Speaker 2: Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing and accept statutory exemption. 17 Dash 136 Declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to A2 use read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify and amend amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program and adopt a resolution modifying the established development impact fee structure for 80 use citywide.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Stay safe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For this item, we will have a staff presentation from Linda Tatum, our planning bureau manager, and Carrie Tai, our current planning officer.
Speaker 3: I'd like to introduce Carrie Tai, who will make the staff presentation for this item. Carrie has been assisted by the rest of our project team. Scott, Kinsey and Alexa.
Speaker 0: Carrie.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. This is a continued public hearing from October 10th, 2017, and it's regarding a city initiated ordinance pertaining to local regulations for accessory dwelling units, which, as you know, the state of California required requires local jurisdictions to allow. I'm going to do a very brief background just for the benefit of the audience. But basically last year there were a series of state laws that were passed and that took effect January 1st of this year. And those laws mandated that local jurisdiction, local jurisdictions approve accessory dwelling units if they meet a certain set of standards. And it also prohibits cities from largely requiring parking for those accessory dwelling units. However, state law does allow for cities to adopt local ordinances to refine the state regulations, and that's what the staff is proposing at this point. Local ordinances have the ability to regulate lot size, the size of accessory dwelling units, processing requirements, and also details such as development impact fees and covenants that restrict the use of that accessory dwelling unit. So on July 6th, 2017, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a local accessory dwelling unit ordinance. The City Council conducted a public hearing on this item on October 10th, where the Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and also took public testimony via a public hearing. After City Council deliberation, the Council continued the item and requested that staff change several proposed standards. Those standards are minimum lot size, so to increase the minimum lot area for a property to be eligible for construction of an accessory dwelling unit from 4800 square feet to 5200 square feet. The second item was to increase the required open space from 25% of the gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit to 30%. The third change was to reduce the maximum accessory dwelling unit size to 50% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling or 800 square feet, whichever is less. And the Planning Commission recommendation, just to remind everybody, was 1000 square feet. So the council asked us to reduce that. And lastly, the council asked us to look at requiring parking for accessory dwelling units in preferential parking districts. So I will talk a little bit about that. So the table on the screen as well as in the staff report details the standards that are in the proposed local ordinance as compared to state law. And as you can see, the list of standards includes minimum lot size, a lot with a light coverage, floor area ratio, etc.. The items highlighted in red are the city council requested changes to the Planning Commission's recommendation and so the minimum lot size at 5200 square feet and the open space at 30% of the size of the accessory dwelling unit. And there.
Speaker 3: We also.
Speaker 6: Had a pretty extensive discussion on generally the number of units, number of properties with single family homes that would be able to construct an accessory dwelling unit. And based on the lot size alone and not taking other details into consideration like light configuration, light shape. About roughly two thirds of residential lots with single family homes in the city could possibly be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit, but that's based solely on lot size. As mentioned, the Council also amended the Planning Commission's recommendation for maximum accessory dwelling unit size. There are two types of accessory dwelling units attached and detached, and this would mean that an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary single family home would be limited to 50% of the size of the single family home or 800 square feet, whichever is less. There are some exceptions for if the primary dwelling unit is is particularly small, but that that would allow an accessory dwelling unit of at least 640 square feet and then all detached ones would be limited to 800 square feet. So with regard to parking districts, as discussed in the staff report and at the prior public hearing, all the state law included many provisions about how cities can regulate parking. One of those is that any accessory dwelling unit located within a half mile of public transit does not require parking. In fact, the state just does not allow the city to require parking. However, certain areas such as the coastal zone and the designated parking impacted area because required findings have to be made that not requiring parking for accessory dwelling units may negatively impact those areas based on their physical characteristics and their development patterns. The local ordinance does does propose to require one parking space per accessory dwelling unit. So the difference in the preferential parking districts which the city council asked us to look at.
Speaker 3: At.
Speaker 6: These districts, differ from parking impacted areas in the sense that they're the way they're created. They are, rather than physical characteristics, they are potentially impacted by nonresidential uses in the nearby proximity that have the potential to negatively impact the on street parking during certain, whether it's business hours or whether it's operating hours. Of those nonresidential uses, the presence of the parking permits ensures that the residential neighborhoods remain available for residential parking, and by definition, they don't share the same physical characteristics that the parking impacted areas do. And because of this, the the imposition of a parking requirement in preferential parking districts on accessory dwelling units would not be consistent with the provisions of of of state law on how cities could require parking for these uses. So therefore the parking requirements, as proposed in the local ordinance would remain essentially as proposed by the Planning Commission with one with one change. And I will mention there was a recent state law that was adopted in October, which now limits cities to one parking space per accessory dwelling unit, whether it's in the coastal zone or otherwise. And so that requirement will stand. And then I should also mention that there is required replacement parking required for anybody who converts their garage to be an accessory dwelling unit. That replacement parking does not have to be in a garage. It can be in another exterior configuration and it can also be tandem, and that is detailed in the ordinance. There are other accessory dwelling unit standards that ensure that the inclusion of accessory dwelling units will be consistent with residential neighborhoods, and some of those include exterior modifications to ensure that these units are architecturally compatible with their primary dwelling and also that there are privacy standards when we when we review the location of these accessory dwelling units . Lastly, I did mention that there are covenants that are required on accessory dwelling units. The owner must live on the property or if the entire property is leased out, then one tenant, one party, if you will, would be limited to living on that on that site, even though there's two units. And that would be something that the property owner has to sign to agree to. The other two provisions would be that short term rental of the units is prohibited and by short term that's less than 30 days. So in the in the commonly understood as things like Airbnb that would be prohibited and also the covenant would restrict the accessory dwelling unit from being sold separately. I mentioned development impact fees. The new development in in the city pays development impact fees. The state law requires that impact fees be commensurate with the scale and demands of the proposed improvements. And then given that accessory dwelling units are limited to a smaller scale, they're accessory in nature and they're allowed in more limited circumstances. The staff is proposing that a development impact fee that is proportionate to accessory dwelling units a, b be implemented. And so included in your action in your item tonight is a resolution to adopt development impact fees that are commensurate for the size of accessory dwelling units. So with that stuff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as amended by your direction from the October 10th meeting for minimum lot size, minimum open space requirements and maximum unit size, as well as adoption of the resolution for development impact fees. And I should mention, because this is a zoning code amendment, there is also a resolution that would direct the Director of Development Services to forward this on to the California Coastal Commission for Certification. So that concludes staff's item. And we can any we can address any questions you have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion in a second on this item. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I want to thank staff for incorporating the amendments that the City Council provided direction on the last time we were addressing this topic. And I think it's it's very clear that this was an issue that we received a great deal of community feedback on. And the proposal that came to us from the Planning Commission really did not, although it was well thought out, it really did not take into account some of the concerns that we heard from our residents. So I appreciate you making the modifications that you did. And I'm much more comfortable today with where we stand in terms of our local regulations then than I was before. These amendments were made much more comfortable. I do have a few follow up questions on the two thirds calculation that you provided for us regarding the number of units, residential units that might qualify. That's based strictly on the 5200 square foot calculation, right?
Speaker 6: Yes, that is correct. And it's based solely on lot size, with no regard for the way the property's currently developed or the way the property is shaped.
Speaker 5: Okay. So if someone were to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property, they would have to comply with all the other regulations that we have, such as setbacks, height, open space, all those additional things in order to even be eligible to build one.
Speaker 6: Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 5: And we haven't done a calculation of how many properties in the city because we don't know how all of those two thirds of those homes, how they're structured currently.
Speaker 6: That is correct. There are many, many, many different variations in those configurations.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: So I think that's a really important qualifier. And I want to highlight it that we're not saying that two thirds of the homes in the city, residential homes in the city could could have accessory dwelling units that based on lot size alone. And none of the other factors that are part of our development standards, such as setbacks, building heights, open space, all of those things, those are not factored into that very rough estimate. The other thing that I wanted to ask is how are we going to be tracking the development of these properties so that we can study the rate and the locations of the buildings and so that we can make sure they're being built to standard standards and continually updated.
Speaker 6: Thank you for your question on the on the issue of tracking the city does because all the accessory dwelling units require building permits the administration of building permits is done through our electronic permit tracking system. So we are able to tell which properties have accessory dwelling units. And also it acts as a repository for us to store the covenants that every property is also required to to sign and record. So we have copies of those as well. But we have a way to we will have a way to track them and also track the size of them where they were approved. And that way we could verify later on if something were to change.
Speaker 5: Okay. Is that when people apply for a building permit, will they be able to identify on the actual permit that this is an accessory dwelling unit?
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely. That's required to be identified.
Speaker 5: Is it possible for council to get a report back on an annual basis of how many accessory dwelling unit applications we've received?
Speaker 3: Yes, we certainly can do that. And we will make a tickler to do so.
Speaker 5: One.
Speaker 3: Year after the effective date.
Speaker 5: Of the ordinance. And I would just.
Speaker 3: Note that staff is also interested in knowing the volume that's really important for the city's housing inventory. So we'd like to have a handle.
Speaker 5: On that number as well. That's great. And then towards that end, since this is a bill building permit process, will the neighbors in the vicinity get notifications when there's a building permit filed for an accessory dwelling unit?
Speaker 3: No, a any residential development is a what we call a ministerial approval, and it's allowed by right by the code. So there is absolutely no requirement for noticing of any neighbors on the any proposal.
Speaker 5: Okay. But the annual report would give us hopefully it could be designated or it could be categorized such that we know maybe what districts, the permits, whatever.
Speaker 3: We can certainly do that. Yes, that would be great. Okay.
Speaker 1: Kate. Thank you. So you mean that emotion?
Speaker 5: That's emotion.
Speaker 1: Yes. And second wave, actually. Richardson, vice mayor. Thank you. I'll just be brief. I know we had an opportunity to have a robust conversation on this and just to refocus it. We know that people are already sort of living in substandard situations, garages, things like this. Growth is already happening. This just allows us to grow in a way that's not haphazard and is safer. And and along with, you know, it goes along with with existing building codes and safety codes. So the state, you know, has has required cities to do this and take a good look. All the cities are figuring out what to do or how to how to address this, whether or not to comply with the state and and what that looks like. And I think that we've tried to have a measured approach and really figure this out. So good job on staff and I'm going to be voting in support of this tonight. Thank you, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 3: I want to thank staff for the work they did. I, too, have some questions. On page seven, you talk about the parking required under the amendments to state law. You said same of the existing number of spaces for primary dwelling. What are those for a standard single family residence right now?
Speaker 6: Thank you for your question. Council Member.
Speaker 3: Mongo.
Speaker 6: On page seven. I'm trying to find your.
Speaker 3: The reference here. Here's the box for the ADAS in the coastal zone parking at one. And then on the right side of this primary dwelling, same as existing number of spaces. Is that chart reflecting that? If you have a single family home today, you're required to have x number of parking spaces.
Speaker 6: For for the replacement parking? Yes. If you're if you're a single family home and you have two spaces and you convert your garage, you must provide two replacement spaces. And that's why it's the same as the primary dwelling unit.
Speaker 3: So tourist placement spaces in addition to the two driveway spaces. A the drive. Not every home has a driveway. Right.
Speaker 6: So if you cannot if you cannot provide replacement parking, your property is not eligible to to be converted.
Speaker 3: So this has come up a few times from residents in our district because in the fifth District, a lot of the homes are built where there's, say, a31 on the front and all the Douglas homes at the time when they were built. And then there's a long driveway to a two car garage in the back. So if that two car garage was converted, they already have a considerable number of spaces that they may or may not use for parking. So tell me how that works.
Speaker 6: In that configuration. Thank you. In that configuration, the long driveway would act as the tandem parking spaces that would serve as the replacement spaces for the garage that was converted.
Speaker 3: So it would it would be not replacing spaces. It would be acknowledging spaces that existed but were not required before. Right.
Speaker 6: The spaces that exist in the driveway at one, at one point were excess and in excess of the spaces that were in the garage. And now the excess spaces turn into the required spaces. That is correct.
Speaker 3: And. So if someone like that added an accessory dwelling unit separate from the garage, they would be required to add one of those spaces, theoretically as an extension of a replacement space or an additional space.
Speaker 6: A No. If the property is within a half mile of a transit stop, a parking would not be required for the accessory dwelling unit. And therefore, if they converted a portion of the primary unit to the accessory dwelling unit and the garage remained, they would not need to provide additional parking at all.
Speaker 3: So you say a transit stop, but in other legislation that's been discussed these days, it's a transit corridor. Is this a transit stop or is it a transit stop that has access every 15 minutes or every 8 minutes or what?
Speaker 6: We discussed the accessory dwelling unit legislation is is does not define the transit priority area or transit corridor like some of the other legislation or legislative documents do. The transit stop is simply the stop, and it does not define the headway or the frequency of service.
Speaker 3: Do we have a map? I'm sorry? Do we have a map that shows any and all locations that are not within a half a mile of a transit stop in the city? There is there is an exhibit in the staff report. But I can summarize by saying that fully 98% plus of the city is actually covered by is proximity to a transit stop. That was going to be my guess. So I think that there's one last question. People who currently have illegal accessory dwelling units or that they were built not through a permit process before this was built , what is the process that would be that they would undergo to become a acknowledged accessory dwelling unit?
Speaker 6: If they have if they currently have an illegal conversion, they would have to come in and undergo the same process that somebody who didn't have anything at all would have to go through. And if if the case was that their property in some way, shape or form did not qualify for that accessory dwelling unit, they would have to take corrective actions to return that to whatever purpose it was, if it was a garage or if it was a portion of their their home. That is a single family property that only allows one unit. They would have to correct it to that state.
Speaker 3: And how are you going to be able to inspect some of the standards, considering that the walls are already closed up and you can't see the electrical and all those things are now hidden inside the walls?
Speaker 6: As part of any permit to legalize an illegal conversion. The inspector, the building inspectors have to be able to verify that the construction was done in accordance with the current building codes. And if that necessitates opening up an illegally constructed wall, that is something that the property owner would have to undertake in order for the inspectors to verify what is behind the wall. And that includes not only the construction of walls, but things like wiring and things like plumbing, all of which, if not constructed properly, have the potential to be dangerous.
Speaker 3: So I appreciate the changes that were made when this came to the council the first time. We didn't have all the information because not every city had taken on this this challenge yet. Last night at the city council meeting in Pasadena, they had a very robust discussion. One of their council members had actually gone on a ride along with their fire chief and responded to a fire at an accessory dwelling unit. And so what are the egress and ingress requirements for an accessory dwelling unit? Are they significantly similar to that of a duplex? What what protections do we have?
Speaker 6: The building code requirements for an accessory dwelling unit are the same as those for a residential habitable space. And not being a building inspector myself and I do know that there are certain window exits and certain door exits that are required, but it's in the same fashion that a residential single family home would be or any any unit, any duplex, but any unit.
Speaker 0: And if I can just add to that for those adus where they are actually converting a space within their existing home to the ADU, that does require a separate entry exit. So it would be a standalone unit even though it's within the existing space. So there would be a door and appropriate windows.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So one of the things that I felt strongly about when we discussed this the first time was putting two thirds of our housing inventory into this program when we haven't had the time to think it through yet and see the potential implications. I moved it specifically from 5000 square feet per lot and made that motion to move it up to 5200 and actually even higher than that at the time because there weren't other comparable cities that were doing more. After last night's council meeting. The city of Pasadena approved 7400 square feet lots. To receive an accessory dwelling unit. And so I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to my colleagues of increasing the size of the lot up to 7400 with the option a year from now after our first report to adjust that number so we can see how many people are going to take advantage of this, what that looks like, how popular it is and then. I'd like to hear from my colleagues on their thoughts on the process.
Speaker 5: So that's not a friendly that I'm willing to accept at this time. This is frankly, this is a discussion that we've been having collectively for a period of time. And I really think that if we're going to completely change what we've started in terms of our discussion with staff, then we all need time to once again go out and do outreach with our communities and also talk with staff about what the pros and cons of changing the maximum square footage would be. The last time it actually was 4800 square feet. Councilwoman Price, I mean, Councilwoman Margo Adams. I'm talking to myself.
Speaker 3: Everyone who's been called.
Speaker 5: Count and you you increased it to 5200, which I think is a huge step in the right direction. And I think that is definitely something that we vetted with our communities. And, you know, this is a mandate that has been given to us by the state and recognized as a state issue. And I think we're doing our best to work within that framework. And frankly, while I appreciate what the city of Pasadena has done, I think it's important for us to do what is best for the city of Long Beach, knowing the geographic and demographic composition that we have in light of all of the different factors that we have to consider in terms of our housing needs and our opportunities for housing. So I'm not comfortable accepting that friendly at this time because frankly, we have not done any outreach with our communities or city staff about it. And it's to me, it's not an appropriate friendly to be making at this at this juncture, but that's my personal opinion.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's quite appropriate. The data related to two thirds of the properties being available in the 5200 square feet is also new information. And the original analysis came forward with comparisons of other cities that had done like things. And so as more cities come on board, that is going to be additional information. And I'm not encouraging us to delay in any way. I'm just saying that if we were to bump it up to 7400 square feet tonight with a six month or 12 month option to relook at this, it would not. There's a few we don't even know what the percentages. But I'm saying that to give that many options in communities, especially after recently finding out what is or is not available within parking, because I know that the parking designated area is now a whole new component that parts of our district that currently would have been subject are no longer subject. So I appreciate your answer and I will consider my options. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Super. Now, thank you. I just have a follow up to the garage conversion point that Councilwoman Mango brought up. I, I brought it up at the last meeting, but I think it bears repeating and that is if one is to convert an existing garage, let's say a single garage with a single driveway to a bedroom or a family room. Once that conversion is made, that pad, that driveway goes away as a place to park. If it's converted as an adu, then you get credited for a place to park. Is that still correct?
Speaker 6: Uh, Councilman Supernova. Thank you for your question. Yes. Just to clarify. If the garage is converted into an accessory dwelling unit, the driveway must be available for replacement parking. That is part. That is because the state provision regulates our ability to require, let's say, another garage or and some other kind of enclosed parking. We have to we have to allow any open configuration. So that essentially forces us to allow people to use their existing driveway if they were to convert that garage into an accessory dwelling unit. And you're right, it may not be the same situation. If somebody simply converts their garage for some other purpose, it would be specific to accessory dwelling units.
Speaker 1: Right. And the reality is, as a council office, we might get a phone call, hey, me and my neighbors parking in this illegal spot and then we have to respond. Well, actually, it's an adu, so they can't park there. Okay. The other point I wanted to make was a follow up to Councilman Price's point about the annual report. If we could have that include maybe applications, since it is a new program, let's see if people are applying, not making efforts, falling through the cracks and all the data, I think would be helpful.
Speaker 3: We can certainly provide a pretty robust information regarding the number of applications, the number approved, and we're happy to compile that and get it back to you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And my last point is just kind of clerical on the slide number six on the parking districts. One statement about PDS says that it's a self-selected process which requires majority consent by property owners. And I don't mean to be too picky here, but it requires a supermajority that is 66% and actually not property owners , but any resident. So the reason that's key that it's just come up with our office with public works. I just like to make sure that if my version is correct, let's make sure we get development services well, public works, but specifically traffic engineering and the city attorney's office on the same page. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 7: Staff, I just want to thank you for for the for the great work. And with this has been an issue that we've been looking at for several months in response to state legislation and to gain local control over our own land use within our city. Quickly, I just wanted to just just state that on any given Tuesday night, we can change an ordinance here. Is that correct? Related to what we're doing with accessory dwelling units.
Speaker 3: Well, with proper noticing and the like. Yes.
Speaker 7: So. So my month.
Speaker 5: And planning.
Speaker 3: Commission of consideration.
Speaker 7: So this is a journey. Not not. We we may find things along the way that we want to tweak as a city council, right?
Speaker 0: That is correct.
Speaker 7: Want to be clear on that because we don't have to do it all tonight.
Speaker 3: That is correct.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 3: They appreciate that you mentioned that component. And so if we agreed to 7400 tonight and in two or three weeks, we found out that the number of units wasn't enough or any of those things. We would have those protections in place for neighbors, but that we could always reduce it. It's easier to reduce the square footage than to increase it. Is that correct, Ms.. Tatum? I think that once you set up an expectation for a higher threshold.
Speaker 5: It may be a little.
Speaker 3: Bit more difficult. But in either case, it's still an ordinance.
Speaker 5: And that ordinance would.
Speaker 3: Have to go through as Councilmember Price's noted kind of public outreach staff research and and then going to planning commission and the city council. But yes, you are correct that the process is essentially the same. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Pierce.
Speaker 4: Yes. I just wanted to take what staff has said. And for me, it's easier for us to start with a small and then go larger. So if we came back in a year and then added to. I think that that makes a lot more sense to be able to go through that process. And so particularly in my district where the lot sizes are so much smaller and more challenging. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Johnson Mango.
Speaker 3: So I guess the opposite is what I was thinking, because what I wouldn't want to do is offer a program and then take it away from people. And so that's why I was thinking if you started at 7400, there's a group of people that all have access to it. We could evaluate it and then you could expand the program. But if you started with 5200 and anyone had access and then you took it away and there were people in a process already, I would worry about the equity of the options. And then I would also say that maybe as a counter option, is there any kind of noticing that would be appropriate that we could write into the ordinance? Say, for instance, I heard Councilwoman Price was interested in noticing if it's between 5270 400, could there be a noticing process or something like that so that people know where these are and as they're coming online?
Speaker 0: If I can try to answer that question that when the state impose these requirements, the basic requirement for 80 use on local jurisdictions, they made it clear that they wanted it to be a ministerial process because in the past, when cities had these types of ordinances, typically they were done by public hearing, right? And they made findings that that made it difficult, in fact, to convert a space or build a space as a do you. So they allowed us to do a certain limited amount of standards in lieu of a discretionary public hearing. So it really has to be, by state law, a ministerial process with no notice provided, you know, there's no it's still on notice, but they have to meet all of the criteria in the ordinance.
Speaker 3: But wouldn't it be possible to write an ordinance that is for 7400 feet and above that is ministerial in nature and meet the requirements of the state and then create a secondary process for others that would be non-ministerial or is it going to be an overarching umbrella now?
Speaker 0: It's an overarching umbrella, I understand.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, my community had communicated their desire for me to pursue this, and I can hear from my colleagues comments that it would not have enough support. So I appreciate the efforts. And I wanted my community to know that I continue to hear them and fight for them.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There's a motion on the floor by Councilman Price, Ambassador Richardson. I just want to catch someone pricing the vice mayor strongly support Pacific. I want to thank staff. We're working very hard on getting us to this place. And I want to thank the council for I know the numerous conversations around what's a difficult issue, but certainly a state mandate, but but also very issue that we want to make sure we get right and provide access for these opportunities for families and homeowners across Long Beach. And so with them members, please go ahead. And Castro votes. Public comment. Mayor, I'm so sorry about that. And this is a hearing. So actually, let me let me back that up. So there's a motion on the second floor and let me close our deliberation and please go to public comment. Any public comment on accessory dwelling units?
Speaker 8: Good evening, Counsel. Larry Boland. At a previous time, I mentioned to you that the old granny housing ordinance that we had put all of these accessory units at the back, 50% of the lot. And what that does is it prevents all the front facing garages not to have a front door that's right on to the driveway. That's right under the street because so people could use it at the front door. Areas of patio put up their umbrella and their barbecue. And when we go, the only released common sense way to accommodate this is to protect the facades of the r-1. And let's call this what it really is. This is not an accessory dwelling unit. This is duplexing. We're putting duplexes in the entire city. And the question is, does the only one zoning go away because we're not on one anymore? I find that to be a very negative thing to happen to the city in the name of density. And we don't need more people, we don't need more cars, we don't need more traffic, and we want to push more density into the R-1 area. So it's absurd. I'm sorry, but are we going to change the zoning? I have that question too. Or two or three, whatever it really is, and eliminate or let's just call it what it is. We're putting duplexes in and I don't think they should face the street. Can we get to a mr. Mayor frame and answer that?
Speaker 1: Can we do all the public comment? I'm going to get back to the city attorney for any questions. Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: I actually spoke at our last city council meeting on.
Speaker 4: October 10th, and I'm very impressed with how things are shaping up. I know that Councilwoman Mongo actually started hitting on this with the with the driveway and the thought with the long driveway. What that does to ADOS. And I know that it's great that we have public transit so close to us and now we're 98% covered. We also have coastal areas and parking impacted areas which was touched on. We do still need to provide a spot for those. So if you were to put an ADU over garage, an existing two car garage in a parking impacted zone or in a coastal zone, you'd have to provide a driveway spot. That same driveway spot can't be used for that primary residence. If they wanted to add on to their home. That's that's how the zoning.
Speaker 6: Code currently.
Speaker 4: Operates. So if you're in a parking impacted zone and you don't currently meet the parking requirements, which is two garage spots in any single family dwelling district, you can only add 250.
Speaker 2: Square feet to your main.
Speaker 3: Home.
Speaker 2: That's how they prevent you from.
Speaker 6: Expanding your home and making sure you can find parking.
Speaker 4: Whereas essentially, if you had a long enough driveway, you could.
Speaker 5: Provide a driveway spot.
Speaker 6: For one car and then build.
Speaker 4: 800 square.
Speaker 3: Feet.
Speaker 6: Within reason if all.
Speaker 5: Of your other.
Speaker 6: Ordinances for adds are met. So something to consider on how that affects primary dwelling units and.
Speaker 2: Allowing it used to be built up to.
Speaker 4: 800 square feet, but only allowing the primary residence to.
Speaker 5: Add up to 50 if.
Speaker 4: They don't.
Speaker 6: Have conforming parking. Another item I.
Speaker 2: Know that we are.
Speaker 6: More involved in in the Planning Department.
Speaker 4: But we've also had thorough discussions with the.
Speaker 6: Building department on if you have an existing rumpus room or a pool house or anything like that. And basically, in order to convert.
Speaker 4: A pool house or rumpus room.
Speaker 6: Or anything.
Speaker 4: You have to consider it as.
Speaker 6: A new construction. So a.
Speaker 4: Pending any like if you have.
Speaker 6: Double hung windows making those.
Speaker 4: Egress efficient, you'd have to pour another slab.
Speaker 6: Or epoxy coat it. So you're conforming to the building code. All of.
Speaker 5: That is very.
Speaker 4: Expensive. On top of the development fees, which for a rumpus room, let's call it 400 square feet, might be 10000 to $12000. It basically.
Speaker 5: Stops that process dead in the water because of the expense that.
Speaker 0: This is getting.
Speaker 4: Anyways, I appreciate you listening to my comment and thank you, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next speaker, please. Josh Butler with Housing Lumber on. I want to thank the Council for taking on this very challenging issue of finding additional spaces for people to live in our community. I imagine these are going to be largely issues that impact homeowners that are currently dealing with overcrowded situations and maybe allow their family members to live in the back houses and and also increase equity in their homes at the same time. I would encourage the City Council to pay as much attention, if not greater attention to the 60% of the residents in our city who are currently renting their homes and are dealing with ever increasing rents, ever tightening market, and we're not putting enough housing online fast enough. So we'd love to see the City Council pay as much attention to issues like Jessica's eviction rent control and taking on issues that affect, again, the nearly 25% of our residents who are living in poverty. A majority of them are renters. So this has been a great addition and I can't imagine. I would love to hear the report in the future of how many units we actually create out of this and how many new housing opportunities we create. I suspect it will be relatively minimal and that we're going to need to start looking and spending more time on some of the larger pieces of the puzzle that will get us to where we need to be, which is that people have a safe, decent, healthy place to live here in Long Beach and people are paying. I can go and work in the apartment with that. Com you'll see that people are paying over $2,000 to get a two bedroom apartment here in Long Beach. And that that's more than the mortgage on a half million dollar home. So, again, renters in your city are struggling. They are working class folks who are renters in this community. And so, again, from housing, why which is effective? This is fantastic that we're doing this. I do think Ms.. Mongeau creates and brings a good point that in the future, perhaps we do need to look at increasing the lot size, but it would seem to be counterintuitive to make the large size larger. And then go back to how do you tell the people that you are going to close down your property? You already built it. So it seems like it would be more prudent to start at the smaller size. And if all goes well, then we consider an increase in that size. But I do think it's a good point and more people may have an opportunity to take advantage of that in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker for. Hi. My name is. My name is Trevor Griffey. I am a Belmont Heights resident. I teach at Long Beach City College as an adjunct instructor in history and labor studies. The only reason I'm able to afford living in Belmont Heights is because zoning was higher in the nineties. And someone on these long, narrow lots that we have in some of our neighborhoods built a house that's basically double the size of mine and then rented out the house that I'm in. And I'm very aware of the fact that zoning was constrained in the late nineties precisely to prevent people like me from living in the neighborhood that I do. So when I see my neighbors put up signs that say increased density equals crime and parking, I'm offended. And I also find it to be a kind of scare mongering that is really unfortunate and actually tends to frame community as not including renters. And so I'm glad that the council is doing something to help renters. I think it's unfortunate that the balance of power is such that you still have you're still putting constraints on ADU use when I actually don't see the need to do so at all. And I also want to talk about this question of local control really briefly understand that you all don't like that the state alleged bypassed you on on this legislation. But at the same time, there is a housing law that you could enforce more, and that is the prohibition on short term rentals that Councilmember Pierce's office has brought up. There are hundreds of units that are currently openly, illegally flouting land use law and being rented on Airbnb that are being taken out of the market for actual Long Beach residents. And your action to try to restrict adus while doing nothing about these short term rentals, I think suggests poor priorities. Thank you. Thank you very much. And just so just so the chairman's way, because I know that we've received some updates. So staff is actually in the middle of a kind of extensive look on this issue of the short term rental issue. And we expect that that report that was authorized by the council is going to be coming back to the council with information on what we're doing next. But that's an important issue that this council has been discussing. Correct? When do we expect that to come back to council? Short term rental.
Speaker 0: You mean like what? Right. So.
Speaker 3: You know, we are getting so commonplace.
Speaker 1: When do we say that? To commit the council.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, we've received eight proposals on an RFP and are going through the interview process and we'll be bringing a contract to council in January.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I guess my name is Ramon. I'm from District five. My stuff is on record. I didn't hear the beginning part, but I don't have a problem with the ads. I think they're cool. Everybody should have one. No, I'm just joking. I support him. I do like the owner occupied thing. I think he's as critical of what we're doing. I like a lot of the questions that Stacey Mungo is asking as far as the maximum footage. I would I would like to I appreciate the comments of Linda, what she has gone through and all the work that she's done. And I can tell you that I have friends that are in Newport Beach and they're also on the city council, at least two of them. And they have told me that that the the maximum square footage of the accessory dwelling unit is 600. They have a density that's far less than ours. So I would I would recommend having a density. I mean, dropping it to 600 feet. That would be that would be really my my only major my most major change to what you're doing just to match with what is happening with the other cities. Because I don't think that's that's happening here. We're like the second most densest region in the country besides New York City. Besides that, I can say that I have a little bit mixed idea. I know that there's a certain kind of for replacement parking. There's another bill that I didn't see mentioned here. It's it's a I think it's SB whether it's six nine. Right. And I think that also says replacement parking may be a little bit ignorant on that, but it didn't that one did not specify the. You know, I think you're allowed to four for four that you allowed to use the driveways in which you have to do some kind of replacement for that. I could be wrong, but I think SB 1069 is that law that we need to look at square footage for the houses?
Speaker 0: I don't know about that.
Speaker 1: There's a certain law that you can't go beyond the threshold. And we need to make sure that we're in that that range in which we're there. We just need to do a study and make sure that everything's correct in that. But that's about it. You have a great day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening. My name's Phil Harris. I'm out. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I've been a homeowner since 1996. The same house my house is in. Our three has our three, but it's 6000 square feet. Now, this the estate law seems to approach this as they're trying to assist homeowners in developing their property a little bit, taking off the reins of local government, squeezing them into a position where they can't develop their property. So when I hear things like running this up to 7500 square feet and I have a 6000 foot piece of property with one residence on it, and I potentially cannot make an accessory dwelling even one more three. So I have an R three property which was at the time approved by the city and the planning. But the regulations requirements of local governments has made is making it impossible for me to do anything with my property at all. And I think that there's something initially wrong with that. If I buy a piece of property and it's our three year as the new commission from 21 years ago, it shouldn't be able to prevent me from using it as some version of an R three, and all I want to do is make it as an accessory dwelling. I think the state law says 1200 square feet. I don't know why I have an AR three and they're trying to squeeze me down to 800 square feet. I have plenty of space on my property to do this. So my questions are, what is the purpose of denying what the state law has presented for you to do and how does that assist people already bought a property and a paying for 21 years not to be able to use it as an hour three. Thank you, sir. Speaker, please. Robert Pete representing.
Speaker 7: Jesus and the truth, because there's not a.
Speaker 1: Lot of truth around here when it comes.
Speaker 7: To this. I mean, I see.
Speaker 1: I see, you know, you stand up there.
Speaker 7: You look dignified and everything.
Speaker 1: But everything you do.
Speaker 7: Is communist. I mean, the guy is talking about control. He doesn't need people constantly trying to control his get down.
Speaker 1: Now, America, once again way. Why? Every time I'm talking, you always got to get to talking to somebody. Missed rule. You always do that. Always be respect for you. Me be respectful. You be respectful to me. She's asking the question. Say, Oh, yeah. Where you telling man I'm talking to you? Yeah, I'm going to know anyway. Anyway, listen, all this stuff, no direct control. No. To just cause eviction, all this communism and that. A guy who's talking. George Butler, where do you go? We crawl back in this hole. He's. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I want everybody here. No, George Butler is a straight out communist bum. So going this that you can address. Okay, I'm telling you, Josh Butler is a communist bum, and I want you to tell all the people, okay, I'm around that chump everywhere he goes, because in a big city nose meeting, he lied to all the people and he lied to them and told them this was the highest. He said this is the highest property on the coast around the nation. And then even one of the Democrats that was a Democrat meeting said, no, he's a big liar. Anyway. So that being said, I'm getting back to this now. No, on just cause eviction. We don't need anymore browns that we can't get rid of. No on rent control. Rent control is communism, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means a man could buy his property and he's a master of his property. You trying to be the master man? You ain't Miles Satan or Fidel Castro. And we ain't gonna let that happen. So now the word control no. To just cause eviction. And I don't listen to bums like Josh. Brother, he's a bum. Sir, can you please stick to the issue? And this is not just. But there's a bomb room. Josh blew out of town and works. I have people funding him from around here. We're going to run Josh Bell this butt out housing Long Beach is a fraud. Josh Butler is a bum. Oh, just to add, shame on you. I'm okay. And and let me tell you, at 80, Josh is a bum. Okay? Okay, sir. Andy, thank you very much. That's last answer. One more time. Josh is a bum, everybody. Josh Bell is a thank you, sir. No, we got to run him out. All right. Thank you so very much. Next speaker, please. You got to keep rolling. I got a couple more seconds. I'm going away, sir. Thank you very much. I got ten more seconds. Josh Boehner's a bum. Come on, Josh Bell. The run was communist, but out of town, you know you're not talking about that. It doesn't matter. Only go once your time is up. Yes, sir. Thank you. Time's up on Josh. Thank you, sir. So, just as a reminder to the to the public, I think I want to continue to say this, that whether we agree or disagree with what's being said, people have a right to their First Amendment to say what they want to say. And so we will continue to use that rule. And I would hope that people would use some decency and stick to the issue and be respectful in the process as well. Mr. Good, your next Speaker, very good to address on file in terms of the Granny Flats or small units. One of the things you consider and I'll bring you back the pictures next week, four further so people can see them if they did not see them in the L.A. Times and local papers. It's one of the concepts that I think would work very well in down in the Marine Stadium next to, as I pointed out before , 818 as a housing unit for veterans. I've scoped it out and we can put about six. Good. Eight units there. And when I'm talking about the grass to the north of of eight and immediately to the north of eight in which is not used, except once in a while people will be flying drones. There's still a sidewalk there, there's still public access. And I encourage the city to take a look and at those designs because they will be perfect in areas throughout the city where people need housing. A granny flat. And I've used the word granny flat. A one unit house easily constructed and would have a bathroom. And it's about twice the size of an average dorm in a university and so forth. But again, I would urge the city to pull out those diagrams and take a look at them and scope them out, because that could be a solution to some of our housing issues and so forth. Obviously, if you've got a kids, that's not going to work, but for particularly veterans or people that have a limited areas in which they travel and so forth, that would be great. Thanks. Thank you. And our last speaker speaking, this is closed. Go ahead, sir. I just really quickly have a question about the the restrictions that they have, the minimum lot size and restrictions overall with like the housing regulations, are they based purely on like safety and inspection? Like I understand code plays a big part in it and like it's a it's a discovery process to find out the safety elements of building adding, adding on to a property. But is there a lot size based on a safety assessment from the fire inspector or is it just based on numbers from other cities that we've gathered or like arbitrary number? That's that's just awesome. Thank you, sir. Okay. I'm in a close public comment. Just a couple. Just to quickly clarify from staff, I know there was a some questions from the audience, particularly about how the council decided on these certain lot sizes and these designations. And that came out of a variety of meetings. I was at the council, had some staff recommendations as well as the state regulations that came as well. And I'm not sure if you have anything else to quickly add to what the gentleman just said.
Speaker 3: I couldn't clearly here, but it sounds like the last gentleman was talking about the issues of safety and just to respond to the issue of safety. Any proposal for an accessory dwelling unit is reviewed by the Building and Safety Department as well as the fire department, and it is required to comply with all building code requirements as well as access by fire and emergency services. And regarding how the the original proposals came up, I think we started from the state allowed unit size of 1200, but we did a very thorough review of the city's lot sizes and property sizes to make sure that the proposal that we brought forward for the Council to consider we had a good handle on the potential development opportunity that existed in the community and we arrived at the proposal for 1000. But after feedback from the community at the Planning Commission public hearing, they actually reduced the, the, the standard to the 1000 and the council again hearing from the public further reduce that to the 800. So that's a little bit of the background in terms of how we got to the the current 800 proposal.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, thank you very much. But public comment is closed. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: I just want to add, I appreciate Mayor, you clarifying that, because I think from the public comment, there was.
Speaker 3: Just still.
Speaker 5: A little bit of confusion and there was a member of the public who spoke about kind of having a restriction if there are lot size was a was a specific size. And I want to say I hear you on that. And that's why this entire process has been a bit of a balance for us. And that's why I don't think it would be beneficial to the homeowners in our city if we were able to restrict the rights to build a granny flat on their property based on their lot size. Unlike some other cities, the demographics of our city are such that most of the lot sizes that are above 7008 thousand range are in a concentrated in one or two districts, if that. And so that would limit many of the people in the city from being able to actually build a granny flat. And so we certainly we have to be very cognizant of the density concerns that our residents have, because certainly those do create parking impacts primarily and noise impacts and other impacts. But at the same time, what we don't want to create is a situation where there's inequality based on. The district you live in as to whether you're able to fully develop your property to the extent that someone with a larger lot size would be able to. So we're mindful of that. And I just wanted to clarify because that the resident who spoke was under the impression that the proposal required 7400 square feet be the minimum size. And that's not the that was a friendly amendment. But the proposal that's on the floor is not for that. It's for 50, 200 square feet. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 3: Thank you. While I would prefer to go with the 7400 square foot lot size to ensure that we are gradually taking steps into this, I see that the bigger protection is having some standards in place instead of not having some standards in place and so on. My preference would be to go with the 7400. I will be supporting this at 54, I'm sorry, 5200 because not passing something tonight would actually be more detrimental to the communities. And so with that, I look forward to seeing how the vote.
Speaker 1: With that membership is in motion in a second. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries.
Adopt resolution modifying the established development impact fee structure for ADUs in accordance with California Government Code Section 65852.2 pertaining to ADUs.  (Citywide)