* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:01:05] HEY EVERYONE. THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. UM, TODAY WE HAVE A FIVE O'CLOCK BEGIN. WE ARE JUST WAITING ON ONE MORE. COMMISSIONER, JOIN US AND WE WILL BEGIN SHORTLY. I, [00:07:13] GOOD EVENING. WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I'D LIKE TO CALL OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR DECEMBER 19TH, 2024. FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER LAFARGE IS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. ARE [CALL TO ORDER] THERE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS? LET THE RECORD NOTE, THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS. MADAM CLERK, IF WE COULD HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CASTILLO. COMMISSIONER CLEMSON? HERE. COMMISSIONER WHERE? HERE. VICE CHAIR TEMPLIN. HERE. CHAIR LEWIS. HERE WE HAVE QUORUM. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CLEMSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THIS EVENING? UH, YES. [ROLL CALL] [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CLEMSON, I'D LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY, UH, WITNESSES. NOW, IF YOU PLAN ON GIVING ANY TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHOULD BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. FIRST ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR, TEMPLE AND COMMISSIONER CLEMSON, WILL YOU HAVE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLEASE? YES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. WELCOME TO OUR LAST MEETING OF 2024. [1. 24-55912 Recommendation to receive and file Director’s Report.       Suggested Action: Approve recommendation.  ] I JUST WANNA START OUT BY THANKING ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE THIS YEAR. IT'S BEEN ANOTHER RECORD YEAR, UM, WHERE WE'VE HAD, UM, SIGNIFICANT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, BUT ALSO SOME REALLY MAJOR POLICIES AND WE'LL KEEP THAT MOMENTUM GOING HERE THIS EVENING. SO I WANTED TO SAY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. WE'LL COME BACK IN JANUARY WITH A FORMAL SORT OF REPORT BACK ON ALL THAT WAS ACHIEVED. UM, BUT JUST APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU, UM, AND WANT TO SHARE THAT LAST WEEK AT CITY COUNCIL, THEY DID APPROVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SERIES OF PARKING ZONING CODE REFORMS THAT CAME BEFORE THIS BODY BACK IN OCTOBER. THOSE WERE REALLY SIGNIFICANT REFORMS WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGING THE USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, UH, SUPPORTING BUSINESSES THAT MAY HAVE EXPANDED THEIR OUTDOOR OPERATIONS, INCLUDING DURING COVID, UM, AND SOME OTHER CERTAIN, UH, SITUATIONS WHERE, UM, PARKING DOES BECOME CHALLENGING IN OUR BUILT OUT CITY. SO I SHOULD BE REALLY PROUD OF THAT ACCOMPLISHMENT AS WE ARE AT THE STAFF TABLE. THE COUNCIL ALSO, UM, APPROVED THE DEDICATION AND REZONING [00:10:01] FOR WILLOW SPRINGS PARK, WHICH HAS COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AS WELL. UM, AND SO IT'S BEEN A BUSY END OF YEAR. UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. UH, WISH EVERYONE, UM, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK WITH YOU ALL IN 2025. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT, COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? SEE NONE. I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. SEE NONE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS, BRANDON? ANYONE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND WILL LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON DIRECTOR'S REPORT? PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO COMMENTS ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL. MADAM CLERK, WE HAVE THE VOTE PLEASE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5TH, 2024. IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WARE AND VICE CHAIR TEMPLIN. COMMISSIONER ANY UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR REVISIONS TO THE MINUTES AS THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED? SEEING NONE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON OUR MINUTE MEETINGS FROM OUR MEETING OF DECEMBER 5TH. IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. SEEING NONE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS FOR THOSE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND ELECTRIFY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MINUTES, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT NOR IN THE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THEN I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL. MADAM CLERK, IF WE COULD HAVE THE VOTE PLEASE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS US TO OUR FIRST ACTION ITEM. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS RECOMMENDATION TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED AS PART OF CATEGOR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND WARRANTS. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES AND APPROVE A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION [3. 24-55913 Recommendation to determine that the project is within the scope of the project previously analyzed as part of Categorical Exemption (CE-22-187) and warrants no further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and Approve a one-year Time Extension (TMEX24-004) request, and reaffirm all findings and conditions of approval related thereto, for an approved Conditional Use Permit (Case No. 2207-32) for a two-year temporary trucking and trailer storage use, with an option for three one-year extensions potentially allowed for a total of five years, on a vacant parking lot at 2131 East Wardlow Road within the Business Park District of the Globemaster Corridor Specific Plan (SP-3-BP). (Districts 4, 5)       Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ] REQUEST AND REAFFIRM ALL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED THERETO FOR AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO YEAR TEMPORARY TRUCKING AND TRAILER STORAGE USE WITH AN OPTION FOR THREE ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS, POTENTIALLY ALLOWED FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE YEARS ON A VACANT PARKING LOT AT 2131 EAST WARDLOW ROAD WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT OF THE GLOBE MASTER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICTS FOUR AND FIVE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WARE AND VICE CHAIR TIMLIN. DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM? WE DO. I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER IN A MOMENT TO THE PROJECT PLANNER OF FUJI TORRES COMPOST FOR THE PRESENTATION. JUST WANNA PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT FOR THE COMMISSION. SO YOU DID HEAR THIS ON SOME TEMPORARY CUP ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. UM, TYPICALLY A CUP IS PERMANENT AND RUNS WITH THE LAND, BUT IN CERTAIN CASES ONE CAN REQUEST A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT. UM, AND THAT'S IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE CONDITIONED IT THAT IT WOULD BE FOR TWO YEARS AND COULD HAVE UP TO THREE ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS. SO THIS IS THE FIRST EXTENSION BEFORE YOU AND THE NATURE OF THE USE PERMIT, UH, BEING TEMPORARY IS BECAUSE THERE ARE LONGER TERM PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE REDEVELOPED. SO THIS IS JUST FOR THIS INTERIM PERIOD. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO REFUGIO. UH, THANK YOU ALLISON. UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR ADVISOR AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU AS MENTIONED IS A TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRUCKING USE ON GOODMAN PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE FORMER BOEING C 17 FACILITY ON WARLOW ROAD WEST OF THE AIRPORT. THE SITE ADDRESS IS 2131 EAST WARLOW ROAD. SO AS MENTIONED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS TEMPORARY CUP ON JANUARY 19TH, 2023. THE CUP WAS APPROVED AS A TEMPORARY USE WITH A SIX MONTH EXPIRATION, IF NOT VESTED, AND A TWO YEAR EXPIRATION PERIOD IF VESTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF UP TO THREE ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSIONS FOR A TOTAL OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. THE PERMIT WAS VESTED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF ON ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WERE REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUCH AS LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTAGE, INSTALLATION OF SCREENING, LIGHTING, K RAILS, AND PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. THE VESTED COP IS DUE TO EXPIRE ON JANUARY 19TH, 2025. IF APPROVED TODAY, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME EXTENSION REQUESTS WITH TWO MORE POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS IN THE FUTURE. UH, THIS APPROVAL WILL BE ISSUED ONCE AGAIN TO GOODMAN AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ONLY, AND IT WILL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE OR RUN WITH THE LAND. A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH EXTENSION. THIS IS A MULTI-YEAR, UH, PROCESS OF BEING DEVELOPED, UM, AS A NEW INDUSTRIAL [00:15:01] CAMPUS FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY UNDER CASE NUMBER 22 0 8 DASH 18, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED ON MAY 18TH, 2023. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTINUE TO BE IN EFFECT AND THE APPLICANT CONTINUES TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AFTER APPROVAL OF THE 2023. UM, CUP GOODMAN ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NEXT TRUCKING FROM AUGUST 1ST, 2022 TO OCTOBER 1ST, 2023 FOR A TRUCKING AND TRAILER STORAGE OPERATION ON THE LAKEWOOD PORTION OF THE SITE. THIS OPERATION ALSO MAY USE OF A LONG BEACH PORTION OF THE SITE AT TIMES, BUT WITH THE LAKEWOOD PORTION SERVING AS THE FRONT OF OF THE, AS THE FRONT DOOR OF THE OPERATION, UH, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRE POSTING OF SIGNS ON THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE WITH INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC ON HOW TO SUBMIT COMPLAINTS RELATED TO THE OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CALLS FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE USE DURING THE TENURE OF NEXT TRUCKING. UH, DUE TO THE SHIFT IN ECONOMIC FACTORS IN THE GOODS MOVEMENT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY, THE DEMAND FOR USE OF THE SITE FOR TEMPORARY TRUCKING AND STORAGE DECLINE AND NEXT TRUCKING VACATED THE SITE. THEY VACATED BOTH THE LAKEWOOD AND LONG BEACH SITES AT THE END OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH GOODMAN AFTER NEXT TRUCK AND VACATED THE SITE. GOODMAN ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH TESLA BEGINNING ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2023. UNTIL NOW, TESLA BEGAN USING THE SITE FOR UNLOADING STORAGE AND STAGING OF, OF NEW TESLA VEHICLES UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TESLA MANUFACTURING ARM OF THE COMPANY WHEN CALLED FOR TESLA. VEHICLES ARE THEN DISTRIBUTED TO SHOWROOMS AND OTHER DIRECT TO CONSUMER SALES LOCATIONS IN THE REGION. THIS OPERATION IS LESS IMPACTFUL THAN TRUCKING OR, OR TRAILER STORAGE AND IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE CUP AND THE GLOVE MASTER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS HERE, UH, SHOWN IN RED. UH, THE ADDRESS IS 2131 IS WARLOW ROAD. THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD JURISDICTION IS OUTLINING YELLOW DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE PROJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE GLOVE MASTER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK AND THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. ALSO, THE SITE IS WITHIN THE REGIONAL SERVING FACILITY AND INDUSTRIAL PLACE TYPES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. BOTH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ALLOW THE PROPOSED USE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE SITE PLAN AND THE PRECISE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT SITE. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THERE IS A SIMILAR TRUCKING USED ALREADY APPROVED AND IN OPERATION ON A 7.47 ACRE PARCEL DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE IN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, THE LAKEWOOD SITE AND THE CITY OF LONG BEACH SITE. WHILE SEPARATE JURISDICTIONS ARE DIRECTLY ABIDING EACH OTHER AND CAN POTENTIALLY FUNCTION AS ONE LARGER FACILITY, CITY STAFF REMAINS IN ONGOING COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION WITH LAKEWOOD. REGARDING THE SHARE SITE, THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH REQUIREMENTS AND ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND THUS FAR NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE TEMPORARY USE. A TOTAL OF 220 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE DISTRIBUTED ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2024 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 21.2, ONE OF THE SONIAN REGULATIONS. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE WERE RECEIVED AT THE TIME THAT THE REPORT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THE STATE SQL GUIDELINES. THE PROJECT CONTINUES TO BE EXEMPT PER SECTION 15 3 0 1 AND SECTION 15 3 0 3. THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CE DASH 22 DASH 180 7 THAT WAS FILED PREVIOUSLY CONTINUES TO BE IN EFFECT FOR THIS PROJECT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE PROJECT'S SCOPE OF WORK, UH, AND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL. UH, AND SO THEREFORE THIS TIME EXTENSION REQUEST WARRANTS NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CQA GUIDELINES. STAFF THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION REQUEST AND REAFFIRM ALL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED THERETO FOR AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER CASE NUMBER 22 0 7 DASH 32 FOR TWO YEAR TIME, NO FOR A TWO YEAR TEMPORARY TRUCKING AND TRAILER STORAGE USE WITH AN OPTION FOR THREE ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSIONS POTENTIALLY ALLOWED FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE YEARS ON A VACANT PARKING LOT AT 2131 EAST WARDLOW ROAD WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT OF THE GLOBE MASTER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN, UH, THIS COMPLETES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. [00:20:03] THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THEIR PRESENTATION? NOT SEEING NONE, UH, ANYTHING THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION? NOPE. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO. SEE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. WE'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE. IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL COMMISSIONERS. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, IF WE COULD HAVE THE VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CLEMSON? YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THIS TO OUR NEXT ITEM? NO. THANK YOU. AND IF I COULD, BEFORE YOU READ THAT ITEM, I'D JUST LIKE THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER CASTILLO JOINED US DURING THE, UH, PRESENTATION. NOTED. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT A FINDING THAT IS THAT THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE [4. 24-55914 Recommendation to request City Council accept (CE-24-174) a finding that this project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) EIRA 03-16 (SCH NO. 2015051054) prepared for the General Plan Land Use Element update. The proposed amendment to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Regulations will not result in any new significant impacts or any impacts greater than those analyzed in the PEIR. None of the conditions requiring a new subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report, as stated in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code or in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, are present; and also find the project exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; Request City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA24-003) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA24-003), and adopt the proposed findings related thereto, to amend Chapter 21.67 of the Zoning Regulations to expand the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applicability beyond the Downtown Plan (PD-30) and Mid-Town Specific Plan (SP-1) submarkets and apply the ordinance citywide, including sites within the coastal zone; change the affordability requirements for Inclusionary Housing units; and implement other changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and Request City Council adopt a Resolution directing the Director of Community Development to submit the Local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for approval. (Citywide)       Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ] OF WHAT WAS ANALYZED IN THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIRA ZERO THREE DASH 16 PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLANNED PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR ANY IMPACTS GREATER THAN THOSE ANALYZED IN THE PEIR. NONE OF THE CONDITIONS REQUIRING A NEW SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS STATED IN SECTION 2 1 1 6 6 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OR IN SECTIONS 1 5 1 6 2 OR 1 5 1 6 3 OF THE CA GUIDELINES ARE PRESENT AND ALSO FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 5 0 1 16 B THREE OF THE STATE CA GUIDELINES REQUEST CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ZONING AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS RELATED THERE TO, TO AMEND CHAPTER 21.67 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO EXPAND THE EXISTING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE APPLICABILITY BEYOND THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND MIDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SUBMARKETS AND APPLY THE ORDINANCE CITYWIDE, INCLUDING SITES WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, CHANGE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS AND IMPLEMENT OTHER CHANGES TO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND REQUEST CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO SUBMIT THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL CITYWIDE. THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE A MOTION FROM VICE CHAIR TEMPLE AND COMMISSIONER CASTILLO TO HEAR THIS ITEM. DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? WE DO CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. SO AS YOU'LL RECALL FROM PREVIOUS STUDY SESSIONS, UH, STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING ON EXPLORING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, UM, REQUIREMENT CITYWIDE IT DOES TODAY ONLY APPLY TO DOWNTOWN AT MIDTOWN. UM, BUT SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ANALYZE THE DATA THAT SHOWS THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS ACTUALLY INCREASED IN THOSE AREAS SINCE THE REQUIREMENT WAS IMPOSED. MEANWHILE, DEVELOPMENT HAS AN INCREASED CITYWIDE AND WE HAVE, UM, INCREASED, UH, ZONING CAPACITY AS WELL AS BROUGHT IN OUR ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS LOCAL PROGRAM. SO WITH THOSE CHANGES TO THE MARKET AND THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AS DIRECTION FROM NOT ONLY COUNCIL, BUT UM, HCD WHO REALLY COMPELLED US TO ADD THIS PROGRAM, UH, TO EXPAND THE REQUIREMENTS CITYWIDE INTO OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. ALL THAT IS WHAT HAS SORT OF DRIVEN US TO THIS POINT TODAY. UM, SO I'M EXCITED TO, UM, PASS THE MIC OVER TO STEPHANIE HARPER, OUR PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS EFFORT, AND AIO SANDOVAL, THE PLANNER WHO WILL PROVIDE THIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU ALLISON. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED US. I'M GONNA START WITH A QUICK RECAP SINCE IT'S BEEN A COUPLE MONTHS SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE ON THIS ITEM. AND THEN I'LL SUMMARIZE THE STEPS THAT WE'VE TAKEN SINCE WE WERE HERE IN AUGUST FOR THE STUDY SESSION. AND THEN I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND PARTICULAR I'M GONNA HIGHLIGHT WHERE WE HAVE MADE CHANGES TO WHAT WE RECOMMENDED DURING THE SUMMER STUDY SESSION. AND THAT'S BASED OFF OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO CITY COUNCIL FIRST DIRECTED US AS STAFF TO DEVELOP AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY BACK IN, UH, 2017. AND AS A REMINDER, THE GOAL OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS TO FACILITATE THE PRODUCTION OF MIXED INCOME HOUSING. OUR POLICY REQUIRES DEVELOPERS TO SET ASIDE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING UNITS AS AFFORDABLE WITHIN OTHERWISE ENTIRELY MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. IT TOOK US SEVERAL YEARS TO DEVELOP OUR CURRENT POLICY AND THAT PROCESS INCLUDED AN ECONOMIC [00:25:01] FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT DETERMINED THE MAX PERCENTAGE OF UNITS THAT COULD BE SET ASIDE AS AFFORDABLE WHILE STILL ENSURING THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WOULD PENCIL OUT, STILL ENSURING THAT THEY WERE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE IN 2020. WE PRESENTED OPTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME FOR INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL THAT INCLUDED A MIX OF AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FOR RENTAL PROJECTS. THEIR RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED VERY LOW, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABILITY LEVELS. HOWEVER, CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME ADOPTED OUR CURRENT POLICY IN 2021 AND THEY CHANGED PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. THEY ULTIMATELY ADOPTED A POLICY THAT SETS ASIDE INCLUSIONARY RENTAL UNITS ONLY FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AT 11% OF TOTAL PROJECT UNITS. AND THAT WAS BASED ON A CONCERN FOR HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE MOST IN NEED. AS ALLISON MENTIONED. EXCUSE ME, OUR CURRENT POLICY APPLIES TO, UH, HOUSING PROJECTS ONLY IN DOWNTOWN IN MIDTOWN. UM, BUT WE DID COMMIT TO UPDATING THE POLICY. AS WE HAVE SEEN OUR DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS EVOLVE SINCE THEN. AS OF THE END OF TWENTY TWENTY THREE, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS HAVE BEEN ENTITLED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE POLICY. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE, AND THERE INITIALLY WAS CONCERNED THAT INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS WOULD SUPPRESS DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. IN FACT, ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION HAS ACTUALLY GONE UP IN THE INCLUSIONARY ZONES WHEN WE COMPARE THE TWO YEARS BEFORE THE POLICY WAS ADOPTED TO THE TWO YEARS AFTER INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE, WHICH IS THIS CHART THAT YOU SEE HERE. AND AS A QUICK REFRESHER, OUR ARENA OBLIGATION IS BROKEN INTO FOUR AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES THAT INCLUDES VERY LOW, LOW, MODERATE, AND ABOVE MODERATE. UM, DURING THE PROCESS OF CERTIFYING OUR CURRENT HOUSING ELEMENTS, THE STATE HCD MADE SURE THAT WE INCLUDED A COMMITMENT TO EXPAND INCLUSIONARY CITYWIDE. AND THE REASON OR PART OF THE REASON THEY WERE SO ADAMANT ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE HAVE HERE IN LONG BEACH. SO THIS CHART CHART IS SHOWING YOU OUR PRIOR ARENA. IT'S, UH, FOR THE YEARS 2013 TO 2021, AND WE ACTUALLY EXCEEDED OUR ALLOCATION FOR MARKET RATE HOUSING. WE REACHED 115% OF THAT ALLOCATION, BUT WE ONLY MET 16% OF OUR AFFORDABLE ALLOCATION. HERE'S OUR CURRENT ARENA, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT TREND HAS CONTINUED FOR THIS CURRENT CYCLE. SO AS OF THE END OF 2023, SO THAT'S THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OUR CURRENT HOUSING CYCLE, WE'VE ONLY MET 3% OF OUR AFFORDABLE ALLOCATIONS, BUT WE'VE MET 20% OF THE ABOVE MODERATE ALLOCATION AND WE'RE ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE WAY THROUGH. SO WE ARE ROUGHLY ON TRACK TO MEET OUR ABOVE MODERATE ALLOCATION, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND ON THE AFFORDABLE PRODUCTION SIDE. IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, UM, DIRECTED US TO EXPAND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CITYWIDE. WE PRESENTED AN UPDATE TO THE COUNCIL THAT MONTH AND PART OF THAT MEETING CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED US NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT EX EXPANSION CITYWIDE, BUT ALSO TO CONSIDER UPDATING THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE A MIX OF INCOME LEVELS. IN JUNE, WE PRESENTED DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY OPTIONS TO THE HOUSING AND PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE PRESENTED, UM, OPTIONS AS WELL TO THIS COMMISSION IN AUGUST. AS PART OF THIS STUDY SESSION, I'VE SUMMARIZED HERE SOME OF THE KEY FEEDBACK THAT WE HEARD FROM YOU ALL. UM, IN PARTICULAR WE HEARD SOME CONCERNS THAT A THREE YEAR PHASE IN FOR, UH, RENTAL PROJECTS COULD ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PUSH THROUGH PROJECTS AND POTENTIALLY AVOID IMPOSING THE WHOLE OR BEING SUBJECT TO THE FULL INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS. UM, WE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT REMOVING THE ONE MILE RADIUS REQUIREMENT. THIS WAS A PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR LAND DEDICATION, WHICH IS AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION THAT THIS COULD UNINTENTIONALLY ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO AVOID BUILDING AND HIGH RESOURCE AREAS BY INSTEAD DONATING LAND IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS. AND WE HEARD A CONCERN THAT ROUNDING UP INCLUSIONARY UNITS MAY OVERBURDEN SMALLER PROJECTS. SO AS I TALK THROUGH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, I'LL HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. NOW, SINCE WE WERE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IN AUGUST, WE HAVE HELD SEVERAL COMMUNITY FORUMS AS WELL AS FOCUS GROUPS WITH DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS. UM, I JUST WANNA MENTION HOW GRATEFUL WE ARE TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND TO STAKEHOLDERS FOR SHARING THEIR TIME AND THEIR EXPERTISE. WE HEARD REALLY VALUABLE FEEDBACK AND WE'VE INCORPORATED THAT INTO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I HAVE SUMMARIZED HERE SOME OF THE MAIN POINTS WE HEARD FROM, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND FROM STAKEHOLDERS FOR EVERY COMMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN, EITHER IN PERSON BY EMAIL OR THROUGH AN E-COM CARD. WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED THAT AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS AGENDA ITEM SO THAT YOU CAN SEE, UM, WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN IN PEOPLE'S OWN WORDS AS WELL. SO IN GENERAL, WE HEARD BROAD SUPPORT FOR CITYWIDE [00:30:01] EXPANSION FROM LONG BEACH RESIDENTS AND HOUSING ADVOCATES. A MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS AND HOUSING ADVOCATES EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ONLY FOR VERY LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW HOUSEHOLDS. WHAT WE DID HEAR SOME SUPPORT FOR A MIX OF AFFORDABILITY LEVELS THAT WOULD INCLUDE LOW OR POTENTIALLY MODERATE. WE HEARD A DESIRE TO INCREASE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT PERCENTAGES BEYOND THE 11 OR 12% IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HEARD A DESIRE FROM RESIDENTS AND HOUSING ADVOCATES TO REMOVE THE THREE YEAR PHASE IN PERIOD. AND THEN WE HEARD INTEREST IN ADDING LOCAL HIGHER PROVISIONS FOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTION. AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE FROM DEVELOPERS, WE PRIMARILY HEARD CONCERNS THAT INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS COULD OVERBURDEN IN PARTICULAR OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OWNERSHIP UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE HEARD INTEREST FROM RESIDENTS FROM MORE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES. WE ALSO HEARD A DESIRE FROM HOUSING ADVOCATES AND RESIDENTS TO KEEP CITY COUNCIL AS THE APPROVAL BODY FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS. AND THEN IN GENERAL, THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND ZONING REFORM TO WORK ALONGSIDE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS. SO I MENTIONED WE ARE GONNA, UM, I'M GONNA SHIFT NOW AND TALK ABOUT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I WILL HIGHLIGHT WHERE WE'VE MADE CHANGES. ONE THING THAT HAS NOT CHANGED IS WE ARE CONTINUING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE EXPAND INCLUSIONARY CITYWIDE IN LINE WITH OUR COMMITMENT IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTION WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE, HOWEVER, MADE SOME CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO, UM, AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FOR BOTH RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP PROJECTS, AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO TECHNICAL CHANGES. AND AGAIN, THAT'S BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED THUS FAR SINCE AUGUST. I'M GONNA START WITH RENTAL PROJECTS. SO PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WERE HERE IN AUGUST, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO UPDATE THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO INCLUDE A, A MIX OF VERY LOW INCOME, LOW INCOME AND MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABILITY, AND TO APPLY DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS BASED ON OPPORTUNITY AREAS OR RESOURCE AREAS WHICH ARE SET BY THE STATE. WE MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. PART OF THAT IS TO, UM, PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A BROADER RANGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED, INCLUDING WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE ALSO ARE LOOKING TO ADDRESS AND OVER CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS AND TO FOSTER ECONOMIC INCLUSION TO HELP OVERCOME SEGREGATION, WHICH ARE KEY FAIR HOUSING GOALS FOR US. WE HAVE NOW REVISED THIS RECOMMENDATION. IN PARTICULAR, WE ARE NO LONGER RECOMMENDING MODERATE INCOME UNITS. INSTEAD, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO FOCUS INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS ON VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THAT'S BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT WE'VE DONE. AND I'LL TALK THROUGH THAT IN IN JUST A SECOND. THE SECOND PIECE THAT WE HAVE REVISED IN OUR RECOMMENDATION IS WE ARE NOW RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC SUB-MARKET AREA MAP, UM, BASED ON OPPORTUNITY OR RESOURCE AREAS SET BY THE STATE LARGELY, BUT ALSO DESIGNATING DOWNTOWN IN MIDTOWN AS STANDALONE SUBMARKET AREAS, AND THEN APPLYING DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS TO THE DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OR THE SUBMARKETS AGAIN IN ORDER TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR FAIR HOUSING GOALS. SO OUR CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS HERE ON THE CHART. FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE RENTAL PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY THAT ARE LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT A TOTAL OF 12% OF PROJECT UNITS BE SET ASIDE HALF OF THOSE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND HALF FOR LOW INCOME. IN MIDTOWN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING 12% OF PROJECT UNITS BE SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. AND FOR PROJECTS LOCATED AT HIGH RESOURCE AREAS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT 11% OF UNITS BE SET ASIDE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. PROJECTS LOCATED IN MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING 12% TOTAL UNITS, AGAIN, HALF 6% FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 6% FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. AND THEN FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN LOW RESOURCE AREAS OF THE CITY, WE'RE RECOMMENDING 12% OF PROJECT UNITS SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. NOW, THE REASON WE ARE NO LONGER RECOMMENDING MODERATE INCOME LEVEL AFFORDABILITY LIES IN HOW THE LOW INCOME LIMITS ARE CALCULATED. IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT LOW INCOME UNITS STILL ACHIEVE OUR GOALS OF SERVING A BROADER INCOME RANGE OR A BROADER RANGE OF HOUSEHOLDS AND PROMOTING ECONOMIC INCLUSION. BUT THEY DO SO AT A DEEPER AFFORDABILITY THAN MODERATE INCOME LIMITS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS IN LA COUNTY, THE IT, THE LIMIT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ACTUALLY EXCEEDS MEDIAN INCOME AND IS CLOSE TO THE LIMIT FOR MODERATE INCOME. SO YOU SEE ON THE CHART IN LA COUNTY THIS YEAR, THE MEDIAN INCOME IS $98,200. AND MOST [00:35:01] COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA, LOW INCOME EQUATES TO 80% OF THE MEDIAN AND VERY LOW INCOME EQUATES TO 50% OF THE MEDIAN. HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFIES LA COUNTY AS AN AREA WHERE HOUSING COSTS ARE UNUSUALLY HIGH COMPARED TO INCOME LEVELS. THEREFORE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS INCREASED THE LIMITS FOR VERY LOW INCOME AND LOW. SO THE CHART SHOWS YOU THAT THE LIMIT FOR LOW INCOME IS ACTUALLY 113% OF THE COUNTY'S MEDIAN. THAT MEANS THAT A FAMILY OF FOUR MAKING LOW SIX FIGURES, $110,000, ALMOST 111,000 IS CONSIDERED LOW INCOME BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HOUSING EVEN THOUGH THEIR INCOME EXCEEDS THE MEDIAN. NOW, THIS HIGH COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO MODERATE INCOME THAT IS CALCULATED AT 120% OF THE COUNTY'S MEDIAN. AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY'RE A VERY SMALL MARGIN BETWEEN THE LOW INCOME LIMIT AND THE MODERATE INCOME LIMIT. IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY ABOUT $7,000 PER YEAR. AND I KNOW WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT THE KEY TAKEAWAY ON THIS IS THAT SETTING ASIDE INCLUSIONARY UNITS FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLD DOESN'T MEANINGFULLY SERVE A BROADER RANGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE QUALIFY UNDER THE LOW INCOME LIMIT. NOW, WHAT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY IS THAT WHILE THERE IS A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN INCOME LIMITS BETWEEN LOW AND MODERATE, THERE'S A REALLY LARGE DIFFERENCE IN RENT. AND SO THAT FEDERAL HIGH COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE RENT CALCULATION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE. SO LOW INCOME RENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE AFFORDABLE THAN MODERATE, WHICH YOU SEE HERE ON THE CHART. UM, SO THERE'S A MODERATE INCREASE IN RENT FROM VERY LOW INCOME TO LOW, BUT FOR LOW TO MODERATE RENT JUMPS BY OVER $1,200 A MONTH. AND SO WHILE THE INCOME DIFFERENCE IS SMALL, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT A $7,000 BETWEEN LOW AND MODERATE RENT IS BIG. IT'S A, IT'S $14,000 A YEAR THAT THE MATH JUST DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE. SO, AND IN, IN FACT, MODERATE RENT CAN ACTUALLY BE HIGHER THAN MARKET RATE RENT IN SOME CASES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN LONG BEACH FOR OLDER PROPERTIES OR FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN OUR LOWER RESOURCE AREAS. AND THEN BY AGAIN, AS BY COMPARISON, THE LOW INCOME RENT IS NOT MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN VERY LOW INCOME RENT. SO KEY TAKEAWAY HERE IS THAT SETTING ASIDE INCLUSIONARY UNITS FOR VERY LOW INCOME AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS CAN HELP PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A BROADER RANGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT NEED IT, INCLUDING WORKFORCE HOUSING. AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING $110,000 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR. UM, BUT IT DOES SO WHILE MAINTAINING A DEEP LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY THAT WE KNOW WE NEED FOR OUR RESIDENTS. ONE MORE POINT I WANNA MAKE ABOUT WHY WE SHIFTED AWAY FROM MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABILITY LEVELS IS THAT MOST OF THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITIZE VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR EVEN EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THESE ARE THINGS LIKE FEDERAL AND STATE SUBSIDIES, OUR CITY AND OUR STATE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES AND HOUSING VOUCHERS. AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TOOLS THAT PRIORITIZE HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. AND SO INCLUSIONARY IS THAT INCLUSIONARY POLICY IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND CAN REALLY EXPAND OUR HOUSING TOOLBOX AS A CITY. OKAY, I WANTED TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON THE SUB-MARKET AREAS AND THE CHANGE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION HERE. THIS MAP IS A LITTLE BIT SMALL. I APOLOGIZE ON, UM, THE POWERPOINT SLIDE, BUT WE DID INCLUDE IT AS A STANDALONE ATTACHMENT TO THE ITEM, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT AS WELL. UM, SO WE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPLYING INCLUSIONARY RENTAL REQUIREMENTS BASED ON RESOURCE AREAS SET BY THE STATE. WE HAVE MODIFIED THAT SLIGHTLY TO CREATE A, UH, A SUBMARKET MAP THAT HAS FIVE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. THREE OF THOSE AREAS ARE BASED ON THOSE STATE DEFINED RESOURCE AREAS, HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW. UM, OUR HIGH RESOURCE AREAS ARE SHOWN IN THE MAP AS BLUE. AND AGAIN, HERE'S WHERE WE'RE REQUIRING, UM, OR RECOMMENDING REQUIRING 11% VERY LOW INCOME AFFORDABILITY LEVEL. AND THAT'S TO ENSURE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY AS VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN THE MOST EXCLUDED FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE IN THESE AREAS. YELLOW ON THE MAP SHOWS MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS. HERE'S WHERE WE'RE RECOMMENDING A MIX. HALF OF THE UNITS FOR VERY LOW AND HALF FOR LOW, A TOTAL OF 12% SET ASIDE. AND THEN THE GREEN IN THE MAP IS OUR LOW RESOURCE AREAS. HERE'S WHERE WE'RE RECOMMENDING 12% OF LOW INCOME UNITS. THE GOAL BEHIND HERE, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DECONCENTRATE POVERTY IN THESE AREAS. AND THEN WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING, UM, STANDALONE SUBMARKETS. SO FOR DOWNTOWN, IT TECHNICALLY HAS A MIX OF LOW AND MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS, BUT IT IS A MATURE HOUSING MARKET. AND WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM ADVOCATES THAT OUR PRIOR RECOMMENDATION MAY NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH VERY LOW INCOME UNITS. AND SO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO REQUIRE A MIX OF VERY LOW INCOME [00:40:01] AND LOW INCOME UNITS FOR ALL PROJECTS LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN UNIFORMLY. AND THAT'S SO THAT ALL PROJECTS HAVE AT LEAST SOME VERY LOW INCOME UNITS WHEN THEY'RE LOCATED HERE. AND THEN FOR MIDTOWN, WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING TREATING THIS AS A STANDALONE SUBMARKET. UH, NEARLY ALL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN LONG BEACH HAVE BEEN CONCENTRATED IN THIS AREA ALONG LONG BEACH BOULEVARD. UM, MOST OF THOSE PROJECTS PRIORITIZE VERY LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW HOUSEHOLDS. AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION HERE IS, UM, 12% UNIT SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. AND THE GOAL IS TO DECONCENTRATE POVERTY IN THIS AREA. WE ARE RECOMMENDING PHASING IN INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL PROJECTS OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THIS APPLY TO ALL AREAS OF THE CITY EXCEPT FOR DOWNTOWN AND MIDTOWN AS THE PRO THESE HAVE ALREADY FULLY PHASED IN UNDER OUR CURRENT POLICY. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND HOUSING ADVOCATES THAT A PHASE IN MAY NOT BE NEEDED OR PERHAPS IS TOO LONG. THE RATIONALE FOR US IN THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT DEVELOPERS PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING YEARS IN ADVANCE. AND SO HAVING A THREE YEAR PERIOD, UM, ALLOWS THEM TIME TO ADJUST, ALLOWS THEM TO WORK THAT INTO THEIR PERFORMANCE AND ALLOWS THE HOUSING MARKET TO CATCH UP. AND I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT WHEN WE WORKED WITH A CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP OUR ORIGINAL POLICY, THE CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS A FIVE YEAR PHASE IN PERIOD. AND SO WE HAVE LANDED ON THREE YEARS. IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO US AS A WAY TO BALANCE OUT THE URGENT NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE DESIRE FOR THE, FOR GIVE SOME TIME FOR THE HOUSING MARKET TO ADJUST. OKAY, I'M GONNA MOVE NOW TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OWNERSHIP PROJECTS. THIS IS NEW. WE PREVIOUSLY HAD NOT MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP PROJECTS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HEARD FEEDBACK AND WE'VE LOOKED AT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND WE ARE NOW RECOMMENDING PHASING IN AFFORDABILITY LEVELS IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE MORE OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT. SO THE CURRENT INCLUSIONARY POLICY IS THAT 10% OF OWNERSHIP PROJECT UNITS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THAT'S AT 120% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. OUR RECOMMENDATION NOW IS CONTINUING WITH THE 10% SET ASIDE CITYWIDE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING A SUB-MARKET AREA APPROACH FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS, BUT FOR AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING STARTING AT 200% OF THE AREA MEETING INCOME FOR TWO YEARS OR UNTIL 200 UNITS ARE ENTITLED, WHICHEVER IS LONGER. WE ARE THEN RECOMMENDING DECREASING THE AFFORDABILITY LEVEL TO 150% OF THE AREA MEETING INCOME FOR ONE YEAR OR UNTIL AN ADDITIONAL 200 UNITS ARE ENTITLED. THEREAFTER, WE WOULD GO TO 135% OF THE A MI OF AREA MEETING INCOME FOR ONE YEAR OR UNTIL ANOTHER 200 OWNERSHIP UNITS ARE ENTITLED. AND THEN FROM THERE THE AFFORDABILITY WOULD BE SET AT MODERATE INCOME, 110% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. SO THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE IS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM DEVELOPERS CONCERNS THAT OWNERSHIP HOUSING IS COSTLY TO DEVELOP, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH RESOURCE AREAS WHERE LAND IS MORE EXPENSIVE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS A NEED AND A DESIRE FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES. WE'VE ALSO LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS. THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN THREE OWNERSHIP PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SINCE INCLUSIONARY POLICY WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2021. NONE OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED IN THE INCLUSIONARY ZONES IN DOWNTOWN AND MIDTOWN AND NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN LOCATED IN HIGH RESOURCE AREAS. AND SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO DO MORE TO FACILITATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO INCREASING THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL THEREBY ALSO INCREASES THE LIMIT ON THE AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE FOR EACH INCLUSIONARY UNIT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S AN INCREASED INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP OWNERSHIP UNITS. AND SO AS WE WOULD SEE MORE OWNERSHIP PROJECTS COMING ONLINE, OUR RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO PHASE IN DEEPER AFFORDABILITY LEVELS UNTIL WE REACH MODERATE INCOME. OKAY. OUR LAST BATCH OF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATES TO TECHNICAL CHANGES TO REFINE THE POLICY. THESE ARE BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE IMPLEMENTING IT OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS. THE FIRST RELATES TO HOW INCLUSIONARY UNITS ARE CALCULATED. WE ARE RECOMMENDING ROUNDING UP FRACTIONAL UNITS FOR LARGER RENTAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE 21 OR MORE UNITS. UM, WE HEARD CONCERNS FROM THIS COMMISSION IN AUGUST THAT ROUNDING UP FRACTIONAL UNITS COULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT AND OVERBURDENED SMALLER PROJECTS. AND SO WE HAVE REVISED THIS RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW SMALLER RENTAL PROJECTS AND OWNERSHIP PROJECTS TO RETAIN THAT OPTION TO INSTEAD PAY AN IN LIE FEE FOR THE FRACTIONAL UNIT INSTEAD OF ROUNDING IT UP. AND THEN WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT FRACTIONAL UNITS AT DIFFERENT INCOME [00:45:01] LEVELS BE ADDED TOGETHER AND APPLIED TO THE LOWEST AFFORDABLE LEVEL FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THESE BE SOLD TO FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS. THIS IS INTENDED TO CLOSE A LOOP AT THE, A LOOPHOLE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT COULD ALLOW FOLKS WHO ALREADY OWN A HOME TO PURCHASE THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE ESTABLISHED AS THE APPROVAL BODY FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS INSTEAD OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS HOW IT IS IN OUR CURRENT POLICY. WE HAVE HEARD CONCERNS THAT THESE DECISIONS SHOULD STAY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AS ELECTED OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO US TO SHIFT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THIS ALIGNS WITH YOUR ROLE OF, UM, PROVIDING APPROVAL FOR DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS THAT DON'T REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION. AND WE DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT AS PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, ALL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS WOULD BE APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LAND DEDICATION. WE HAVE REVISED THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE COMMISSION IN AUGUST. OUR RECOMMENDATION NOW IS THAT IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO DONATE LAND INSTEAD OF BUILDING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE, UM, THAT LAND MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT THAT IS SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS UNLESS THE LAND IS IN A HIGH RESOURCE AREA. NOW, CURRENTLY OUR POLICY ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE IF THAT METHOD PROVIDES FOR MORE UNITS OR WOULD OTHERWISE PROVIDE A GREATER PUBLIC BENEFIT. WE ARE RECOMMENDING ADDING LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY HOW THESE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS WOULD BE EVALUATED. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT STAFF WILL EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL BASED ON, UM, WHETHER IT HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR FAIR HOUSING GOALS, THE POLICIES IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND ARENA, AND THAT WE WOULD ISSUE FINDINGS AND THEN RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE PROPOSAL BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS. WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING TO EXPAND THE USE OF IN LIE FEES CURRENTLY, WHEN IN LIE FEES ARE COLLECTED, THEY CAN ONLY BE USED TO PROVIDE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSING ONLY FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OR BELOW. WE ARE RECOMMENDING EXPANDING THIS TO ALLOW A BROADER RANGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS WOULD GIVE US FLEXIBILITY TO USE ANY IN LIE FEES TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS SUCH AS FIRST TIME HOME BUYER PROGRAMS OR COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING REMOVING THE VERY LOW INCOME LIMIT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SERVE A WIDER RANGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THROUGH THESE IN LIE FEES. WE ARE RECOMMENDING EXEMPTING PROJECTS FROM INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS IF THE PROJECT WILL RESTRICT AT LEAST HALF OF THEIR TOTAL UNITS TO HOUSEHOLDS AT A VERY LOW INCOME OR AT VERY LOW OR LOW INCOME. THIS WOULD ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR PROJECTS TO ACCESS FUNDING SUBSIDIES TO BUILD ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY INCLUSIONARY. AND THEN LAST, THIS IS KIND OF A TECHNICAL CHANGE, BUT UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A CHANGE TO WHEN THE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO RECORD A REGULATORY AGREEMENT WHICH EVIDENCE THE AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS ON A PROPERTY. CURRENTLY THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE RECORDED BEFORE PERMITS ARE ISSUED. WE ARE RECOMMENDING MOVING THIS EARLIER IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO RECORD THE AGREEMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SUBMITTING FOR PLAN CHECK. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP IN IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECTS, UM, AND IT'S TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE AND IN THE APPROPRIATE LIEN POSITION BEFORE A DEVELOPER OBTAINS CONSTRUCTION FINANCING. UM, THIS SLIDE, UH, SUMMARIZES THE STEPS THAT WE TOOK TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS HEARING. WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS. THEY ARE INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENTS TO THE AGENDA ITEM WERE PROVIDED TO, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS. AS OF THE TIME THIS POWERPOINT WAS PUBLISHED, WE HAD RECEIVED, UM, THREE COMMENTS. UM, ONE EXPLICITLY OPPOSING THE PROPOSED UPDATE AND TWO, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO CONSIDER. AND THEN I BELIEVE AFTER THIS POWERPOINT WAS PUBLISHED, TWO ADDITIONAL ONES CAME IN, ALL HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND I THINK MOST ARE UPLOADED AS WELL. UH, THIS PROJECT FALLS UNDER THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. IT IS ALSO EXEMPT FROM CQAA CITY COUNCIL. PUBLIC HEARING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED IN FEBRUARY, 2025 FOR THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR TONIGHT. AND IF THAT MOVES FORWARD, THE UPDATED POLICY WOULD TAKE EFFECT OF SPRING OF 2025. AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL TO MOVE THIS REQUEST FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THAT LAST COMMENT, WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE POLICY IF APPROVED IN FEBRUARY WOULD TAKE EFFECT IN SPRING OF 2025, HOW DOES THAT THREE YEAR PHASE IN THEN WORK? [00:50:01] IS THAT SPRING OF 2025? THE SPRING OF 2026 IS YEAR ONE BE LIKE A 12 MONTH PERIOD FROM THE TIME THAT IT GETS IMPLEMENTED? YES, THAT'S THE INTENTION. WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT. WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE IT ADOPTED AND INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST, BUT HERE WE ARE. WE DIDN'T WANNA RUSH THE PROCESS. SO WE'RE STILL FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE TECHNICALLY IN THE CODE AND HOW WE WOULD COMMUNICATE THAT APPROPRIATELY. BUT THAT'S THE INTENTION FOR IT TO BE THREE 12 MONTH PERIODS. THANKS. AND THEN COULD YOU GIMME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS MIGHT LOOK LIKE? UM, THE, THE ONE THAT WE'VE HEARD, UM, BEFORE, WE HAVEN'T FULLY PROCESSED ONE YET, BUT A COUPLE OF PROJECTS HAVE COME TO US INTERESTED IN DOING DIFFERENT LEVELS, AFFORDABILITY. UM, AND SO THERE WAS ONE EXAMPLE PROJECT THAT'S IN THE MIDTOWN AREA WHERE THEY WERE INTERESTED IN DOING MODERATE, UH, UH, LEVEL UNITS INSTEAD OF VERY LOW INCOME. AND IN THAT AREA THERE IS AN OVER CONCENTRATION OF VERY LOW INCOME. SO WE, WE DID WANNA BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT. SO THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE. THERE COULD BE OTHER TYPES AS WELL THOUGH. SO JUST OFFER SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE PLAN TO BE REVIEWED AS LONG AS IT MEETS OUR HOUSING AND, AND RE GOALS. AND THEN, UM, HOW OFTEN IS THE MEETING INCOME RECALCULATED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S PUBLISHED ANNUALLY OR, YES, THAT'S ANNUAL. THANK YOU. AND MY LAST QUESTION BEFORE I SEE WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO ASK IS HOW IS, HOW DOES THE PRICING WORK FOR AFFORDABLE FOR SALE OPTIONS? IT'S INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED . UM, SO IN A NUTSHELL, YOU SORT OF WORK BACKWARDS FROM, YOU HAVE THE PRICE OF THE UNIT, UM, IT'S TYPICALLY A CONDO OR A TOWN HOME. SO THEN YOU HAVE AN ASSUMED, UM, HOA FEE. YOU HAVE AN ASSUMED RATE OF, UH, PROPERTY TAX INSURANCE AND OTHER COSTS. UM, AND THEN PREVAILING INTEREST RATES. UM, YOU PUT THAT ALL INTO A FORMULA AND THEN IT, THAT SALES PRICE NEEDS TO RESULT IN A PAYMENT THAT'S LESS THAN 35%, UM, OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S INCOME AT THE ASSIGNED UM, LEVEL. UM, SO WE WENT ROUND AND ROUND ON, UM, THE OWNERSHIP SIDE BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE'VE HAD DIFFICULTY. WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD OWNERSHIP PROJECTS. UM, SO AT, UH, 200% OF A MI YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SALES PRICE THAT'S PRETTY HIGH IN THE SEVENS BUT IS LOWER THAN WHAT PRICES ARE BEING MARKED AT FOR NEW PRODUCT TODAY. UM, AS THE MARKET MATURES AND MORE UNITS COME ONLINE, YOU WOULD SEE THE CITY, UM, ACHIEVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY ON FUTURE UNITS. UM, BUT SINCE PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ZERO, UM, WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO START AT THAT VERY, UM, MODEST LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY SO THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY GET SOME ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND MATURE THAT MARKET AND THEN BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE GREATER, UM, OFFSETS IN THE FUTURE. ALSO, HOPEFULLY TO GET SOME DEVELOPERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLICATED PROCESS AND HOW THAT WORKS AND GET A COMFORT LEVEL WITH, UH, WITH THAT. YEAH, I MEAN THERE'S, THERE'S SOME FACTORS WITH OWNERSHIP HOUSING THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HAVING TO DO WITH, UM, CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY AND SOME OTHER THINGS. SO WE'RE SEPARATELY WORKING ON THAT, BUT UM, THE SALES PRICE IS OBVIOUSLY ONE IMPORTANT FACTOR. YEAH, AND I THINK ON OUR, I MEAN SOME OF THE WORK THAT STAFF AND, AND THE CITY HAVE DONE ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THE OTHER INCENTIVES THAT GO ALONG WITH KIND OF THE CARROT PART OF THE INCLUSIONARY, I THINK HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN HELPFUL ON THE RENTAL SIDE OF THINGS. SO COMMISSIONERS, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER CLEMSON, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, DEFINITELY LEARNED A LOT OF ABOUT, UH, INCLUSIONARY ZONING, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, I WANNA GO BACK TO THE MODERATE INCOME REQUIREMENTS. I, I, I'VE, I LOST YOU THERE. . UM, I GOT THE PART WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT LOW IN LOW TO MODERATE INCOME, INCOME DIFFERENCE IS LOW AND THAT THE LOW TO MODERATE HOUSING COSTS ARE HIGHER THAN THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT TRANSLATE TRANSLATES INTO US NOT INCLUDING A MODERATE INCOME REQUIREMENT. WE COULD THAT SET THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION. SO WE HAVE DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE THINK ARE APPROPRIATE. UH, YOU COULD MODIFY THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, THE REASON THAT STAFF, UH, PIVOTED, UH, FROM MODERATE TO LOW ARE TWOFOLD. ONE, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THOSE MORE AT NEED OR MOST AT NEED. UM, AND, UM, IN THE VIEW OF THOSE COMMENTERS THAT MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES WERE NOT IN NEED, I DON'T KNOW THAT STAFF AGREES WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO FORGE COMPROMISE AND, AND BE RESPONSIVE. UM, BUT I THINK FOR US THE MORE CONTROLLING FACTOR WAS THAT, UM, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RENT IN THE [00:55:01] MODERATE INCOME PRODUCT, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT, UM, THE RULES OVERRIDE THOSE RENT LEVELS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE A VERY HIGH COST HOUSING MARKET, UM, RESULTS IN A A RENT LEVEL THAT AT LEAST ON STUDIOS ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. THE RENTAL SAVINGS, I WILL SAY IS STILL SUBSTANTIAL ON THE THREE BEDROOM. YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T RENT A THREE BEDROOM UNIT FOR $2,700, UM, IN THE CITY. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT NEW PRODUCT, A MODERATE INCOME, THREE BEDROOM RENTS FOR MORE THAN $6,000 IN THE CITY. UM, BUT THAT SAID, STAFF THOUGHT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO TARGET THE LOW INCOME LEVEL, BUT THE MIX, UM, IS, IS ALL PART OF THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS AND IT'S, IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL TO FIND THE RIGHT MIX. AND TO ONE SLIDE PLEASE. IF, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THIS, THIS IS SOMEWHAT SKEWED BECAUSE THERE'S A FEDERAL RULE THAT COMES IN BECAUSE OF WE'RE IN A HIGH, UM, HIGH COST AREA THAT IS SKEWING WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE LOW INCOME AND THE MODERATE INCOME. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS DRIVING. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, SO BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK, UM, TO THE RENT DIFFERENCE IS THAT IF YOU IMAGINE FOR A DEVELOPER, WHAT THEY CAN GET BACK IN RENT IS SO DIFFERENT BETWEEN LOW AND MODERATE. IF YOU CAN'T, SOME FIND SOMEONE IN THAT $7,000 RANGE OF INCOME ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, YOU MIGHT NOT BE INCENTIVIZED TO BECAUSE YOU'RE EXPECTING IT TO BE AT THE MODERATE AND PEOPLE HAVE TO BE WITHIN THAT VERY SMALL INCOME RANGE. UM, THERE'S SOMETIMES TROUBLE ACTUALLY FILLING THE MODERATE UNITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT MUCH, UM, LOWER RENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO AT THE LOW INCOME WHEN THEY'VE DONE A PROFORMA BASED ON NEARLY DOUBLE THAT RENT FOR A MODERATE UNIT. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE A SITUATION WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY HARD TO FILL THOSE MODERATE UNITS, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THERE'S THAT NEED, BUT THE RANGE IS SO LOW, THERE'S NOT A TON OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY MAKING BETWEEN 111,000 AND 117,000. YEAH, AND THE, THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WITH THIS ARENA CYCLE, JUST LIKE LAST READING CYCLE, WE'RE HAVING AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT AMOUNT OF TIME BUILDING THOSE MODERATE UNITS. UM, I BELIEVE WE WERE AT ZERO RIGHT NOW AND I BELIEVE LAST TIME WE WERE AT ZERO . UM, YEAH, SO WE'RE NOT AT ZERO. WE DO HAVE A HANDFUL, UM, FROM SOME REDEVELOPMENT DEALS, BUT WE'RE AT LESS THAN A HUNDRED. SO THE THING, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO THINK ABOUT THAT. WE COULD CHANGE THE MIX. UM, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY AS WE PRODUCE NEW MARKET RATE PRODUCT, UM, A CLASS A BUILDING 10 YEARS LATER IS MODERATE INCOME BY VIRTUE OF THE RENTS THEY'RE CHARGING. WE DON'T GET ANY CREDIT IN THE ARENA CYCLE FOR THAT. UM, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF PRODUCING THAT TYPE OF HOUSING RATHER THAN KIND OF RESTRICTED, UM, BY COVENANT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. AND THE REASON THAT OUR CITY AND ALL CITIES DON'T HAVE MODERATE INCOME UNITS IS THAT THERE, UM, THERE IS NO WAY UNDER TAX CREDITS, UM, AND UNDER THE TAX CODE FOR US TO PRODUCE, UH, MODERATE INCOME UNITS. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING AND UNCLEAR TO US IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH HCD EXACTLY HOW WE WERE SUPPOSED TO, UM, PRODUCE THOSE UNITS. UM, INCLUSIONARY IS ONE POSSIBLE WAY, BUT THERE'S, UM, WE BELIEVE JUST INCREASING SUPPLY OVERALL ALSO ASSISTS WITH THE MODERATE LEVEL. AND COMMISSIONER, JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT, WE DID HAVE A HANDFUL OF MODERATE INCOME UNITS THE LAST CYCLE. UM, AS CHRISTOPHER MENTIONED FROM UH, A FORMER REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY DEAL. UM, I THINK THE BROADER CONTEXT IS OUR AFFORDABLE DISTRIBUTION IS REALLY LOW ACROSS, REALLY LOW ACROSS ALL LEVELS. SO WE'RE ON TRACK TO MEET 3% OF OUR AFFORDABLE ARENA ALLOCATION ACROSS ALL, UM, THREE CATEGORIES. MODERATE INCOME, AS CHRISTOPHER MENTIONED, LAGS BECAUSE THE SUBSIDIES ARE NOT THERE COMPARED TO LOW AND VERY LOW. BUT EVEN WITH THOSE TWO OTHER, UM, INCOME BANS, EVEN WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUBSIDIES SKEWED TOWARDS THEM, THERE'S STILL JUST NOT ENOUGH FUNDS AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED. YEAH, AND I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE, THE, THE CHALLENGE THERE. UM, I I GUESS I'M JUST GETTING HUNG UP ON THE IDEA THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD WANT TO BUILD A LOW INCOME UNLESS IT IS COMING DOWN TO THE TAX CREDITS, A LOW INCOME BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA ACCEPT A, THAT'S STILL GONNA BE LOWER RENT THAN THE MODERATE INCOME, CORRECT? THE LOWER, YES, IT IS DEFINITELY LOWER RENT. IT'S EASIER ON THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SIDE, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS. SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPER WOULD RATHER BUILD THE LOW INCOME UNIT THAN THE MODERATE INCOME UNIT. I THINK THEY'D [01:00:01] PROBABLY RATHER BUILD THE MODERATE INCOME UNIT BECAUSE IT'S A GREATER AMOUNT OF RENT. UM, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S GREATER PUBLIC VALUE TO THE LOW INCOME UNIT, UM, AND THAT THERE ARE SOME UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO THE MODERATE INCOME UNIT JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE RENTS ARE, UM, OVERRIDDEN IN THE, THE HUD CALCULATION. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, THE DEVELOPER'S GONNA WANT TO COLLECT MORE RENT RATHER THAN LESS RENT. UM, BUT WE DO SEE WITH DENSITY BONUS AND DIFFERENT THINGS THE WAY THE INCENTIVES ARE ARRANGED, UM, THAT SOMETIMES DEVELOPERS PREFER ACTUALLY THE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY GET THE MOST DENSITY, BONUS INCENTIVE PER UNIT SET ASIDE. SO IF I HAVE TO TAKE LESS THAN MARKET RENT ON A UNIT, IN SOME WAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH LESS THAT UNIT IS KIND OF NOT ACCRETIVE TO MY EARNINGS, BUT I WANT TO GET AS MUCH IN RETURN FOR IT. SO IT, IT'S DIFFERENT, UH, CALCULATION ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT. UM, AND THE LARGER PROJECTS HAVE MORE ABILITY TO ABSORB THE COST, UM, VERSUS THE, THE SMALLER, UH, PROJECTS. UH, THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANTED TO, I, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON, YOU FOLKS ARE WORKING ON, UH, UH, TRYING TO ADDRESS THE MODERATE INCOME. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT. SO THANK YOU. AND I DO WANNA GO BACK TO A QUESTION THAT, UH, CHAIR LEWIS HAD RAISED REGARDING, UH, THE PHASE IN. UM, WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON HOW THE PHASE IN WOULD WORK, BUT IT IS A LITTLE CHALLENGING TO HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE WITH THE CODE. SO I THINK AS WRITTEN, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR THE REST OF THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025 AND THEN RESET, UH, JANUARY 1ST. I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT MY STATEMENT FROM EARLIER. OKAY. ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NO. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, THE PEOPLE THAT CAME IN SWORN IN AND HAVE YOU ALL BEEN, I KNOW WE HAD SOME PEOPLE, RIGHT? HAVE YOU ALL BEEN SWORN IN? MM-HMM . YEAH. PERFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS NAZE ABES AND I'M THE CLT DIRECTOR WITH THE HOUSING FOR ALL LONG BEACH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST SPEAKING TODAY. UM, ON BEHALF OF THE CLT AND LONG BEACH RESIDENTS IN EMPOWER, I FIRST WANNA SHARE SUPPORT FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT LONG BEACH RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY ORGS HAVE SHARED AROUND THE EXPANDED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE THAT INCLUSION A AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND LONG BEACH IS ACCESSIBLE AND CENTERS COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP AND INPUT. THE CLT AND LIBRE HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN ENSURING FAIR HOU FAIR ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE UNITS. AS COMMUNITY-LED ORGANIZATIONS, WE'VE HEARD EXTENSIVELY FROM RESIDENTS WHO SHARE THAT THEY DON'T SEE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS REACHING THEIR INTENDED POPULATION EVEN AFTER THEY'RE DEVELOPED COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS ARE WELL POSITIONED AS COMMUNITY LED ORGANIZATIONS TO ASSIST IN ENSURING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE REACHING THE COMMUNITY. SEVERAL CITIES HAVE EMPOWERED CL LTS TO SERVE AS PROPERTY MANAGERS OF THE, UM, INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE UNITS. AND THE CLT CAN SERVE AS THE CONTRACTED PROPERTY MANAGER OF THE INCLUSIONARY UNITS AND IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO OUTREACH TO AND PLACE RESIDENTS IN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHICH ENSURES THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE REACHING THE INTENDED POPULATION AND, AND CAN BETTER HAVE FAIR ACCESS TO THOSE UNITS. THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY SHOULD DRIVE DEVELOPERS TO CHOOSE THE ONSITE OPTION WHENEVER POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, IF OFFSITE OR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE IS PERMITTED, WE HOPE THAT THE OUTCOMES BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE MOST IN NEED. WE APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION TO EXPAND CITY USE OF IN LIEU FEES TO BE USED FOR A BROADER RANGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING CLTS. AND WE ASK THAT THE ORDINANCE GO A BIT FURTHER BY PRIORITIZING CLTS AS RECIPIENTS OF THE IN LIEU FEES OR ALLOCATING A SET ASIDE OF THE FEES ANNUALLY TO CLTS. THIS WOULD SUPPORT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY GOALS OF DEVELOPING PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE MOST IN NEED. AND AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, AN APPLICANT MAY DEDICATE LAND TO THE CLT OR A LOCAL NONPROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPER. WE ASK THAT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY-CENTERED EFFORTS AND THAT ANY LAND DEDICATION BE PRIORITIZED TO CLTS. CLTS CARRY THE PURPOSE OF THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING POLICY TO PROVIDE PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH ACCESS TO THE SAME TYPES OF RESOURCES, AMENITIES, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING. NONPROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPERS BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS MAY NOT BE COMMITTED TO THE SAME PERMANENT AFFORDABILITY AND COMMUNITY CENTER PRINCIPLES AS WELL AS COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP. AND ALTHOUGH LAND DEDICATION MAY BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, UM, IN ORDER TO MEET THE GOAL OF CREATING MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, IDEALLY THE DEVELOPER WOULD BUILD THE OFFSITE UNITS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITS OR MANAGEMENT OF THE UNITS VIA MASTER LEASE TO ACL T. THE MANAGEMENT OF EITHER [01:05:01] RENTAL PROPERTIES OR THE SALE OR RESALE OWNERSHIP UNITS BY A CLT WOULD ENSURE FAIR ACCESS TO THOSE UNITS AND PERMANENT AFFORDABILITY. IF A LAND DEDICATION WERE TO BE MADE TO ACL T, WE ASK THAT THE CITY WAIVE THE PROHIBITION ON ACCESSING CITY FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE OFFSITE UNITS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STRONGER, UH, COMMUNITY CENTERED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. WE'RE ENCOURAGED BY THE OUTREACH THAT STAFF HAS DONE, UM, TO THE COMMUNITY AND INCORPORATION OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK IN THE ORDINANCE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH THE CITY THROUGH THE EXPLORATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S MARLENE EZ. I'M THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AT LONG BEACH FORWARD. WE WERE, UM, WHERE WE BELIEVE RACE AND INCOME SHOULDN'T DETERMINE ONE'S FUTURE ALONGSIDE THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT. LONG BEACH FORWARD SUPPORTS ITEM NUMBER, NUM NUMBER FOUR, AND HAVE SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVING IM, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY, HEAVILY IMPACTED BY H HOUSING INEQUITY. FIRST, WE REQUIRE, UH, REQUIRE 11% VERY LOW AND 5% EXTREMELY LOW INCOME UNITS ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER HOUSELESSNESS. TWO, WE MAKE, MAKE THE POLICY MANDATORY FOR ALL ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENTS. WE NEED AS MANY UNITS AS POSSIBLE. THREE, KEEP DECISION MAKING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE WANT DEMOCRACY FOR REMOVE ALL PHASE IN BASED ON GEOGRAPHY TO MAKE THE POLICY EFFECTIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HAPPY HOLIDAYS. HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. GOOD EVENING, SIR. HI, MY NAME IS ALEX ANO. I'M A COLLEGE STUDENT. I'M ALSO THE FOUNDER OF EVERYBODY'S LONG BEACH. UM, FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS I'VE DEVOTED MYSELF TO ADVOCATING FOR MORE HOUSING, WHICH IS WHY IT'S SO UNFORTUNATE THAT TODAY I HAVE TO OPPOSE THIS ITEM IN ITS ENTIRETY. I THINK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB, UM, WITH THE PRESSURES THAT THEY'RE SUBJECTED TO. HOWEVER, I THINK SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN UNDER DISCUSSED IS THE DOWNSIDES OF INCLUSIONARY SONY. IMMEDIATELY. IT'S AN PRICE HIKE IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. AFTER IMPLEMENTING INCLUSIONARY SONY, THEY SAW 8% INCREASE IN RENTS. A STUDY FROM BERKELEY FOUND THAT UNDER INCLUSIONARY ZONING, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS FOREGOING 40% OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT 2017. THAT'S WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, URGED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO LOOK INTO IT. BUT WE ARE FAR AWAY REMOVED FROM THAT. IN THE POLITICS OF TODAY, BORDERS ONCE AGAIN VOTED TO REJECT PRICE CONTROLS IN THE FORM OF PROP 33. THERE IS A GROWING CONSENSUS THAT THE SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING CRISIS IS MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD HOUSING. INCLUSIONARY ZONING WORKS AS A DEFACTO TAX AND DEVELOPMENT USING MARKET RADIO UNITS TO SUBSIDIZE AFFORDABLE INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS. THIS DOES NOT WORK IN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. WHEN THEY IMPLEMENTED INCLUSIONARY ZONING IN 2020, THE YEAR AFTER, THEY SAW A REDUCTION OF 30% IN ENTITLEMENTS. IN FACT, YEARS LATER, THEY ARE NOW REDUCING THEIR INCLUSIONARY. SO FROM 15% TO 5%, BECAUSE LAST YEAR THEY SAW ZERO MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS. IT'S CLEAR THAT CITIES THAT IMPLEMENT INCLUSIONARY SONY ORDINANCES DO NOT MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD HOUSING, AND IT DOES NOT PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR EVERYBODY. THE CITIES THAT DON'T IMPLEMENT INCLUSIONARY ZONING AND INSTEAD FOCUS ON MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD BY CUTTING RED TAPE AND SONY REFORM, THEY'VE ACTUALLY PRODUCED AFFORDABILITY FOR EVERYBODY. AND AUSTIN, TEXAS, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE INCLUSIONARY ZONING. IN FACT, THEY BUILT 23,000 UNITS LAST YEAR. RESIDENTS LIKE MYSELF ARE GOING TO SEE BENEFITS BECAUSE NOW RENTS ARE DECREASING 8% TO 12%. IT'S CLEAR THAT INCLUSIONARY ZONING, WHILE IT'S A COMMENDABLE GOAL, DOES NOT PRODUCE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION DEMAND THAT THERE EXIST TRUE, MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD HOUSING, WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD OURSELVES OUT OF THE HOUSING CRISIS. THERE'S A REASON THAT EVERY CITY THAT IMPLEMENTS INCLUSIONARY ZONING DOES NOT SEE IT ITSELF. MAKE IT OUT OF THE HOUSING CRISIS AND THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. I, AS A COLLEGE STUDENT, WOULD PROBABLY BENEFIT FROM THIS POLICY. IN FACT, AS A FAMILY OF FIVE, WE MAKE UNDER $60,000, UM, QUALIFYING FOR VERY LOW INCOME UNITS. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING CRISIS IS NOT PRICE CONTROLS. IT'S NOT A TAX AND DEVELOPMENT. IT'S BUILDING MORE HOUSING. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WE REALLY NEED. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE GROWING CONSENSUS THAT MAKING IT EASIER TO BUILD IS THE WAY THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE AFFORDABILITY [01:10:01] FOR ALL INCLUSIONARY ZONING IS JUST FRANKLY, A TAX AND HOUSING. I DON'T WANT US TO LOOK BACK FOUR YEARS LATER AND HAVE TO REDUCE IT, WASTING POTENTIAL GROWTH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. YOU'RE ONE OF MY FAVORITE COMMISSIONS. I FEEL LIKE I'M, I'M NOT HERE EVERY MEETING, BUT I'M HERE OFTEN. UH, AND I CERTAINLY WANNA THANK THE WORK THAT THE STAFF HAS DONE ON PART. COULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR US, PLEASE, ON PARTICULAR POLICY? MY NAME'S LEANNA NOBLE. I'M WITH THE NORTH PINE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE, WHETHER PEOPLE WANNA CALL IT ATTACKS. I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE PERSPECTIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN LIVING WITH THE LACK OF, AND NOW WITH INCLUSIONARY ZONING. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR EXPERIENCE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN THAT DEVELOPERS THEY'RE DEVELOPING TO MAKE MONEY AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF AN IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S OVERWHELMINGLY RENTERS. 80% PLUS IS NOT WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT. SO BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN OUR REALITY FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN DOWNTOWN, I WANNA ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT THIS MEANS, WHAT INCLUSIONARY ZONING CAN MEAN FOR AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE IN LONG BEACH, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS WILL GAME THE SYSTEM. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO US WHEN OUR STAFF IN THE CITY ADOPTED THE ORIGINAL INCLUSIONARY ZONING BEFORE IT WENT INTO EFFECT. OUT OF THE, OUT OF FIVE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY ALL RAN LIKE HECK AND GOT THEIR ENTITLEMENTS BEFORE THE ORDINANCE BEGAN. ONLY ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPERS VOLUNTARILY INCLUDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO WE LOST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE ROLE THAT THE DEVELOPERS PLAYED. WE NOW HAVE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT DO WE GOT? WE HAVE EIGHT PROPERTIES THAT WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY, ARE EITHER VACANT LOTS OR VACANT BUILDINGS, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED BY OUR CITY AND HAVE BEEN SITTING THERE, FRANKLY, FOR A HELL OF A LONG TIME, UNDEVELOPED, VACANT. MANY OF THEM NOW HAVE A FOR SALE SIGN ON THEM, AND THEY'RE THRILLED BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET A BETTER PRICE BECAUSE THEY'RE ENTITLED. SO I'M ASKING YOU, PLEASE NO PHASE IN AND MAKE THIS MANDATORY. OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE STABILITY OF OUR FAMILIES DEPEND ON THIS BEING A STRONG INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER? SEEING N DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? YES, WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. KURT CANFIELD, YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT. HEY THERE. UM, SO THANK YOU FOR UNMUTING ME. UH, EXCUSE ME. IF YOU HEAR CHICKEN FRYING IN THE BACKGROUND, UM, I OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE, UH, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK INCLUSIONARY ZONING IS, UH, A GOOD POLICY IN SOME CASES, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UM, WE'RE GONNA BE EXPANDING IT INTO AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE ULTIMATELY LESS DESIRABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AS BUILT OUT AS DOWNTOWN. THEY HAVE LESS AMENITIES. THEY HAVE LESS THINGS TO OFFER, AND THEY COMMAND LOWER RENT FOR THE MOST PART. UM, AND BY INCLUDING, UH, HIGHER AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE REGIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, UH, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE PROPOSITION OF DEVELOPING, UH, LARGER AND MORE, UM, UNITS LESS DESIRABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. UH, MY GOAL REALLY AS BEING A ADVOCATE FOR HOUSING IS TO JUST GET MORE UNITS. UM, SO ANYTHING THAT KIND OF SLOWS THAT PROCESS, MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE, MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT. [01:15:01] IT'S NOT A GOOD POLICY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE PROJECTING TO NOT COME PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR OUR ARENA GOALS. SO, UH, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN THIS EVENING. THERE ARE NO OTHER RITUAL ATTENDEES. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK BY IN THE RAIL COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? PLEASE GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER WARE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF AREAS FOR CLARIFICATION. SO OUR CURRENT ARENA FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS HOW MANY UNITS? A LITTLE OVER 15,000. OKAY. AND HOW AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW TOWARDS THAT GOAL? HOW MANY HAVE WE PRODUCED SO FAR? YES. UH, A LITTLE OVER 500. OKAY. UM, SO IT'S FOLLOWING THAT IF WE DO NOT INCLUDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DEVELOPMENT, IS THERE EVEN A POSSIBILITY WE CAN GET TO THAT NUMBER? SO THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT IS BY FAR THE, THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE. THAT'S TRUE FOR EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTRY IN CALIFORNIA. I THINK EVERY SINGLE MAJOR CITY IS STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GO FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCALE TO THE LAST, UM, RENAL CYCLE. UM, THAT BEING SAID, EVERY POLICY THAT CAN HELP MEET THOSE AFFORDABLE NUMBERS IS GOING TO DO SO, UM, THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHY, UH, STAFF HAS BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AND WHY WE'RE EXPANDING AT CITYWIDE AT THE BEHEST OF CITY COUNCIL. UM, SO THERE'S NOT A CLEAR, SIMPLE ANSWER. THIS COULD BE PART OF A MUCH BIGGER PUZZLE, I THINK IS THE SIMPLEST WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN APPROACHING IT. SO IF WE DON'T DO THIS, THEN WE ELIMINATE SOME OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS BY, BY HAVING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE, THE ENTIRE, UM, CITY, CORRECT? RIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS ONE OF MANY TOOLS WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR GOALS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE COULD ACCOMPLISH OUR GOALS AT ALL WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR TOOL. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND JUST IN REGARDS TO SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AREN'T REACHING THE DESIRED TARGETS? NO. SO, UH, WE GO THROUGH A VERY DETAILED PROCESS FOR LEASE UP OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHETHER THEY'RE IN A PROJECT THAT WE FINANCED OR A PROJECT THAT'S CREATED THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS OR A PROJECT THAT'S, UM, CREATED THROUGH INCLUSIONARY. SO THAT'S NOT TO SAY SOMEONE CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AND DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH, RIGHT? SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO ACCESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY. THEY MAY TRY TO ACCESS A PARTICULAR UNIT AND NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT UNIT BECAUSE IT'S OVERSUBSCRIBED. THERE IS VERY LONG WAITING LIST. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT BECAUSE THEIR INCOME WAS TOO LOW OR TOO HIGH, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC TARGET OF AFFORDABILITY, UM, OR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, WHICH ARE THOSE, UH, THAT ARE AT THE LOWEST LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY THAT FOR THOSE, UM, BASICALLY EXPERIENCING OR AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS, THOSE ARE LEASED UP THROUGH THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM. SO THAT CAN BE VERY FRUSTRATING TO SOMEONE WHO IS IN NEED AND SAYS, I WANNA LIVE AT THIS BUILDING, AND THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT YET HOMELESS. SO THE LEASE UP PROCESS CAN BE, UH, COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT, BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT ISN'T WORKING. UM, THE PROCESS IS FAIR. THERE'S A LOTTERY TYPICALLY FOR THOSE UNITS. UM, TENANTS ARE SCREENED, THEY HAVE TO MEET THE INCOME ELIGIBILITY, UM, AND IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THEY'RE LOCAL, NOT JUST TO THE CITY, BUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE, UM, PROJECTS. SO WE ACCOMPLISH MANY GOALS IN LEASING UP THESE PROJECTS, BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE LIFE EXPERIENCE OF SOMEONE DESPERATELY NEEDING HOUSING AND NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT ISN'T TRUE. UM, BUT, BUT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS AND THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE, UH, FOR THESE PROJECTS. AND JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, OUR ARENA GOAL FOR THE VERY LOW INCOME CATEGORY IS JUST OVER 7,000 UNITS. AND A MAJORITY OF THAT CALCULATION COMES FROM EXISTING NEED, NOT JUST FUTURE POPULATION. AND WE'VE PRODUCED 168 UNITS OUT OF THIS PROGRAM. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION VERSUS THE SCALE, YOU CAN IMAGINE MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, FEELING THE IMPACT SO FAR. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION IN BOTH AREAS. COMMISSIONER CASTILLO. THANK YOU. UM, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE PERCENTAGES. COULD YOU REITERATE OR, OR REINFORCE KIND OF HOW WE LANDED ON THE 12% VERSUS 11% VERSUS 16%? UH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A VERY HOT TOPIC AS WELL, BUT, UH, TRYING TO MEET THE DEMAND AND HOW MUCH WE ACCELERATE, HOW MUCH WE RESTRICT ALL OF THAT? THANK YOU. SO I THINK, LET'S STEP BACK FIVE YEARS. UH, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED STUDYING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AT THAT TIME WE HAD OUTSIDE FIRM KMA PREPARE A MARKET STUDY AND BASICALLY DETERMINE WHAT WOULD THE MARKET [01:20:01] BEAR IN TERMS OF AN INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT AND CONTINUE TO PRODUCE UNITS. UM, AND THE NUMBER, UM, THAT THEY CAME UP WITH, UM, WAS BETWEEN 11 AND 12%, DEPENDING ON THE MAKEUP OF THE MIX, WHETHER IT WAS VERY LOW OR LOW OR MODERATE. UM, AND, UH, WE THEN WENT THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS WITH THE COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. AND A LITTLE OVER THREE YEARS AGO, UM, ENACTED THE 11% THAT APPLIES DOWNTOWN AND IN MIDTOWN. UM, THIS TIME AROUND WE HAD, UH, INSTRUCTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXPAND CITYWIDE. UH, WE DID NOT, UM, REDO THE ECONOMIC STUDY FOR A COUPLE REASONS. OUR OWN CONSULTANT SAID, YOU CAN PAY US, BUT WE DON'T RECOMMEND REDOING IT. UM, AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY. SO UNDER STATE LAW, YOU CAN ENACT INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS UP TO 15% WITHOUT DOING THE IMPACT STUDY THAT USED TO BE REQUIRED, UM, UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS FIND THAT GOLDILOCKS NUMBER, WHICH PRODUCES AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT IS NOT SO HIGH THAT IT BECOMES SO BURDENSOME THAT INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS DISCONTINUE DOING PROJECTS IN THE CITY. UH, COMPLETELY. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT NUMBER IS BETWEEN 11 AND 12% BASED ON THE PRIOR ANALYSIS AND BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT PROGRAM WHERE PRODUCTION CONTINUED, IT ACTUALLY INCREASED BUT ONLY MODESTLY. UM, AND WE THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THE RIGHT BALANCE IS. IS THEIR MOVE MEANT TO TWEAK IT OR PLAY WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S COMPRISED OF? ABSOLUTELY. UM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE NUMBER WAS REALLY HIGH? IF WE HAD A 25% INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT, WE WOULD'VE ZERO PROJECTS IN THE CITY AND 25% OF ZERO IS ZERO. SO WE'D BE PRODUCING FEWER AFFORDABLE UNITS. LIKEWISE, IF WE MADE THE NUMBER VERY LOW, LET'S SAY A 4% REQUIREMENT, UM, WE MIGHT GET, UH, MODESTLY MORE OVERALL PRODUCTION AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MARKET RATE UNITS, BUT ONLY MODESTLY, AND WE WOULD GET FAR FEWER AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE WE WOULD'VE SET THE REQUIREMENT TOO LOW. SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THERE ISN'T, UM, ROOM TO ADJUST 'EM. AND THEN AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, AS, AS WE CAST THE NET WIDER OR CITYWIDE, UM, WHAT IS OUR ANTICIPATED, UM, BENEFIT AS A RESULT OF THAT IN TERMS OF ACCELERATING PRODUCTION? YEAH, SO I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY WE ARE EXPANDING CITYWIDE, WHICH GEOGRAPHICALLY IS A HUGE EXPANSION, ALTHOUGH MOST OF OUR PROJECTS ARE DOWNTOWN. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, WHEN WE CLOSE THE BOOKS ON THIS YEAR, WE'RE GONNA HAVE 1650 TO 1700 HOUSING STARTS FOR THE YEAR. I THINK IF WE CAN CONTINUE TO GROW THAT NUMBER, BUT GROW THAT NUMBER MODESTLY, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. IF WE'RE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, UM, THROUGH THE REZONING IN CENTRAL LONG BEACH AND NORTH LONG BEACH THAT'S NOW COMPLETED, YOU KNOW, PRODUCE ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED UNITS A YEAR, UM, THAT'S A GREAT START. UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD MEAN DOZENS OF ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHICH CERTAINLY IS NOT THE THOUSANDS THAT WE NEED, BUT IS MORE THAN WE'RE PRODUCING TODAY. UM, SO I THINK OUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE MEDIUM TERM ARE MODEST, BUT EVEN IF WE ONLY PRODUCE 48 MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THAT MAY NOT SOLVE OUR ENTIRE NEED, BUT IT'S INCREDIBLY MEANINGFUL AND IN FACT, LIFE CHANGING TO THE 48 FAMILIES THAT BENEFITED FROM THAT. SO, UM, THAT'S OUR EXPECTATION. WE DON'T EXPECT DEVELOPMENT TO DOUBLE OVERNIGHT OR, UM, THOUSANDS OF NEW UNITS TO COME ONLINE. UM, BUT I AM HOPEFUL, UM, THAT WE WILL HAVE HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL UNITS, UH, COME ONLINE EACH YEAR OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN, AND THAT THAT TRANSLATES TO DOZENS OF ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS EACH YEAR. THANK YOU. AND, AND CERTAINLY THE ANALOGY OF DOING SOMETHING VERSUS NOTHING IS, IS, UH, IS IMPACTFUL HERE. UM, AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, AS THIS CHALLENGE, THIS IS JUST ONE TOOL OF, OF THE ARSENAL, UM, HOW, UM, ARE WE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT SINCE, UH, IT DOES APPEAR TO BE ALMOST AN INSURMOUNTABLE, UH, CHALLENGE, UH, BECAUSE EVERY YEAR WE'RE, WE'RE THE, THE CURVE LINE CONTINUES TO GET STEEPER AND STEEPER TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU FORESEE, UM, AS OBVIOUSLY THE, IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL TO MAKE THOSE TARGETS EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE AND SO FORTH, BUT WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES AS WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, MEETING THOSE GOALS? YEAH, SO WE HAVE A PRETTY ROBUST PIPELINE OF A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE [01:25:01] PROJECTS. WE'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF LEVERAGING BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO GO INTO THOSE PROJECTS. THOSE PROJECTS CAN TAKE FIVE PLUS YEARS TO END UP IN CONSTRUCTION. SO WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS NOW THAT WE'VE FUNDED OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS OF, WE'VE GOTTEN REALLY GOOD AT NOT JUST SPENDING, UM, STATE DOLLARS, UM, LIKE WHAT'S CALLED PLHA, UM, BUT ALSO WE'VE STARTED USING CDBG DOLLARS DIFFERENTLY, WHICH USED TO BE SPENT ON PROGRAMS, UM, FOR LOW INCOME PERSONS. BUT WHAT WE HEARD IN SURVEYS WAS PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT PROGRAMS. THEY WANTED US TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS. SO WE, YOU CAN'T USE CDBG TO BUILD HOUSING, BUT YOU CAN USE CDBG TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY THAT THEN A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE WOULD BE USED TO BUILD THE HOUSING. SO WE'RE USING CDBG, UM, DIFFERENTLY. I SIGNED, UM, A FUNDING AGREEMENT TODAY FOR A PROJECT, UM, NEAR, UH, 14TH AND LONG BEACH BOULEVARD, UM, THAT WILL USE CDBG THAT WAY. BUT WE WILL SEE THOSE PROJECTS START COMING ONLINE IN 26 AND 27. YOU DON'T SEE THOSE TODAY. UM, LA COUNTY, UH, PASSED LA COUNTY MEASURE A, UM, WHICH IS GONNA PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE PROJECTS, UM, THAT THOSE FUNDS, YOU KNOW, WILL START BEING COLLECTED IN APRIL OF 2025. BUT REALLY WE'LL SEE 'EM HERE IN THE CITY IN 2026. UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL FUND A COUPLE HUNDRED, UH, ADDITIONAL UNITS PER YEAR. UM, ADDITIONALLY THERE'S A GATEWAY HOUSING, UM, TRUST, WE DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT WILL COME OF THAT, BUT THAT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AS WELL. SO WE'RE GONNA SQUEEZE EVERY NICKEL AND DIME OUT OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE CAN. UH, ARE WE GONNA PRODUCE 15,000 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS TIMEFRAME? PROBABLY NOT. UM, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, WE'RE REQUIRED TO TRY AND REMOVE AND TO REMOVE BARRIERS AND TO ZONE APPROPRIATELY TO ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE UNITS, UM, BEING CONSTRUCTED. BUT, UM, WE, WE ARE ON TRACK TO PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAN WE HAVE AT ANY TIME SINCE REDEVELOPMENT ENDED, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY HOW THE CITY PAID FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO, UM, THAT'S OUR APPROACH THUS FAR AND, AND WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE, THE CITY COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH, UH, NEW TOOLS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CASTILLO. YOU'RE GOOD. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM SOME OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAD. UM, IF A PROJECT IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED, UH, AND HAS NOT STARTED CONSTRUCTION, BUT IT'S WITHIN ITS ENTITLEMENT PERIOD AND, AND HAS ITS, UH, EXTENSIONS THAT ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO IT, THE PHASE IN DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THOSE PROJECTS IN ANY EVENT, RIGHT? IF WE WERE REMOVE THE PHASE INS, THOSE PROJECTS WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED UNDER THE PREVIOUS RULES? THAT'S CORRECT. SO ENTITLEMENTS ARE PROCESSED BASED ON THE RULES ON THE BOOKS AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPLY. AND THAT PROTECTION IS IN PLACE, UM, FOR DEVELOPERS TO ENSURE THAT, UM, JURISDICTIONS CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES THAT THEN TOTALLY CHANGE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT ONCE THEY'RE ALREADY, UM, IN THE QUEUE. SO THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THOSE PROJECTS. AND THEN FOR THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND, AND SOME OF THE APPROVALS THAT ARE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THEY GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, INSTEAD OF GOING DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THERE WAS A, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HAD A, A QUESTION OR A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. UH, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ALMOST A BETTER PROCESS 'CAUSE YOU GET A CHANCE TO HAVE A HEARING DEVOTED TO THAT ITEM AND IF THERE IS CONCERNS, AND THAT IS APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO IS THAT, IS THAT THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT? EXACTLY. AND THEN DO, ARE THERE INCENTIVES WITHIN, I, AND I SHOULD KNOW THIS AND I DON'T, ARE THERE INCENTIVES INCLUDED INSIDE OF OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROVISIONS? YEAH, GREAT QUESTION. SO THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS, BUT UM, THE NEXT CHAPTER AFTER INCLUSIONARY, THE NEXT CHAPTER OF THE ZONING CODE IS OUR ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. AND WE ADOPTED THAT JUST A FEW MONTHS AFTER INCLUSIONARY CAME ON THE BOOKS BACK IN 2021. AND SO IT DOES PROVIDE THAT CARROT AND STICK TOGETHER. SO ALTHOUGH PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEY GET SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 80 AND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN AN 80 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT BONUS DEPENDING ON WHAT PROPORTION THEY PROVIDE. BUT EVEN JUST FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENT, THEY DO GET SOME AMOUNT OF BONUS AS WELL AS INCENTIVES AND CONCESSIONS. AND SO, UM, WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON AN EFFORT TO, UM, STUDY WHAT TWEAKS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM BASED ON THE UPDATES TO THE INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE. WE'VE, UM, WE'RE STILL FINISHING NEGOTIATIONS, BUT WE'RE RECEIVING FUNDING TO DO A STUDY ON THAT NEXT YEAR SO THAT AS SOON AS, UM, WE KNOW THE SORT OF, UH, FINAL OUTCOME OF THIS PROCESS, WE CAN LOOK AT HOW MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO TWEAK THE INCENTIVES TO BEST WORK WITH THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO MEET OUR GOALS AND TO CONTINUE TO FACILITATE, UM, MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. AND SO THAT COULD BE, AS THIS GETS ADOPTED, THAT COULD GIVE A REAL INCENTIVE FOR DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T [01:30:01] BEEN HAD THOSE OPTIONS OF HAVING THOSE INCENTIVES TO DEVELOP IN THOSE OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. CORRECT. AND THEN, UM, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ARENA GOALS, REALLY THAT WAS OUR, THE WORK THAT WE DID ON THE LAND USE ELEMENTS, LOOKING THROUGH WHERE AS A CITY WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH MORE DENSITY AND SO WE HAVE CREATED ZONING THAT ALLOWS US TO MEET THOSE RE GOALS. AND NOW WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE CARROTS AND THE STICKS TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS. THAT'S RIGHT. AND OUR REZONING PROGRAM IS STILL UNDERWAY, BUT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES, UM, FOR PROJECTS TO COME IN EVEN UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. AND WE DO DEMONSTRATE OUR ABILITY TO MEET OUR ARENA IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO FACILITATE IT BASED ON THE LAND USE SETTLEMENT. UH, SO THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN BACK TO THAT DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, I THINK AT ONE POINT WHEN WE HAD LOOKED AT THIS A FEW YEARS AGO, WE HAD ACTUALLY COME IN WITH SLIGHTLY LOWER PERCENTAGES, AND WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEIR, THEIR, UH, HEARING OF IT, THEY CAME UP WITH THE PERCENTAGES THAT WE'RE AT NOW. CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONERS, ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE PLEASE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOU THAT CAME DOWN THIS EVENING AND GAVE TESTIMONY. UH, WE APPRECIATE THAT. UH, WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE'RE DONE WITH OUR REGULAR ITEMS AND I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY NON AGENDIZED ITEMS. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO. SEEING NO COMMENTS IN THE CHAMBER, DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? OH, I'M SORRY. I WAS GOING TOO QUICK, QUICK. YOU UH, WELL FIRST OF ALL, ALEX, ARIANA, GOOD EVENING. IT WAS NICE TO COME BACK. UM, [PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Planning Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the Chair.] YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW AND IN THAT TIME PERIOD I'VE MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LIKE HOW WE TALK ABOUT HOUSING, RIGHT? UM, AND SPECIFICALLY I'VE COME AROUND TO THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A LOT OF FLAWS IN THAT DISCUSSION. SPECIFICALLY, LIKE THE MINDSET THAT THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHORTAGE IS SORT OF WRONG. THERE'S A HOUSING SHORTAGE OF ALL KINDS OF UNITS, RIGHT? UM, AND THAT GOES IN HAND WITH ARENA. I THINK, UM, DIRECTOR KOON SAID SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING, WHICH IS THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BUILD THOSE ARENA UNITS. WE'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THOSE UNITS. UM, BUT THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS IF YOU DON'T MAKE IT FEASIBLE TO BUILD, UM, DEVELOPERS WON'T BUILD ENOUGH, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE LIKE SORT OF IN THIS PREDICAMENT WHERE WE DO A POLICY LIKE THIS INCLUSIONARY, PREVAILING WAGE, ANY OF THOSE ORDINANCES THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE COSTLY. AND THEN WE DO INCENTIVES. BUT IT'S JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ULTIMATELY, WE END UP AT GROUND ZERO WHERE IT'S STILL VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ENOUGH HOUSING TO TRULY GET US OUT OF THE SHORTAGE. UM, SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT LIKE I EXPECTED. UM, SO YEAH, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND YOU'RE LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AG AGENDAS ITEMS, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THAT PRESENTATION AND FOR ALL THE WORK ON THAT. THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF, UH, DETAIL THAT YOU PROVIDED, COMPLEX SUBJECT AND, UH, MADE IT A LOT EASIER FOR US TO UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS ON IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO WISH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS A VERY, UH, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL ON THE NEW YEAR. AND THE SAME TO [ANNOUNCEMENTS] STAFF. AND THANK YOU TO THE CLERKS FOR ALL, ALL OF YOUR WORK AS WELL. AND WITH THAT, OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.