Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor Foster. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the 2013 to 2021 housing element as a part of the city's general plan and authorize it submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and authorize the Director of Building and Services to submit the adopted housing element to the California Coastal Commission for finding of conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and certify the negative NEG negative declaration in d0313.
Speaker 1: This work?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council. This process has been underway for about a year with multiple hearings before the Planning Commission and Amy Bodak will provide the staff report on this particular item. There have been a number of changes and revisions to the document since it was first released, and that's the result of a lot of public input. The OECD and the various entities that weigh in on these kinds of actions. So we're very pleased to present you a housing element that, in fact has been approved by the state. And Amy Bodak will go through the details and the process.
Speaker 8: Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, thank you for your time tonight. Related to the housing element, some of which you will see tonight, is a recap of where we were in December. However, I am going to present to you some changes since December that have been made to the housing element and talk to you in general about the process and clearly the need for the housing element. As you probably recall, the housing element is one of seven mandated elements within the state of California. It requires a review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development that a review process is required to occur before the City Council takes action to adopt a housing element. The state law does require periodic updates to the housing element. This is slightly different from other general plan updates, but we are in the process of updating our housing element for the fifth cycle, which would be for the period of time from 2013 to 2021. Part of the housing element certification process is getting a finding of substantial compliance from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. This is an important tool for us to achieve which we have achieved. Part of that because it provides us with a legally adequate general plan and it provides a presumption of validity of the housing element in the event that we are sued. We also must have a housing element that is in compliance with state law in order to go after certain grants and certain funding programs. So it is critical for us as a city to have a housing element that is certified by the state. Additionally, if we do have a certified housing element by the statutory deadline, it does allow us to get on an eight year cycle for the housing element. UPDATE A large component of the housing element is built upon this concept of RINA numbers, which is your regional housing needs assessment, that that number is determined basically by the state handed down to the the local council of government in this case. Skog There are regional government entity and then they divide up the regional housing need into the various jurisdictional needs and then assigns those needs to the various cities. State law requires that we provide in the housing element evidence that we can meet our arena numbers from a production standpoint, but it only allow requires us to demonstrate that we have adequate zoning in place to do so. Our arena numbers are a planning tool. It is not a production tool or a production requirement of the of the city. So you can see that Long Beach has a arena allocation for this next period of of over 7000 units. This allocation, as I had said, is determined through a formula by the state handed down to the regional government entity. But in this case, Long Beach does share carry a disproportionate amount of the area's regional needs. That is something that we cannot change right now. But we do carry a disproportional number amount of of the area's need. We got assigned a larger burden than other surrounding cities by SAG. This chart shows you that in the previous housing element cycle, our required planning allocation was about 9500 units. That has been reduced because essentially a result of the economy and the stagnation of economic growth. So our new arena number is 7048. It is divided into categories, income categories. You will see that we are as a whole being asked to provide or allow for the opportunity for these 7048 units to be developed in. The majority of that is in the above moderate category. We have, as assistant manager Frick mentioned, gone through some extensive consultation with various community groups and stakeholders, the State and the Planning Commission, and this reflects some of that outreach. We have been meeting with the Planning Commission. We've had a series of three citywide community meetings and we've had individual and group consultations with various stakeholders as a result of that. The key issues that were raised in the housing element was a lack of quality existing housing in the region. Overcrowding clearly was an issue, a general lack of affordability along all income lines. The fact that that homelessness continues to be an issue for us, that there are few ADA accessible units within the city that are affordable and the need to disperse affordable housing throughout the city and not just in the downtown. We submitted a draft of our housing element as written by staff and by our consultant to the state. And the State provided their initial review and initial comments in August of 2013. This was very, very important to us because the state's initial review told us exactly where they wanted us to focus our energies and where they wanted us to revise the housing element to be more consistent with state law. The first issue that they asked us to look at was a program that we had in there related to the first right of refusal for displaced lower income households. They asked for us to consider expanding the zoning code to allow for additional areas within the city that we would allow emergency shelters to occur as of right. They asked us to focus on transit oriented development opportunities, particularly along the Blue Lane corridor. And then they talked about setting aside general fund revenues for the conduct of affordable housing in the future. So he came up with a number of programs, and I'm going to go through a list of what's in the housing element. And you can see from these charts what our existing programs that we're carrying forward and then the new programs that we are proposing in this housing element, you will see that we have taken a number of steps to introduce new concepts and new programs to address our existing needs and have expanded greatly upon the last housing element cycle. So we do consider a new program for the first right of refusal for displaced lower income households. This is something that came out of the downtown plan a couple of years ago. We clearly focus on the continuum of care related to our homeless and needy population. We did include a program to expand the areas within the city where we would consider as of right winter excuse me, as of right emergency shelters. And then we listed the number of existing programs that we have for residents with special needs. Additionally, we have some new programs that were not in the housing element but that we might already have had experience with and added those to the housing element as further commitment to our programs for special needs residents. This includes our Vash program, which is a program run through our housing authority, which is our Veterans Affairs, supportive housing vouchers. So they are basically Section eight vouchers that are specifically geared for for veterans. And then a program to help us focus on the continuum of care, permanent supportive housing, which is very important to us in transitioning the homeless population into permanent housing. And then also programs where we address projects that need additional assistance through specifically allocating Section eight vouchers in a project based mechanism to specific projects. And that's how we have been able to assist, for example, the expansion of the villages at Cambria. We have a number of programs, both new and existing, related to housing and neighborhood improvement, including additional home rehabilitation programs that we're considering, comprehensive code enforcement, neighborhood improvement services. And as you know, the foreclosure registry is a new program that was not previously considered in the housing element. And we are making a commitment to continuing that program in this housing element cycle. Additionally, as it relates to housing production, we are looking at two new programs along the lines of adaptive reuse and then additional money for the housing trust fund, or frankly, not just the housing trust fund, but the housing fund in general. Lastly, we are looking at opportunities to increase homeownership opportunities and clearly programs for mitigating government constraints that may exist to the development of affordable housing. Monitoring and review we are committing, which is of course, a requirement of state law, but we're putting it in the housing element that we're committing to annual reporting of the housing element. So these this slide represents those additional programs that we have added to the housing element specifically to address either public stakeholder comments or state comments. And these programs as a as a iterated earlier was the first drive refusal for displaced lower income households, exploring the additional zoning categories for emergency shelters by right, focusing the use of home funds, which are federal funds along the PD 29 Long Beach Boulevard corridor in the downtown area, and then exploring the feasibility of some programs related to habitability of existing units. Again, these are new programs that we're proposing specifically to address stakeholder concerns. Priority of funding near transit was a was a big issue that the state wanted us to talk about in expanding housing opportunities throughout the city as it relates to future updates of our zoning code. And then, as I had said earlier, identifying additional funds not just for the housing trust fund but for the the entire and the entirety of the affordable housing fund. We are specifically going to be looking at financial incentives for transit oriented development, particularly along the Long Beach Boulevard corridor. This includes the preparation of a housing action plan, specifically addressing transit oriented development and how we would be trying to offer incentives. Our housing action plan would also include a plan for how we intend to redevelop the property that is owned by the former housing development company. So in terms of housing resources, we do have a number of resources that are available today. This represents to you the fiscal 13 budget that was put that is available for affordable housing purposes. Clearly, the largest line item is the housing authority and their combination of their vouchers that they have for veterans housing for people with AIDS, Section eight vouchers, and then their project project based Section eight vouchers as well. However, the Housing Successor Agency still maintains a balance, and they have about $14 million available. That was in the budget for fiscal year 13. We had about $18 million in housing bonds that were not returned to the state that are available for the development of housing. And then we have a number of of different sources through either the state or the federal government with home and CDBG. Right now, as of today. I have about $16.8 million available in the housing fund. In addition, we do have a significant opportunities that are arising in the future for us to repay some housing debt that would allow us to generate approximately additional $24 million in housing funds over the next five plus years or so. In terms of the amount of existing affordable units within the city, this does include those vouchers that are offered through the housing authority through Section eight. But we in in total have approximately 13,000 units citywide that are currently restricted for affordable housing. We do believe that there are more units than this that are considered affordable or or who have people living in them who are of affordable income. But these are the ones that are deed restricted or otherwise controlled and monitored by the city for the purposes of affordable housing. So since you last got an update in your study session in December, there have been a number of changes made to the housing element. This includes additionally additional revisions to the emergency shelter rezoning. One of the stakeholder groups had initially requested that we consider four different zones for expanding the ability to do emergency shelters. That stakeholder group has since revised their position to reduce the number of zones from four to do to two. So we have subsequently reduced the zones to PD 29, which is Long Beach Boulevard and the Eye Zone, which is light industrial. So we are committing in the housing element to a program that would have us look at those zones, do an analysis, study that, and then also comply with secure and bring forth some amendments to the zoning code that would potentially rezone portions or all of these zones for the availability of emergency shelters. We've also revised program 3.3 since early December, and we worked very closely with the State Housing, Development, Housing and Community Development Department to rewrite this language, to consider habitability issues related to units within the city. So there are other programs that are available in other cities and other jurisdictions that we would look to. We are not limiting ourselves to just one specific program, but are instead committing to address habitability issues if there are issues out there. But we would first commit to studying those issues and then addressing them as needed. Program 4.1 relates to housing development. Again, we worked very closely with the State Department of Housing and Community Development to rewrite language regarding the preparation of this housing action plan. And this is specifically targeting transit rich neighborhoods. HQ is very, very focused on us providing opportunities along transit corridors and urging us in our housing action plan to deal with with the transit oriented corridors. Conveniently, the property that the former housing development company owns. Is along transit oriented corridors. And so we will be wrapping the re-use of that property into the Housing Action Plan. Program 4.4 was significantly rewritten with CD, where we committed to new language regarding the investigation of funds for affordable housing. This is a major departure from where we were a few months ago, and it does provide language that talks about the repayment of over $24 million in debt that is owed the housing fund. You yourself, as the successor agency, already took action to commit the repayment of $16 million to the housing fund when you approved a repayment schedule back in October as the successor agency. We will be coming to you in the future with additional amortization schedules to allow you to ask for your consideration in in reestablishing additional debt. This would be in addition to the $16 million that are currently in the housing fund right now as a result of all of this effort . The state did issue a letter dated December 27th, which is in your packet that stated that the city's housing element as drafted is in compliance with state law. So we do believe that we have been very responsive and pushed the envelope quite a bit from where we were as a city from the old housing element to the proposed housing element that is before you for your consideration as part of that. I would be remiss if I did not mention that we did have to do a negative declaration. And you are being asked to certify that negative declaration as part of your adoption of the housing element. Should you proceed to move forward with this, we would make any technical revisions to the housing element and then submit it to the state. The state still has to go through an additional review where they they ensure that we are still remain in compliance based on any changes that you might make tonight. And then they have 90 days to provide us with the fully certified letter that we do have a fully certified housing element. So if we are proceeding tonight, we would hope that we would have a fully certified housing element by May of this year and that we would then be able to proceed with implementing the programs that we have put forth in the housing element for your consideration. That concludes our staff report. I do have Jeff Winkel Clark, the acting planning administrator, here to help answer any questions. And then we have Bill Tremble from our consulting firm, Veronica Hammond Associates here as well to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Burdick, any questions at this time? Well, Mr. Austin, we're going to take public testimony.
Speaker 9: But I just have a quick, quick question regarding the the $16 million that was approved in October and the $16 million that you say we have currently in the fund? Yes, sir. What funds are those?
Speaker 8: So the city has all of the money is committed, I should say. Most of the money is committed towards affordable housing, sit in an affordable housing fund, and that that fund cannot be co-mingled. There are a number of revenues that flow into that fund, including bond proceeds in lieu fees from condo conversions. Some of our home dollars that we get from the federal government are funneled into this fund as well. But as of today, we have $16.8 million in our affordable housing fund. It is not accessible to the general fund. It is not it cannot be used for any other purpose but rehab or production of affordable housing. Separately, you as a successor agency took action to reestablish some debt that was owed to the housing fund. That coincidentally is also in the amount of about 16 million. I think it's $16.3 million. I believe you took that action sometime in October or November as a successor agency and you did commit to reestablishing that debt as the city receives property tax revenue through the the the flow of of tax dollars. That money will get repaid.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. And thank you for the very thorough staff report. I want to commend the staff for all of their hard work on this. This is a very complicated document. I know it's taken many, many hours. I commend you for the community outreach and I want to commend the community for their participation in it. Obviously, they have had some impact on the this document in terms of, you know, the ideas that that and input that you received from the community out there. And I know there's more, but I think it's a great start. So congratulations on on a great element.
Speaker 1: Okay. Public testimony. Those who tend to give testimony on this, please come forward. Identify yourself. I could get an idea how many people would like to speak. That'd be great.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. My name's Gary Shelton. The address is 240 Chestnut Avenue. And good evening, council and members of staff. I wanted to just start by saying I'm here to represent the Long Beach Area Coalition for the Homeless as it advocacy chair. You might know I've served on other boards. I'm zeroing in my comments tonight in relation to what the Miami Area Coalition for the Homeless has authorized me to do. And but I also want to acknowledge the hard work of housing Long Beach and also of Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. I stand firmly behind them personally with the presentation that they may be prepared to make to you this evening regarding their comments and thought. I wanted to also mention that we heard earlier a few minutes ago that tonight what you the action you take will create what is basically a finding of substantial compliance with with state law . And I think that's correct. And I think it's well and good. Been working for well since phase since the fourth cycle began since before it began to achieve the compliance that I believe on the narrow issue that I'm speaking about tonight has been achieved and that's program to point to the emergency shelter rezoning. I'm very pleased to see that the Planning Commission decided that it would put a end date on when that would happen, and that staff has incorporated that in the report tonight. And I think that that that's going to work. I'm reminded of something that Kerry Gallagher, who's the the you know, a good friend of mine mentioned to me a couple of days ago. She said one thing that we can urge you to do and you might hear this later on this evening, is is to realize that compliance with the law shouldn't be the bottom line, but rather meaningful action and related to emergency shelter by sight. Meaningful action is what it's all going to be about. There is not enough emergency shelter existing in the city right now, so to speak. For just a moment about the arena numbers related to extremely low income goals of 1773 units, I'd want to point out that based on the past performance of the city in its ability to create extremely low income affordability for housing, that goal of 773 units or that need of 1773 units would be achieved in something along the line of 933 years from now. Our performance has been dismally slow. However, however, state funding of affordable housing you know, the housing trust fund, the housing fund that Amy spoke about is extremely important for us to move forward into the next year to get that accomplished. So what I want to specifically support is program 2.2, the emergency shelter rezoning. And I also personally support the point of view of housing. Long Beach. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The you have 3 minutes. When you see the yellow light, that means you have 30 seconds left. And I would urge you, please don't be repetitive. We have a lot of people who and I'm going to try to give you all 3 minutes. But if it's going to take a long time, we'll have to reduce that. So try to be economical with your time. Please identify yourself.
Speaker 5: My name is Diane McNabb. Live at 908 North Park Circle. West Division beat six across from Greg Park in the historic Fillmore District. I have lived in Long Beach since 1976. A little background. I've served as Community Development Commissioner, Board Ambassador, elected to the Community College Board of Trustees, and according to the Housing Element charts, I am designated as low income, so my remarks might come as a surprise. My neighborhood is very challenged with the density of a third world country and only 10% owner occupancy. We think gentrification and market rate housing is a good thing. It creates stable neighborhoods and additional stakeholders. The housing element should be a excuse me adopted as it stands without further inclusion of anything else. City staff has worked extremely hard with all stakeholders. And the careful analysis reveals a very carefully balanced plan.
Speaker 8: It's the result of hard work.
Speaker 5: A vibrant, caring professionals who have taken all aspects of the Long Beach economy into consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next, please.
Speaker 2: Names. Larry Good. Hugh Kirk as the address. Kirk as my address, I noted the speaker. The previous speaker, as of last as she did last week, indicated that according to the stats, she is considered low income. But I think we all agree she certainly has million dollar looks.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: As stated before, my position is that the where one lives, with exception of veterans and severely disabled and those are in temporary need of emergency. Housing is not the business of the city. Where the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker is a no lives is no concern to the city. You know, there's a old paradigm that in the sports world or athletic world, if you want to get better, you play with people that are better than you got the same level of you seem to it the same thing with academics. If you want to learn, you learn and you work and you interface with people that are smarter than you. I think what we should do is that I agree with the previous speaker. Don't touch the existing plan. But in the future I think what we should do is turn to a like cities like Beverly Hills, Irvine and Newport. Find out what they do. It may require a change in paradigm, a dramatic change in paradigm, but I think that's something we should work on. Again, take care of the veterans, take care of our legals seniors, and take care of those who are temporarily in need of temporary housing. But beyond that, we're that butcher where that baker, where that candlestick maker lives is not a concern of any city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 4: Evening, Mayor. City Council staff. My name's Jeremy Harris. I'm the senior vice president for Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. Keep my points brief tonight. Here to speak on behalf of the Chamber and our support of the agenda item 2013 2021 housing element as part of the city's general plan and move the document forward to the necessary agencies as outlined in the presentation. Chamber believes the housing element, as written will allow Long Beach to compete for high quality housing developments and remain economically competitive in the neighboring cities when investors come looking. Furthermore, the Chamber agrees with other organizations such as the downtown Long Beach Association, that by allowing any inclusionary housing policies into the current housing element, this would lead to an otherwise worrisome policy impacting a majority of the potential new development, especially in the downtown area. We believe the housing element provides sound policy and guidance for current and future Long Beach residents. We commend the staff, their outreach efforts, their multiple transactions with stakeholders on both sides of this very important issue and document. We know this process was extensive, as thoroughly been research by city staff with multiple revisions as we heard during their presentation. Based on this work, and, as we already know, a letter of compliance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development as accepted the current version of the housing element, any and all policy efforts would serve to better positioned Long Beach for the future. By improving the current and future. Housing is something the Chamber strongly endorses. Long Beach is exceedingly fortunate to have a dynamic port, an airport, excellent public transportation, direct service, by the way of multiple freeways, roadways and pathways that connect Long Beach to the region and beyond. Now we have a document that concludes a road map for a housing. Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Evening, Mayor. Councilmember. Staff. I'll be very brief.
Speaker 4: My name is Joshua Holston with Urban Village. We have a project on Long Beach Boulevard in 10th for 216,000 square foot, a mixed use project encompassing both residential and retail. And I got to say, we have absolutely loved working with the city of Long Beach. We were able to get our project approved and in short order because of the fact that it was a very collaborative setting and we were loved working as far as was staff to be able to get our project through. A lot of people didn't think we were going to break ground. We did. And there was a very challenging prospect as far as putting the funds together. The reason why I give this back story is this the way that the housing element is written as of now we think is very solid. Is it is it doesn't scare off groups like ours from coming in and taking on new projects. If, for example, inclusionary housing was added to this in in addition to what is currently there, it has a couple of effects. The first in our project, if anything was added on top, we would not have been able to make it work as it was. We are stretched to be able to hit that yield with the increase from the time we started construction of construction costs. It even makes it more challenging to take on projects that have on market rate projects to have an affordable component.
Speaker 2: But the other thing it does, besides just.
Speaker 10: Reducing the amount of.
Speaker 4: Projects that get approved or able to get financing to move through, is it also actually passes the burden down to the rest of the folks that are renting units or purchasing units because of the fact of the additional burden of cost. When you do build, as you council members know, when you do build the affordable housing project or even a project that has an affordable component, then you have to pay prevailing wages. Now, regardless of where you stand on this, it still does increase the project cost by between 20 to 30%. And what that does is we have to into passing that down to the residents of the market rate units, which ends up costing more. So in essence, it creates.
Speaker 2: Almost an additional.
Speaker 4: Burden and less affordable units or less affordability for the market rate units. So with that said, I really appreciate your time and we definitely support the housing element as it currently stands.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Ehud, mostly. I'm a developer and consultant on affordable middle income workforce housing. I also chair the housing initiative of the L.A. District Council over the July, and I serve on the adjunct faculty of the MBA program at USC. As I told your study group on December ten, I believe the City Council should adopt the solid and thoughtful draft housing element with its emphasis on affordable housing. Affordable housing with a capital A has become a politically correct term, referring to housing for extremely low, very low and low income families. Those with incomes below the 80% of. Area median income. However, a highly pressing issue of housing unaffordable unaffordability with a small a in Long Beach is made abundantly clear on pages 4042 of the housing element. As a responsible and compassionate society, we must continue to take care of housing needs of families who earn less than 80% of them. I would do that with existing and new federal, state and municipal subsidies and other specifically targeted programs. But we cannot continue to neglect housing needs of middle income families who earn more than 80% of the economy. These families form the backbone of the community. They drive economic development. They constitute the bulk of first responders. Sadly, these middle income families have been orphaned by the system. They are not eligible for housing support mechanisms available to those who are less fortunate financially. It is an illusion that the Great Recession has increased permanent affordability. Coastal California housing is unaffordable to most middle income workforce workforce families. We still have a location mismatch between affordable housing and jobs. This is a roadblock to employee attraction, retention, economic development and community building. A recent Wells Fargo survey showed that when it came to unaffordability, the L.A. Long Beach Metro ranked number four out of 222 in the country and number three out of 28 in California. This is hardly an achievement to be proud of. The housing element contains another painful statistic the 437,000 median price house in Long Beach requires a qualifying income of $109,000. This is 168% of the amount. Thus, a family with Amy over $65,000 can afford the house price of no more than 260,000. According to Zillow, only 17% of the 1900 houses for sale in Long Beach are priced below $260,000. Similar dissonance exists in rental housing. I presented staff with an empirical business model that could bring down housing costs for middle income families by 25 to 30%. These would rely on ground leasing of vacant or underutilized real estate consumed by the public.
Speaker 10: To wrap it up. So thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: You can.
Speaker 6: Good evening, vice mayor garcia, city council members.
Speaker 5: And the city. I am Francis.
Speaker 6: Emily Dawson Harris and I reside in District one.
Speaker 5: I want to commend the city for all that, the planning.
Speaker 6: Commission and everyone involved and the process of putting.
Speaker 5: Together this phenomenal.
Speaker 6: Amazing document.
Speaker 5: You have a great task ahead of you this evening regarding the 2013 2012 housing element as part of the city's general plan. When making your.
Speaker 6: Decision, I trust that you will consider the needs of all persons. Now, there are some issues of concern I would just give to you and think about, and you can decide whether or not you want to address some, such as setting a time limit regarding presenting a citywide mixed.
Speaker 5: Income housing ordinance.
Speaker 6: To City Council. Setting aside a 10% very low income requirement for new apartment buildings appears to be a reasonable request.
Speaker 5: However, I would like you to consider that is a higher, even equal need for ensuring affordable housing throughout the city.
Speaker 6: Having units such as band units which.
Speaker 5: Require income eligibility and such housing is not section eight or hat housing.
Speaker 6: A person can have a catastrophic health condition. They could lose an income income of two in the family. They could be considered moderate income, low income.
Speaker 5: And all of a sudden now they.
Speaker 6: Become.
Speaker 5: Low income and the availability.
Speaker 6: Of them giving assistance is not so readily available. Setting a timeline for finding options for finding sources for the housing trust fund determine whether or not a commercial linkage fee is constitutional. That is.
Speaker 5: Can it be implemented? I'm a little concerned about that whole issue.
Speaker 6: So maybe someone can kind of.
Speaker 5: Explain what that.
Speaker 6: That is.
Speaker 5: About. And I want to.
Speaker 6: There's a concern regarding Section eight housing, the availability of vouchers.
Speaker 5: I'm out and about and seeing more and more.
Speaker 6: Persons that are homeless. And when they speak about Section eight, they said there's no Section eight housing available, and yet there's been 200 vouchers set aside for persons, specifically the disabled. So I would like you to look into that.
Speaker 5: But I want to say bravo for.
Speaker 6: A foreclosure registry program, the university design program identifying.
Speaker 5: Our MPD 29 LBB by right silence for emergency shelters and the rent escrow.
Speaker 6: Account program to address about habitat penalty.
Speaker 5: Issues.
Speaker 6: So I trust that you're going to make the right decision. I approved the plan, but there are some issues that concern that I think you may want to look at, too, and I'll turn. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hi. Mike Dunphy. I live at 488 Ocean Boulevard. I'm president of Ocean Residents Community Association and serve on the board of the DRC as well. We support or I support the housing element as it stands. One one concern is this the inclusionary housing. The discussion of that worry, a new development. Oh, and also I'm a real estate broker and manage property throughout Long Beach and primarily in the downtown area and in this inclusionary housing where percent goes to to low income. So a.
Speaker 2: Hundred new units get built and ten or.
Speaker 4: 20% go to.
Speaker 2: Low income are middle income.
Speaker 4: Non-Market housing? Well, the question is, who would who would get it? How? I mean, logically, it would be either some people that are following a very narrow, tightly defined gap or someone well-connected who really knows the system. How could that be fair? And then what happens later once their situations change or after that's been bought? How does that stay? I just have known in other developments that just that does not work. So if you're looking to buy a property or to rent a property in in in a project that is at X percentages for low income housing, honestly, ask yourselves, do you think does that make a project sound better?
Speaker 2: You know, it did it. It did does it if you're paying market price, it just it just.
Speaker 4: Doesn't make it sound better. Hear from the developers. It changes the cost basis. It's it's handicapping.
Speaker 2: The development of down here.
Speaker 4: There's there's the especially downtown there's a shortage of of above moderate income housing. When you want when you come you don't want more 99 cent stores, more vapor cigaret shops you don't want more head shops you want you want a Trader Joe's, you want all this stuff. We have to have a demographic that supports that. We have to have a demographic that supports all the things that you that you guys all promise and say you want for our city as well. So I just a really, really, really am concerned if this will this will hamper our development in the new projects that come down here. And we won't get our Trader Joe's and everything like that. It will be it will be a different type of of retail and job base.
Speaker 2: And it will be it it will it will.
Speaker 4: It will hurt us all. So and there's. Anyways, that's it. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 11: Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the Council. I'm Joe Garnham. I'm President of the Downtown Residential Council. You heard from me at the study session about this subject. I recently wrote an op ed piece supporting the approval of the housing element without modification, and I thought to myself, Well, what else can I possibly say? I want you to to get this done. I think it's an excellent document. I've had the opportunity to read it. I believe it's a great start. There is one thing. About 30 years ago, I was a real estate developer and I built a housing edition and I included in it a standard of a higher standard than was ever required, including six inch concrete streets. And this was in Oklahoma. You can probably relate to Oklahoma today with all the bad weather news that comes out of there with extremely low and then in the summer, extremely high temperatures.
Speaker 2: Well, last summer, my wife and I returned.
Speaker 11: There for a.
Speaker 2: Wedding in.
Speaker 11: The area and visited that same subdivision. And that subdivision is amazing. It looks like it was when it was first built. 70% of the residents who purchased originally there still live in that addition. So it was all about creating the right plan and then letting it work. And that's what we're asking you to do here today. So we ask that you approve the housing element. I want to congratulate the staff on an excellent job and urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig Hodge and I serve as the President and CEO of the downtown Long Beach Associates. Nearly two years ago, after the adoption of the downtown plan, investment in our city's core is increasing. The important policy that the downtown plan presented embraces streamlined and incentivized development by increasing density, reducing parking requirements, simplifying adaptive reuse projects and much more. As a result of your leadership, several completed and progressing projects are now benefiting from the downtown plan, including, but not limited to the mill works development at Sixth Street and Pine Avenue, the Shoreline Gateway at Alamitos and Ocean Boulevard and the Edison Loft, situated at Long Beach Boulevard and First Street, which are creating hundreds of jobs and attracting new residents to stimulate Long Beach's economy. Tonight, you have the opportunity to serve in a leadership capacity again and establish policies that will incentivize positive development and improve quality of life. With the adoption of the housing element. After much review by community members, city staff and the California Department of Housing and Community Department, along with receiving unanimous approval from the Long Beach Planning Commission, the proposed version of this document provides sound policy and programmatic guidance with respect to preserving the quality of existing housing inventory. Additionally, the housing element proposes valuable new and returning programs such as Home Rehabilitation and Homeowner and Rental Assistance Program, which will undoubtedly improve quality of life for Long Beach's residential population. Adopting the housing element, as written, is critical to the continued success of development in downtown and the rest of Long Beach. There are many communities throughout Southern California that compete for high quality smart development, and the Long Beach community needs to continue to welcome such investments with open arms. Demand for new housing is increasing but has not yet reached pre-recession levels. Burdensome policies such as mandatory inclusionary housing and linkage fees will inhibit our ability to recover fully, fully from the housing crisis and reach our ultimate potential through advocacy for amendments to the housing element by various community. Groups are well-intended. They carry the potential to result in serious consequences. The cities of San Jose and Los Angeles both face lawsuits due to their inclusionary housing policies, one of which was which is still in appeals at the Supreme Court. The debate especially concerned is especially concerned about these proposed policies because 70% of the units identified for new development in the proposed housing element are located in downtown, potentially leading to a disproportionate burden.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 2: On our city's score and the real possibility of housing segregation.
Speaker 10: Thank you for your. Thank you. Next speaker, please. All right.
Speaker 5: Let's cool. Close another. Good evening, City Council Vice Mayor. My name is Cindy Soto and I am a Long Beach resident, a disability and a housing advocate, and also the board president of Housing Long Beach. We come to this hearing tonight with a clear understanding of what is before us. With the state's recent letter to the city. You could easily pass this document as it is, and it will comply with state law. However, compliance cannot be our ultimate goal for us as advocates and for you as elected leaders. We want the very best for our city and all residents. The housing elements function isn't a pass fail system when thinking about these types of systems. One can realistically get a D-plus and still pass. But Long Beach is a world class city, and as such, our bottom line should not be simply to pass, but be excellent, and to utilize the opportunity to its fullest potential to make real and tangible challenges changes. I mean, to improve our city. As a disability rights advocate for many years. I often reflect on the Americans with Disabilities Act. And you see for us, the ADA was a great step forward. And yet we work to remain. And yet we work to remind cities and businesses to comply with the spirit of the law, not simply the letter of the law. Being a leader is not about meeting basic minimums, but it's about really improving. Yes, but about really improving a community's standard of living. This housing element cycle is your opportunity to do just that for Long Beach. You see, everyone in this room loves Long Beach. It is why we care enough to be here. And even though we disagree, it is why we fight for what we believe is right. It discourages me. But often, you know, often times that advocacy groups are set aside as being too controversial, you know, too negative or unwilling to compromise. But I want to remind you that we aren't here to fight you. As a resident who has been struggling with my own housing situation, this is about me, my neighbors, my friends. This is about a fight over. This isn't about a fight over policies. It is about our livelihood, stability and happiness. That is why we are here. And we will continue to be here. Finish here. Yo. The three. The three edits we are requesting, which will be shared later, are simple and yet will not only make the document stronger, but it will also surely show your commitment to the well-being of the thousands of residents who are impacted by housing quality affordability every day. Thank you very much. Thank you. It just.
Speaker 7: Her father.
Speaker 2: Cisco. Please begin.
Speaker 7: Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Robert Garcia, council members and city staff. My name is Lazaro Gonzalez. I stand before you today not only as a business owner and a property manager, but also as a small business owner. I live at 1127 Hoffman Avenue. My store is located on Seventh and Orange and it is called the Tithing Closet. I am also a graduate of the city's Neighborhood Leadership Program. I have worked closely, closely with my council officers. Our community projects. I am very active and highly invested in my community through providing residents that come to our store with different resources and through fundraising for families dealing with the aftermath of cancers. As a small business owner, affordable housing allows allows for residents to have more disposable income. People have a tendency for spending locally, and if they have more income, they can support small businesses like myself. Good quality, affordable housing would lead to people taking more of an interest not only in themselves, but in their community. As a homeowner, I am very active and invest highly in my community because I know the value of a good investment. As a homeowner, I first and foremost invest highly in the apartments I rent out because I know affordable quality housing would make for renters. Happy would make for happy renters and keep them very sustained. Allowing for a little longer also, which allows for longer renting periods and a happy, comfortable environment. As a property manager who takes a lot of pride in my property. I support the RE-UP program because it will ensure that property owners in my neighborhood will take as much pride in their property as I do in mine. As a community member, I strongly feel that good quality and affordable housing creates a pride, a pride of place. This will then transmit into the local communities. It will foster a greater activation in the local community, which studies have shown to decrease crime rates. In conclusion, there are a lot of host of there are a host of ways passing progressive policies which will assist me as a small business owner and bring a better community to me and all the families. I would rather see this happen much sooner than later. I urge each and every one of you to please consider what is being proposed to you by housing Long Beach. It's good policy for the benefit of the entire city. And by the way, good job. I love this city. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia. Council members. My name is Porter Goldberg and I'm the administrative director for the LGBT Youth Center of Long Beach. I'm representing the center, Long Beach, and I'm also a steering committee member for housing Long Beach. And tonight, you have the opportunity to vote on a housing element worthy of our.
Speaker 5: World class city. And tonight, we are.
Speaker 4: Here to support you in adopting and implementing a housing element.
Speaker 5: Which takes into account the needs of all our residents, rich and poor, those with and those.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately without, by no fault of their own.
Speaker 5: You and your dedicated staff have met with us on numerous occasions and we are tremendously appreciative of your time and consideration of this incredibly important document.
Speaker 4: And the feedback we pre-released.
Speaker 5: Previously shared. Tonight, you have the opportunity to pass the document as is or to incorporate our proposed provisions into meaningful and measurable changes that will.
Speaker 4: Protect the most vulnerable in our community. And I'm here to explain our three proposed edits.
Speaker 5: First, we urge you to revise the housing element to include the consideration of a mixed income housing ordinance in 2014. Within the parameters of the law and in anticipation of the resolution of outstanding cases, we are simply asking for language to be included, which explores the sound public policy as a potential solution to the arguable shortage of affordable housing for low and very low income residents. Second, permanent dedicated local sources of funding also continues to challenge our city. We are optimistic that language has been included in the housing.
Speaker 4: Element, which identifies.
Speaker 5: This need. However, there remains the need to identify the source. We've listened to your feedback and realize that now is simply not the time to push for a commercial linkage fee. We have come to the table to compromise and we're hopeful. You sit here tonight in the same spirit. Just as RDA funding was set aside for affordable housing. We still believe that boomerang funds can serve the same purpose. We are still hopeful that the city will dedicate 20% of boomerang funds annually towards affordable housing development for the next eight.
Speaker 4: Years, beginning with fiscal.
Speaker 5: Year 1415. This low hanging fruit is a sound investment in the future of our residents and our city. Finally, we were elated that language has been included, which expresses a willingness.
Speaker 4: To explore the creation of a program here. We understand that city staff is incredibly busy with numerous projects, and we are here to offer any and all support necessary to research and execute this.
Speaker 5: Program in Long.
Speaker 4: Beach. We ask.
Speaker 5: That the housing element be revised to say that staff will present a re ordinance to the City Council for.
Speaker 4: Consideration and.
Speaker 5: Adoption at a public hearing in 2014. These programs have been implemented in both Oakland and Sacramento cities of similar size and there are numerous model examples.
Speaker 4: Available to Long Beach.
Speaker 5: We are confident that we can explore and vote on.
Speaker 4: RIPA in the next 12 months by working together. So we have three simple asks.
Speaker 5: And with the exception of rape, we're merely asking for you to include.
Speaker 4: Language that firmly lays out what our options are for the next eight years.
Speaker 5: I thank you in advance for your partnership and collaboration, and I look forward to reporting.
Speaker 4: Back to our.
Speaker 5: Constituents your support for a meaningful and measurable housing element.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia, city council members, staff and guests. My name is Stephanie League. I lived in Long Beach since 1992. Raise my children here and I work here as well in the first district, currently serving in my 14th year as the founding director of the New City School. We serve a diverse population of families, over 75% of whom currently qualify for free or reduced price meals due to their families low incomes. That means that the monthly paychecks brought home by my students hardworking parents don't cover what their children actually need, the greatest element of which is the cost of their home, their apartment, their shared room, or their converted garage. I've been making home visits for each of the last 14 years. It's part of the work that I do. I'm continually amazed to see how people try to make the best of the substandard and inadequate housing stock available to the working poor of our city. Every day I receive students and parents in my office who are dealing with an acute academic or behavioral challenge. And I'm noticing a trend. A high percentage of these cases tie back again and again to the family's housing troubles. Overcrowding has children sleeping in the same room with teenagers and adults where they grow up far too quickly. Not enough space for reading homework, certainly not.
Speaker 8: Enough room for them to play, which we know is necessary.
Speaker 5: For all children to be healthy infestations, unrepaired dangers, and a fear of a landlord who can easily replace them if they complain. Tonight and in the coming months, you have a chance to influence for the better, the lives of the children all over this city. The elements proposed by housing Long Beach in this housing element and the edits, pardon me, are simultaneously bold and practical. The research behind this proposal is solid. Components like rent, escrow, restoring the lost funding and thoughtful mixed income construction are timely and just what we need to make 2014. The year in which you make way for so many hardworking families to meet their children's basic needs, allowing them to thrive. I thank you so much for your consideration and for allowing me to share my perspective with all of you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council.
Speaker 4: City Staff. My name is Andrew Housman. I live in District two here in Long Beach, and I'm a proud resident of this city. I've had the privilege and luxury, though, of growing up in a place that values affordable housing and in an affordable place. I grew up in rural Vermont, a nine acres of land around my house. Each of me and my brothers had our own bedroom, and my mom was able to stay home while my dad provided for us with just one job. When I moved to Long Beach, I realized that so many of the children and working families of our city did not have the same opportunities that I had here in Long Beach. We know, all of us know families that live with four, five, six people in a bedroom because of the lack of affordable and dignified housing in the consequences of this are real. While me and my brothers got to study in our own rooms in privacy. Families often don't have any space for their kids to do their schoolwork. Mom and Dad are working two jobs, both of them just to be able to afford the rent and to put food on the table. It's because of this contrast that I know afford it. Providing affordable housing is an incredibly important step to creating the type of city that all of us want here in Long Beach. In regards to the housing element you all are considering this evening. There are few changes that housing Long Beach, and I would recommend to help achieve our shared goal of additional affordable and quality housing in our city. The newest version of this housing element has four sources of new funding, which we all applaud, knowing that these new revenues would. And we'd love to work with all of you in making sure that these new revenues are there to secure our great housing need. However, many of these revenues are uncertain. Prop one C monies have dried up. No clear dollars have been allocated from AB 1484 yet and the amounts are uncertain because of this. We know and we know that this housing element you're considering is about real change and real progress in our city. And today, we urge the Council to adopt at least one concrete, clear funding source for the affordable housing we need. With the dissolution of redevelopment funds, we've lost a huge amount of revenue that was previously dedicated to affordable housing historically. 20%, like you all know of of of redevelopment funds was dedicated to affordable housing. A portion of that money is coming back to the city in the form of boomerang funds. But if we today set aside 20% of these boomerang funds, just like we did with redevelopment money, we can provide an opportunity to ensure the protection of housing dollars for our city. Additionally, by doing this, we will make our city more competitive for additional federal state grants. We know that so much of the federal and state dollars come tied to matching funds. By setting aside these boomerang funds. We can help Long Beach be a more competitive city for state investments, and it will result in better housing options for all. Of us. This is a low hanging fruit and we can continue to assure our mutual and shared priority for providing the type of city that we all want where all of our families can live in dignity. So thank you all. Have a great night.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council on City Staff. My name is Scotty Hankey.
Speaker 4: I live in Rose Park and Second District. And I also am speaking on behalf of housing Long Beach and asked me to give my perspective as a homeowner. I have a 30 year, 30 year resident and homeowner and Rose Park, and it's the now the jewel in the crown of long beaches, historic districts. And I am very proud to be a rose park in. And my perspective is really coming from, you know, 30 years ago when we moved into the neighborhood and it turned out to be just, you know, drugs and gangs and alleys with dumpsters and and we were so shocked and we we said what to do and living conditions were intolerable. So you're bound together and you form a neighborhood association, of course. And I just want to tell you that, you know, tenacious and I will never give up. Rose Park remembers It's taken two decades, but we've transformed Rose Park into the most desirable place to live. And what I want to tell you is, during this period of of revitalization, something else happened that my friends and neighbors, they disappeared because they could not afford to live in Rose Park. And as other neighborhoods become more livable, this is going to come true again. Poor residents will be displaced. And I feel like we marginalized them and ghettoized them. Our poor and our low income people, they live where they can afford to live. And I feel that they were really completely marginalized from us. And my concern is that so they're stuck and so we can go to them. And one of the things we can do is with child housing, like Peter was proposing is the rent trust account rep is the first step. And this program, which our sister city, Los Angeles, has had in place for many years, ensures that minimum minimum housing standards are maintained within residential rental units. And I really urge the council to consider I.
Speaker 5: Know now in your.
Speaker 4: Plan you're going to research reap in 2014 determinant is appropriate in 2015 and then report your findings in 2016. And I really would like you to kind of speed the plow on this, because I think it's so important because of the issues of quality of life in this city. And everyone who lives their heads should have the same right to have it. And so you've really got to consider what we can do. If we're stuck out there and they can't get housing, then what can we do and whatever they're living in. So thank you very much for your time that.
Speaker 5: When I thought of this, that was me. No worries. Lilly Apprentice. Yeah. You're so. You remember the house in Long Beach? Maybe it is. Jonathan. Oh, there's a lecturer, an Iraqi lesbian all along. But they told me we need to split up from AZT, sit there and use a process. I'm a proximal mentee, so mother and father mistress equals economic, social, educational. But I'm in Mexico, so no pre-med or nanny. It is me, Princesa. You mean there is also. When is that social. Educational that those they use it don't they means for total need those little or no one to it. Assume for toda they told me the problem is this in the end this forget. Yes, honorable total always starts with. Good evening. My name is Lilia Fuentes and I'm a member of Housing Long Beach. My address is 810 Terry Avenue in Long Beach, California. I've been living here in the city for more than 17 years, approximately. I'm a mother who's responsible for my three children economically, socially and educationally. To me, my children come first. One of my granddaughters is my princess that I'm interested in her social and education well-being as well as that of all my future grandchildren. I would like a good future generation for all of my descendants because they're the future of this city. Lesbianism, the most animals. Mujer Rattus. Cucaracha. Sodomy, yes. Ella, he lost. Mana is not a part islanders party. They suffered thus if was the hour simply summoned again to say this company and my marina complaining of upper criminality who can also be a better one or less tolerant than what Westover May Manhattan Sour can offer less to work it. And as to where there's a gas eat a movie free and lesbian in cellphone no la cumbia one in honor casino to work at bar but I came from Brazil Guatemala Mika gay you're a lucky star myself at the those of what I see Tottenham grannies poor Casilla they had them lost animals lost in Santos collapsed go and the homes where we lived had rats, cockroaches, ants and the managers didn't repair the things that were problematic. There were water leaks, it was always leaking and the wood was damaged. One time I bought a stove because the manager said that it wasn't working, but when they installed the new stove, they told me that it wasn't the stove, but rather the pipes that weren't working. The homes were very cold and they didn't change the carpeting. On one occasion I had to pee so that they would put new carpeting in my daughter's room. Since she was the one that was the most affected, her whole body was bitten up by the insects that were there, if you remember about it, through a horrible chemicals and always felt that another button may come in which has a problem in my situation. Forget Korea. Can me see Costa? We had I don't know where they would operate, but on uncle training, you know potatoes are stubborn in my last condition is you kimono thing when I they gave me a boiler don't they don't care what solar is if there are many sequels that I start my solicitation I always had to work so that my children wouldn't lack anything. But I had to move many times because I wanted my children to have a safe place. But I couldn't find anywhere because they were all in the same bad condition. Since I don't have anybody support me, I have to speak for myself. I have to stand up and defend my children from all of these types of situations for a souvenir. Qui-Gon Apprentice there is. But I can say Penny Apple in Las Policias K StumbleUpon in Newcastle in Long Beach. So really being told I love to be in them is a system only the other division. This is a must at the seamless. No, I must but me. Me. But I'm familiar. So. No, but I mean, it started to Stockholm, Oneida and I'll say and the reason that is the reason that I'm here today in front of you so that you know, and so that you can support these policies that housing Long Beach is proposing within the housing element. We need to better the quality of the homes and let them be more affordable. And it's not just for me and my family, but for the well-being of our whole community. For her here are best are the good thing I address, you know. But I'm not being honest then, Mrs. Braxton, but I represent that it's I think it has to get Sparky's care not don't they be we get jealous person ask for on a personal ministerial assembly that is the base can them maybe a no you're lucky you get it gives that person assistant I he is that mutual system and so Scarsdale hospital you're not in in don't they on the vivid so in spite of the fact that I was operated on recently it's been less than three months but I'm here to represent those people the ones that live in the parks because they don't have a place to live. The people that have fought for our safety of our country, for our well-being, and the people that are here that might be living on the street or they might be in a home without a place. I include ostomy home hierarchy as well as persons are most. I mean source was bozza is or nina l obviously say you're not in emperor by that I stay on the apartamento commode ever. They said. They said to me they called me. Well, yeah, they said we call on my mother La Mujer and even my oldest son was in the armed forces. So sometimes he, his wife and his little girl don't have the money to pay for an apartment. Sometimes they have to live with me or they live with the girls. Mom, he. Come on. Minus the normal obligation, they they be read as equal monies, equal to the personas as he comatose como or money that and as humans we have the obligation to live with other humans. We're part of humanity. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Hey, thank you. Next.
Speaker 5: Good evening, city staff, city council and Honorable Mayor. My name is Brooke Clovis, and I'm a constituent of the third district and a graduate student at Cal State Long Beach. I live on 5050 East Garfield Street. Over the past couple of months, I have attended city council meetings, the recent planning commission hearing and study session. I have heard on the I have heard from those who are opposed to the community platform saying that we need to develop a long beach that attracts highly educated young people. I have heard this statement on various occasions. As a graduate student, someone who may be considered highly educated, this is quite concerning. After listening to public comments, it sounds like some Long Beach residents and stakeholders would like to transform Long Beach into a small town, beach, state, city, a city with no poverty and only upper middle class residents. While the demographics of a beach city may be appealing to some transferring Long Beach and to Newport, Newport, Redondo or even Beverly Hills is not the solution to achieving a prosperous economy and reducing crime with crime rates as it poses a threat to many Long Beach residents and myself. The development of housing stock that is only market rate will lead to the displacement of low and middle income residents and families in Long Beach because the low paying service sector jobs that pay minimum wage are growing and City Council has not identified a permanent local source of funding for affordable development. Many of our valuable residents will no longer be able to live here. Even I fear that after I graduate with my master's degree, I will not be able to find a job in Long Beach where I can afford rent, meet my basic needs, and save my money. Save money to own a home. This is why it's important for the city to offer its working class residents a safe and healthy home that is affordable, affordable to their income level. Further transforming Long Beach into a beach city will kill what makes Long Beach one of the most unique cities in the United States, its diversity. When I moved to Long Beach, I was not attracted to the upscale developments or tourism industry. I was attracted to its diverse population, progressive reputation and unique local businesses. In no other city have I felt a sense of belonging and community where diverse populations come together to find solutions to the challenges they encounter. If the city continues to develop without affordable developments, many of Long Beach residents will be displaced and our diverse population will be obsolete. So rather than focusing on what types of people we need to attract to Long Beach, the city should make the needs of its current residents a priority. Research has shown that when people can afford to live locally, they invest locally. And when residents and families have good paying jobs and stable homes, crime decreases. As a new resident of this great city, I urge you to use your leadership and take action. Make this housing element about more than just compliance. Make it about strategic action that improves the quality of life for Long Beach residents and makes Long Beach an even greater city to live in. Thank you. Next to. Good evening, counsel. My name is Janine Pearce. I know many of you. I am a second district resident and I'm director at Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, where our mission is to make sure that all working families have a living wage, a roof over their head, and that we're working on new development and we're working on new ways to make sure our cities are thriving, that they're not a city of the past, but that we're continuing to grow and inspire new business to come in and to make sure that residents are able to contribute to that. And so as a part of that mission, affordable housing has always been something at the heart of what we do. Madeline Janis, one of our co-founders, was on the Redevelopment Agency Committee in Los Angeles for ten years where she fought to make sure that we did have strong development that included affordable housing. Why do we need to have affordable housing if we have workers making a living wage in the city, which I'd like to applaud all of you for taking a stand on living, wages are really critical. Living wages are to make sure that we meet the bare necessities again. Same thing with the document that you have in front of you. It sets the bottom, it doesn't set the top. And so at $13 an hour, workers are bringing home if if they're working 40 hours a week at $13 an hour, they're bringing home roughly $27,000 a year for the federal government. They mandate, they say, that for a worker to be able to afford housing, that it should be at 30% of their income level or less. So a worker making $27,000 a year, they're barely able to afford housing. They would still qualify for what the federal government mandates as low income housing. So for that reason, even with the living wage, we need to make sure that we have affordable housing at some level to where families can make sure that they're not living on top of each other in poor conditions. We've heard from previous tenants. We know that the workers in the city are 35 I'm sorry, 50% of the residents in the city spend 35% of their income on housing. If we want to have a city that's thriving, we want to make sure that the residents here have money to spend. It's the same argument as was made with measuring. If families have money in their pocket, they're going to spend it locally. Let's make sure that we're building a city that can thrive for everyone and that residents here can live healthy. They can spend money in local businesses and make sure that we are a thriving city that we want to have. And so that's why Lane and the Long Beach Coalition stand with housing.
Speaker 8: And it's a core issue.
Speaker 5: That's very important to us, and we look forward to voting on that on the small edits tonight and making sure that we can do this in 2014 instead of pushing it on to where we've forgotten what a program is. And to make sure that we do find a dedicated source of funding the 20% that was taken out of the affordable out of the housing trust fund. We want we want to make sure that that's put back. So thank you very much for your time and your leadership.
Speaker 1: And doing that.
Speaker 7: I rise to a point of order according to procedures, that my patient as speaker is allowed to get his ideas off his mind. If it's not on the agenda, that's guaranteed. At the beginning, I was assured I would be fourth place. Obviously, I'm not the fourth placed speaker now. I like to have feedback on that.
Speaker 1: This is public. This is on hearing item number one. This is not public comment, Mr. Dunn.
Speaker 7: Well, as a rule, we have public comment prior to actual agenda.
Speaker 1: No, prior to the consent calendar, not prior to hearings.
Speaker 7: What would I be wrong in saying that three three slots are allowed for a speaker after the proceedings?
Speaker 1: You're out of order. This is not public comment. Well, you need to.
Speaker 7: Speak on a housing issue. How are you going forward?
Speaker 1: Mr. Dunn, I have your name here for public comment. We're not there yet.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Next, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Kelvin Johnson. I live on 744 Pine Avenue Pharmacy. I'm a single dad and I work for you. Thank you all for giving me a job. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Oh, hey.
Speaker 2: I understand that, um, I was before this job. Hey, I slept on the outside the beach. It's cold out there. I feel bad about all the hard work, all the bombs and all the people that live in. Under the. Under the. The streets that. That had no homes. Low income housing. I lived all my life in low income housing. I worked for years and I still came for the house. But that's all right. That's another thing. But other than that, I do support affordable housing because it do help the neighborhoods. I lived here 40 years up. Four years of my life. I lived here all my life. And I'm getting tired. Really. Right now I'm getting tired of African Americans. Yeah. Pushing African Americans out of here. Creating your own. Your own city. Because. I used to live here. African-Americans did live here and had they own homes. And all of a sudden, now they're selling their homes. I'm an African-American man. I got one. I got two kids, Desiree and and I got a stepdad, Isaiah Tapp, that he. He's he's a good man because he always help out the people in the neighborhood because winning when it was down. Now he was on drugs, but he changed his life and he now he came in third in line. If the kids need to go walk across the street and he used to pull out his stop sign and walking across the street. You know, I'm I'm proud of him to get off the drugs and I'm proud of him to do the job that he do. And I'm happy that I'm here and now. Thank you all for.
Speaker 3: Thank you all for letting me.
Speaker 2: Be representing here. And I really am. And I know of. Is it about. But I don't think Trader Joe's will hire any African-Americans because they're getting pushed out to the back end of the city. And and no, I'm not because I don't got the know, but it's so good. But I understand. I'm a citizen of the city. I'm just getting tired of seeing condos over here in downtown Long Beach. Have nobody and nobody filling them. We need more affordable housing to take care of that. Thank you very much. And have a nice day. Good evening, Mayor. Council members.
Speaker 7: My name is Don Hour. I'm a member of the.
Speaker 2: North Pine Neighborhood Alliance and the Downtown Residential Council. I'm a veteran of over 30 years service in the military and my disabilities, and I struggle like everybody does, regardless of income. And I would just like to comment, especially on the great job that the staff has done in all the programs that they're presenting that we have in Long Beach.
Speaker 7: Amy Bodak spelled them all out, and I'm so amazed how many programs there are. I don't think many people realize it. Long Beach has more than most cities, an entire.
Speaker 2: Southern California area.
Speaker 7: In my 30 years in the military, I worked my way up from the bottom and up and I lived in low income housing. And I remember in Boston where I lived and in low income housing on a reclaimed dump, and with my four children and traveling around the country.
Speaker 2: 23 different duty stations and little over 30 years service.
Speaker 7: So I'm quite familiar with the.
Speaker 2: Struggles, struggles and stresses of living.
Speaker 7: On a limited income. I think that the program that's presented here, the housing element is not just minimal. I think it's above and beyond what you would expect. I was amazed. Most of my time was on the East Coast and I helped produce programs, as a matter of fact, for low income military personnel. And when I came out here.
Speaker 2: In Long Beach, my last duty station.
Speaker 7: In 1980.
Speaker 2: I was amazed how many programs this city, as a beach city has. I can't believe it. The East Coast. I mean, if you if you lived on the on the coast, I mean, you really lived it up. That's something you worked for throughout the years. It isn't something.
Speaker 7: That that normally people that didn't have much money lived. And I was amazed what Long Beach has done to.
Speaker 2: To help people of lower income. I think that what.
Speaker 7: We have here, my last duty station here in Long Beach, I was the district housing officer. I moved my way up through the ranks. And before I retired.
Speaker 2: I was a district housing officer in Southern California here from San Diego to Santa Barbara.
Speaker 7: Helping lower ranked, low income people find housing. So I know the struggles and I know what.
Speaker 2: What it is to live in it myself. But I think Long Beach's.
Speaker 7: Been above and beyond what we could expect. And I'm just so.
Speaker 2: Proud of what the programs that are presented, and I really urge you to approve this as it stands. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Nano. Next to.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Sandy Sanchez, and I represent the Building Industry Association.
Speaker 8: Of Southern.
Speaker 5: California, Los Angeles, Ventura County's Chapter. We are a trade association representing about a thousand member companies and their employees. Our members are for rent, for sale, affordable housing developers, as well as all the trades and the the employees that make up every aspect of home building. From plumbers, electricians, roofers, painters, escrow companies, etc.. And I'm here to ask you to please adopt the housing element as presented. Staff and the professional consultant team has worked tirelessly to present this document, and moving forward with an inclusionary housing proposal only is a detriment to moving jobs forward. Our housing industry has been tremendously impacted by this downturn and Great Recession. We are looking to create jobs, not prevent jobs from moving forward. We're looking to have this economy pick up. And the way to do that is by obviously creating more jobs. Quality jobs that pay good, good dollars and help stimulate the economy and make housing more affordable. When we add linkage fees, it only makes housing less affordable. And I think it's important to to realize that development in general is not opposed to affordable housing and finding solutions. You know, this is not a Long Beach issue. It's a state issue. It's a national issue. We need to deal with it on a global level. Currently, at the state level, we have the DeSaulnier Bill SB 391, which offers a broader base for funding to help address affordable housing. And I think we need to look at opportunities like this bill. It's not perfect, but it is a way to address affordable housing and we need to look at it from a global perspective. I think adding it without careful analysis will only hurt and hinder future growth not only in Long Beach but throughout the state and throughout the country. I strongly encourage you to adopt the housing element as presented, and I thank you and staff and the professional consultant team that put this document forth together tonight. Thank you. Good evening, Diane, which means I'm also a disabilities rights advocate, and I do understand the need for housing assistance. However, inclusionary housing and linkage fees are extremely discriminatory against individuals. Rather than spreading the burden over an entire population. It's a sure way to destroy incentive. There's a simple rule here. If you force inclusionary housing or inclusionary housing in linkage fees, you will drive up the costs. You will eliminate the incentive to build. And developers can just go elsewhere to invest their time, effort and money. And they will. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we.
Speaker 5: Hello. Good evening to you. My name is Laura Marine, and I am a Long Beach transplant.
Speaker 8: I have lived here since 2007.
Speaker 5: I am also I also graduated from the Neighborhood Leadership Program here in the city of Long Beach. And I, too, live Long Beach. I am a documentary filmmaker, and I come here with a unique perspective. My partner and I directed a 30 minute documentary for housing in Long Beach. I was able to hear stories of stories in which you heard before about people living in crowded conditions, people living in rat and other insect infested apartments, and what they all wanted, what the bottom line was. They wanted affordable housing and they wanted to live in dignity with their families. They feel that their. The bottom line was not that they were poor. The bottom line is that they're here trying to have and trying to live a better life for themselves and their children. And they feel that that will definitely be threatened. These were just a few of the many stories of the people living day to day, paycheck to paycheck here in the city of Long Beach. So I asked the city council members and the city excuse me, I asked the city council members and citizens of Long Beach. Also, all of us should have the right to live in decent conditions which give all residents of Long Beach dignity. Please don't make people have to choose between paying the rent. Or paying for food. Thank you very much. Have a great evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next to.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Carrie Gallagher. I live at 626 East Eighth Street in the First District. And I'm here tonight as the executive director of housing Long Beach. You know, when I walked in tonight, a representative of the debate asked if I would wear one of their stickers. And I put it on because it says, we support the housing element and we do. And so I think that hopefully we can walk away tonight finding that, in fact, maybe we have more in common that we often than we often like to think. Because I look around at this room and I see my neighbors, I see my city, I see my community, every person in this room. And I think we all have a shared vision for healthy residents. We all have a shared vision for economic vitality. And we all share the vision for a thriving Long Beach. And so I think it should be noted that at the Planning Commission hearing, the city council study session and even tonight, you have heard little to no opposition around a number of the points that we've been proposing, especially the program, and expedite the expediting of the timeline of this program, as well as the allocation of 20% of boomerang funds as they return to the city. And so I really want to just step back and housing Long Beach as an organization, as a community. Advocates really want to thank the city for the time and effort that they've put into this document for the efforts that staff and council have put into meeting with us and hearing about our concerns as we work with hundreds of residents on a weekly basis and here the living conditions that people are facing. And so I want to reiterate tonight again that compliance does not necessarily equate to leadership. Leadership goes beyond compliance. Leadership goes beyond the bottom line. And so that we have crafted a document that will work with the state. We hope that you will work with us as community members to react, to craft an even stronger document that will have concrete and tangible changes for residents in the coming eight years as this housing element is put into place. Many of you are aware that housing Long Beach asked for and for this hearing date to be pushed back since it's so soon and residents are just returning from their holiday breaks and unfortunately the city was not able to accommodate that request. And what we heard from the city manager's office was this was largely due to the fact that we wanted to ensure we would have sufficient time to make any edits. And so I would like to remind you that the housing element is due to the state on February 12th. So whatever you do tonight and the edits that you're able to make, we have more than sufficient time to make those changes before this document goes to the state or is due to the state in five weeks time. Lastly, I just want to reiterate our three edits that we are asking you to make tonight. The first is that the element would be revised for the ordinance to be presented to the City Council by June of 2014. The second is that the housing element would be revised to allocate and protect 20% of boomerang funds as they return to the city for the next eight years for affordable housing. And the last is that the housing element should be revised to say that the city will consider a mixed income housing ordinance within the parameters of the law and in anticipation of outstanding cases. Thank you again for your work and for your attention to this issue, and we look forward to working together in the future.
Speaker 1: Your next.
Speaker 5: Council members. My name is Pat Denniston. I live at 3595 Santa Fe Avenue, space number 149 in Wynwood Village. I had no intention of speaking tonight. I came here to learn because I had been reading a lot in the newspaper about the housing element. And I have learned a lot tonight. And what I've learned is that you have.
Speaker 4: Really.
Speaker 5: Worked hard to put together something for this city that will give housing, affordable housing.
Speaker 2: To all.
Speaker 5: Now, affordable housing, though, can come in various stages. In 1945, it was then that my father drove the car into California. I have lived here in Long Beach ever since that day. I love Long Beach, but there are some things that I'd like to see changed, just like anyone else. So I want to ask you a question, and probably if you could answer my question right off the bat, I wouldn't go any further. But the question is this How are the people living in mobile home parks affected by this element? Were they taken into consideration back in 1985? My husband and I made the decision to move into Windward Village because it was a beautiful mobile home park.
Speaker 4: But when we looked at.
Speaker 5: Finances, we said, when we retire, we want to be able to support ourselves and not live off of someone else. And we knew we could do it at that. So we moved in there. It seems to me that we can be doing everything possible to get the people off the street. But here's what has happened in our park. A few years back, the city council approved a.
Speaker 4: Subdivision for a windward.
Speaker 5: Village and the majority of the residents were not in favor.
Speaker 4: Now, for the last four years.
Speaker 5: Our rent has been raised.
Speaker 4: $50 a month. For the last four years.
Speaker 5: You also cannot sell your home unless they buy the lot also, which is overpriced to begin with. That lowers the equity on our home greatly and it puts us down, way down in the income level. People are having to walk away and leave everything there. And if you have not seen it, please come.
Speaker 4: I'll be glad.
Speaker 5: To walk you around the park and show you.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: It's very difficult.
Speaker 1: I know. It's emotional. I apologize. You really have to.
Speaker 5: I do.
Speaker 4: I will do it right now. As of now, there are approximately.
Speaker 5: 40 to 50 who have bought their land. That is out of 305 units. That's not a very high percentage. So I ask you, you figure.
Speaker 4: Out how many are.
Speaker 5: Being displaced. We're seeing it happen. Okay. So I ask you again, how are the people living in the mobile home parks affected by this element? That's all I want to know.
Speaker 1: Thank you, ma'am. We'll try to get that answer for you. Thank you. Amy, you have a quick answer for that.
Speaker 8: Mayor, members of the city council. We did actually address that issue. It is a brand new program that we've never had the ability to fund or implement because of some previous funding constraints that we had related to mobile home parks. But we do have a program that.
Speaker 5: I'm.
Speaker 8: Trying to find that specifically provides program 3.3 D Mobile Home Repair Grants. The city proposes to create a new program that provides up to $12,000 per unit in grants for repairs of mobile homes occupied by extremely low income households. This program would be funded by the Housing Trust Fund. We have found in the past that residents who own mobile coaches have had difficulties getting loans because of the loan to value ratios that they have. And there have been cases where there have been extreme needs for emergency repairs to roofs or heaters to keep those.
Speaker 5: Mobile coaches habitable.
Speaker 8: So as part of this housing element, we did specifically craft this as a grant to eligible residents.
Speaker 1: I thank you, Amy. I want to take it behind the rail. Thank you all for your comments, Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate the many speakers who came out and spoke to passing this item. And I you know, Pat, as much as one of my constituents.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your advocacy as.
Speaker 4: A mother. When we're at Village Folks and of course, you know, I've been out there many times. And part of the challenge is the state of California actually has a lot of regulatory control over mobile home park. So that's kind of a complicating factor there. But I will say that I think, you know, going back in time, I wasn't on the council, but the vote to subdivide that two lots may have been a mistake. So I hear you're concerned about that. One question I have for you, Ms.. Bodak, is we've heard a lot of people here advocate tonight for this program, which apparently they've said has worked in Los Angeles. Now, we're not Los Angeles. We're a different city, but certainly we're wise enough to learn from others. I know we've talked about this briefly before, but you walk us through what staff are proposing. It sounds like you're proposing to stay this issue and come back in 2016 with some some communication to council. Can you talk about what you're planning to do on the subject?
Speaker 8: Certainly for members of the public and the city council, this is related to program 3.3 I somewhere around page 117. In the red line version, we are looking at issues related to code enforcement and general habitability is an issue that we must address. The housing element does demonstrate that we have a substantial amount of units that are 50 years or older and that does present potential issues related to habitability. So in as you know, we have a pretty vigorous code enforcement program. Now, the advocate groups have asked us to consider a specific program, which is Los Angeles based, related to a rent escrow account or the acronym REAP. We are not sure that that program is necessarily the best thing for Long Beach or the most appropriate program for Long Beach, but committed to doing research on the issue and trying to understand what the need is that we're trying to solve with implementing a program. The City of Los Angeles program is a multimillion dollar program that has 11 full time staffers committed to it in one department. That does not include the additional staff in auxiliary departments of financial management, city attorney or city clerk. But we did commit to looking at this as a potential issue, too, to address habitability issues. But to give you a comparison, there's approximately 176,000 units in the city of Long Beach. We believe we handle approximately 10,000 code enforcement cases every year. Those code enforcement cases range from a substandard building to an illegal garage conversion to graffiti and paint peels and an oversize fence. So those 10,000 cases are not all related to habitability issues, but some of them are just pure esthetical issues. Others are clearly much more serious. That equates to about 5.5% of the total housing stock in the city we have handled in the in the fiscal year 2012, 10,000 code enforcement cases. Of those, only 24 were substandard building code cases. So so we're not sure what, what the need is that we're trying to resolve. But in in in an effort to make sure that we are addressing code enforcement as much as possible and are doing the best that we can to address habitability issues we have agreed to to look into not only the Los Angeles program, but other programs as well. We are committing to investigating these opportunities by the end of 2014 and to report those findings to the City Council in 2015. And then if the City Council wishes us to proceed, implement an actual program and strategy by the end of 2015.
Speaker 4: So I had her in a meeting earlier today that it was no action. If action were to happen and we're not going to bind ourselves, we need to get well-educated issue. The plan was saying it would be in 2016. So it sounds like you're saying that's inaccurate, that according to the plan you're submitting or you submitted to the state the says discussion in 2014 and then action, if any, in 2015. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: That's what I'm reading.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, thank you. And for the clarification. The other question I had is there seems to be a concern from some residents out there about the bad landlords. And, you know, my father in law is a landlord and we know the vast majority of landlords, like the vast majority of people, are good folks doing the right thing. But there may be 1% or 3% who aren't. And it sounds like one concern out there is people may not be calling code enforcement because they're afraid of being evicted or having the rent raised in retaliatory fashions, which probably are illegal under state law. But because these folks may be low income or not sophisticated, don't have the ability to protest that. So what if someone is in that situation where they're fearing calling the city because they're afraid of being evicted or having their rent raised in retaliation? What's our answer to help that person?
Speaker 8: There's actually two things. If a person calls, they can talk about code enforcement related to the general building. It doesn't necessarily have to be to the specific unit. If there are code enforcement issues related to the general building, there is no way of the landlord knowing what the issues are and who raised them, because the our reports are are kept confidential on who the reporting entity is. We also do a lot of referrals, particularly to not only legal aid, but also to the Fair Housing Foundation, where we do ask both of those entities to help us address some of those issues. So we do believe that, you know, that is a concern that's out there with the number of tenants. We've had numerous discussions with the Apartment Owners Association in terms of educating their landlords on habitability issues and those processes will continue. I don't necessarily think though that focusing on the rep program will address that issue.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, I appreciate then I just ask that, you know, after tonight, you continue to have these conversations and really figure out, like I said, most landlords are great folks doing the right thing. And frankly, probably the people involved in the apartment association aren't the problem. But there are some folks out there who are clearly taking advantage of some of these low income folks. And and I think maybe part of the answer is just informing them what rights they already have and making sure that everybody knows, considering these, including as advocacy groups, what the right channels are. So I want to thank you for putting a lot of hard work in this plan over the last couple of years and look forward hearing from my colleagues.
Speaker 1: What's their Garcia?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to, you know, first just start off by thanking staff for their hard work. This has been, I know, a lot of hard work for not just Ms.. Building, but for the entire team. And I also want to thank the community, the whole community for not just coming out tonight, but for working and being involved in this plan. The reality is, is that what we have in front of us is a solid document that, quite frankly, is a better document because all of you had so much input in it. And where it was, I think, when it was first presented to where it is now because of input, particularly from housing advocates and and those that have been involved in this discussion for so long, we've been able to make some changes, I think, along the way that have made this a stronger document. I also will agree with one of our speakers who spoke about I think there's a lot more, quite frankly, that we all agree on than disagree. I think at the end of the day, we all want, regardless of where you live in Long Beach, we all want a healthy city. We all want businesses to succeed. We all certainly want to help those that need our help the most and those that are having challenges of poverty and other issues. So I think that we we do agree more than we disagree. And I think, you know, for for a lot of us particularly see a lot of my downtown neighbors that are here, I think that most of us I would include myself. I certainly bought a place downtown because I liked the diversity of the neighborhood and not just the diversity of the people, but also the economic diversity. I love the fact that there are all types of people of all ages, of all colors, of all income levels that live in my neighborhood. And that's certainly something that I value and a place that I enjoy to live and hope that my neighborhood stays stays that way. I want to continue on on the issue of the rent escrow account program for now, and I'm sure there's a lot of other additional comments. So, I mean, the way I've. Simplified the program in just the research that I've done is we're really talking about a an enforcement tool mechanism that could produce a really important tool for us to go after some of these, quite frankly, in some cases, slumlords and those that are really not just taking advantage of the renters, but are, quite frankly, creating incredible blight throughout the city. And I know some of there are some of my ah willmore neighbors that are here as well. And the reality is you drive, whether it's Willmore or whether someone was here earlier from Rose Park or some of these neighborhoods, there are some of these cracker box apartments that are just completely below that. I would classify them as substandard. So I'm not sure what our substandard classification is that we use at the city, but certainly I believe there's there's a lot more than the 24 that we found through code enforcement cases last year. So I guess I'm wondering, Ms.. Barack, I do have a question on the first version of the housing element had a reference to the city having possibly 10,000 or maybe 10,000 units that were kind of on the brink of being subsistence sub standard. And then I don't know that it's in this current version is that can you explain to me how that moved or changed?
Speaker 8: We have approximately 10,000 code enforcement cases annually. When we first looked at and did the the underlying data analysis that fed into the the document, we were using code enforcement information based on a three month period for the current fiscal year excuse me, the last current the last fiscal year since that the first draft was produced in the spring. We have since been able to revise the numbers to accommodate for a full year of data. And so the numbers did change. But as I did say, we do have approximately 10,000 code enforcement cases on an annual basis.
Speaker 10: So. I. I, for one, am interested in us doing our research on this rent escrow account program. And I would agree that just because ELAs works a certain way doesn't mean ours would work the same way. And I think, Ms.. Barak, you and I had a discussion earlier about, you know, kind of figuring out what what the Long Beach model would be or if there was a if there was a program out there. Maybe it's it's another program out there. I know Sacramento does something that's that's different than Los Angeles, but still similar. But but finding what could work for us and they could still go and address some of these these tenant improvement these landlord improvement issues. And these these developments that we have, I think would be would be very beneficial for us. I do I am concerned a little bit about our about our timeline. I would think that we would be able to revisit that this year. I don't think it necessarily needs to be. You know, we don't have all the information, but I think that it would be important for the council to be able to have a discussion sooner rather than later about what this could look like for us. Give our input, allow the community to give input, and then work towards building a program like this. If it were and you're right, we're not sure yet what could work for us. But certainly I think the sooner that we know, I think would be a good thing.
Speaker 8: Certainly, I do want to point out that we must wait for the state to give their final blessing on the housing element. They have up to 90 days to do that. So theoretically, if we submit this by February 12th, we would be waiting until May at a minimum to know that we have a certified housing element. I don't think it is feasible for us to get a certified housing element and conduct research and come back to you by June. I just do not think that that's feasible. We put in here timeframes that we felt that we could commit to. I do not want to have to explain myself in future years as to why we were unable to do something because we didn't have enough time to do something or we didn't have adequate staff resources. So this is why we came up with the timelines that we did for 2014 and 2015. Certainly it is within your discretion to change that and we will do our best to comply with that. But there were there was a method to the madness of coming up with these schedules.
Speaker 10: Well, I'll be interested to hear my other colleagues input on this, but if we're able to, I think, get information sooner, that'd be that'd be a good thing on this issue.
Speaker 1: Grand jurors.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to ask the city manager what would be the 20% impact on the city if we hear between.
Speaker 4: Mayor and councilmembers? There's talk about boomerang funds. We really don't know what a boomerang fund is. These moneys that are coming to us, we don't have a redevelopment agency anymore. So the dollars that come to us through our property taxes go into the general fund. We program those. As you know, we present to you a three year budget, the moneys that are in our property tax, go to the general fund and support police, fire, parks and recreation, things that are in our general fund. So if indeed the Council decided to lessen the amount of property tax that we get in assigned that to another fund, certainly that's something that would put us in a deficit next year.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, Mr. Neal, let's get a motion or somebody to Neill.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the dialog that has gone back and forth here. I do have some questions along the line of the vice mayor, Miss Barack, in regards to reporting back in in the area of rape. Would would December be adequate time for you and your staff to come back to this council with something that we could look at?
Speaker 8: Sir, we do have something that that does discuss us concluding our research by the end of 2014. So we would be able to conclude that research on not just the program, but the Sacramento program, the Oakland program, this franchise tax board, substandard housing program, and then any other programs that the advocates would wish us to look at
Speaker 2: . Thank you. And Mr. City Manager. In your last statement, you said that if we were to look at boomerang funds, we would be putting the the general fund in a deficit. If I if I understand you correctly, did not the housing funds come out of the. Wasn't 20% of the housing funds derived from the redevelopment? How would that put us in a deficit when.
Speaker 4: Council members when we had a redevelopment agency, 20% of the dollars in the redevelopment agency did go to affordable housing. And as everyone knows, we had one of the more robust housing programs in the state of California. There is no redevelopment agency anymore, so there are no redevelopment dollars to take 20% aside from. So the redevelopment department does not exist. There are no redevelopment tax increment dollars coming to the city. So what has happened? The taxes, the incremental taxes that were paid then went to the general that went to the redevelopment agency no longer exists. Those funds now go to the city as property tax in the general fund arena. So there are no 20% set aside dollars that exist from the redevelopment agency because the redevelopment agency no longer exists.
Speaker 2: So that being said, what is the plan for us to address our housing requirements moving into the future?
Speaker 4: Councilmember as you saw in the report, we have millions of dollars this year and coming to us in the future for the housing arena right now, Amy said, we have about $16 million in the bank that are that can be allocated to housing projects today. As you know, on a structural basis, we have approximately, I think Amy pointed out, $85 million coming to us on an annual basis to our housing authority for Section eight vouchers. Many of them go to our homeless families. We also have home dollars that come to us on an annual basis. Those dollars are used for affordable housing. Also, our CDBG dollars, we have a certain percentage of the CDBG Community Development BLOCK Fund grants on a structural basis that go forward, that come into us for housing. Other than that, we also have some housing bond moneys. That is one time that that we do expect. And as Amy did point out, we're all aware that the Downtown Redevelopment Agency was going to expire in, I think, 2017. That portion of the Downtown Redevelopment Agency owes the city approximately $110,000 or so. The state has agreed to refund those dollars to us, and that was part of the legislation. And 20% of all of those proceeds will come back to the city for affordable housing. But again, that's money that will come to us as debt repayment from the state in a couple of years.
Speaker 1: Is 23 million. Did you know?
Speaker 4: Pardon?
Speaker 1: 10 million.
Speaker 4: Million? Yes. Sorry.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure we got the right message. Just took a few zeroes out, that's all.
Speaker 2: And one final question, Mr. West, in regards to the boomerang funding, what is the estimate or can you estimate what we will be receiving in years to come?
Speaker 4: Again, it's just that the concept of what a boomerang fund is, to use the word boomerang, means that we're continuing to receive redevelopment dollars that boomerang and come back to the city. There is no redevelopment agency. There are no funds that are boomeranging back to the city from the redevelopment agency. The redevelopment agency is dead. It's gone. We're not reaching out to recreate it. It's gone. So what comes to us now is property tax without the redevelopment agency. From what I understand, Mr. GROSS isn't here tonight, but I believe our excess property tax comes to us in the amount of approximately $8 million annually. And if you wanted to reduce that by 20%, we would lose whatever. 20% of $8 million would be 1.6 million. Yes, sir.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let me make sure I understand this correctly. So in 2014, you're saying we're not going to get any boomerang funds. In 2015, we're not going to receive any boomerang funds.
Speaker 4: We are receiving property tax, an additional $8 million of property tax annually because. There is no redevelopment agency and that goes straight to the general fund. That $8 million was programed into the fiscal year 2014 budget to pay for police, fire, parks and rec libraries and things like that. So it is gone. There are no excess funds. The money is anticipated to be spent in 2015 and 16 to solve our budget problems. As you know, we presented a three year budget look see, and those funds are committed to that. If indeed the city council chose not to fund police, fire parks and rec libraries with our general fund dollars and put it someplace else, that definitely would put us into a deficit for those two years.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr..
Speaker 1: As you conclude custom membership scheme.
Speaker 6: Have yours from I first of all I would like to thank city staff. I know they have been extremely diligent working on this housing element, but I also want to thank the people that have come tonight and they've come here diligently themselves. And I, I think what Kerry said is very important, that I would hope that all of the parties here in this room, pro con on a housing element, understand what Kerry Gallagher said. And that is everybody is on the same side. Everybody wants to make housing in this city what it needs to be, and that is to be able to have it available for everyone who needs it. One of the things McKinsey and Company has just done an interesting report about how to make a city great. And they looked around the world and they talked to mayors of all these major cities and the cities that have transformed themselves, among other things, did smart growth. But they also looked and took care of. They focused in on those who weren't doing as well as everyone else in the city and because they felt equal justice for all. And that included about housing was extremely important to the quality of life in that city. And those cities have turned themselves around. So I there were some comments made tonight that I think we need to be very sensitive about that the people who live in what we call affordable housing, which in California is actually kind of an oxymoron, it's very unaffordable in California, Southern California, particularly to be able to buy a house, particularly with the economy being it is, and that people are not having the salaried jobs that they once had. So I think we need to make certain that when we cast aspersions on the category of calling affordable housing, that we're not casting aspersions on the people who live in that kind of housing. These are the people we have to remember who serve you in the restaurants, who are cleaning your hotel, who are taking care of your kids and landscaping your homes. And they need a place to live in Long Beach. And I think we need to be as sensitive as possible, understanding that to be able to have people included in a housing element that includes everyone I think is important to the city of Long Beach. It means that we want to move forward together as a city. I would say about the code enforcement, the RE program. I would hope I know staff has a lot of things on their plate, but I also know this council, when it wants to move forward and get something passed, it does quickly, as we're going to see later tonight on some some issues. But I would hope that we do seriously look at the program and maybe misspoke. I know you talked about 10,000 code enforcement complaints, and I think about 5000 of them come from my office. But Kitty, I saw Angela shaking her head up and down over there, sort of.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: But I will tell you, in my district, we have never yet had a complaint about inhabitable housing from a person who rents or lives in some place. So what? I do think that code enforcement can be a valuable tool. We have the laws on the books. We, you know, and I and I know your department is just fastidious about responding to these concerns. So I'm wondering if there's in some way, while you're investigating this program, if we can't get it communicated to tenants and others, that code enforcement is a phone number that they should call. If, in fact, because I know that most of the time that the response to 5 to 7 code, I know that most of the time that it staff's very diligent about not indicating the source of the call, but simply investigating the complaint. And although some people can pretty much piece something together if it's coming from an inhabitable situation, I would just hope that somehow the city can do some more outreach to let people know that this is available.
Speaker 8: Understood. We do have a education program that we do in conjunction with our multifamily housing inspection program, but there is always room for improvement. And so we can certainly look at making that much more robust as part of this effort.
Speaker 6: And on the question about Mr. Rosen, about sources of funding down the line. Actually, I've had this same discussion that not to refer to any of these funding. It's boomerang. Nothing's coming back. This is simply tax increment that we should have realized if we hadn't. Redevelopment agencies are coming back from any source is basically, isn't it? It's the additional tax increment that we hadn't had for the years. So I'm wondering, you mentioned that and actually I didn't know we had 16 million. Is there any way staff could provide at some point a certain kind of a breakdown? I know you verbally said where the source is that money came from, but. Not only that, but perhaps where we think it's going to be utilized. I mean, what's down the line? I think that needs to be communicated in the public that we've got the source of funding and where are we going with it?
Speaker 4: Cuts were certainly the report that Amy did certainly listed the funding, but certainly a little.
Speaker 6: Bit more of a narrative, I think would certainly for that, certainly addressing only that particular thing.
Speaker 4: Right. Sources and uses. No problem.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank all of the members that did come today and for your continued advocacy and participation in this process. Mr. Grech, I, I know you've heard from other Council members on the issue of substandard housing. I want to share, I think between the first and second districts we probably have more than what code enforcement is officially aware of, which tells me that renters do fear the risk of being evicted. The handful of folks that I know that have complained about substandard housing had been evicted even though they contacted the city. We don't have the ability to protect individuals from eviction. That's not the sign authority that we have. It's not something that we're even able to promise. And so even anonymity doesn't guarantee that. And that's the challenge, because traditionally renters and residents don't go straight to the city. They do try to exhaust all of their resources and they try to work with the manager and the landlord. And so that becomes a way to identify yourself as having had that particular issue. So having said that, I do want to share that I concur with council members here that have suggested that there are parts of our city where housing is not up to standard and up to code, and we're aware of that. And we are a limited resourced city. And so if there are opportunities to identify additional resources to address that very specific issue, specifically because about 50% of our residents are renters and that's 50% of this city's residents. And so it's important to ensure that we address that we have great housing that's come online. And many of the individuals that spoke tonight are beneficiaries of that. And and I'm happy for that. But at the same time, acknowledging the progress that we make cannot be done by denying some of the challenges that we still have. So we do have these challenges, and I want to make sure that I express my support to expedite the rental escrow program review and at least earlier than what was previously stated. But I do think staff had just committed to that, bringing it within the 2014 year, and I appreciate that. With that, I wanted to just share my support for the points that have been advocated tonight. I do think that this document is significant and important enough to be sure that we do provide that roadmap for a optimistic future for those of us who don't live in the housing that we deserve to live in. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I think it's a good discussion this evening. Thank you all for your participation. I think this process has definitely improved the final product. And I've heard some good suggestions tonight behind the rail as well for for staff to continue to see if you can make it even better and improve some of the timeframes. And with that, I'll make the motion to approve the recommendation.
Speaker 1: Second building, second Astrodome.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think it's all been said. Thank you. Covered.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it has to, Mr. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 10: Best.
Speaker 1: Mr. NEIL.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would like to just add a friendly amendment to that in regard to the ordinance, if we could get a time certain that they could report back to us by December of 2014. And I have one major concern with this. The major concern is in regards to the actual funding that is going to be dedicated into affordable housing. I would like to propose that we do 10% of the property tax funds dedicated annually.
Speaker 1: That's not a friendly amendment. That's that's something.
Speaker 2: That's apparently I mean, it's only you're going to get you're.
Speaker 1: Going to get my vehement opposition to that. So.
Speaker 2: Well, if the if the makers of.
Speaker 1: All property tax, you realize how much that is how much is oh, it's a lot of money. It's our major source of funding.
Speaker 3: How is it $10 million or something?
Speaker 1: And it was probably more than that was property tax producer 60 million or something like that.
Speaker 2: Something like this. Okay, I'm changing it from property. I In regards to the funding that we were discussing in regards to the Boomerang four.
Speaker 1: Can I just try to just try to talk about this? Mr. Neal Yes. Mr. Neal These are not boomerang funds. These. The only.
Speaker 2: Reason we have more money.
Speaker 1: Is because redevelopment is dissolved. The incremental tax that was frozen is now removed. So the reason we have more money, quite frankly, is from success of redevelopment.
Speaker 2: From added property tax values that are now taxed at that full amount.
Speaker 1: That's what's coming into the city. If you take 1.6 million or 20% of this this additional increment, you're going to have to find 1.6 million to fill a budget hole. And I just think that after what we've been through, that is given the fact that you don't even know how much is coming in for housing, to me that is not a fruitful endeavor.
Speaker 2: I do share your concern there, Mayor. You do. But I also believe that we have to have some dedicated funding source to make sure that we do meet the need for over.
Speaker 1: A year coming in. You have 16 million a year. Let's make your motion. Let's go.
Speaker 3: Come on.
Speaker 2: Well, my motion is to definitely include the report back on the report in December. And I need some kind of dollar figure for the affordable housing piece.
Speaker 1: I think you were talking about 20% of the 8 million. That would be 1.6 million. So that you that's where you would be. And you just created a hole in your budget.
Speaker 5: Mr. Moore.
Speaker 3: I think Councilmember O'Neill is talking about what are what are the existing funds that are coming out of this bodak. Could you just.
Speaker 1: If that's what you mean, that's can we can we take what they can get by the time certain?
Speaker 2: But Mr. Botha, can you talk about you said. Well, I think he's he's evolved. If I can respond.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat the funds that we have?
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead, Amy.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we're going to try this.
Speaker 8: The housing fund is a dedicated fund within the city that you annually include in your budget process, but it is not part of the general fund. Currently, there's $16.8 million in cash today in the housing fund that we've been accumulating. That includes additional bond proceeds. That includes home funds, condo conversion fees, coastal and lieu fees, a bunch of other things. Additionally, the downtown project area city manager West stated.
Speaker 5: Owed the.
Speaker 8: Housing fund approximately a $16.3 million. You, as successor agency, approved a repayment schedule to to repay the housing fund that $16.3 million.
Speaker 5: We will be shortly.
Speaker 8: Coming to you with an additional request to reinstate $8.1 million in debt, a new debt to the housing fund. So that would bring it to 16.8 plus 16.3 plus 8.1.
Speaker 5: Lastly, the city.
Speaker 8: Has debt that it is owed that the redevelopment agency owes the city under AB 1484 the dissolution.
Speaker 5: Rules. When the city reestablishes.
Speaker 8: That debt, which is approximately $110 million, 20% of all of the debt repayment must be set aside for affordable housing.
Speaker 1: So if I add those numbers up, Amy, is 40 million plus 22 million that close?
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 8: Plus, we have.
Speaker 5: The annual.
Speaker 8: Housing authority money that we get it approximately 79, $80 million a year.
Speaker 5: So I do.
Speaker 8: Want to make sure that this housing fund dollars that we're talking about is for the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing. But we do have other resources to assist, you know, challenged, you know, families with challenged incomes. It's not just these dollars. You know, we have a whole very significant functioning housing authority that that operates, you know, 7000 assists, 7000 families a year in addition to these dollars.
Speaker 5: So it is.
Speaker 8: Inaccurate to say that there will not be a continuous stream while that debt is out there. There will be a stream of revenues that is going to the housing fund and that is guaranteed under AB 1480 for the redevelopment dissolution.
Speaker 2: Under under what you just laid out, that's like $65 million over over the course of how, how long.
Speaker 8: We think it could take anywhere from 3 to 10 or 15 years to do that. We cannot estimate the time frame at this point.
Speaker 2: So there's there's no dedicated amount that's going to go back. And. Well, we know that we have 65 million coming.
Speaker 8: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. So now my motion reads that I want the report and it's to be presented, the amendment, the report, and it's presented to the City Council for Consideration and Adoption by December 2014.
Speaker 1: Can you accept that, Mr. Dorn?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, we're looking for staff to finish their analysis and bring to the council by December 14.
Speaker 4: Mr. Mayor. Council members, what's in the House amount for us is to come back with an analysis. Councilmember Neal said to come back with an ordinance for approval. That's not what we're proposing in the in the.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no. We want to see the analysis before we know if we're going to move forward with an ordinance. We're asking staff to make sure they do that by December 4th.
Speaker 4: Direction from the council. Once you see the analysis, we certainly could come back with the ordinance.
Speaker 3: But I think we're on the same page. We're okay with that? Yep. Okay. So amended. All right.
Speaker 1: Mr. Chair.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I just want to add one. Well, and I'm going to support what's what's put before us. But I do want to add one other thing. I do think, though, as a city, we have to understand the and realize that when RDA was eliminated that we did lose an incredibly important source of funding for us when it comes to housing. So I think I think as a city, that's something we have to recognize. And I would encourage us and if you and I had this discussion today, which I think went well on this topic during our budget discussions, which I think are going to be happening very soon, I mean, we're going to be start talking about the budget here in just a few months. But I do think that we need to have a thoughtful community discussion about our new budget in the way that it's going to be presented in funding that we're going to be receiving in a different way this year than in past redevelopment and have a discussion about . What part of that budget, if any, is also going to be dedicated to our housing needs? And so I think that that discussion should happen within the framework of the of the larger budget. The reality is, is that we don't have, in my opinion, a a complete plan when it comes to how we're going to fund future housing needs, whether they're affordable workforce housing for graduate students, faculty housing, all the different types of of housing that's out there that we're going to need as a community. And so I would encourage this as a as a council that we should prioritize the discussion of of funding for housing as part of the budget cycle and for us to do it early on in the year. And so I'm going to ask that of, of the Council and I'm hopeful that we can have that discussion sooner rather than later.
Speaker 1: That's remember. LOWENTHAL Let's try to bring this to conclusion, folks.
Speaker 5: Just briefly, I wanted to acknowledge what Councilmember Neal raised. I understand what you were raising and where you're coming from, and I would support us having that discussion through the budget process.
Speaker 1: Mr.. Orson.
Speaker 9: Council member in. I was reading my mind. I think the budget process is an appropriate place or a venue to have that discussion. As I recall, we set a number of policies last year and one Councilmember Johnson was pretty instrumental in championing and that was a policy to set aside a certain percentage of future one times toward unfunded liabilities. I think we could look at doing a similar policy for low income or affordable housing, and so I'm happy to have that conversation during the budget process as well.
Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mayor. I think all of us here support affordable housing, but I do think there's a philosophical issue here, which is that if we were to take general fund dollars and put them in to low income housing, what we would be doing is reducing funding for parks, libraries, firefighters, etc.. And I think the issue there is those things all have their own needs, but particularly for people, low income folks. Right. Low income folks typically need the public safety protection benefit from recreation programs because they may not be able to afford going to the country club benefit libraries because they can't just go to bars in mobile and buy whatever book they want. So you basically reduce those programs and hurt.
Speaker 2: This group of poor folks.
Speaker 4: To put money over here for low income housing, I don't think benefits the city, and I also don't think it even benefits people we'd be trying to benefit. So I do support affordable housing. I think the state did the wrong thing, ending redevelopment funds, which was the primary source. But to reduce firefighter spending, to reduce parks and library spending, and to make those low income communities suffer, I don't think is the answer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, members, we have a motion and a second on on the motion to adopt the housing element as presented with Mr. Neill's friendly amendment, please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. All participate. Appreciate it. Okay. We're going to just take one item out of order. Going to go to item 23. Mr. Austin assures me there are people have been waiting a long time.
Speaker 2: 23 and 23 is a recommended recommendation to declare in order to maintain.
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution approving the 2013-2021 Housing Element as part of the City’s General Plan, authorize its submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development; authorize Director of Development Services to submit the adopted Housing Element to the California Coastal Commission for a finding of conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program; and

Certify the Negative Declaration ND 03-13. (Citywide)