Jun 11, 2024 Housing and Public Health Committee

ONE IS A RECOMMENDATION

[00:00:01]

[CALL TO ORDER]

[ROLL CALL]

I'LL MOVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND I'LL MAKE THE SECOND, UM, TO APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM?

[1. 24-53814 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Housing and Public Health Committee meeting of Tuesday, January 30, 2024.         Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]

I DON'T SEE THE SECOND.

SURE.

IS THAT AUSTIN? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SELECT FOR YOU.

SORRY.

OKAY.

IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM NOW.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE PLEASE.

MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU.

UH, MADAM CLERK, IF YOU COULD READ THE SECOND ITEM PLEASE.

ITEM TWO IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE A STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED UPDATES AND EXPANSION OF THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY.

THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

UM, GREAT.

I KNOW WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT ON THIS, SO I'M JUST GONNA DO SOME FRAMING COMMENTS, IF THAT'S OKAY.

DIRECTOR KOONS.

UM, AS OUR CITY AND OUR GREATER REGION, WE KNOW WE CONTINUE TO FACE CHALLENGES AROUND HOMELESSNESS

[2. 24-53815 Recommendation to receive and file a staff report on proposed updates and expansion of the City's inclusionary housing policy.         Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]

LOCALLY, WE'VE SEEN SOME DEGREE OF SUCCESS WITH OUR ACTIVE EFFORTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE DECREASE EVEN SLIGHT IN THE HOMELESSNESS IN THE RECENT REVEALED, IN THE RECENT POINT IN TIME COUNT RESULTS, WE MAINTAIN AND STANDBY A HOUSING FIRST MODEL, MEANING OUR GOALS SHOULD BE TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE, STABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.

WE HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE AND ONGOING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ZONING AND LAND USE WELL BEFORE 2018.

ACTUALLY, THERE'S EVEN ONE SCHEDULED FOR THIS WEEK TO DISCUSS DOWNTOWN AND SHORELINE VISION PLAN.

AND WE ALSO HELD ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN BIXBY OLDS LAST SUMMER ABOUT THE UP ZONE PLAN.

WHILE LONG BEACH IS CONSIDERED A PRO-HOUSING JURISDICTION, WE KNOW WE HAVE LOTS OF TOOLS IN PLACE TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING OF ALL INCOME LEVELS, BUT WE ALSO CONTINUE TO FACE HOUSING CHALLENGES, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE QUANTITY OF HOUSING AVAILABLE FOR OUR LARGE AND DIVERSE COMMUNITY.

THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND THIS COUNCIL HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY NEED TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION MOVING FORWARD.

AND THE PRESENTATIONS BEING SHARED TODAY ARE EXAMPLES OF MECHANISMS WE HAVE IN PLACE TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY AND AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING.

IDENTIFYING GAPS IN ACCESS IN OUR CITY'S MAPS AND IN THE TYPE OF HOUSING BEING BUILT WILL HELP US MOVE FORWARD AND SHAPE OUR APPROACH TO RESOLVING OUR CONTINUED HOUSING CONCERNS IN THE FUTURE.

ALSO, WE KNOW THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN HOUSING POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ON THE RISE, AND THESE PRESENTATIONS SERVE AS, UH, DOCUMENTED PUBLIC INFORMATION TO HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND FOR ALL INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS TO UNDERSTAND THE POLICY NEEDS OF THE CITY.

SIMILARLY, THESE HAVING THESE PRESENTATIONS AT COMMITTEE ALLOW FOR PUBLIC DISCOURSE BEFORE RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICIES ARE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL FOR THE VOTE.

AND WE THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND ESPECIALLY TO OUR STAFF WHO HAVE PUT THESE PRESENTATIONS TOGETHER.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING FROM YOU AND HEARING RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOW WE CONTINUE TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD.

AND FOR THAT, I'LL PASS IT OVER TO DIRECTOR KOONTZ.

UH, THANK YOU, UM, COMMITTEE CHAIR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO, UH, STEPHANIE HARPER IS GONNA WALK US THROUGH AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE, UM, SINCE WE WERE AT COUNCIL A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND WHERE WE'RE GOING IN TERMS OF OUR CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC AND THEN COMING BACK, UH, TO THE FULL COUNCIL, UH, LATER THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

SO WITH THAT, UH, TAKE IT AWAY, STEPHANIE.

GREAT.

THANK YOU, CHRISTOPHER.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

I'M GONNA START WITH A QUICK RECAP AND THEN I'LL GET INTO OUR MOST RECENT UPDATES.

SO LAST MONTH, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT WE REPORT BACK ON EXPANDING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CITYWIDE.

THE FOLLOWING WEEK WE BROUGHT AN UPDATE ON OUR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS.

I'LL WAIT JUST IN CASE.

WE NEED A MINUTE TO PULL THAT POWERPOINT BACK UP.

THANK YOU.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT IN THE PACK.

I WAS NOT QUITE PREPARED FOR THAT, BUT I COULD SEE WHAT I COULD PULL TOGETHER.

.

ALL RIGHT.

WHEW.

I GOT SAVED BY THE POWERPOINT.

YOU'LL NEED TO SEE MY DANCING.

SO ANYWAY, WE DID A PRESENTATION LAST MONTH.

DURING THOSE TWO MEETINGS, WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AN INTEREST IN POTENTIALLY UPDATING THE INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL UNITS TO ENCOMPASS A MIX OF INCOME LEVELS.

AND SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT OPTIONS FOR THAT TODAY.

AND THEN WE ALSO HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

[00:05:01]

AND SO I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT NEXT STEPS AND OUR OUTREACH PLAN.

MY APOLOGIES, THEY SEEM TO BE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE BACK.

OKAY, SO FIRST QUICK, JUST A LITTLE BIT ON BACKGROUND.

UM, WE DID MORE DETAIL IN MAY, SO I'LL BE BRIEF HERE, BUT I DO WANNA NOTE THAT IT WAS, IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS TO DEVELOP OUR CURRENT POLICY THAT INCLUDED SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS WELL AS AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THAT WERE REPAIRED BY A CONSULTANT.

THE ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED THE AFFORDABILITY OPTIONS THAT COULD BE SUPPORTED WITHOUT HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDED BOTH SINGLE INCOME AND MIXED INCOME OPTIONS.

IN 2020, WE PRESENTED THOSE AFFORDABILITY OPTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I CAN KEEP GOING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SUPPOSED TO.

OKAY, I'M GONNA KEEP GOING.

UM, WE PRESENTED THOSE OPTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RENTAL PROJECTS.

WE SPECIFICALLY PRESENTED THREE OPTIONS.

ALL THREE OPTIONS THAT WE PRESENTED WERE MIXED INCOME OPTIONS, AND THE AFFORDABILITY MIXES FOR RENTAL PROJECTS INCLUDE VERY LOW INCOME, LOW INCOME, AND MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.

AND I DO WANNA NOTE AN IMPORTANT, AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO REMEMBER AS WE TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY UPDATING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONLY FOR RENTAL PROJECTS.

OWNERSHIP PROJECTS ARE ONLY SUPPORTABLE AT 10% OF TOTAL PROJECT UNITS AT THE MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLD LEVEL.

IN 2020, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL ADOPT A MIXED INCOME AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT.

THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT 12% OF TOTAL RENTAL PROJECT UNITS BE SET ASIDE, AND THE MIX THEY RECOMMENDED WAS A QUARTER OF THOSE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE FOR VERY LOW INCOME FAMILIES, A QUARTER AT THE LOW INCOME LEVEL AND HALF AT MODERATE INCOME.

HOWEVER, COUNSEL AT THAT TIME DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO FOCUS INCLUSIONARY UNITS FOR HOUSEHOLDS THAT NEEDED IT THE MOST.

AND SO THE POLICY THAT THEY ADOPTED, OUR CURRENT POLICY IS 11% OF RENTAL UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE ONLY TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

THEY WENT WITH A SINGLE INCOME OPTION.

A COUPLE NOTES ON CONTEXT THAT ARE IMPORTANT AS WE TALK ABOUT UPDATES TO THIS POLICY.

UM, THE FIRST IS A REMINDER THAT OUR CURRENT POLICY APPLIES ONLY TO NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH 10 OR MORE UNITS IN DOWNTOWN AND MIDTOWN.

THIS WAS DESIGNED TO BE THE FIRST PHASE OF THE POLICY WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED.

WE COMMITTED TO EXPANDING CITYWIDE DURING THE SECOND PHASE.

AND IN 2022, THE CITY FORMALLY MADE THAT COMMITMENT TO THE STATE TO EXPAND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AS PART OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT.

AND THAT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO HELP ADDRESS DOCUMENTED FAIR HOUSING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY, SUCH AS SEGREGATION.

AND THEN I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT HAS INCREASED SINCE THE POLICY WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN 2021.

AND THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT MARKS A REALLY CRITICAL TIME TO MAKE THESE UPDATES TO INCLUSIONARY, ESPECIALLY TO GO CITYWIDE BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE MARKET RATE PROJECTS INCLUDE AT LEAST SOME PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO HELP FACILITATE MIXED INCOME HOUSING AND TO HELP PREVENT DISPLACEMENT OF OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS.

OKAY, SO BASED ON COUNCIL'S DIRECTION LAST MONTH, WE HAVE REVIEWED SEVERAL POSSIBLE INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABILITY OPTIONS.

AGAIN, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO OUR RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS.

FOR CONTEXT, I HAVE HERE IN THIS CHART THE INCOME LIMITS FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.

SO WHEN WE SAY VERY LOW INCOME, THE INCOME LIMIT FOR THAT IS ABOUT $69,000.

AT LOW INCOME, THE INCOME LIMIT IS JUST OVER 110,000.

AND THEN MODERATE INCOME IS JUST OVER 117,000.

SO THE FIRST OPTION WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU OPTION A IS TO SIMPLY EXPAND THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS CITYWIDE.

AGAIN, THAT'S 11% OF RENTAL UNITS AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

OPTION B IS TO UPDATE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND MAKE THEM MIXED INCOME AND THEN APPLY THE SAME REQUIREMENTS UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE CITY.

THIS IS THE APPROACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK IN 2020.

THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS, AGAIN, 12% OF RENTAL PROJECTS, AND THAT WILL BE BROKEN DOWN AT 3% OF THE UNITS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 3% AFFORDABLE FOR LOW AND 6% AFFORDABLE FOR MODERATE.

OPTION C IS TO APPLY DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS

[00:10:01]

THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF FOR THE OPTION TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IS THE OPTION THAT IS, HAS THE STRONGEST EQUITY APPROACH AND IS THE MOST ROOTED IN DATA.

AND SO I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH THIS CHART HERE FIRST, BUT THEN SINCE THIS IS AN OPTION THAT IS BASED ON GEOGRAPHY OR SPECIFIC TO GEOGRAPHY, I'M GONNA SHOW IT TO YOU NEXT ON A MAP.

SO, OPPORTUNITY AREAS ARE DESIGNATED BY THE STATE.

WE ARE PROPOSING HERE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE BUILT IN HIGHER RESOURCE AREAS OF THE CITY, THAT 11% OF RENTAL PROJECTS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME.

FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE BUILT IN MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS OF THE CITY, WE PROPOSE APPLYING A MIXED INCOME APPROACH.

THE MIX HERE IS BASED ON ARENA ALLOCATION.

AND SO THAT'S A TOTAL OF 12% OF RENTAL PROJECT UNITS.

HALF AFFORDABLE FOR VERY LOW A QUARTER, AFFORDABLE FOR LOW AND A QUARTER AFFORDABLE FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

AND THEN FOR PROJECTS BUILT IN LOW RESOURCE AND HIGH SEGREGATION, HIGH POVERTY AREAS OF THE CITY WE'RE PROPOSING 19% OF THE UNITS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

AND HERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THESE OPPORTUNITY AREAS.

SO YOU CAN SEE THEM HERE ON A MAP I MENTIONED.

THEY ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE.

THEY ARE BASED ON NINE FACTORS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC EDUCATION AND HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY LONG TERM OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN.

AND SO ON THE MAP, OUR HIGHER RESOURCE AREAS ARE PURPLE AND BLUE.

THESE ARE THE AREAS OF THE CITY WITH THE BEST PARKS, THE BEST SCHOOLS, THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.

MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS ARE IN THAT, I'M GONNA CALL IT GREEN COLOR ON THE MAP, LOW RESOURCE IS YELLOW-ISH.

AND THEN HIGH SEGREGATION.

HIGH POVERTY IS ORANGE WITH BLACK STRIPES.

IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE ON THE BIG SCREEN.

I APOLOGIZE.

SO OPPORTUNITY AREAS IS A FRAMEWORK THAT SUPPORTS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING.

THIS IS A LEGAL MANDATE THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY TO NOT ONLY COMBAT DISCRIMINATION, BUT ALSO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS SEGREGATION, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE RACIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY INCLUSIVE, AND TO HELP ENSURE THAT LOWER INCOME FAMILIES HAVE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY.

NOW IN LONG BEACH, HISTORICALLY, ALMOST NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS BEEN BUILT IN OUR HIGHER RESOURCE AREAS OF, OF THE CITY.

INSTEAD, IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY CONCENTRATED IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS.

THIS HAS SERVED TO MAINTAIN RACIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION HISTORICALLY, AND HAS ALSO EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDED LOWER INCOME FAMILIES FROM THESE HIGHER RESOURCE AREAS.

AND SO TO ADDRESS THESE PATTERNS, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE TIE THE INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO THESE OPPORTUNITY AREAS.

SO ON THE MAP, IF A PROJECT WAS BUILT IN AN AREA THAT IS PURPLE OR BLUE, AGAIN, 11% WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

SO WE CAN HELP ENSURE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY.

PROJECTS BUILT IN THE GREEN OR MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS WOULD HAVE A MIXED INCOME APPROACH BASED ON ARENA ALLOCATION PROJECTS BUILT IN YELLOW OR ORANGE AREAS.

LOW RESOURCE OR HIGH SEGREGATION AREAS WOULD HAVE A MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT AT 19% OF RENTAL UNITS.

IF COUNCIL ULTIMATELY DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS THAT INCLUDE A MIX OF AFFORDABLE INCOME LIMITS, WE ALSO WOULD ADD TWO, UM, TECHNICAL PROVISIONS THAT WOULD ALIGN WITH THAT INCOME LEVEL CHANGE.

THE FIRST RELATES TO HOW WE WOULD APPLY, UM, THE AFFORDABLE CALCULATION.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A PROVISION THAT WILL ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY TO ROUND FRACTIONAL UNITS ACROSS INCOME LEVELS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF A CALCULATION WERE TO RESULT IN 0.2, VERY LOW INCOME, 0.4, LOW INCOME AND A 0.2 MODERATE INCOME UNIT, WE COULD DELIVER THOSE AS ONE MODERATE INCOME UNIT.

THIS IS JUST BASED ON HOW THESE SMALL PERCENTAGES WERE WORK.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS OUT PRACTICALLY.

THE SECOND CHANGE WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS RELATED TO OUR IN LIE FEES.

SO WHEN COUNCIL IN 2021 ADOPTED OUR CURRENT POLICY TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR RENTAL PROJECTS ONLY FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, THEY ADDED A RESTRICTION TO IN LIE FEES.

SO THAT IN LIE FEES CAN ONLY BE USED TO BUILD HOUSING FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

RIGHT? THEY WANTED TO MATCH THE USE OF IN LIEU FEES TO THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT THEY HAD SET.

IF COUNSEL DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DIFFERENT INCOME MIX, WE WOULD RECOMMEND REMOVING THIS RESTRICTION FOR IN LIE, LIE FEES TO SIMILARLY ALIGN IT FOR THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT THAT IS ADOPTED IN THE NEW POLICY.

AND THEN I WANT TO JUST OFFER AS A REMINDER,

[00:15:01]

I'LL REVIEW THEM HERE QUICKLY.

THE FIRST RELATES TO HOW WE CALCULATE INCLUSIONARY UNITS.

WE WANNA MODIFY THE POLICY TO ROUND UP FRACTIONAL UNITS RATHER THAN ALLOWING DEVELOPERS THE OPTION TO PAY AN IN LIE FEE.

THE SECOND, THE STATE REQUIRES US TO OFFER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE TO DEVELOPERS INSTEAD OF BUILDING UNITS ON SITE.

SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS REQUIRE THAT, UM, CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THEM, SUCH AS IN LIE FEES FOR LARGER RENTAL PROJECTS OR LAND DEDICATION, WE'RE RECOMMENDING DESIGNATING THE APPROVAL BODY AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RATHER THAN COUNCIL, BECAUSE THIS ALIGNS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE AS PROVIDING, UM, APPROVAL FOR DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS THAT DON'T REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

THIRD, ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS IS FOR DEVELOPERS TO DONATE LAND TO BE BUILT INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

RIGHT NOW, OUR POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE LAND TO BE DONATED OR DEDICATED MUST BE WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE ORIGINAL SITE THAT TRIGGERED INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS.

WE WANNA REMOVE THAT ONE MILE RADIUS.

WE WOULD LIKE THE OPTION OR THE FLEXIBILITY FOR LAND TO BE DEDICATED IN HIGHER RESOURCE AREAS AS THIS ALIGNS WITH OUR FAIR HOUSING GOALS.

FOURTH, WE'D LIKE TO ADD A PROVISION THAT RESTRICTS OWNERSHIP UNITS TO BE SOLD ONLY TO FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS.

THIS CLOSES A POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE WHERE HOME BUYERS WHO ALREADY OWN OTHER REAL ESTATE COULD STILL QUALIFY TO BUY THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

AND THEN LAST, WE'D LIKE TO ADD A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY TO AMEND OR SUSPEND INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS ONLY WHEN A PROJECT WILL PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAN IS REQUIRED UNDER THE INCLUSIONARY PROJECT POLICY.

SO THIS OUTLINES OUR NEXT STEPS, AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUTREACH.

UM, WE PLAN TO OFFER MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE INPUT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE POLICY.

THIS INCLUDES A FOCUS GROUP WITH HOUSING DEVELOPERS SPECIFICALLY.

WE ALSO WILL HOST SEVERAL IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSES FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND HOUSING ADVOCATES.

WE PLAN TO HOLD A STUDY SESSION WITH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION THAT'S TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 15TH, AND THAT PROVIDES ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS OR STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE INPUT EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE.

WE THEN PLAN TO, UM, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVELY ON SEPTEMBER 19TH.

AND THEN WE ANTICIPATE BRINGING FORWARD THE PLANNINGS COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A VOTE TENTATIVELY ON NOVEMBER 12TH.

AND OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE UPDATED POLICY TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1ST.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO STAFF.

UM, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE TEAM HERE AT THE DAAS.

UH, WE CAN START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RICKS OTI.

DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? I DO.

UM, SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO LIKE QUEUE UP AND THEN MY, MY LITTLE WORKSTATION HERE IS GETTING A LITTLE HOT.

SO I THINK IT'S 'CAUSE A LITTLE WARM IN HERE TODAY.

UM, I PROBABLY WILL JUST START WITH THE NOT SO ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, BUT, UM, SO I THINK MANY OF YOU ALL KNOW I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN WE ORIGINALLY IMPLEMENTED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, RIGHT? SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL RAISE MY HAND AND SAY THAT I WAS THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT MADE THE MOTION ORIGINALLY FOR WHAT WE RECOMMENDED TO TO CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? SO I, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST GO ON RECORD AS BEING SOMEONE WHO ORIGINALLY DID ADVOCATE FOR I, UM, FOR KIND OF THIS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING INC AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AND THE REASON FOR THAT BEING, UH, THAT WE JUST DIDN'T AT THE TIME, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY STILL TRUE NOW, THERE REALLY WASN'T A MECHANISM FOR MODERATE INCOME, RIGHT? AND, UH, AND NO FUNDING FOR IT.

AND SO IT WAS RECOGNITION OF, WELL, HOW DO WE AS A CITY ADDRESS THAT, UM, IN A WAY THAT'S MEANINGFUL AS PART OF OUR POLICY.

UH, OBVIOUSLY CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME, UM, UH, DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT POLICY AND THAT, AND THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD PREVIOUSLY AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THERE SEEMS TO BE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN APPETITE FOR THAT.

UH, AND SO I APPRECIATE, UH, THE RESURRECTION OF OPTION B, WHICH IS MY ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT I MADE, UH, BACK, UH, FOUR YEARS AGO.

UM, BUT I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN OPTION C, UM, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT HAVING AN EQUITY LENS AND THE WAYS THAT WE, UM, APPLY OUR POLICIES HERE.

UH, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING KIND OF LIKE THE MORE EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY.

AND SO I WAS HOPING, I KNOW WE KIND OF WENT THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICKLY, BUT COULD YOU REALLY, COULD YOU KIND OF MORE, UH, MAYBE MORE SPORTS SPECIFICALLY KIND OF WALK US THROUGH KIND

[00:20:01]

AND JUST A LITTLE BIT AROUND LIKE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT AND JUST BEING, I KNOW IN THE COUNT IN THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ON COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS KIND OF 11% THRESHOLD AND WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, RIGHT? AND THINGS THAT WILL PENCIL AND WHAT WE FEEL LIKE OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CAN BEAR.

AND SO WHEN, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DATA AND THEN ALSO WHY WE THINK THIS IS SOMETHING REASONABLE THAT WHEN YOU GO TO OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD THINK WOULD WORK FOR SOME OF THEIR PROJECTS? SORRY, I KNOW THAT WAS A LONG QUESTION, BUT YEAH.

I'LL DO MY BEST.

LET ME KNOW IF I FORGET ANYTHING.

UM, SO THE, THE 19% MODERATE, THAT WAS AN OPTION IDENTIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.

I THINK, UM, CHRISTOPHER HAS DONE A GOOD JOB TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THE FINANCES THAT GO BEHIND IT.

BUT AS YOU COULD OF ADJUST THESE LEVERS OF AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, YOU CAN GET, YOU KNOW, MORE UNITS OR FEWER UNITS.

AND SO IF WE, A MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLD CAN PAY MORE IN RENT, AND SO YOU CAN GET MORE UNITS AND STILL HAVE THE PROJECT PENCIL OUT.

AND SO THAT IS THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN GO AND WE LOVE TO SEE THAT.

WE LOVE TO SEE MORE UNITS, UM, IN TERMS OF MODERATE INCOME AND APPLYING THAT AFFORDABLE LEVEL TO OUR LOW RESOURCE HIGH SEGREGATION.

I'M GONNA MOVE US FORWARD TO, OH, I THINK I LOST CONTROL OF THE POWERPOINT.

IF YOU DON'T MIND PULLING UP.

WE HAVE A SECOND MAP.

I THINK IT'S TWO SLIDES FROM HERE.

ESSENTIALLY, THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS WE CAN ADJUST NOPE.

TO HELP, UM, BALANCE OUT AN OVER CONCENTRATION OF LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME UNITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN OUR LOW RESOURCE AREA SO THAT WE ARE TRULY GETTING MIXED INCOME HOUSING.

AND SO PLACING OF THE MODERATE, THE MAJORITY OF THE MODERATE HERE.

AND THEN JUST TO RE REITERATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SO THE ISSUE WE'RE CON WE'RE CONCERNED WITH AS A CITY RIGHT NOW IS THERE'S AN OVER CONCENTRATION OF THE, LIKE THE VERY LOW INCOME AND LOW INCOME UNITS AND LOWER RESOURCE AREAS OF THE CITY.

AND SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO DIVERSIFY THAT ACROSS THE CITY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE GOAL AND WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, IT'S LIKE CALCULUS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR MULTIPLE, UM, VARIABLES.

SO, UH, VERY WELL INTENTIONED BUT NOT PERFECT IN ITS RESULT.

THE CITY HAS DONE A LOT OF, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVER THE DECADES.

MOST OF IT IS IN WHAT'S LABELED ONE B HERE.

UM, SO ABOUT, UH, FOUR YEARS AGO, UM, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WHICH RUNS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SORT OF, UM, SAT DOWN AND MAPPED WHERE WE HAD OVER CONCENTRATED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, SORT OF, UM, VERY LOW INCOME UNITS.

AND IT ACTUALLY CORRESPONDS TO A ZIP CODE 9 0 8, 0 6.

SO, UM, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS NOT ISSUING, UH, NEW VOUCHERS, UM, NEW PROJECT-BASED VOUCHERS IN, UH, 9 0 8, 0 6.

GENERALLY, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE UNDERWAY FOUR YEARS AGO THAT ARE STILL NOT COMPLETE, AND WE'RE GONNA SEE THOSE PROJECTS THROUGH.

UM, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES IN THOSE AREAS FOR THERE TO BE MORE MARKET RATE OR MODERATE UNITS SO THAT THERE'S A MIX OF INCOMES AND YOU'RE NOT CREATING CONCENTRATED POVERTY.

SO, UM, THAT'S ONE GOAL, SORT OF ADDRESSING THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF, OF THOSE, UM, AREAS WITH CONCENTRATED POVERTY.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SCALE IS THERE'S PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE THERE IS NO OR NEARLY NO OPPORTUNITY FOR LOWER INCOME PERSONS TO EXPERIENCE THOSE HIGH RESOURCE AREAS.

SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT GOALS.

AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIND A POLICY THAT BALANCES, UM, THOSE GOALS ALL AT ONCE.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT, UM, A BIG PART OF THE CITY, WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE.

IT'S NOT HIGH RESOURCE, IT'S NOT LOW RESOURCE.

UM, AND THERE IT'S DATA DRIVEN IN THAT WE TOOK OUR ARENA NUMBERS, JUST SORT OF WHAT PERCENTAGE OF UNITS SHOULD BE VERY LOW, LOW, MODERATE, AND THEN JUST, UH, TRANSFORMED THAT INTO, UM, A, A FORMULA, UM, THAT'S ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING APPLYING TO THAT PART OF THE CITY THAT'S MIDDLE, UM, IN THE, IN THE MIDDLE AREA, NOT HIGH RESOURCE OR LOW RESOURCE.

DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? IT DOES.

UH, AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF MORE, AND THIS MORE, THESE ARE MORE, UM, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE JUST CLARIFICATION.

SO, UH, ON SLIDE 12, WHEN YOU SAID TO ADD A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CITY STAFF FLEXIBILITY TO ROUND FRACTIONAL UNITS ACROSS INCOME LEVELS, UM, AND SO IT WAS THE IDEA OF LIKE THE 0.2, YOU KNOW, VERY LOW 0.4, LOW INCOME 0.2, YOU BASICALLY WOULD KIND OF,

[00:25:01]

UM, IS THIS JUST A RECOMMENDATION THAT POTENTIAL, LIKE IS THIS JUST AN EXAMPLE TO SAY, OKAY, WE COULD MAKE THAT ONE MODERATE UNIT, OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT LIKE, HEY, IF WE HAVE THESE KIND OF FRACTIONAL UNITS, WE WANNA MAKE IT ONE MODERATE, OR WOULD THIS KIND OF DEPEND ON THE PROJECT? SO IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON THE PROJECT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THREE DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS, WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH FRACTIONAL UNITS, RIGHT? IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO, UM, WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT.

UM, I THINK IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WOULD COMBINE THOSE FRACTIONAL UNITS INTO THE, UM, THE, THE BAND WITH A SLIGHTLY HIGHER, UM, INCOME LEVEL.

SO IN THIS, THAT'S WHY IN THE EXAMPLE, THEY BECOME ONE MODERATE UNIT.

UM, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THESE FORMULAS, UM, DERIVED FROM A MAXIMUM, WE'RE, WE'RE EXTRACTING THE SORT OF MAXIMUM LEVEL OF, UH, INCLUSIONARY ON THESE PROJECTS.

SO IF WE WERE TO ROUND IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, UM, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT THAT ADDS UP TO ONE VERY LOW INCOME UNIT, CONCEIVABLY YOU'RE PUSHING THAT PROJECT OUT OF THE REALM OF, UM, WHAT'S FEASIBLE AND WHAT'S SUPPORTED BY OUR PAST FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.

GREAT.

UH, AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE ON SLIDE 14, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED POLICY MODIFICATIONS.

SO YOU SAID OWNERSHIP UNITS, YOU SAID ADD THE REQUIREMENT THAT UNITS MUST BE SOLD TO FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE OPPOSITE, SO I MAY HAVE JUST MIS MIS MISHEARD.

SO THE IDEA WAS TO ADD THE, THE ADD THAT REQUIREMENT OR TO REMOVE IT? TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT.

OKAY.

IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE POLICY.

THE IDEA HERE IS THAT, UM, WITHOUT THIS TYPE OF REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS REALLY COMMON FOR AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS, TYPICALLY YOU DO HAVE TO SELL THEM TO FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS.

UM, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT, WE ARE CONCERNED THERE'S POTENTIAL WHERE, UM, HOME BUYERS COULD EXPLOIT A LOOPHOLE AND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY OWNS A HOME AND WANTS TO PURCHASE A SECOND HOME COULD STILL QUALIFY THE WAY THAT INCOME IS TREATED, COULD STILL MEET THE INCOME QUALIFICATIONS AS A MODERATE HOUSEHOLD.

MM-HMM, , WITHOUT AN EXPLICIT RESTRICTION AS BEING A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER, UM, WE, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, UM, DENY THEM OR EXCLUDE THEM AS AN APPLICANT.

AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THESE GO TOWARDS FOLKS WHO DON'T ALREADY OWN REAL ESTATE, WHO DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT ASSET, THAT GENERAL GENERATIONAL WEALTH TO STAY IN LINE WITH WHAT WE SEE AS THE INTENT OF THE POLICY HERE.

OKAY.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR AUSTIN.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THANK YOU.

UM, I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS SHORT.

UH, THANK YOU, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RICK SODI, SHE GETS INTO THE DATA AND THE, THE WEEDS AS USUAL.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT, UH, I, I WILL JUST ADD TO MY COMMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO, I'M, I'M VERY, VERY, UM, ENCOURAGED TO SEE THAT THIS, UH, POLICY IN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS POLICY BEING EXPANDED CITYWIDE, UM, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN, UH, AREA THAT, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UM, INCLUDED HERE.

UM, I, I HAD QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ARENA NUMBERS.

IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE, THE MAP THAT YOU WERE ILLUSTRATED THAT SHOWED THE EXISTING PROJECTS, UM, THAT WERE IN THE PIPELINE, I GUESS, UH, I I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THIS, THIS, THIS POLICY DOESN'T APPLY.

NOT THAT ONE.

THAT ONE, YEAH.

SO THIS POLICY DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE, THESE EXISTING PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA ONE AND TWO, IS THAT CORRECT? SO CURRENT POLICY ONLY APPLIES IN AREA ONE A AND ONE B.

SO ALL OF THE PROJECTS, THOSE BLACK DOTS, UM, REPRESENT PROJECTS, UM, THAT ARE RECENTLY APPROVED OR IN CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE TWO, UM, PROJECTS IN YOUR DISTRICT COUNCILMEN, UM, THAT WERE NOT SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY.

AND WHEN WE CHANGE REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS.

SO EVEN A PROJECT THAT'S NOT YET BUILT, THAT WAS APPROVED ANYTIME BEFORE THAT ORDINANCE, IT'S SUBJECT TO THE RULES THAT WERE ON THE BOOKS THE DAY THAT IT WAS APPROVED.

SO WHEN WE APPLY NEW REQUIREMENTS, IT'S ONLY ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS TO NEW PROJECTS THAT ARE, UM, APPROVED AFTER THAT DATE.

THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION.

THIS, THIS MAP COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE, UM, MISLEADING.

UM, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT IN THE LEGEND .

UM, I, I DO WANNA JUST SAY HOW, HOW DOES THIS, UM, ARENA NUMBERS RIGHT NOW, WHERE ARE WE AT, UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, INCLUDING WHAT, WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS, THIS SLIDE HERE, UM, WHERE ARE WE AT IN TERMS OF MEETING OUR, OUR OBLIGATION AS A CITY? UM, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

SO IT'S SORT OF A GLASS HALF EMPTY, GLASS HALF FULL.

SO, UM, WE ARE PRODUCING MORE HOUSING, UM, THAN ANY TIME SINCE THE 1980S,

[00:30:01]

SO I WOULD GIVE US AN A SOMEWHERE BETWEEN AN A MINUS AND AN A PLUS.

YOU CAN'T GRADE YOUR OWN PAPER.

YEAH, YEAH.

SO I AM GRADING MY OWN PAPER, BUT UM, WE'RE, WE'RE IN IT TOGETHER.

SO I WOULD SAY WE'RE DOING EXCELLENT.

UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRIOR ARENA CYCLE, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, I THINK AT THE TIME THE CITY SAID WAS WAY TOO HIGH, UM, WE'RE EXCEEDING THAT LEVEL FROM THE PRIOR CYCLE, THIS CYCLE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STATE INCREASED OUR ALLOCATION BY MORE THAN 300%.

SO, UH, THIS IS THE HALF EMPTY PART OF THE GLASS, SO WE'RE NOT ON TRACK TO MEET THAT.

UM, WE'RE, WE'RE ON TRACK TO, TO COME OUT LIKE 50% OF, OF WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO US ARENA WISE.

SO, UM, THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE, BUT I WOULD SAY, UM, COMPARING US TO OTHER CITIES AND COMPARING US TO WHERE WE WERE JUST 10 YEARS AGO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB, BUT THERE'S STILL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS.

AND, AND SO THIS, THIS SLIDE DOES NOT REFLECT THE NUMBER OF NEW HOUSING IN ONE B IN ONE A, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO, UM, LAST YEAR THERE WERE AROUND A THOUSAND HOUSING STARTS AND ALMOST 3000 HOUSING UNITS APPROVED, BUT THIS IS JUST SHOWING, UH, PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE INCLUSIONARY AREA.

SO, UM, ONCE UPON A TIME, ALMOST ALL OF OUR PROJECTS WE'RE DOWNTOWN AND WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF, UM, GETTING PROJECTS OUT OF THE GROUND ELSEWHERE, UM, WHETHER IT'S IN NORTH LONG BEACH, SOUTHEAST LONG BEACH, UM, CENTRAL LONG BEACH TO A LESSER DEGREE.

SO, UM, THAT'S PROGRESS AND, AND MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THAT AREA.

AND, AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I'M GONNA ASK IT JUST BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE ASKED.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANY ROOM IN OUR POLICY TO, TO INCREASE THE, THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING THRESHOLD THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND BASED ON THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DOING THAT.

UM, YOU HAVE A LEGAL ABILITY TO INCREASE THE REQUIREMENT ALL THE WAY UP TO 15%.

BUT WHAT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SHOWS WAS THAT IF YOU WERE TO CHOOSE A NUMBER HIGHER THAN, THAN THE SCENARIOS THAT'S PRESENTED HERE, YOU WOULD GET FEWER PROJECTS, WHICH MEANS YOU'D ACTUALLY BE GETTING FEWER AFFORDABLE UNITS EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE, UM, RATE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, 11% OF A THOUSAND, UM, IS 110, BUT, UM, UH, 11% OF 500, UM, YOU KNOW, IS GONNA BE LESS AND, AND SO ON AND SO ON.

SO THIS IS ALL BASED ON, UM, SOME WORK WE DID WITH KMA TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SWEET SPOT IS.

MM-HMM.

.

UM, SO I STRONGLY RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS BASED ON THE FACTS, BUT YOU HAVE, I GUESS, THE LEGAL ABILITY TO IGNORE THE FACTS ALL THE WAY UP TO 15%.

SO I INTERPRET THAT ANSWER AS A YES, BUT, ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH DR.

RICK, DID YOU WANNA ADD TO THAT? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AROUND, BECAUSE WE HAD, WE HAD THIS EXACT, SO COUNCILMAN ROSS, WE ACTUALLY HAD THIS EXACT CONVERSATION AT PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME AS TO WHY WE, BECAUSE IT WAS THE DISCUSSION AROUND WHY WE WEREN'T GOING CITYWIDE AS OPPOSED TO WHY WE WERE JUST RE HAVING IT BE THE, THE ZONE ONE IDEA.

AND SO FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING THE, THE CONTEXT WAS EXACTLY THAT, RIGHT? WE DID NOT, OUR CONCERNS AROUND THE ECONOMICS WAS THAT AT THE TIME WE WEREN'T SEEING ANY DEVELOPMENT IN ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND SO THE IDEA OF DEPRECIATING THE, THE, THE POSSIBILITY, RIGHT, OF, OR REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING AFFORDABLE UNITS OR DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER, OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY WHEN WE WERE ONLY SEEING IT AT ZERO RIGHT? WAS SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK TO LIKE, UM, DIRECTOR KUNZ'S POINT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE IDEA, IS THAT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT CAN THE MARKET CAN BEAR, THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING, RIGHT? IS, IS TRYING TO FIND THAT SWEET SPOT AROUND WHAT OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND WHAT OUR MARKET WOULD ALLOW US TO DO SO THAT WE CAN MAXIMIZE THAT, BUT WITHOUT MAKING IT SUCH A POLICY SO STRONG THAT WE THEN PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXACT AREAS THAT WE WANT IT.

SO THANK YOU.

I'LL JUST ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK HERE.

UM, ON SLIDE 13, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE LAND DEDICATION OPTION, UM, OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION? UM, WHAT THE BENEFIT OF GOING OUTSIDE OF THAT ONE MILE RANGES IN TERMS OF LIKE LESSONS LEARNED OF THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WAS WORTHWHILE AT THE TIME AND HOW THAT MAY HAVE SHIFTED WITHIN, UH, THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW? YEAH, SO IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU COUNCIL MEMBER, WE'RE GONNA KIND OF STEP BACK AND EXPLAIN WHY WE EVEN HAVE A LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO HAVE A LAND DEDICATION OPTION.

SO

[00:35:01]

UM, WE HAVE HAD NONE, ZERO, NOT AT ALL INSTANCES OF LAND DEDICATION.

SO I CAN'T TELL YOU ANY LESSONS LEARNED.

UM, WE LOOKED AT IT MORE IN A THEORETICAL BASIS THAT IF WE DID RECEIVE A LAND DEDICATION, UM, WE CURRENTLY IT HAS TO BE WITHIN, UM, ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE.

UM, BUT SINCE, UH, WE'RE TRYING TO BE OPEN TO GETTING PROJECTS IN MODERATE AND HIGH RESOURCE AREAS, IF YOU, IF THE PROJECT WAS IN A LOW RESOURCE AREA, YOU WOULD BE LOCKING IN, UH, THE LOW RESOURCE LOCATION FOR THE LAND DEDICATION.

SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE.

UM, IT WOULD BE MY GOAL THAT WE STILL WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LAND DEDICATION CASES, UH, COME FORWARD.

UM, BUT IT IS AN OPTION, UM, THAT, THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO OFFER AND WE, UH, COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO, SO HAVING IT WITHIN THAT ONE MILE JURISDICTION, UM, AND LOOKING AT THAT ONE A AND ONE B GOES TO THAT POINT OF THE EQUITY PIECE AND THE OVERCOMING THOSE PATTERNS OF, OF SET SEGREGATION AND POLICY, UM, THAT LOCKS IN BAD PRACTICE OF THE PAST.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

OKAY.

AND THEN, UH, IF WE COULD GO TO THE PUBLIC OUTREACH SLIDE.

I THINK THAT WAS SLIDE 15.

UM, SO YOU TALKED REALLY SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, UH, ESPECIALLY AROUND OUR DEVELOPERS.

UH, WE KNOW THAT OUR POLICIES, WE DON'T, WE DON'T BUILD HOUSING AND THE POLICIES THAT WE, UM, MAKE HERE EITHER ENHANCE OR COULD DETER DEVELOPMENT.

AND YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT OUR PREFERENCES THAT PEOPLE ARE BUILDING THOSE UNITS.

UM, SO YOU INTEND TO DO ONE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WHO HAVE PARTNERED WITH US IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

WE SEE THEM AS, YOU KNOW, A STAKEHOLDER WITH A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE HEARING THEIR FEEDBACK AND THEIR INPUT AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING, WHY WE'RE MAKING THAT AND POTENTIAL CHANGES COMING UP.

AND SO WE FOUND IT WOULD BE MOST PRODUCTIVE TO HAVE A GROUP JUST WITH HOUSING DEVELOPERS, AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING FROM A UNIQUE STANDPOINT WHEN THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THIS POLICY AND HOW THAT IMPACTS POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THEY MAY DO WITH THE CITY IN THE FUTURE.

GREAT, THANK YOU.

AND THEN, UH, IF I RECALL, YOU SAID YOU'D HAVE GENERAL OPEN HOUSE TYPE MEETINGS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE INTERESTED AND THAT AUGUST 15TH PLANNING STUDY SESSION IS JUST THAT CORRECT.

A STUDY SESSION, THERE'S NO VOTE, PLANNING ISN'T TAKING ACTION.

SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR FOLKS FORMALLY TO GO ON THE RECORD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THEIR, UM, IDEAS AND THOUGHTS AROUND THIS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

BLESS YOU.

BLESS YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR NOW, WE COULD TAKE IT TO PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK, IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM NOW.

OKAY.

OKAY.

GOOD MORNING, MR. KENY.

AFTERNOON.

IT'S GOOD AFTERNOON.

I JUST GOT MY COFFEE FROM WILLY'S, UH, HERE ON THE CORNER.

UM, LOCAL CAMBODIAN, UH, COFFEE SHOP POP UP, SO YOU WANNA SUPPORT, UH, IT'S PRETTY GOOD.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY BUTTER THOUGH, SO I TOLD 'EM YOU HAVE ONE WEEK AND THEN I'LL PUT YOU ON THE HIT LIST, UM, WITH RELATION TO THIS, UM, STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU.

UH, I'VE SEEN IT ALREADY, BUT I'M JUST GONNA PRETEND LIKE I DIDN'T SEE IT.

THANK YOU FOR DOING IT.

IT'S GREAT.

UM, I'M GONNA HAVE TO PUSH BACK ON A FEW THINGS THAT I SAW.

IT WAS A GREAT REPORT.

UM, BUT IN THE, THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER, UM, FOR ONE, WE NEED TO STOP ALIENATING THE DEVELOPERS, UH, FROM COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS.

I THINK THAT THAT IS, UH, NOT IN IN THE SERVICE OF COMMUNITY.

I'M ON A CASE IN POINT AND ON MY BOSS SHOOT, SPEAK TO ME LATER, BUT LIKE, THERE'S A CERTAIN DEVELOPER RIGHT NOW ON PCH THAT JUST OPENED A COMPLETE NEW BUILDING, RIGHT, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH LEASING UP BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS.

SO IF WE KEEP DOING THIS THING WHERE WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEGREGATE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA LIVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE TYPE OF INTERACTIONS.

JUST A SUGGESTION, UM, WITH RESPECT TO I, I BORN AND RAISED IN, UH, ONE B, UH, , SO THAT LONG BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR, I'M VERY WELL FAMILIAR TO.

I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A 294 UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING OPEN.

[00:40:01]

I THINK, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW, ME AND, UH, MY BOSS, WE ARE DOING A, UH, DRIVE AROUND FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS WITH PRIVATE EQUITY PEOPLE WHO DON'T, WHO AREN'T A PART OF THAT, THAT, UH, TRUSTED CABAL, YOU KNOW? AND SO, UM, PEOPLE IN LA THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IN THIS, IN THE CITY, THEY JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

AND BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BLANK, BLANK, BLANK, THEY'RE NOT BEING INVITED.

SO IF THEY'RE INVITED, THEY'LL COME.

WAYS TO INVITE THEM WOULD BE, I, FIRST OF ALL, I BELIEVE IN 20% INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.

I KNOW YOU SAID WE CAN'T, UH, ECONOMICALLY STOMACH IT.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE PUBLIC DATA THAT SUGGESTS THAT, UM, THE VOUCHERS HERE ARE TOO LOW.

WE'RE NOT COMPETITIVE ENOUGH WITH LA IN ORDER TO ENTICE PEOPLE TO DEVELOP HERE.

IF WE BROUGHT UP, IF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MET UP AND TRIED TO INCREASE OUR VOUCHERS, WE WOULD GET A LOT MORE MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENTS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. SUZA.

GOOD AFTERNOON, NOT EVENING.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

UM, I'M MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME'S JAMES SUAZO.

PRONOUNS ARE HE AND HIM.

UH, I'M THE, A RESIDENT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITH LONG BEACH FORWARD.

UM, AND, UM, LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS CONVERSATION AND JUST WANT TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR INCLUSIONARY ZONING.

THIS HAS BEEN A POLICY AND A SOLUTION TO OUR HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF SINCE THE INCEPTION MANY YEARS AGO.

SO IT WAS FUN TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION AND THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS ON IT.

UM, AND IT REALLY, I THINK WE'RE AT AN EXCITING POINT.

I WANT UPLIFT ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE PRESENTATION SAYING THAT THIS IS A REAL OPPORTUNE TIME FOR US TO REVISIT NOT JUST THE REQUIREMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST ACROSS THE CITY, BUT ALSO FOR US TO, I THINK RE REMEMBER THAT INCLUSIONARY ZONING, UM, IS A GREAT SOLUTION AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT A SILVER BULLET TO OUR HOUSING CRISIS.

AND SO, UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROMISE IN LOOKING AT THE OPTIONS AND THE EQUITY SOLUTIONS, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNDOING GENERATIONS OF POLICIES AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE CREATED AND SHAPED THE COMMUNITIES, UM, ESPECIALLY IN 9 0 8, 0 6, UM, THAT THE, AND THE WAY THEY LOOK NOW, RIGHT? AND SO, UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN AS WE'RE LOOKING AT MIXED INCOME, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT FOLKS WHO LIVE IN 9 0 8 0 6, UM, CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

AND THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS POLICY IS THIS IS, UH, FORWARD LOOKING AND FUTURE LOOKING.

SO THINKING ABOUT HOW DO WE USE THIS POLICY WHERE, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE GO, UM, TO THINK ABOUT THE OTHER, UM, SOLUTIONS AND POLICIES AND TENANT PROTECTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST WITHIN OUR CITY TO REALLY STRENGTHEN OUR TENANT PROTECTION POLICIES AND THINK ABOUT, UM, CREATING A WIDE SPECTRUM OF POLICY SOLUTIONS TO COMBAT DISPLACEMENT, ANY FEATURE GENTRIFICATION, AND ENSURE THAT EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR INCOME LEVEL, CAN CALL LONG BEACH, UH, A SAFE AND HEALTHY PLACE TO LIVE.

SO, LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL THE CONVERSATIONS AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR THE INFORMATION.

AND, UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES BEHIND THE RAIL? OKAY.

UH, I WANNA THANK THE STAFF, UH, AND THE TEAM FOR DOING THIS AS WELL.

ACTUALLY, I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO THE PROPOSED OPTION C, IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE IT IN SURROUNDING CITIES IN THE REGION WITH THAT 19% AS THE, JUST CURIOUS HOW IT, AS YOU, AS YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT IT, WHAT YOU LOOKED AT, NOT IN SURROUNDING CITIES, BUT THERE'S SOME BAY AREA EXAMPLES THAT ARE SIMILAR.

COUNCILMAN NEWSO? UH, JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.

SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A PRACTICALITY.

SO I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT LIKE, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, UM, WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE BASICALLY KIND OF THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACROSS THE CITY.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY OPTION C WOULD MAKE THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS VARY IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS DEPENDING ON THOSE OPPORTUNITY ZONES.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT OF JUST LIKE OPERATIONALIZING THIS, RIGHT? LIKE HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT MANAGEMENT PROCESS FROM A CITY STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE? AND THEN ALSO FROM THE IDEA OF LIKE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES, KIND OF HEARING ABOUT, LIKE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS THE, THE CO THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS AROUND LIKE OUR COMPETITIVENESS, LIKE HOW WE'RE ATTRACTING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.