Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.66 relating to an Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
Thank you very much. Let's begin hearing it in 13. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and determine that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Declare ordinance amending the zoning code or related to unpermitted dwelling unit amnesty program. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting of City Council for final reading and adopt a resolution to submit amendments to the Coastal Commission citywide. Turn this over to staff. Good afternoon, Mayor. I'd like to introduce the Development. Services new planning manager, Patricia Defender, and she. Will give some overview, comments and introduce the staff making this presentation. Good evening, Mayor and council members. Hello and happy New Year. This is Patricia Devendorf here. I'm actually going to be giving this presentation, so I'll go ahead and start. This item is a code amendment to introduce an ordinance that would create a pathway for legalization of existing, unpermitted dwelling units. This this ordinance creates a pathway that doesn't exist currently, but only in a very limited circumstance. And it's a way to preserve existing housing units and preserve existing housing stock. Similar other cities have similar ordinances. Some of the cities that have a similar have adopted a similar ordinance recently include Los Angeles, West Hollywood and San Francisco. A couple of those cities have had them for some time. The proposed program implements previous policy direction that was adopted by the City Council, and I'll talk a little bit more about that. The program will help the city meet its 26,000 unit regional housing need assessment requirement, which is through the year 2029 and will be part of the upcoming housing element that the city is working on currently. The Planning Commission did hear this item back in September of last year and did recommend approval that the City Council approve this item. So some of the goals, some of the policies that have already been adopted that this ordinance helps implement are the Everyone Home recommendation to expand the number of rent stabilized units. And it also implements policy 1.1 of the revenue tools and incentives for the production of Affordable and Workforce Housing Study, which is to encourage the preservation of existing housing stock. One of the benefits to the city of this ordinance will be that it will ensure that through the legalization process, that the units are brought up to building code and safety standards and just ensure that we have safe and habitable units. So currently I mentioned there is a very limited provision of the zoning code that allows through an independent zoning administrator process legalization of such existing units. They have to have been built prior to 1964. This is does it really provide a very big kind of opportunity to legalize, again, units that already exist that were perhaps carved out of existing spaces within multi-family buildings? The proposed ordinance would allow for these units to be legalized through a ministerial site plan review process. It would allow appeals, but only by the applicant to the Planning Commission. Some of the particulars of this ordinance is that it targets those units that cannot qualify for legalization through the accessory dwelling unit regulations. So there's a pathway for the garage conversions in those kinds of units. But this is targeting a group of units that would not qualify through those regulations. These would be eligible in most any zone other than heavy industrial zones. The date of occupancy you have to the applicant would have to prove that the residence was in occupied prior to December 31st of 2016. So the idea is these are existing and it's not a pathway to create new units. One of the other benefits to the city is that there's a requirement to have an affordable affordability covenant for a period of ten years. So an applicant who seeks to legalize such units would have to record a covenant on the property, retaining that property for a period of ten years for income levels of moderate income or below. If it's if the unit is occupied by someone of a lower income level and it effectively waives zoning requirements of it waives requirements of the zoning code like density limitations, parking, other such standards. It does not wave, of course, building code, fire life safety standards. So just a quick overview. There was a public outreach conducted on this consisted of a study session with the Planning Commission and it was composed in some outreach that was done on the housing element update. And we did the usual and required notification for hearings before the Council. Some of the kinds of comments that were received were just largely inquiries about the ordinance in general and what it was attempting to do. There were some concerns expressed about that. This ordinance would encourage illegal construction of units, which I addressed previously, and just concerns about ensuring safety of the units and that the rent restrictions are adhered to. So with that, the environmental this project is or the ordinance is exempt from secure and basically the recommendation is to declare the ordinance and establish this or adopt this ordinance and the resolution that would allow the director to refer this to the Coastal Commission for review and approval in the at the appropriate time. Thank you. That concludes the staff report. I am happy to answer any questions. Is there any public comments for the hearing? Yes. Our first speaker is Jim Cook. Hello? Yes, please begin. Hello. Yes. I guess I'm coming into this pretty late since the ordinance is already written. But I see a lot of hurdles that a lot of people that would be interested in this probably will not be able to. Comply or get involved. Because it doesn't seem to address the fact that most of the people that. Like. Fixed income seniors that. Might have a room or something that they did in a while ago, they need that. Income to pay taxes or insurance or whatever. It seems that adhering to law. More than to have. Flexibility. For humans, and. I would encourage amendments that. Create. Easy to obtain variances. The big developers got massive variances downtown. Let's have some for the humans. I mean, the people. No sense, say one, that some code infractions could be. As small as not being. Far enough from a law with a toilet or shower or too small. Those are things that should be overlooked so. That people can. Maintain their businesses. And. People have access to. Non-Corporate. Rentals because people are going to have to get out of the business. Of renting. Rooms because people aren't paying and we can't afford to carry people that don't pay. That's part of the problem, of course, from COVID, but also long term. When things stabilize, people need. Variances. And not more. And more hoops because it costs money to tear out things and put them back. For instance, they might want to, but as long as it's safe. And any kind. Of. Variances go into maybe a written statement on the sale of the house. Another stumbling block might. Be ten years. That's a long time for an elderly person to commit to a covenant. So good luck with that. I hope we can get something together. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the sun. Thank you. Let me go and go through the council councilman's and house. Thank you, Mayor. I actually want to make a motion to. To set this. Perfect. I see a second that. A second by Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Okay. Did they have to have any comment? Yes. I actually went, first of all. Thank you, Patricia. Congratulations and welcome. I look forward to working with you. I wanted to say thank you to the staff for working hard on this. I think that this is this is exactly what is needed at the time. And I think that anything any obligation we have to improve our housing stock is a great thing for our city. I know that this report has been a long time coming and that it has that lately, as has caught up speed. So I'm really excited about that. I also want to say that I know that when talking to staff, I did ask a couple questions on this beforehand. And one of the things that I was concerned about is making sure that that we make it. That we make it not a tough process for this to for everybody to be able to come up to code. I think that that's very important, especially for those that might have financial constraints. I think that that definitely is important. But I do think having this and providing an avenue or a way for those who are already existing units that that could become part of their property legally is a great opportunity. So thank you again for everything and I'm very happy to be able to support this. So I just look forward to to this coming this coming before us he on council TV and I hope that my colleagues will support this as well. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Allen, please. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, want to thank the staff for putting this together. And I do believe like councilmen, member as and has, that this is an opportunity to keep housing units on the market that are currently being occupied. And this is going to be especially critical during a housing crisis. And also, I like the fact that the program the program will offer a clear pathway to bring units into the safe. And I have a will condition and also bringing the dwellings up to code, which is going to be really important. I do also have some questions and I think what I'm going to do here is just I'll just ask them. You can just ask all three and then if you if you can answer those. So my first question is how do we work with what the owners whose units are not up to code and they may have challenges bringing the dwellings up to code. If they join the program. And also, I want to also understand how do we ensure that landlords are in compliance with the affordability cabinet? And also my last question is what happens to a current tenant if they do not qualify for the affordability element, like if they're planning on staying there five, six, seven, eight more years. So if you could answer those for me, I would appreciate it. I'd be happy to. Councilmember And thank you. Councilmember Sanders. So the first question about how to work with the owners, so one of the things that staff is working on in conjunction with other bureaus in the Development Services Department is an advisory bulletin that will guide applicants and help them understand how to go through the process and what to expect in the process. So one of those features is likely to be a a, you know, an income. They will be encouraged to retain a third party in inspection. So contractors, architects, engineering firms can be hired to perform an inspection and issue an inspection report, essentially, that tells people what repairs will be needed in order to make the unit up to code and what that cost will be. It's at that point, this whole program is also a voluntary program. I think it's important to understand that. But at that point, once they have that in hand, it's really up to the owner to decide whether they want to take the next step and come to the city. But that helps the city kind of safeguard, you know, the any its position in terms of knowing about a unit. And then also it helps the applicant know what they're going to be in for in terms of process and expense before actually coming to the city. As far as ensuring compliance through that would happen, obviously through the process, the formal process of legalizing the unit, it's at that time that the applicant will have to get a building permit and then ensure that the the unit will meet building code standards. And then as far as if a current tenant is not of a moderate or lower income to the ordinance is written in such a way that there would have to be a covenant and recorded on the property that would essentially defer that tenure for affordability restriction period until a time when a tenant is in the unit that that does meet the affordable that is of a lower moderate or lower income. I hope that answers that your questions. Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Next up is council member Ringo Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank staff and customers in then home for bringing this forward. I was bringing it to the questions that I had with several brought up my path from reality and spread to some of the conditions. That are. Put out there in regards to these dwellings. As you probably know, sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness and permission. And so my concerns would be in terms of some of these dwellings that already exist, that might not be qualified to bid under this program. So I was wondering what the the safeguards were in there, but I think they were somewhat addressed by the questions that Councilmember Allardice. So I'm good with it and supportive of it. However, I'm just a little leery about the some individuals who would have again, rather asked for forgiveness and permission. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongeau. Thank you. I had a couple of additional questions on slide four. It talked about a process through the Planning Commission. So I think that at least in my briefing, we talked about they'd fill out a form. They would have had an independent inspection from a private inspector that they would provide when submitting to the department. What is a step that it goes to? Yeah, so that's correct. This is a staff level approval. This is Christopher Kuntz, Deputy Director. But because it is a staff level decision, we need to provide the applicant due process if they disagree with the decision that's made by staff. So the applicant only has the ability to appeal, for example, a denial to the Planning Commission. That's the only role that the Planning Commission has on this process. Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was an easy process that didn't require the Planning Commission's approval, because I thought I understood in our briefing that it was an administrative or an administrative change, so that that's perfect. What if the unit is in a historical district? This is Patricia Defender for. I think the same rules would apply. I mean, these are, you know, existing units already. So presumably whatever construction happened has happened and happened quite some time ago. So it would be treated similar to other, you know, examples that would come that would come before the city because it wouldn't be wouldn't involve any new construction. It would be construction that already occurred. So it would not require any additional hurdles for a unit that already exists in a historical district. Correct. Correct. Excellent. And then my last question was on Slide five, which Councilman Allen kind of touched upon, which was the affordability covenant. So it's based on the tenant at the time and not on the amount charged for rent, correct? It is. It is based on the income of the tenant at the time. But a moderate unit is is defined as a rent that is affordable to a person of moderate income. So there's a rent level and there's an income level. And that's how you determine what the income level of that person is and what the rent should be. So if, for example, you had a zip code 9081. Renovate 136 district and bring to the housing standard. The the in the. I'm sorry I'm tongue tied. The rent that would be deemed affordable for low income in that area is let's say, 1300 a month if the rent being charged is 1000 a month. But the renter is. It's not low income. Then the years that that unit is at a low rent would not qualify. I just wanted to clarify. Is that accurate? That is correct, yes. Okay. However, if the current renter is paying 1500 a month, but they are low income, then. The unit would qualify because a low income renter is there? Or would the tenant then need to reduce the rent to the affordability standard through the Housing Authority matrix? So there's some items go in the ordinance and some items are implementation regulations that are done at the state level. It's hard to answer that question. So conceivably, what would happen is the owner would know that situation going in and if they chose to apply to the city to legalize the unit, once they recorded the covenant, they would need to adjust the rents to the amounts required under the affordability covenant. We would work with them such that if it's encumbered by some kind of a lease arrangement that expires on a specific date, the rent would not change until that specific date because I don't think the city can abrogate the lease. Right. But at some point in time, they would be receiving the benefit of legalization. So the cost to that or the responsibility of that is to adhere to the conditions of the covenant which would occur at that future date. Great. Okay. That answers my questions and I am in support of the item. Thank you. Thank you. My next step is. Who is the vice mayor? Richardson and then Councilwoman Sorrell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this program is a good, meaningful approach to try to take a problem and turn it into an opportunity. And so to be clear with residents, I think what what should be noted that if you're concerned about this program being used or abused, that sort of go around or avoid quality of life considerations. Two points should be highlight, highlight. So one, this is really for most of these units are already built out, occupied and are substandard. They're not safe. So this is not amnesty for health and building code. This this actually brings these units out of the shadows and makes them safe. And we have, you know, our 80 ordinance did that for illegally for the garage and things like that. This is for everything else. And I think that's a good distinction for people to know multifamily units like that. This creates the pathway for these substandard units that are commonly already occupied for them to come out of the shadows and become stable and actually count toward our. And for those reasons, I think it's a great program and it has my support. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Good evening. I want to thank Patricia for the presentation and staff for their hard work on this. And I think that this comes at a great time, as my colleagues have shared and in a time when affordable housing is in demand. And I think it's also a great example of efforts to preserve existing affordable housing. And I and I am curious, though, I know that we've heard about ways to make it easier, but I'm also curious about hearing how do we make it as punitive as possible, knowing that this is a voluntary program. I'm just wondering if my question is how what would be the incentive for owners to come out to apply for this? Councilmember. This is Patricia. So I one of the incentives really, as we discussed, is the fact that currently these units don't have they're not they don't have a valid building permit or a certificate of occupancy. So if a property owner owns a and a unit apartment building, but the certificate of occupancy actually says it's seven units, then they technically, you know, have to sell and that property is probably valued at the seven units versus the eight units. So this enables the property owner to kind of take full advantage of their, you know, of their asset in that way. How can you be sure that it's not a punitive approach if they do come out? It's harder is just knowing that they've been this program is in place for that much easier path. But how can we assure owners that there is protection in place so that there is an easy, a safe way to to come to compliance ? So, council member we tried to strike the balance between what what is as flexible as we can be while still protecting public safety. So we have to have our building code provisions in there because we don't want to legalize a unit that then has a fire or has some kind of life safety issue. So we've tried to structure as much flexibility as possible. But in addition, Petros had talked about before the applicant ever comes to the city and lodges their formal application, they're going to be required or encouraged to work with a contractor, architect or engineer to give them an estimate of what's going to be involved in this legalization process . And if that estimate, let's say it's $25,000 worth of work and they only have $5,000, they will then have the opportunity at that point to say, no, this is not going to be the year that I applied to the city. I might come back in two years. The city continues to not know of that particular unit and won't be taking enforcement action because we don't have the information regarding that unit. But the process has still been positive for the owner because now they know what's involved and maybe it is a possibility for them in a future year . The other piece that we haven't talked about here is we do find these units. We find them through the code enforcement process sometimes as a result of an unrelated inspection and sometimes as a result of a complaint. And then it is punitive because that is the way the current law reads. So our inspectors have no discretion other than to write the citation. The way to clear the citation is to vacate the unit and convert it to no longer be a unit anymore. That's not a good public policy outcome for anyone. That's not desirable for the city, for the owner or the tenant. So we do feel that one of the benefits of this program will be in those enforcement situations where we're already in an enforcement situation. This gives us a relief well, this gives the owner a way out, a way to legalize that unit that doesn't exist today . So there is going to be some process, there is some expense. We have to protect building safety. But at the same time, compared to the status quo, it's a it's a quite market improvement. And we think it'll be valuable. We think some owners will come in voluntarily, but we know it will be especially valuable when we're already in an enforcement situation and this gives them additional options. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And I'm in support of this item. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank my colleagues for some very good questions. Actually, I've been checking them off as they been as they were and asked by my colleagues. I was specifically interested in understanding the incentive for property owners to participate. I think the question was answered. I think, you know, that it actually adds value to the property, maybe more property taxes as well. But I'm also interested in the the impact of the decision on this particular item. Do we have any idea how many units or what what we will what we could potentially gain? I mean, how many of these units actually exist currently in the city? Do you have any any estimation whatsoever? Council members. This is Patricia. Defend her for that. We really don't know because, you know, these are units that are unpermitted. We did make an inquiry of the code enforcement group and we learned that there were 157 code enforcement cases where building permits were required to remedy the issue over the last eight months or so. But those represent many different kinds of code enforcement issues. So it's not very easy to extrapolate, like how many of these units would actually come forward. And it's likely the experience of the accessory dwelling unit regulations also has sort of proven that people don't come out necessarily right away and they they that there might be more people that are willing to come through the process after it's been in place for some time. And there's more certainty about the process. Thank you for for answering that question. And I would I would just say that that makes sense. I am certainly a supporter of this. We all are experiencing and have witnessed that. We know that in our districts that people are getting creative with housing and we have to understand the climate that we are dealing with, with the housing crisis. And so I think this is a this is a policy that that makes a lot of sense. And so it has my full support. Thank you. Next I go back to Councilwoman Mongo and then councilwoman in the house and then we'll go to a vote. Thank you. I really appreciated the comments from Councilman Sorrow and thought I might ask the staff when additional units are brought online by developers. There are funds available from the Housing Authority. Is there any possibility that there could be funds available to bring units up to code if necessary? As I believe a unit could already be up to code and they would just need to file a permit fee. Has the discussion taken place of how much it would cost to purchase assets from the city side, not the construction side, but the application fee? Those would be my two items. Councilmember taking them in reverse order. The application fee is cost recovery, so it won't be zero, but we're looking in the neighborhood of a couple hundred dollars, so we don't expect it to be prohibitive in terms of assistance there. There may be assistance available to some owners, but not to all owners. So with our CDBG and home programs, some of those dollars are geographically restricted. So there might be a building in Councilmember Sorrells district that could be eligible for housing rehabilitation. But an owner in your district may not necessarily be available for those same programs. So I can tell you that there are funds available through our federal housing dollars. We do today support rehabilitation of existing housing, but it depends on a number of factors. So it be available to some building owners, but not necessarily to all. Excellent. I would just hope that we look for additional opportunities for that kind of funding because as the person who called in for public comment mentioned. There may be a person in my district or any other district that has a desirable unit that they would be willing to rent to a low income renter for ten years or longer. And that would be an ideal place for them to live and an ideal place to add the unit. And there's often criticism that units are not added in these parts of town. So we might want to look at that, especially because, as the caller mentioned, a lot of the individuals who own these units, especially in my district, may have once lived in them. And they have a single family house that had a back unit that they themselves may have lived in or their children. Now they live in senior care and that unit could be available to a low income person. So I look forward to also exploring funding opportunities that can help throughout the city because I know that the burden of additional housing cannot just lie in areas with CDBG funds. Thank you. And customers and they had. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to all of my colleagues for all of their questions and comments and support of this item. I think there are a lot of good things we brought up that made me question. Have a couple more questions for you. One, that one is definitely to to look for more funding or funding for those that don't have the means to be able to bring their unit up to code. And who actually would really like to do that? Because I do believe that there are a lot of people who have already these units in their buildings and would like to bring them up to code. And maybe it is financial restraint that's keeping them from this. But another thing that I was realizing is that when looking into affordable housing and the covenants, that most of the things that we have in place right now as the city I know we have, but some of the ones I've been looking at recently that have a covenant of like 50 years for affordable housing. So I was wondering, you know, I think that ten years that may be too little. So I wanted to to see if we could probably bring it up. I'm not saying 50 years, maybe that would be great, but I would at least try to double it. So I would like to see it, but I would like to add to the motion that we add make it for 20 years if possible. And also so with in. In the motion to. To try to. Seek funds that would allow those people with limited incomes to be able to do these upgrades and make their units legal. Councilwoman Zendejas, this is Mike Mayes from the race office. If part of. Your motion is to increase the. Affordability period from 10 to 20 years, we'd have to bring this back for a new first reading because that would be a significant change from the ordinance. Hmm. And I'm sure Christopher Patricia. Can wait here. I think. The the thought process on the ten years was they were trying to develop again, as Christopher and Patricia both mentioned, an incentive to get people to come. Forward and legalize. These units. And I think. If it were. Made 20, 40, 50. Years ago. Fewer and fewer people that would be willing to come forward. Sure. Council member it is council's prerogative. But as Mike mentioned, we're trying to design a program that incentivize people to bring these units out of the shadows. So the ten years was determined by us to be appropriate. Incentive wise counsel can consider a different number, but another option would be to try the ten, and we can come back in a year and tell you how many people participated in the program and make adjustments at that time. It is very different than the 50 year because in the 50 year scenario, typically the city is investing funds in those affordable housing projects and there are not funds contemplated to be contributed to these individual units that will be legalized. And on the funding side, we certainly can come back. That's part of our housing element discussion and our housing action plan discussion, which are on a little bit different track than this zoning code amendment. But we hear your comments loud and clear, and we share the goals not only of funding, but being able to have that funding access throughout the city. As Councilmember Mongo alluded to. So again, it's council's pleasure, but just want the full council to be aware of the downside to increasing the period of affordability could be that fewer applicants utilize the program. And unless applicants utilize the program, we don't achieve any level of affordability because we don't bring the units forward. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your comments. And that helps me sort out the thoughts in my mind and most definitely want this to be an incentive rather than a disincentive. And that's why this whole ordinance was proposed to be an incentive. But I do like the idea of coming back in a year so that we can see how it's going in it and if indeed it is being an incentive, I would really like that. So thank you again for clarifying that. And and we can we can if we could just add the funding source to the motion, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. We have now a motion in a second on the floor. Let's go ahead and take a roll call vote. I. I was. I'm too excited. All right. Council District one is an I. It's District two. Now I'm an AI. District three. AI District four. AI District five. Yeah. District five. I. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. District six. I'm District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries.