Recommendation to determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions in 15300.2 apply, and that it is further exempt pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts (CE20-090); Declare ordinance amending Title 21, Zoning Regulations (Zoning Code), of the Long Beach Municipal Code to add Chapter 21.61 (Maintenance of Low Income Housing in the Coastal Zone) to limit exceptions to the requirements to replace affordable units and to increase the in-lieu fees for Coastal Zone areas of Long Beach, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading; and
Okay. And now we're doing item hearing 13, please. Item 13 is reported from development services. Recommendation to determine that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA declared ordinance, amending the zoning code to add maintenance of low income housing in the coastal zone. Read the first time and lead over. To the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and Adobe resolution authorizing to submit amendments to the Coastal Commission districts one, two and three. Great customers in the house. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to start off by mentioning how grateful I am to be able to hear these two these items. I think it's very important that we address the issue of affordable housing. With this in mind, I would like to offer a motion for staff to bring this item back in 90 days to ensure that it is consistent with our city, with our inclusionary housing, and not net loss policies that we just discussed. So I would like to. To make that motion. Okay. And I have a second by Councilman Price. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I don't think we did this already, but I wanted to hear the staff report, if there is one. I know we have a long meeting, but it's kind of an important item. So I was wondering if we could just do a quick staff report. Mr. MODICA I'd like to introduce planning manager Patricia Defender for, for this a brief staff presentation on this item. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Patricia Defender. This is a presentation on the Zoning Code amendment to amend the ACT ordinance. Just some background on this ordinance. The state legislature adopted no act in 1981. It requires replacement of affordable housing demolished in the coastal zone. It allows payment of an in lieu fee as an alternative to providing the housing. In 1988, the city adopted a local No Act ordinance and established the in lieu fee schedule that exists on the books today. The city's adopted housing element requires an update to the MOT Act in lieu fee to bring it up to date. Since 2014, no affordable housing demolition has triggered collection of the Marlowe Act in lieu fee. The Mello Act in lieu fee schedule has not been updated since the since it was established in 1988. The proposed ordinance would update the in lieu fees based on a market study of current development costs. The update removes an exemption for single family houses, duplexes and accessory dwelling units, as those are commonly development projects that are proposed. Demolition and redevelopment of those types of housing units. The Planning Commission did approve or recommend recommended approval of this ordinance on October 1st, 2020. This slide just shows you the in lieu fee schedule that will be proposed as a part of this project. You can see these numbers are substantial. If you're familiar with the existing fee schedule, these are substantial increases in the fees, more commensurate with what it would actually cost to provide the units. There is public outreach done on this ordinance in the form of the planning hearing, planning commission, hearing and publication in the press, telegram and link LV email blast. This is the environmental clearance on this is. Exempt from secure. Consistent with Class five exemption. And finally, the recommendations on this is to receive the supporting documentation to the record and conclude the public hearing and determine that the project is categorically exempt from having to declare an ordinance amending Title 21 Zoning Regulations of the Code Chapter 2161 to limit exceptions to the requirements to replace affordable units and to modify the in lieu fees for the coastal zone. And finally, to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Development Services to submit amendments to the Zoning Code to the Coastal Commission for review, approval and Certification. That concludes the staff report and we are here to answer any questions that you might have. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just the one question that I had is I know we're adjusting the fees. So if we adjust the fees, are we making sure that our figures are consistent with other coastal communities in the region? Well, Councilmember, we're required under law to make our fees based on development and rents here in Long Beach. So there's two different ways of thinking about it. These increases are order of magnitude, huge increases from the status quo. And as Patricia explained, this is not these fees have not come into play one way or another since 2014 and are anticipated to come into play. But to keep the incentive to not demolish these fees do need to be as high as is legally justified. But they are lower than some other coastal communities. So property values are higher in Newport Beach, for example, than they are in Long Beach. So you can't compare the two and an apples to apples sort of way because the next study is based on Long Beach properties and Long Beach rents and not those in other cities. Each city in California is required if they have a miller ordinance to update their fees based on their local circumstance. Okay. I appreciate that. That's helps a lot. Thank you very much. I have no additional questions, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Allen, I think. Did you Q back up? Yeah, I did. Yeah. I just wanted to say one thing. I just just in my opinion, this I think this piece requires further discussion and analysis, and I would be open to postponing tonight's discussion until February. As it stands now, this could be strengthened and the number of ways and a number of ways keep including how the and low fees are used where affordable housing units can be replaced and their construction timelines. Overall, I would like to see this legislation mirror and follow our inclusionary housing ordinance more closely. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me go back to I have a motion in a second by councilman in the House and Councilwoman Price. Is your public comment on this? Yes. Sir. Mr. Mayor, it's Mike May. I would understand the motion a little bit better is the motion to put the entire matter over for nine days so that it can be consistent with the inclusionary zoning ordinance? Or is the motion to pass the ordinance tonight and bring back a report in 90 days? Regarding the consistency with the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Councilman's in the. House. Thank you. I mike again. I think that the first one is the correct one. So I'm hoping that we can come back in in 90 days or less so that we can we can make it stronger then and be able to have some concerted instances across the board. Please. And thank you for making that clear, because I wanted to make that clear that that was the motion on the floor. Great. Thank you so much. It's good. A public comment, please. Our first speakers also tongue. Hi. Good evening. Mayor and council members. Again. This is Alyssa Tung with Long Beach Forward. Thank you for this discussion thus far. It is absolutely true that the Mello ordinance is a really critical anti displacement policy. However, it needs a lot of work to be consistent and conforming with the. Inclusionary housing and no net loss. Ordinances. So specifically, there are several points to change. Number one, replacement determination, replacement housing obligation should be. Determined by. Looking at both the rent and income levels of tenants, not just the rent. We have to look at both rent and income level number two, onsite and new units. So consistent with the inclusionary ordinance, we need the affordable housing obligations to be met by providing units on site or paying an in lieu fee. So off site units should not be allowed, nor should rehab or subsidy of existing units. In regards to the fee. Again, consistent with the inclusionary. Ordinance. The in lieu fees must be set at the economic equivalent of providing the units on site and tied to an objective annual index. The replacement units should be replaced at the same or lower affordability level that they are replacing. So, for instance, a unit that's occupied by or affordable to a very low income household should be replaced by a very low income unit. Like for like. One for one. Not like a moderate income unit. And finally, as we mentioned multiple times with the inclusionary ordinance, the affordability covenant should be the life of the project. Or in perpetuity. L.A. County recently did this in inclusionary housing. We must do this for consistency and conformity with inclusionary housing so that we can meet the most extraordinary. Housing needs of. Our most vulnerable neighbors. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Your next speaker is Jordan Wynne. You have the other remote. Hi there. This is Jordan Wynn speaking on behalf of everyone in Long Beach. I want to echo what my colleagues have previously shared regarding the Mello Act. We want to make sure that the Melo Act conforms with the inclusionary housing ordinance within our city and that it also conforms with other good policy that has been established. Across the region. As was mentioned earlier, when it comes to in place replacement housing obligations, we must be looking at both rent and income levels. It is important that we are paying attention to the income classifications in addition to just what is reported by landlords as it is currently constructed, it conflicts with SB 330, the city's proposed no net loss ordinance and density bonus law, all of which consider income already within their factors. On the best practice used by the city of L.A. and the County of L.A. is that the Housing Department in the city would conduct rent income surveys to make affordability determinations for replacing replacement housing obligations. We also want to make sure that we are providing affordable units on site or paying an in lieu fee, making sure that offsite construction of affordable units is not allowed, and that in lieu fees are set of the economic equivalent of providing the affordable units on site. All of tonight's points where it comes to the Mello Act are meant to align with inclusionary housing, no net loss, which are obviously major milestones in our city's housing policies. We need to continue to do strong work and do as much as we can to meet the obligations set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. There are over 11,000 more units of affordable housing that need to be constructed, and by strengthening the Mello Act, you can help pave that way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Norberto Lopez. Hello once again, city council mayor. And just once again, just echoing what some of my colleagues have said, we want this Mello Act policy to be reflective of the inclusionary housing policy. And we want to make sure that, you know, the new fees are reflective as well. You know, no more no more cut outs or, you know, no more special privileges to anybody. Let's ramp up our production on affordable housing units and let's preserve the ones that we already have. We can no longer continue to lose residents regardless of where they're located. I understand that. Well, at the Olympics, they're coming. And that's also going to bring in new development. And we have to ensure that these new developments, as they come to the city, they provide the affordable housing units that are going to be mandated by these policies, and they've done right. We will be increasing our affordability, housing stock and taking away units, which is currently the situation. And so thank you so much for your time and I hope that we can get this right and come back to it. Thank you. Your next speaker is Suzanne Brown. Good evening. My name is Suzanne Brown, and I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid. Foundation of Los Angeles in our Long Beach office. We applaud the city's effort to update its smell ordinance. But we are concerned, as you've heard from other speakers and council members. That the update is not aligned with the inclusionary housing and no net loss ordinances. I want to thank. The council members who have acknowledged this and been open to continuing this so. That we can get it right. We are requesting the City Council to direct staff to revise. And align the Mello ordinance. So that it is consistent with the land use principles. That we've been working on in the inclusionary housing and no net loss. Ordinances for. Years. In particular, we request that. The Mello. Ordinance be revised in five ways. First, replacement housing determinations need to consider more than just rent levels. Rent levels do not capture who's living in a unit. Two incomes should also be considered. If for some reason that is. Not something the city can do. At a minimum, the city should use the process. Included in its no net loss. Ordinance, which is based on state density bonus law that lays out a process for making determinations of. Affordable units. Second, I say construction of affordable units should not be allowed. Third, providing affordable units through the rehabilitation or subsidy of existing. Market. Rate units should not be permitted because this does not add to our housing stock. Fourth, affordable units should be replaced in a like for like manner, which means they should be replaced at the same. Or lower affordability levels. And fifth. Affordability covenants. Again for this should be set for the life of the project or in perpetuity to prevent expiring affordable units and displacement of low income tenants. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We urge you to bring this ordinance back as soon as possible with these revisions. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Can you guys hear me? Now we can. Okay. Thank you. Work has been concluded. So we will go back now. We have the motion and the second on the floor. So let's go ahead to a roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Sunday has. Hired. Councilwoman Allen. I answer? Woman Price. Councilwoman Price. Councilman Sabina. All right. Councilwoman Mango. Prices. And I think you count on having a woman mango. Councilwoman Sarah. I Council member Tauranga. I. And Simon Austin. Uh. Vice Mayor Richardson, I motion carries. On bongos, and I. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to be doing item number. 27.