 21.52.269.1; and by repealing Section 21.15.2475, all relating to interim housing, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
Refrain from doing so. We're going to go ahead and go into our first hearing and and then right into public comment. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record concluded the public hearing declared ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to interim housing. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Thank you. Go ahead. Read this overstep. Mara, I'd like to introduce the development services staff that will make this presentation. We have Oscar Orsi, Development Services Director, as well as Alejandro Sanchez Lopez for this presentation. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council. Alejandro, our project planner, will give you a brief presentation. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. The item before you today the citywide zoning code amendment to update the definitions, land use regulations and operating standards related to various forms of interim housing. This update seeks to address local, regional and statewide housing and homelessness crisis by expanding the zoning opportunities for various forms of interim housing. Update and add definitions for said housing forms and related services. And establish operating standards that are based on best practices for these uses. In doing so, it would bring the city into compliance with applicable policies, most notably SB two, which was adopted in 2007 and has specific zoning requirements for emergency shelters that the city does not currently meet. This update will make it easier to develop interim housing and related uses and broaden the opportunity sites for said uses in an equitable manner throughout the city. The next few slides will walk through each of the major changes proposed. This isn't. It's a different kind. Again. Staff You guys are putting up a different presentation on the screen right now. So can you please take this one off? So my city clerk is working on pulling that stuff off. Thank you. Okay. Moving along. First, the update will create a new definition for interim housing. Interim housing is an umbrella term that encompasses all uses involving temporary sleeping accommodations for people experiencing housing insecurity. These uses include emergency shelters, transitional housing rates, housing and safe parking sites. In a definition. In addition to the definition itself, the update will establish general operating standards for interim housing. These operating standards include a coordinated assessment system to connect residents to services and networks, along with security and lighting requirements for all sites. Next, the definition for emergency shelters will be amended to allow for kitchens and additional supporting amenities in shelters. Shelters will also be allowed as an accessory use in existing religious facilities and as a primary use in certain residential, industrial, commercial and institutional zones to address the dearth of site availability currently allowed. As a map here shows, current zoning regulations severely restrict where shelters are permitted in the city. The following map shows where Seltzers may be permitted either by write or with an entitlement. The hatching indicates an entitlement is required in that corresponding zone. Next, the definition for transitional housing will eliminate a minimum length of stay. Specify a target population and require there to be a link to supportive services. Land use regulations will also be updated to expand this housing to be allowed in the industrial and commercial zones shown on the map as well as pre permitted in an ancestor use and when incidental to a primary institutional use. Next, a new definition will be created for safe parking sites. Safe parking programs have become more common throughout the state. Different jurisdictions addressed the housing crisis at the local level. These sites are limited to properties outside of the right of way that are managed by an institutional or nonprofit organization to provide a safe place to park overnight for folks who are working towards gaining permanent housing. These sites help to address how to maintain public safety, provide services to people at risk of falling into cyclical homelessness, and prevent spillover effects into residential neighborhoods. Safe parking sites are proposed to be permitted in limited commercial, industrial and institutional zones as an accessory and as an accessory use in all zones only where all lots are owned and operated by the same entity. The update will also establish operating standards to minimize the impact these sites have and implement best practices. Next, the definition for supportive housing will be amended to specify the various populations that can be served by this use. Additionally, the land use regulations will be expanded to allow for more sites in certain industrial and commercial zones, as shown on the map. Next. Social Services. Social services facilities will have the definition updated to broaden the scope of applicable services, such as showers or storage facilities, Imani's for pets and meal services. These facilities will also be permitted in additional commercial zones. Finally, it is important to note that this proposal is not in conjunction with any one specific project, but merely a zoning change. In all zones where an interim housing use is allowed by. Right. Any project will still be required to submit for an administrative land use review. This review process maintains a level of staff oversight and an appeals process for any agreed parties, but it does also provide a reduced application cost and a streamlined process for applicants. As an example, the map on the right shows that Magnolia Industrial Group Business Improvement District area in the Purple outlined the majority of this area, which is hatch wood acquired and entitlement for an emergency shelter to be located there or any project in the areas in dark gray at the North and South ordinance would be required to go through the administrative land use review process. As a reminder, city staff conducted three public outreach events and two presentations to the Planning Commission. Public comment at the outreach events was generally supportive of the code changes. In addition to the public outreach notice of a public hearing was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on June 23rd of this year and notice of the proposed code amendment was distributed throughout the city. Link Lobby. Email Notification System. City Councilors before them. The public comments submitted to the city since a hearing notice of public. In conclusion, the Planning Commission's recommendations that the City Council accept the negative declaration for the project, approve the Interim Housing Zoning Code Amendment, and adopt a resolution to submit the Code Amendment to the California Coastal Commission. Thank you for your time. This includes staff presentation. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. I'm going to start with councilman's in Dallas. Thank you very much for this presentation. I know that it it is something very good that, you know, that we're doing this and I am supportive. Thank you. The second by Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you staff. I am really happy to see this come before us today. I think that the city, at least in my four years on the council, we consistently try to identify new locations. We consistently have conversations about where else in the district or in the city. We can put some of these transitional supportive housing and also safe parking. And so I was happy to see a lot of areas marked in the second district. I had one question. You mentioned that existing ones would still have to go through a review to be able to operate there. I just want to make sure that we're not and I think I know the answer, but we're not setting ourselves up to where like our transitional parking that we've already identified in those locations that going through this process would mean that they no longer could operate that transitional parking where we've already identified areas. No. Councilmember, this is Christopher Coons. To answer more precisely, existing uses that were approved by the city have existing rights to continue. I think that reference was made to there are operating standards associated with this package in front of council and we will be attempting to apply those operating standards to all entities, including those that already exist . So this is going to help us in terms of our community expectations and being able to to make sure the operations are run well. The other thing is we oftentimes see these entities grow or change and they subsequently come back to the city for various permits. In that case, these new regulations would apply to them. Wonderful. And I had a question about outreach. I knew about them at the Planning Commission. I have to say that it either on my end or I'm not sure what what slipped through, but I was not aware of the public meetings being had around this topic. So can you share with me how we did those meetings? I see. One was locally here near us at the Mark Twain Library. How were those notified and what was attendance like for those? Good evening. Councilwoman. This is Alexis Harpaz. A current planning officer at the. Three events. So the two open house meetings were advertised via the link L.B. as well as to stakeholders. And on our link l be notification. It's about 1500 people. That are. Subscribed to that and the attendance at both of the meetings was ranged between 20 and 25 people total. Yeah. I just. I really love this idea, and I wish that I saw more areas on the map that were open to that and so on. I guess my last question would be the consideration around putting these really only in the commercial zones and adjacent areas. Can you just speak to that before I give my wholehearted excitement support for this item? Yes, sir. Council Member So this is a legislative item and we feel that it correctly addresses an existing problem where the city is out of compliance with state law and city attorney is on the line, if you'd like to hear more about that. So I hear your comment. I think that staff was balancing input from stakeholders that, you know, some may have like your comment felt that that additional sites were needed. Other comments were received that what the city is proposing is too many sites or includes parts of town, that it's not included. So our goal was to expand the number of available sites to do so consistent with state law and federal guidance and to do something that was workable and an improvement against the status quo. We're going to evaluate these as part of our housing element and as part of our annual reports back to council. So if what we've come up with tonight is not sufficient, it would be within Council's discretion to add additional areas or make changes in the future. You have public comments in your packet. Some of those comments are positive. Some of them are negative. It's never a fun position, but oftentimes we know we found a sweet spot when not anyone is perfectly satisfied and everyone is only slightly dissatisfied. And we think that that's where we found ourselves with the regulations that are in front of the Council. I really appreciate that thoughtful comment and that I wholeheartedly support the fine. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I do have other council members. I have a comment, but I didn't see it. Is there any comments from anyone else, Madam Clerk, that we need to do from the public or any sort of appellant comment that has to happen? Or can I continue with the Council comments? There are three public comments for this item. If you'd like to continue with those. Well, are they are they connected to the actual hearing or are they just just public comments? No, they're connected to the actual hearing. Okay. Let me let me let me do let me do. No, I understand it. But I mean, is this members of the public or are these individuals that are that staff has been working on as part of the hearing that was. Members of the public? Okay. Okay, then let me finish with the councilwoman. I'll go to the members of the public. Perfect. So Councilman Richardson and Councilman Super now I'm fine. I cued up the second, but I've got to my comments. Thank you. The ultimate super or not. Thank you. I just had a question for staff. If you could walk us through the parking things and specifically the traffic circle area on the map that it shows, like a big red area. And if anything you can add to how this process will work, that would be helpful. Sure. So the safe parking sites, we do have at least one operating in the city today. And what we were trying to do was formalize the opportunity for that use. So the map on the slide, which does include some commercial sites around the traffic circle, as well as sites throughout the city, are just locations that the zoning would now allow for a safe parking use. There are no locations proposed at this moment and they would need to go through the appropriate process. And these typically are an accessory use, which means you have a primary use that could be a church most commonly, but might be a different type of use or social service use, even a retail use. And they allow folks that are living in their vehicle to safely park overnight. This is something that occurs without the benefit of regulation throughout the city today. And what we're trying to do is have it occur in safe locations with specific standards so that things like waste and noise are controlled. So you did note that the location within your district, but if you can see the slide, there are locations in every council district of the city. And what we're trying to accomplish is places for people who are living in their car to try to park overnight without being towed, but to do so in a safe manner, where there is a sponsor who is making sure that the location is clean and orderly and that folks, to the degree possible, are matched with social services. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't have anyone else on the council to do that. Mr. Clarke, can you do the public comment? First we have Janet West. Your time starts now. Okay. Um, I objected to this zoning update. The public was not informed on Housing First. State law, which requires admission of drug and alcohol users even if they refuse to get rehabilitative therapy services. The public was not informed that the target population and current ordinances will be eliminated for supportive housing. In fact, there was misleading information on that table and personnel did not include looking at AB 1763, passed in 2019, which includes major density and incentives for these housing developments. The public was not informed of the increased parking problems which which will result from these changing changes. The public was not informed that these developments are not restricted to Long Beach area residents. The public was not informed that a person may be designated as homeless solely based on their oral statement. That there's a possibility of them becoming homeless. The public was only given a vague, term, appropriate level of security with no indication of what that means. The public was not informed of how the neighborhood compatibility will be achieved with no required on site staff. If anything, that COVID 19 has taught us is that we should not be increasing density. These new ordinance will increase density, especially with the major increases to the density for low income housing. Supportive Service. Supportive housing is included in all the residential areas of the city. This will change our city and it will change it forever. And although I know the supportive housing requirements are, for them to be in all residential areas is a state law. Long Beach. Should not. Be increasing the likelihood of these developments being built. Thank you for your time. Thank your next speakers and control your time starts now. Good evening. And Cantrell. And my main objection to this is lack of notice. I don't receive the press telegram, as many do not also don't. And the only notice I am aware of was. Published in the Press Telegram on June 1st. I am very. Much agree that we need to get the homeless off the streets and into safe and sanitary conditions. But there was no time to read all the pros and cons on this item, and I urge you to lay it over till the public has been informed. Also carelessly attempted to sign in to speak and missed the 12:00 deadline because it's not published. So I would like to read. Her. Comments. She says there are many good things in the every home report, every one home report. And I'm pleased the city is moving out to work to work out the homeless issue. However, many residents in Long Beach do not know about this rezoning and do not realize the rezoning could result in a low barrier homeless facility. In. Close proximity to their neighborhoods and schools. Low barrier means the clientele are not obligated to commit to drug or alcohol rehab and the mentally ill who at times exhibit violent behavior, will be residing in these facilities. Only two public meetings were held on this back in January, which is inadequate public outreach on a serious topic that will change streets and neighborhoods. I doubt more than 25 people in the city know about the rezoning plans. Please delay moving forward with approving rezoning and request that town hall meetings be held in all districts to roll out the Everyone Home report and capture and integrate public input into these plans. I'm concerned that policy statements in the Everyone Home report are being implemented without a public vetting process. The maps shown in the staff report seem to identify locations, but there is no verbiage that makes these maps a governing document, and that is the conclusion of Chorus's report. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is to Africa. Your time starts now. Hello. Dave sugar on file? I'm speaking to you from outside City Hall, where I'm staring at a lot of confetti. Two quick points. Density does not mean overcrowding. And that's a very important thing in the middle of a global pandemic. We want people to be able to live. And live well and live safely. And we seem to do it just fine now, though, we're building more buildings. But second point, equity is not about keeping people. Right. I mean, even from people who got in the game, it's about picking the team that puts people in this socially antagonistic relationship, like being a perpetrator and the victim or mistaken identity or overgrowth. We're in the middle of a pandemic. We have a vested interest in not only compassionate. Servicing and the application thereof. But in continued public education will thank. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you for that. And there is no way I'm going to go and cause a hearing. There is no more council comment either. And we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote. Please call the Robert. District one. I. District two, i. District three. I. District Court. Right. District five. I. District six. II. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. Right. Motion carries. Thank you. We are moving on. Madam, quick, if you can facilitate the public comment. Period. Thank you.