Speaker 0: So that concludes our presentations. We'll get right into the city council meeting. We have one hearing this evening. Madam Clerk, would you mind reading this item?
Speaker 1: Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and accept categorical exemption number. See 16340 and declare ordinance amending table 31 dash to a residential development standards in Section 21.31.255 of Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to development and design standards applicable to properties in the R-1 Zoning District. Read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District eight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. West.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Members of the City Council. The staff report was given by Linda Tatum.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the city council staff is here this afternoon to present a zoning code amendment that is was requested by city council. And I'd like to provide a brief recommendation and staff presentation and some of the recommendations that came out of this effort. This area is for the area of the city that is zoned r one. L This is generally known as the Virginia Country Club area of the city, or Los Cerritos, depending on who you talk to. This area is very unique in the city in that it is the only area in the city that is zoned r one IL and there are 6647 properties in this area. And the area is generally bound by country club, country club drive on the north and on the west, and there are a couple of discontinuous parcels in that neighborhood. The first one is the area that I'm pointing to here. If you could see the red dot, that area is just directly north of the Virginia. I'm sorry, the lower cerritos. The lower cerritos. The loss of real property. That area is discontinuous from the rest of the property and then on the north and east of the property, it's called Country Club Lane. If you could see that area there, that area is off of Long Beach Boulevard. So included in that 647 properties are all of these properties. And this area is very unique, as I mentioned earlier, as it's the only area in the city that zoned r one ill. And this area was very specifically designated as a unique area for the purpose, because it it does have the very the most largest lots in the city. And it's also designated in the zoning code specifically for large lot and large estate homes. It was designated that way in the city's general plan. And that's clearly the intent of this area to have the very expansive an estate type homes. Just to give you a few facts and figures about this area, the area the approximate lot size in this area or the average lot size of those 647 is approximately one 1100 square feet I'm sorry, 11,000 square feet. That's the average lot size in the area. However, within that area, the the lot size is very everything from as small as 8000 all the way up to more than 30,000 square feet. So you can see it's quite a range of lot sizes that are encompassed within the neighborhood. And likewise there's a large variety of home sizes in the neighborhood and that varies. Everything from less than 2000 square feet all the way up to the largest home in the neighborhood is approximately it's just over 8000 square feet. So we talked a little bit about the unique character of the neighborhood and how it's designated in the zoning code specifically for large lot in a state properties. Just to give you a little bit of history on this, back in September of 2015, the city council adopted a moratorium for this area, and that moratorium was in response to a a request by the neighborhood to have the city staff look at the zoning and development standards for the area, specifically as they relate it to neighborhood character. And that included issues or concerns regarding the sizes of the homes, the setbacks and other development standards that are currently in the city's zoning code. That moratorium limited development in the neighborhood to no more than 1500 square feet until such time as the City Council could act on recommendations for potential changes to the zoning development standards from the city staff and the City Planning Commission. In August of 2016, the City Council extended that moratorium in order to allow staff additional time to work with the community residents. So I'd just like to briefly go over this timeline. During that period, the staff was engaged in extensive outreach with the neighborhood. That outreach included a number of meetings with the Low Cerritos Preservation Committee in the neighborhood, and we also had a series of public meetings. And during those public meetings, we had the first of those public meetings was in September of 2016, when staff essentially had a listening session to hear for the first time in a broad community settings, some of the concerns from the neighbors. And the second meeting that we had was in November of 2016. And the purpose of that meeting was to provide preliminary recommendations about the zoning code standards that staff recommended would be changed. We followed that up again in December with a study session with the city's planning commission. The initial proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission in a study session, and we followed that up with a public hearing before the Planning Commission in February of 2017. And there was a second planning commission public hearing in February of 2016. I'd just like to point out that during this entire period of time, staff did extensive research. We looked at other cities and development standards and other single family neighborhoods and other cities around the state and within the Los Angeles region. And we also communicated directly with members of the neighborhood and took feedback from the neighborhood. And those recommendations, based upon that extensive research in the regarding what's the existing conditions in the neighborhood, the homes sizes, the lot sizes, the potential impacts. We also brought in a an architect to to consult with us, to assist us in developing those standards. And the result of that is a series of recommendations that I'd like to walk through. Before I do that, though, I'd like to acknowledge that staff worked really hard, hard on this effort for the last year. And that team of staff was myself, including Mark Hungerford, who was the lead planner on this effort, and our current planning officer, who was Carrie Tai. And with that, I'd like to walk you through the recommendations that staff came up with. The first of those recommendations is a proposal to modify this, the front yard setback. And this graphic here shows you the orange, if you can. I don't know if you can see it clearly, but there's a difference. You can see in the existing front yard, setback has 20 feet, meaning the house has to be set back from the public, right where the sidewalk at least 20 feet staff's recommendation was that a 25 feet was to modify that to increase the setback by five feet. And this recommendation was strongly supported by the neighborhood. We did get some other opinions from the neighborhood, but this is the recommendation we settled on. And I just tell you, one of the other unique things about the low Cerritos neighborhood is the fact that this neighborhood uniquely has what we call special setbacks. So when we're saying modify the setback from 20 to 25 feet, that acknowledges that in some areas and on some streets in that particular neighborhood, they have a special setback that could be as large as a minimum of 20 and it can go all the way to 50 feet. So in this case, we're recommending that there be a minimum setback of 20, 25 feet for the front yard. The second recommendation that came out of our effort was a proposed side yard setback, and that side yard setback is currently at six feet. So that means on either side of your building, on the side property line, the minimum requirement is six feet. Staff's recommendation was bifurcated or broken into two parts four lots that were less than 60 feet. The recommendation was to maintain that that 60 feet. However, for lots that were greater than that had a larger street frontage than 60 feet, that that side yard set back be a minimum of ten feet or 15% of the lot with and that the idea there was to give greater privacy between between lots that had a a lot directly adjacent to them. So that is staff's proposal for the side yard setback. One other component of the side yard setback is we realize that on corner lots were lots that faced or street there was a need or there was a strong recommendation from the community that that on the street corners that there be a greater setback. And after looking at this again in some detail, the recommendation from staff was that on the corner setbacks, that that setback be increased to ten feet. And that's what you're seeing here in this slide. The orange, again, represents the increased setback and you can see it in a corner configuration here on the top, oops. On the top is a corner lot configuration. And on the bottom you can see when you have a front yard setback on a diagonal street such as San Antonio in the lower Cerritos community. Lastly, a lot of discussion was provided regarding the topic of floor area ratio. The floor area ratio is the mathematical relationship between the area of the dwelling and the size of the lot. Essentially what that does is is govern or to assure that there is some proportionality between the size of the unit and the size of the lot. The current floor area ratio in the city's standard across the entirety of the r1l zoning district is 8.6, which essentially means that you multiply by 0.6 the size of the lot. For example, if you had a 10,000 square foot lot at a point six FSR, you could build a 6000 square foot unit. So the current FFR recommended or the current FFR in the zoning code is point six. And staff's recommendation is that the are increase or decrease to be smaller to allow a smaller unit into that that go down to a point five. And again we bifurcated that so that four lots that were less than 15,000 square foot, they would have a 0.5 ratio. Again, to use the example, if your lot is a 10,000 square foot lot, the point five would reduce the size, the maximum size of the home to 8.5, which is a 5000 square foot home size. And what you can see here is generally within the neighborhood, we've calculated that the current average affair in the neighborhood is a point three for lot sizes, 0 to 15000. And the highest that exists out there today is a point seven within this lot size range. The second part of the FBR recommendation is for lots that are greater than 15,000 square feet. And in the neighborhood, there are 94 properties that are greater than 15,000 square feet. And that current air I talked about earlier is a point six. And the recommendation here is that the FAA, RB decreased to a point four. And again, just some facts and figures related to what's currently existing on the ground. The current FAA are in the neighborhood as a point to two. And the highest, if they are in the neighborhood, is a .43. That just gives you an idea of what's currently on the ground in the neighborhood. The last recommendation from staff was regarding the lot size. There was a lot of concern in the neighborhood that because a lot sizes are quite large related to other lots in the in the city. But not more importantly that if two large lots were merged, you could conceivably have a lot in the middle of the block that was completely out of scale and out of character with the rest of the block and conceivably with the rest of the neighborhood. In order to address this. Staff looked at the current minimum lot size standard, which is 12,000 square feet. And right now there is no maximum lot size standard, but there is a lot size minimum. So the proposal that staff is recommending is that there be a merger of no more than two lots in the neighborhood and that the merged lot site can. The merged lot size cannot exceed 20,000 square feet. And again, what you see in the detail here is just a breakdown of some of the things, the number of various lot sizes within the 0 to 15 category there. You can see that this is the size of most of the lots in the neighborhood. There are 553 lots within the 0 to 15 size standard and then there are 50 lots that are between 15 and 20,000 and there are 44 lots that are 20,000 square feet or greater. Lastly, in the what I've just reviewed for you were some of the development standards that relates the size and the the amount of lot or the amount of structure that could be built on the property. What I'd like to cover now really briefly are some of the design standards, and these relate to the look how the lot looks and how it relates to the surrounding properties. These are design standards and they are essentially pretty basic in terms of how when staff reviews a property, the kinds of things we look for. But these are not currently in the code and staffers recommending that these design standards be added. However, they're not added to every single new home that we consider reviewing, but they are only for the very largest lots. So this would apply if a home was proposed to be 5000 square feet in size or if it's within ten feet of its maximum FSR. And I'll briefly go through these. They are just that we would be looking to make sure that there is four sided architecture on the design that assures that someone, if they have a large home like this, that the that the architectural attention would go to all sides of the building and not just to the front. To maintain the integrity of the architectural style. The other one is related to making sure that there are not large expanses of blank walls without any articulation or any design features. So the second standard is to make sure or to make sure that no expanse of any wall greater than 25 feet occurs without some articulation or some design feature. That's the second standard. The third is that the primary facade or the primary interest to the building should be oriented to the street. And this precludes a property from having a front door on the side of the house. And again, it speaks to, again, best practices in terms of architectural design and neighborhood character, in terms of how the house is oriented to the street. And the other part of that relates to the height of the porches and the entryways to the home, that those not exceed 15 feet again, so that the front door has some relationship to the rest of the architecture of the building. And lastly, the the final design standard that staff thought was appropriate. Again, all of these are based upon feedback from the neighbors is the issue of privacy. So what we're asking is that for the second story, windows that the bedroom windows of the the proposed new structure not line up directly with the existing bedroom windows of the adjacent property. Again, this addresses the issue of privacy. So that concludes the standards that staff is recommending. I would just like to confirm or at least make sure that the that you're aware that these standards, if they are adopted by the city council, they, of course, would not be retroactive. They would not apply to any of the existing units or the design of any existing homes. However, they would apply if a property owner came in to build a new unit or an expansion of an existing unit. And again, these standards would only apply to the extent that the expansion or the new unit triggered any one of those particular standards that staff has recommended. With that, I'd like to conclude the staff's presentation and recommend that the City Council affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission and accept categorical exemption number c e 16 340 and also that they approve this recommended zoning ordinance amendment to modify the five development standards that I just walked through, as well as the four design standards that were recommended. And that concludes staff's presentation. And Mark and myself are here to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Tatum, for those comments. So now we will go to public comment. Is there any public comment on the proposal on this hearing?
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the Council.
Speaker 7: My name is Karen Miller.
Speaker 4: I've lived in the Los Cerritos neighborhood for 20 years and I also sell real estate in.
Speaker 8: That little Cerritos.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood. I am here tonight to urge you to please support the recommendations by the planning staff. City planners have worked with preserve lists of widows for over two years, diligently to come up with compromises to help preserve the quality of our neighborhood, the green spaces.
Speaker 4: And also without infringing on any homeowners rights.
Speaker 7: I think we've got a pretty good plan.
Speaker 4: But you'll hear from people.
Speaker 8: Tonight that oppose it.
Speaker 4: And the reason I know this is I received this flier on Sunday.
Speaker 7: It says it all caps.
Speaker 4: Attention, homeowners.
Speaker 7: City Hall is trying to take your property. Well, that's.
Speaker 4: Just not true.
Speaker 7: I think what we've come up with is a.
Speaker 8: Very good plan. And I urge you to please support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further public comment? If anyone would like to speak on this matter, could you come forth now so that we have an understanding of how many people are expect to speak? All right, ma'am, I'll give you your name and go ahead and proceed.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Renee Hunt, and I live in the area that we're talking about. And first of all, thank you for the introduction for the Councilwoman Price for the New Year and Happy New Year. And in that uniqueness that we celebrated tonight, our neighborhood is a unique neighborhood and 85 plus years, I know my home is that old or near there. And I think the zoning that we have is really served us well, although I do appreciate the time and effort put in by the employees of the city and they have been very responsive and kind in their meetings and I appreciate that and very professional. I don't believe in limiting the use of the land, as we saw in the slides with the FAA, are reducing the fear that a property owner can use. Now, I don't think that's needed. And also as an interior designer, I have difficulty accepting the design treatment and finish restrictions. And I know some of my colleagues in like San Marino area and Pasadena have come across some of these issues for zoning that's happened there. And a lot of their clients have bought specifically for that neighborhood. But then when coming against these hurdles have decided to move out. It was just too much to follow through with the plans that they had. So I think that. It wouldn't be fair. Our neighborhood. Well, I think we've done great so far. It's a desired neighborhood and I think the zoning has done as well so far. So I hope you would consider that in your votes. And I appreciate your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please. And if everyone could come a little bit closer. So we have an understanding on how many people are lined up to speak.
Speaker 7: Hi, I'm Polly Thomas. I've lived in Long Beach for 32 years. This is the third time in all that that I've spoken at a city council meeting. So it's a rare occurrence and it's also very nerve wracking. It takes a lot to come down here to speak. I am concerned about this proposal. And the first part, I do consider it a taking of the property because the homeowners will not be able to use it as they were able to use it. 10 minutes before your vote. So that's one thing. The second thing is that I am surprised that this is not being handled as a zone code, which usually requires, if I understand correctly, the signature of every homeowner. But it's been explained to me by the Planning Department who I will say have all been very professional, polite and friendly and a pleasure to do, to work with. But it was explained to me that they got around that requirement by calling it a zone code amendment, and for that reason, it doesn't require every homeowner's signature. So I am perplexed as to why you would even want to do that when we are limiting what homeowners can do on their property that they own the. The second thing is that I just want to thank you for your time and consideration. And I do think that someone said here that they had been working on this for two years. And the first inkling I received of this was in August of 2015 and did reach out to the planning department, but there was a changeover and who was handling the project. So no one was involved in an opposition to this matter until really October of 2016. And I think that that is remiss and something that we should take into consideration before making such sweeping changes for this district. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Jeanie Williamson I've been a resident of the Virginia Country Club area for 35 years, and this has been interesting for me to to be in the committee. I have a couple of hats here tonight. I'm on the board of the ALCINA, which is the Little Cerritos Neighborhood Association, in which you'll hear from later, because we do support this, you know, and we have we are a neighborhood association of the whole r1l not just portion of it all the whole part, but also is being on the committee. And I got to tell you, a couple of years ago, okay, 30 figure 35 years of the neighborhood and this I one as held up well until about five years ago then we started seeing homes built on the whole lot, you know, and especially on a main street where as a corner house itself, there was only supposed to be a four foot leeway with that's hardly room from the sidewalk with you're not hitting a wall then and taking up the whole area now envision the peninsula, okay, in Long Beach where they've taken the single story homes and they put the home on that whole lot up there. That's what we're starting to see. And I'm. Are you going to see like two homes like that that totally takes away from the character of our neighborhood and the front yard and the spaciousness and that country club kind of feeling that we all buy into. It's one of your last remaining areas of Long Beach that is like that. And what makes me sad is to see neighbors now who have said that they haven't been informed. But this has been an excellent process the whole time we've been talking in the concerts in the park. We've gotten our 300 signatures last summer, 200 more signatures. When you talk one on one, they understand. Like when I first started this process, I didn't know what an FA was, you know, but now, now I understand it and now I can see it. And it is to maintain that because what I wanted to try to express to you is up until now, the r1l has worked, but you have developers, you have speculators moving in like you see, they find a small home, they'll build up the two stories, you know, and it will become like the peninsula. And like many, many areas of Los Angeles, like you see along the beach areas and I'm sat with my neighbors the misconceptions that they may have. And I like to encourage you if there's something that you don't understand and I know you do this anyway, but if there's something specific that you hear that you don't understand , please ask Linda or Mark, you know, and they will really clear it up for you. I like for you to understand it. Thank you for your time. And oh, I want to add one less thing about design. You know, if you look at these designs that the Planning Department has added into that, you know, we were basically are setbacks and front setbacks and all that really. You know, it's what designers are going to have a problem with your window looking into your neighbors window. I think these are very simple, cated, simple designs, not specifically going to hurt any particular type of architecture. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening.
Speaker 8: Honorable council members and vice.
Speaker 7: Mayor. My name is Barbara showing 4120 Locust Avenue. We've lived in our home since 1972 in Virginia Country Club and we love the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: When we came for you about a year and a half ago to.
Speaker 8: Ask for the moratorium, as I recall, several of you actually.
Speaker 4: Mentioned you were particularly.
Speaker 8: Interested in this issue because mansion ization.
Speaker 7: Has become an issue not just in Los Cerritos, but in parts other parts of Long Beach. I was talking to a friend who lives in Castle Heights. She said, I don't want mansions.
Speaker 4: In my neighborhood.
Speaker 8: I see the and they have a historic district. So there.
Speaker 4: But in in Belmont Heights and Park Estates and there are other.
Speaker 8: Areas of the.
Speaker 4: City where I know that this.
Speaker 8: Is also an issue. So what we do in Los Cerritos may be an example, but it's not just here. It's all over Los Angeles County.
Speaker 4: If you read The Times, you see it all the time where communities are concerned about this.
Speaker 8: As was mentioned.
Speaker 4: Before, we were concerned.
Speaker 1: About flippers.
Speaker 7: Coming in, buying a little house, building a big one, making lots of money and leaving. And that's not in the.
Speaker 1: Best interest of the.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood. I wanted to also thank the staff. Mark and Linda and Carrie have been phenomenal. They've come out, they've walked around. They've seen our.
Speaker 8: Concern. They've worked with us very carefully.
Speaker 4: We get everything we want it know. Do they know? We work together and negotiated to. We came up with.
Speaker 7: What we think all.
Speaker 8: Think are very.
Speaker 4: Reasonable standards.
Speaker 8: And so we feel that with the staff we've come up with modest.
Speaker 4: Yet reasonable modifications to prevent inappropriately oversize.
Speaker 5: Homes.
Speaker 4: And I want to make clear one other thing, because there seems to.
Speaker 6: Be some misunderstanding.
Speaker 7: And that is.
Speaker 4: That only if you're in a historic.
Speaker 8: District or you will have a formal homeowners association.
Speaker 4: Like Park Estates do.
Speaker 7: Can the city have any control over the type of architectural design features? We have a neighborhood association, as was mentioned, but we can't control what kind of roof, what kind of siding, what kind of windows?
Speaker 8: Nothing like that.
Speaker 7: Only historic districts and homeowners associations can do that. So with that.
Speaker 8: I'll just thank you for.
Speaker 7: Their time and urge you to adopt the recommendations. And I want to.
Speaker 4: Particularly thank our.
Speaker 1: Wasden, because you've been wonderful.
Speaker 8: Listening to us, I think listening to everybody.
Speaker 4: And hearing all of our concerns.
Speaker 7: And so l thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Esteemed Council persons and Vice Mayor Richardson. My name is Stacy McDaniel.
Speaker 4: I reside at 4110 Cedar Avenue.
Speaker 5: I'm also a member of the Preserve Lost three.
Speaker 4: This committee formed when over 200 of our.
Speaker 5: Neighbors voiced opposition.
Speaker 4: To some of the new construction being built in the.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood. I support.
Speaker 4: The changes to the R-1 L zoning.
Speaker 5: Standards and commend.
Speaker 8: The Planning Department for their professionalism.
Speaker 5: And extensive outreach to the.
Speaker 4: Community. Would all those in the audience who.
Speaker 5: Also support these changes briefly stand? Thank you.
Speaker 4: The proposed changes are all about controlling out of scale development and have nothing to do with imposing design standards on the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: This is what I look at every day. After the.
Speaker 4: Prior owners of my the next door house who bought an existing.
Speaker 8: One story home.
Speaker 4: Built it.
Speaker 5: To the maximum degree.
Speaker 4: Permitted under the current.
Speaker 5: Standards and flip it. Our property is a third in the shadow about half of the year caused by this plaster chunk.
Speaker 8: These are some examples of what our.
Speaker 4: Neighbors are concerned about. Basically homes that do not fit the scale of the neighborhood. Even this one, which tends to be the lightning.
Speaker 5: Rod for controversy, might be okay if it was up by.
Speaker 4: The country club. But the fact of the matter is that it was built in the middle of a.
Speaker 5: Block on three aggregated lots, and it's grossly out of.
Speaker 4: Scale to its neighbors.
Speaker 5: It is, in fact, almost.
Speaker 4: Four times larger than the adjacent neighbors. There's nothing personal against that owner or any owner or opposition.
Speaker 5: As to the impact to the neighborhood. Our opponents speculate that property.
Speaker 4: Values will go down by enacting the proposed changes, but the documents we've already provided you.
Speaker 5: Disprove that assumption. Our opponents.
Speaker 4: Also claim that we are a small band of.
Speaker 5: Dissatisfied retirees with an ax to grind against certain architectural standards.
Speaker 4: Had they participated in the numerous public meetings and public discussions of this issue, or.
Speaker 5: Even if they were active in.
Speaker 4: Community life here in the neighborhood, they would know that the vast majority.
Speaker 5: Of the residents of low spirited support these changes.
Speaker 4: This is just a partial list of over the 400 people that signed petitions in favor of these types of curbs on mansion ization. The proposed changes are consistent with and not in opposition to the general plan. In fact, the r1l zoning area was created in 1980 in recognition of the unique character of the Low Streets area with its.
Speaker 8: Quote, open, uncrowded living environment.
Speaker 4: Indeed, the.
Speaker 8: Last time this.
Speaker 4: Council considered the mansion ization issue in 2007, when Belmont Shore and Belmont Heights.
Speaker 8: Were the poster.
Speaker 4: Child for Mansion Association, your standing directive to the Planning Department was to come up with additional rules to prevent mansion exemption as needed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: 3 minutes. The proposed changes do an admirable job of this and we support them. Please vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. And just an employee. When we when the clapping happens, it actually cuts into the next speaker's comments. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Members of the city council. My name is Richard Ivey. I represent the Las Vegas Neighborhood Association, which supports this effort by the city planning staff and the planning commissioners. That will most certainly help preserve the character and home values in this neighborhood. The Las Vegas Neighborhood Association represents. We request that the city council approve the r1l standards changes as proposed by the city planning staff and as approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed changes are the culmination of a two year effort that was begun by City Council action and enacted by the planning staff. The proposed changes are not the result of a knee jerk reaction, but a measured response to professionals who have addressed the issues. The planning staff took charge, investigated the standards, toured the neighborhood, held community outreach meetings, and independently formulated these standards that will help preserve. The character of our wonderful neighborhood. We appreciate the planning, staff's dedication, professionalism in bringing these recommendations before you. The any hopes that you will vote to enact these standards as proposed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Kevin Case. I live on Locust. I had a lot more to say, but I think it's mostly been said. But one thing that is interesting for me is, yes, I've lived in the neighborhood a long time, over 27 years. But four years ago I moved and when I did that, I didn't choose to go somewhere else like that. I'm not sure Naples or even Manhattan Beach stayed in the same neighborhood, moved three blocks away. And that was only because of the charm, the character of the neighbors. It's wide streets, old trees and open views. It's a wonderful.
Speaker 11: Place and we'd like to see it stay similar.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you next week. And please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Larry Tidwell. I'm an architect and I've lived in this neighborhood for over 25 years. As other people have said, it's the character of the neighborhood we're trying to preserve here, that the wide open spaces, the large setbacks, the architectural character of many different styles of homes in the neighborhood that were built not by one developer, but by individual owners and architects over a span of many decades. So we have a great variety of eclectic style of homes, but they all they're all respective of each other and they're neighbors. So nobody's house looms over another house. And these changes to the zoning code clarify the character of the neighborhood better than the current zoning requirements do by reducing the floor area ratio and increasing the setbacks it makes. The written language of the code match the reality of almost all the homes in the neighborhood today. So by adopting these changes, we preserve what's there. We don't limit the character and the design and the architecture of homes, but just make sure that everybody can be respectful of each species, their neighbors and the whole community in which we all live. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next picture, please.
Speaker 9: Vice Mayor Richardson and Honorable City Councilmembers. My name is Jim McDaniel. I live on Cedar Avenue. I'd like to thank the staff of Councilman Al Austin and Councilman Austin himself, the planning commission, the the staff of the Planning Department and the residents of those three for all the work that has been put into this effort. I'm speaking tonight in support of the staff recommendation for changes to the R-1 L Zone Development and Design Standards. The proposed standards are designed to allow for a great variety of architectural styles that make our neighborhoods so special. They do not impose any sort of specific architectural style requirement on our neighborhood. This is not an attempt to Irvine ize our neighborhood. In fact, it will probably just do the opposite by restricting large slab sited structures that pervade much of Orange County in the San Gabriel Valley and encourage thoughtfully designed homes in scale with their neighbors . The proposed standards protect setbacks and traditional house massing to better preserve the character of the neighborhood. When large two storey walls are built with minimal setbacks, light and air are restricted from neighboring homes. These standards will help keep structures from impinging on the light and air space from of adjacent properties. The proposed standards will still allow houses of significant size as long as they are in scale with the lots in which they're being built. The planning staff has told us that the average house size and low cerritos is 2850 square feet, more or less, and that the largest home in the neighborhood is around 8400 square feet. Under the proposed standards, homes on our largest lots could be as large as 16,000 square feet, which is much larger than anything now existing and on a more typical large lot. You could still build homes of 6000 square feet, which is large compared to the neighborhood. The proposed standards will protect and improve our property values. Cities such as Arcadia, where marginalization was not addressed, have seen a drop in property values compared to neighboring communities such as Sierra madre, where sensible standards were implemented. This update to the development standards is urgently required now due to market forces. As property values across Southern California continue to rise. Speculators are looking at neighborhoods like ours to tear down older, smaller houses and build structures that maximize house size. Minimum costs, oftentimes on small lots. This is already happening in our neighborhood, and it's not adding to home values. In closing, I would like to commend the professionalism of the Planning Department staff. This has been a long effort and much patience has been required from all involved. We believe that the proposal that is before you this evening is a result of a compromise in the best tradition of that word that addresses all the interests that were brought forward. Some of the neighbors may not have gotten all they wanted. Others may feel this goes too far. But this is a solid proposal that was carefully crafted and considered by the staff and large numbers of neighbors dedicated over the last 24 months. And it deserves your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for your time. So seeing no further public comment, we're going to close the hearing and take it back behind the rail. Councilman Austin.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And I want to thank all of the residents who took time out to come out and give testimony this evening on this hearing, as well as those of you who have met with me in my office and the coffee over coffee and throughout the neighborhood. I've received a number of input from residents over the past several months. In the spring of 2015, I was approached by a group of residents from the Lower Cerritos neighborhood who had concerns about some of the new homes that were being built. And they wanted to revise the development standards for their neighborhood. They had done some research and collect the signatures from many neighbors. Rosarito, north of Bixby Road, is the only neighborhood in the city that has our one el zone designated for large lots. I was willing to entertain the discussion and in July of 2015, the City Council approved a motion to start the process to put a moratorium in place. The request, the planning staff and the Planning Commission to review the issue, meet with the community and make recommendations to the City Council. More than a year and a half later, we're here tonight. I must say upfront that the planning staff has done an excellent job on this and has put far more time than I originally expected it would take. I would especially like to thank Linda Tatum, Karie Tai and Mark Underwood for their Hungerford, for their efforts. They had several meetings with the groups of registered residents, both for and against the changes. They held two community meetings where all 647 homeowners were invited. They brought in a consultant to help facilitate the Community Meetings. Plan Commission conducted a public study session on the issue last December and held hearings last month to vote on. Commendations. And so more after more than a year and a half with plenty of public input input as staff work on this issue. We're here tonight. However, I still believe that there are two outstanding issues. And number one. Is there consensus among the homeowners in the neighborhood for these changes? The number two, is there a need for these changes? On the first question, it appears that there is not. Obviously, from the public comment here, there are people on both sides of this. I received a number of email correspondences and they are both for and against. And so I don't think there's consensus on this issue. As the process has moved along, I've spoken with more residents who have concerns about what is being proposed. Some who said that they've signed a position, they signed a petition at the beginning and now they don't agree with what's being proposed. I personally am uncomfortable with fully embracing the changes to neighborhood zones requirements that is not fully embraced by the neighborhood itself. On the second question, is there a real need for changes? I'm not yet convinced of this either. According to planning staff of the 25 largest homes in a neighborhood, a lots of up to 15,000 square feet. Only one was built since 1990. Of the 25 largest homes, a loss of more than 15,000 square feet. Only two were built since the year 2000, and there have been only three permits issued in the past ten years for the construction of new homes, and only 12 have been issued permits for additions of more than 1000 square feet in the last ten years . We are not seeing a major transformation of the neighborhood that is being experienced in some cities that have adopted mass immunization ordinances. I know that there's one home in the neighborhood that's been a focus of much of the drive against marginalization. There's some incremental and I believe that there are some incremental steps that we can take to not have similar homes built in the little Cerritos neighborhood. From the beginning, I've heard far more consensus against a lot mergers, and I support the Planning Commission's recommendations proposing a restriction to no lot more mergers of more than two lots or exceeding a total of 20,000 square feet. I also believe that increasing the front yard set back from 20 feet to 25 feet is consistent with what is already exist in the neighborhood. And so I don't have a problem with that. Finally, the Planning Commission recommended some additional design standards for new proposed large homes, which I believe there's a general support for. The other proposed new restrictions on saleyards, set backs and reducing floor area ratios or if they are, would make some current homes in a neighborhood that many consider to be quality homes out of compliance with the new standards. There are approximately 18 homes that currently exist, all of which were built prior to 1985. That would become non-conforming by just reducing the FHA from 6.602.50. And there are many more long standing homes that will become non-conforming because of the proposed site setbacks. Under the proposed standards. I know many of the homeowners have concerns about the proposed changes, and I believe that the incremental approach is the most prudent approach at this time, and it may not completely satisfy everyone. But again, I don't see a neighborhood. I don't like to see a neighborhood divided against itself, which this discussion has done, unfortunately. The city is currently going through an update of our land use element and after that we'll be revising our entire zoning ordinance. And if we find a problem that arises in the next few years, I don't currently see which I don't currently see, there will be another opportunity to address the zoning standards at that time and much of the legwork. Fortunately has already been done. I do appreciate the input of the many residents and the work of the Planning Commission staff and the Planning Commission itself during this process. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion. To receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and accept category categorical exemption number. See $16 340. Hold on. And to clear the ordinance amending Table three 31.2 A of the Long Beach Municipal Code Residential Development Standards amended to establish a 25 foot minimum front yard setback and amend Table 31 to a in the notes section of the table to indicate that lots created three land subdivision or lot merger shall not exceed 20,000 square feet and the lot merger shall not be comprised of more than two lots and omitted that amend section 21.30 1.255 of the Municipal Cook Code Municipal Code relating to the design treatment and finish to add subsections f one through four as set forth in the draft ordinance submitted to the Council for its consideration tonight, read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. And that is my motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Austin, city attorney. Did you get that, Mr. Mays? You get that. Okay, Councilman, you ringa.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to commend everybody involved, staff council member Austin and people in the public for their engagement in this in this effort. It's been a long time coming. And I think that the plan, as it is currently adopted or proposed to be adopted is a is the end of all the discussions that have been taking place. And I'm glad to see that there has been some agreement, mostly agreement on the on the proposed plans, I think, in this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman. Mongo.
Speaker 4: So I at the very end, I know there was a little bit of a change of what I had read before. So you're taking out two items. The Lots. No, we tell that little end part, but it was really long in the very.
Speaker 11: Way I am proposing or my motion is to accept everything proposed or recommended by the Planning Commission except the side lot. So back setbacks as well as the floor area ratio recommendations, but everything else.
Speaker 4: So then the status quo on those two items would remain in effect, right? Okay. So the fifth District has had a lot of discussion around double lots and things like that as well. And so I just wanted to offer a point of clarification to the city manager. It sounds as though that the decision being made tonight is only on. Well, first, I should start with how many districts in the city fall under this zone? How many groups besides these 400 homes?
Speaker 8: There are no other districts in the city that have the same standards that are in this particular neighborhood, the r1l zone. This area, geographically, is the only location in the city that has this particular zoning.
Speaker 4: And are there any plans for any other areas to have this kind of zoning? No, I think this goes to a bit about what some of our residents were saying tonight about the misinformation that's out in the community. In the fifth district, we have double lots, but they are not r1l zones. And so the the comments and dialogs that I had actually when I bumped into someone at the grocery store today and the coffee shop and the UPS store were a little bit confused because I think that people believe that anything that happens in one part of the city is for the whole city. And I think that it's really important for people to know that each part of our city is very different. The city of Long Beach is as big as I mean, some cities in L.A. County are one 1/40 of the size of the city of Long Beach. So this is not a process for anything other than the 400 homes in this particular area. And then I just wanted to ask one additional follow up question. Should there be a time where a resident wants an exception to what we passed tonight? What would that process look like?
Speaker 8: There is a process in the zoning code called a variance procedure. However, it is very limited to a very unique situation, such as an irregular lot size or a lot size that has or a lot that has an unusual slope. Some other shape issue or geographical issue, but not just convenience. It's intended to be very unique and limited in its application.
Speaker 4: So if someone wanted an exception that lived in that area and they thought that it was worthy of consideration, would they be able to bring it to or would their council member or another councilmember be able to bring it to this board and get five votes and change that? Or would they need to change it.
Speaker 8: For the whole area? I would have to say it would really depend upon the circumstance in the situation because for one unique lot, it likely may not warrant a change to the code, but that is the kind of thing that staff would look at and examine. And if we felt that a change to the code was warranted, it would likely go forward as a recommended code change rather than just an action on an individual property.
Speaker 4: And that is very unique. And to your knowledge, we have not been doing that here in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 8: That is correct.
Speaker 4: Wonderful. And that's all my questions. And I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Austin.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I just like to, before we vote, just state how a little Cerritos Virginia Country Club neighborhood is one of the, I think, best in the city whether or not we approve this tonight. It is still one of the more desirable areas in the city to live in. It is an awesome community. My, my, my emotion was the spirit of the motion was to seek to get consensus and an a strike, a medium medium with the the community and the residents, because there is a lot of division on this issue in terms of property rights and existing homes that are there, amazing homes that, again , if they were built today, would not fall into what is being proposed. What was proposed by the Planning Commission. And so understand whether or not you agree with the decision or not or the motion or not. Please understand that we put a lot of thought into this and we really looking to find a balance and something that that does preserve the quality and integrity and character of the Los Cerritos neighborhood. Members.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Austin. So and I'll just share that. This is a really beautiful neighborhood. This is a really nice neighborhood. I see why it's got so much interest in it. I think Councilman Alston has done a good job, will do with paid attention to the way folks have been engaged. Staff has done a great job on this. Sometimes, you know, when these things happen, you have you know, when issues come up, you try your best to build as much consensus as possible. And I like the approach of, you know, the things that have consensus and moving forward. It makes it a lot easier for me to support Councilman Alston with his motion. So I urge and I vote.
Speaker 10: Councilman Andrews Yes, and I also want to commend Councilman awesomeness motion here because the fact that I think when I retire I'm just thinking about moving that way. So.
Speaker 0: Thank you. No further comment. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: That's.
Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 31-2A, residential development standards, and by adding Section 21.31.255.F, relating to development and design standards applicable to properties in the R-1-L zoning district, read and adopted as read.  (District 8)