09192023-H-18sr&att — Long Beach City Council, September 19, 2023

Development Services Department
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-5237
September 19, 2023

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find the Municipal Code amendments consistent with the previously accepted Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND 08 -20) and find the Municipal Code amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9 and Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, Section 15265; Declare Ordinance approving a Zoning Code Amendment amending Title 21, Zoning Regulations, of the Long Beach Municipal Code, to implement modifications requested by the California Coastal Commission, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading; and,
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit the Local Coastal Program Amendment ( LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2) and associated materials to the California Coastal Commission for its review and certification in compliance with the California Coastal Commission’s June 8, 2023 action. (Citywide)

DISCUSSION
In accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) , the City of Long Beach (City) has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), which consists of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan (IP). The IP includes the Zoning Code (Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code [LBMC]), the Zoning Map, and the Subdivision Code.

On October 5, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ORD-21-0034 adding Chapter

21.68 to Title 21 of the LBMC and amending Subsection 21.25.506.A.7 of the LB MC, related to establishing an Ordinance for an Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) program . On September 14, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution No. RES-21-0113 directing the Director of Development Services to submit a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) for the approved Ordinance to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for a finding of conformance with the Certified LCP.

On June 8 , 2023 , the C CC held a public hearing for the LCPA ( LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2) (Attachment A) and recommended certification of the LCPA with three (3) requested modifications pertaining to references to non-certified provisions of the LBMC, clarification for required consistency with LCP and protection of coastal resources , and corrections to typographical errors (Attachment B). The recommended modifications to the LBMC require the approval of the City Council prior to resubmittal to the CCC for its subsequent approval and certification.

H-18

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 19, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

The City Council’s discretion in this matter is to either accept or reject the modifications requested by the CCC, as no further changes are possible at this stage in the C CC review process without starting anew and submitting an entirely new application to the CCC. In order for the LCPA to be approved and certified by the C CC, the City Council must take action to accept the requested modifications. If adopted, the Ordinance will be forwarded to the CCC for final approval and certification. If the modifications are rejected, the City will need to submit an entirely new application to the CCC for review. The requisite findings to support implementation of the CCC’s requested modifications are included for the EDB Ordinance (Attachment C).

More specifically, t he proposed modifications requested by the CCC are intended to provide consistency with the LCP and the Coastal Act. The following is a summary of the modifications - the entirety of requested modifications can be found in Attachment B:

• Requested Modification 1: Remove references to regulations that are not currently part of or proposed to be added to the certified LCP and clarify that density bonus projects must comply with the certified LCP in the coastal zone. • Requested Modification 2 : Ensure density bonus concessions/incentives do not adversely impact coastal resources, including public access opportunities. • Requested Modification 3: Fix typographical error.

The re quested modifications do not substantially change the approved ordinances but add procedural requirements for properties in the Coastal Zone of the City related to coastal development permit findings, to ensure consistency with other restrictions already in place for properties in the Coastal Zone. The changes are also intended to protect visitor -serving resources and public access in the Coastal Zone, which is an established goal of the CCC.

The modifications to Chapters 21.25 and 21.68 are included in Title 21 of the LBMC and the IP of the City (Attachment D).

Public Hearing Notice

In accordance with public hearing notification requirements for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment in LBMC Section 21.21.302.C, notice of this public hearing was published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on September 5, 2023; written notices were sent to the CCC and to anyone requesting such notice. Notices were provided to City branch libraries and notice posting was provided at City Hall and at three public locations.

Environmental Review

In accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21080.9 and California Code of Regulations Section 15265(a)(1) , the proposed modifications are statutorily exempt as CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals by the City necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA. The proposed modifications are necessary for certification of the LCPA by the CCC. No additional action is required for environmental review.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 19, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

Pursuant to the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was originally prepared for the ordinance (EDB Ordinance) and found that the project would not result in significant effects to the environment (Attachment E), as the proposed EDB Ordinance does not change the underlying zoning of any properties, does not introduce uses that are materially different from those otherwise permitted in the respective zoning districts and is a tool to facilitate the levels of development already contemplated by the 2019 Land Use Element ( LUE) Update and analyzed in the LUE Program Environmental Impact Report.

Individual projects will continue to be subject to project-level environmental review as required by CEQA. The major concepts of the proposed EDB Ordinance and the Negative Declaration were posted on the City website and notice was published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram on May 3, 2021. The IS/ND was circulated for a 30-day public review period between May 3, 2021, and June 3 , 2021. The City Council accepted ND 08 -20 as part of its adoption of the Ordinance in 2021.

The current action is procedural in nature and consists only of relatively minor modifications to land use regulations included as part of the EDB Ordinance and does not include any direct land use approvals. The proposed adoptions under current consideration fall within the scope of the previously accepted IS/ND for the EDB Ordinance, and no further environmental review is required. The proposed amendments to the Ordinance would not change the environmental setting or circumstances of the previously approved Ordinance (project).

This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Erin Weesner-McKinley on August 30, 2023 and by Revenue Management Officer Geraldine Alejo on August 31, 2023.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS

City Council action is requested on September 19 , 2023 , to comply with the Coastal Act requirement that the City complete the adoption of the modifications by December 8, 2023.

Due to the City’s current local homelessness emergency proclamation, it is requested that this item is placed on the first available agenda to ensure the applicability of these housing ordinances throughout the entire city, including the coastal zone.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal or local job impact associated with this recommendation. This recommendation has no staffing impact beyo nd the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with existing City Council priorities.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 19, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ, AICP

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

ATTACHMENTS: ORDINANCE

RESOLUTION
A – CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
B – CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPROVAL
C – FINDINGS (ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE)
D – UNDERLINE STRIKE-OUT VERSION OF ORDINANCE
E – NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND 08-20

APPROVED:

____________________
THOMAS B. MODICA

CITY MANAGER

1 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 21.25,
DIVISION V (SITE PLAN REVIEW) AND 21.68 (ENHANCED

DENSITY BONUS)
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.

ORD-21-0034 adding Chapter 21.68 to Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) and amending Subsection 21.25.506.A.7 of the LBMC, related to establishing an ordinance for an Enhanced Density Bonus program (“EDB Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution No. RES-21-0113 directing the Director of Development Services to submit a Local Coastal Program Amendment (“LCPA”) for the EDB Ordinance to the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) for a finding of conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”); and
WHEREAS, the EDB Ordinance was submitted to the CCC on December 28, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2023, the CCC held a public hearing for the LCPA (LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2) and recommended certification of the LCPA with three (3) requested modifications pertaining to references to non-certified provisions of the LBMC, clarification for required consistency with LCP and protection of coastal resources, and corrections to typographical errors; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the CCC’s requested modifications by adopting them in accordance with the action taken by the CCC on June 8, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach ordains as

2 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 follows:

Section 1. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending Section 21.68.020 to read as follows:

21.68.020 Definitions.

A. High Quality Transit Bus Corridor (HQTC): A high-quality transit bus corridor means a corridor with fixed route public bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen (15) minutes during peak commute hours, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21155.

B. Inclusionary Unit or Inclusionary Housing Projects: a dwelling unit/project required to be affordable to very low or moderate-income households and subject to an inclusionary housing regulatory agreement in areas subject to Inclusionary Housing Requirements outside of the coastal zone.

C. Major Transit Stop: A site or location containing a rail station or the intersection of two (2) or more public bus routes with a service interval of fifteen (15) minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21064.3. The stations or bus routes may be existing, under construction, or included in the most recent Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

D. Qualifying Project: A residential or mixed-use project that includes On-Site Restricted Affordable Units at a rate that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements to satisfy the Enhanced Density Bonus Incentives and as set forth in this Chapter. A qualifying project must be proposed on an eligible parcel, and meet or exceed the income thresholds as defined below.

1. Very Low-Income Households as defined in Section
50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.

3 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802

2. Low Income Households as defined in Section 50093
of the California Health and Safety Code.

3. Moderate Income Households as defined in Section
50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Section 2. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending Subsection 21.68.040.A. to read as follows:

A. Applicants with qualifying projects and parcels may request use of the EDB Chapter provisions and procedures, or the State Density Bonus provisions and procedures (Government Code 65915), but may not utilize both programs in order to increase density or otherwise qualify for project incentives. Neither the EDB Chapter provisions nor State Density Bonus Law supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act and the LCP. Any incentives, concessions, waivers, and/or density bonuses applied to proposed projects via application of State Density Bonus Law shall only be allowed if coastal resources are protected as required by the Coastal Act and the LCP.

Section 3. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending the Footnote to Table 21.68-1 in Subsection 21.68.050 to read as follows:

Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the Base Area and be eligible for a 15% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Section 4. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending

4 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Section 21.68.060 to read as follows:

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects that are not inclusionary housing projects (“Non-Inclusionary Projects”).

The following Table shall determine how many incentives/concessions a “Non-Inclusionary Project” may be eligible for, based on the percent density bonus a project has qualified for. (See above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages.)

Table 21.68-4
Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-Inclusionary Projects Concession Eligible Density Bonus
1 20
2 30
3 40
4 50
5 60
6 70
7 80
8 90
9 100
Note: For EDB projects that are inclusionary housing projects, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-5
Maximum Number of Concessions for Inclusionary Housing Projects Total #
Concessions
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2023 and
beyond)
Maximum
Concession
for Height
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2022)
Maximum
Concession
for Height*
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2021)
Maximum
Concession
for Height*
3 70 1 story 50 1 story 40 1 story
4 80 70 60
5 90 2 stories 90 2 stories 80 2 stories
6 100 3 stories 100 3 stories 100 3 stories

5 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 *Note: Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single-family home or duplex, shall step- back any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten (10) feet from the exterior face of the ground floor of the building.

Section 5. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending Subsection 21.68.070.A to read as follows:

A. The following are the by-right “on-menu”
concessions/incentives that an EDB project may request based on the number of concessions/incentives a project is eligible for per the concessions/incentive Tables set forth above. In the coastal zone, concessions/incentives including but not limited to parking and open space concessions/incentives shall only be authorized or allowed by-right if there will be no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources, including but not limited to public access and environmentally sensitive habitat area, and if found consistent with the resource protection policies of the certified LCP.

1. A floor area ratio (FAR) increase of forty (40) percent per concession;

2. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in non-residential
parking per concession;

3. A thirty (30) percent reduction in open space per
concession;

4. An allowance for all shared/public (in lieu of private) open space;

5. An averaging of floor area ratio (FAR), density, parking, open space or access across zones (one (1) incentive per development standard averaged);

6. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in transitional height

6 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 requirements;

7. A thirty (30) percent reduction in an individual setback per concession (maximum one (1) incentive per side or front yard with a maximum of two (2) incentives on the rear yard);

8. A maximum of one (1) additional story in height in the Base and HQTC areas and a maximum of three (3) additional stories in height in the Major Transit Stop area.

Section 6. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending Section 21.68.090 to read as follows:

21.68.090 Parking requirements.

Parking. EDB projects are eligible for off-street parking reductions and may avail themselves of either the reductions offered by the State regulations or the parking reductions offered by Table 21.68-6. Projects may use either of the reductions, but not both. EDB projects outside of the coastal zone comprised of one hundred (100) percent affordable units shall not be required to provide on-site parking. In the coastal zone, EDB projects comprised of one hundred (100) percent affordable units shall be required to provide off-street parking in accordance with Table 21.68-7.

Table 21.68-6
EDB Parking Ratio Table
0—1 Bedrooms 1 space/unit
2—3 Bedrooms 1.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit
Commercial Parking Outside the Coastal Zone: First 6,000 square feet exempt; certified zoning code
parking requirements apply beyond 6,000
square feet.

Within the Coastal Zone: Certified zoning
code parking requirements apply.

7 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Table 21.68-7
EDB Parking Ratio Table for Projects in the Coastal Zone Comprised of One Hundred (100) Percent Affordable Units
0—1 Bedrooms 0.25 space/unit
2—3 Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
Nonresidential Parking Certified zoning code parking
requirements apply

Section 7. The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by amending Subsection 21.25.506.A.7

7. The project is in compliance with the housing
replacement requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program or Section

21.68.040.E of this Chapter, as applicable, and will result in the same or greater number of dwelling units; and in the case of existing affordable dwelling units, that the dwelling units will be replaced at the same or deeper affordability levels.

Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the City Council and cause it to be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach, and it shall take effect on the thirty-first (31st) day after it is approved by the Mayor.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

8 EWM:ag A23-02314
01567420.docx (8/18/2023)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of , 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Noes: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

Recusal(s): Councilmembers:

City Clerk
Approved:
(Date) Mayor

1 EWM:ag A23-02314 (8/22/2023)
01567421.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO SUBMIT AMENDMENTS TO THE LONG
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 21.25, DIVISION V
(SITE PLAN REVIEW) AND 21.68 (ENHANCED DENSITY
BONUS) AND THE CITY’S CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL

WHEREAS, on June 8, 2023, the California Coastal Commission approved with modifications the City of Long Beach’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council of the City of Long Beach adopted said proposed modifications by amending certain provisions of Title 21, Zoning Regulations, of the Long Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to resubmit the above referenced Title 21 amendment ordinance, which contain the modifications as requested by the California Coastal Commission in its action of June 8, 2023, to the California Coastal Commission for further review and certification; and WHEREAS, the City Council gave full consideration to all facts and the proposals respecting the amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Regulations at a properly noticed and advertised public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the amendments are to be carried out in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act and become effective in the Coastal Zone immediately upon California Coastal Commission certification and approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments

2 EWM:ag A23-02314 (8/22/2023)
01567421.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development in the City of Long Beach and that the amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives and provisions of the City’s General Plan, including its certified Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. The zoning code amendments to Title 21, as modified by the California Coastal Commission, and implementing resolution amending the City’s Local Coastal Program, together with all other relevant supporting material, are directed to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its earliest review as to that part of the ordinance and resolutions that directly affect land use matters in that portion of the California Coastal Zone within the City of Long Beach.

Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Long Beach is hereby authorized to and shall submit a certified copy of this resolution, together with appropriate supporting materials, to the California Coastal Commission with a request for its earliest action, as an amendment to the Local Coastal Program that will take effect automatically upon California Coastal Commission approval and certification pursuant to the Public Resources Code; or as an amendment that will require formal City Council adoption after final California Coastal Commission approval with modifications.

Section 3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) and therefore, does not apply to this action.

Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ///
///
///

3 EWM:ag A23-02314 (8/22/2023)
01567421.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of _____________________, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Noes: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

Recusal(s): Councilmembers:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4325
VOICE (562) 590-5071
FAX (562) 590-5084
1 Th12b
May 25, 2023
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
FROM: Steve Hudson, Deputy Director, South Coast District Dani Ziff, Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT: Amendment Request No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 (Enhanced Density Bonus) of the City of Long Beach Certified Local Coastal Program, for Public Hearing and Commission Action at the June 8, 2023 meeting.

SUMMARY OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 The City of Long Beach submitted a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment request on December 28, 2021, to modify the certified Implementation Plan (IP) by adding enhanced density bonus (EDB) regulations that provide incentives to construct affordable housing (and other qualifying housing types) beyond those identified in the State Density Bonus Law. On January 11, 2022, the file was deemed incomplete. On March 21, 2022, the City responded to the Commission’s incomplete notice with clarifying information. LCPA Request No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 was filed as complete on March 21, 2022. On May 13, 2022, the Commission extended the deadline for action on the LCPA by one year. The date by which the Commission must take action on this amendment is June 13, 2023.

While the Long Beach LCP already contains Land Use Plan (LUP) and IP policies that protect and encourage affordable housing, the proposed EDB regulations would provide additional incentives for mixed-income, multifamily, and special needs housing projects.

The City found that its existing regulations have not incentivized enough projects to meet affordable housing needs. Thus, the subject IP amendment includes additional zoning concessions to encourage the development of affordable housing throughout the City, especially in transit priority areas. As proposed, the LCPA is consistent with many of the City’s certified LUP policies—the standard of review—including policies relating to the preservation of affordable housing, facilitation of public access for all people, maintenance of residential character in certain areas, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. However, some of the by-right incentives for development of affordable housing are in conflict with, or do not adequately support, the coastal resource protection policies of the LUP. To address these concerns, Commission and City staff have worked together to develop suggested modifications to the LCPA that would ensure coastal resources are protected by requiring EDB projects to comply with the certified LCP’s resource protection policies, Attachm ent A
LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
2 allowing for substantially reduced parking requirements for affordable housing units, eliminating references to non-certified municipal regulations, and fix a typographical error.

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission certify LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-LOB- 21-0088-2 with suggested modifications necessary to protect coastal resources and maximize public access to the coast for all people and to make the City’s IP amendment consistent with the City’s certified LUP. The motions and resolutions to carry out the staff recommendation are on page five. The suggested modifications to the LCP amendment request are included under Section III of this staff report.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing:

1. Deny the IP amendment as submitted; and

2. Certify, only if modified, the IP amendment request.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND REQUIREMENTS .................................. 4 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 4 B. LOCAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 4 C. DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION .......................................................................... 4 II. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS .............................................................. 5 III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS .............................................................. 6 IV. FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 9 A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 9 B. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN .............................................. 11 C. REJECTION OF LCP AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED ................................................... 12 D. APPROVAL OF LCP AMENDMENT IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED ................................ 14 E. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .......................................................... 16

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Ordinance No. ORD-21-0034
Exhibit 2 – Resolution No. RES-21-0113
Exhibit 3 – Administrative Draft of City Changes
Exhibit 4 – Eligibility Map

APPENDIX A – Substantive File Documents
LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
4 I. Procedural History and Requirements
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LCP Implementation Plan (IP), is whether the proposed IP amendment is in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP).

B. Local Review and Public Participation
Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in LCP development. It states:

During the preparation, approval, certification, and amendment of any local coastal program, the public, as well as all affected governmental agencies, including special districts, shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate. Prior to submission of a local coastal program for approval, local governments shall hold a public hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not been subjected to public hearings within four years of such submission.

The City of Long Beach Planning Commission and the City Council held public hearings for the proposed amendment, as summarized below:

The proposed changes to the City’s IP (Exhibit 3) are contained in City Council Ordinance No. ORD-21-0034 (Exhibit 1). The LCP Amendment Request was submitted for Coastal Commission certification by City Council Resolution No. RES-21-0113 (Exhibit 2). ORD-21- 0034 was heard for the first time on June 17, 2021, before the City of Long Beach Planning Commission. One member of the public provided verbal testimony at the hearing and eighteen parties submitted written comments. The Planning Commission acted to recommend the City Council adopt the zoning code amendment and related approvals. On September 14, 2021, the City Council read ORD-21-0034, made a substitute motion to modify the ordinance, and laid it over for a final reading. RES-21-0013 was also adopted on this date. Modifications made by the City Council during the meeting included reductions in on-menu height concessions, increased parking ratios, and removal of guest parking requirements. The City Council also requested future reporting on Transportation parking management and for City staff to explore alignment between the City’s three transportation agencies. The City Council then adopted the ordinance on October 5, 2021.

C. Deadline for Commission Action
The City of Long Beach submitted the IP amendment request on December 28, 2021, with RES-21-0113 and two ordinances: ORD-21-0034 and ORD-21-0035. On January 11, 2022, the file was deemed incomplete due to confusion about whether the City intended to add parts of Chapter 18 of the City’s municipal code contained in ORD-21-0035 to the LCP through the proposed amendment. On March 21, 2022, the City responded to the Commission’s incomplete notice clarifying that ORD-21-0035, which involves administrative changes to the City’s uncertified municipal code, is not proposed as part of the amendment to the IP. LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 was filed as complete on March 21, 2022. On May 13, 2022, the Commission extended the deadline for action on the LCPA LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
5 by one year. The date by which the Commission must take action on this amendment is June 13, 2023.

Additional Information
Further information on the City of Long Beach LCP Amendment may be obtained by contacting Dani Ziff at [email protected] or
(562) 590 5071. If you wish to comment
on the proposed amendment, please do so via email ([email protected]) or regular mail (directed to the South Coast District Office at 301 E. Ocean Blvd. Ste. 300, Long Beach, CA, 90802) by 5pm on Friday, June 2, 2023.

II. Motions and Resolutions
A. Denial of IP Amendment as Submitted
Motion I:

I move that the Commission reject Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 to the City of Long Beach certified LCP as submitted.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of Implementation Plan Amendment and the adoption of the following resolution and findings.

The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

Resolution to Deny as Submitted:

The Commission hereby denies certification of Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB- 21-0088-2 to the Implementation Plan for the City of Long Beach certified LCP as submitted and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Amendment to the Implementation Plan as submitted does not conform with and is not adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan, as amended. Certification of the Amendment to the Implementation Program would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the Amendment to the Implementation Program as submitted.

B. Approval of IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications Motion II:

I move that the Commission certify Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 to the City of Long Beach certified LCP if modified in conformance with the suggested changes recommended by staff.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the Amendment to the Implementation Plan with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
6 Resolution to Certify if Modified:

The Commission hereby certifies Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 to the Implementation Plan for the City of Long Beach certified LCP if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Amendment to the Implementation Plan with the suggested modifications conforms with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan, as amended. Certification of the Amendment to the Implementation Program if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment.

III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
For the following suggested modifications:

Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed language is shown in underline te xt.

The Commission’s suggested additions are shown in bold underline text.

The Commission’s suggested deletions are shown in bold strike out text.

The following suggested modifications, prepared in collaboration with City of Long Beach staff, are necessary to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP:

Suggested Modification 1: Remove references to regulations that are not currently part of or proposed to be added to the certified LCP and clarify that density bonus projects must comply with the certified LCP in the coastal zone.

21.25.506.A Findings Required, Development Projects
…7. The project is in compliance with the housing replacement requirements of the certified Local Coastal ProgramSection 21.11.050 of Chapter 21.11 (No Net Loss) or Section 21.68.040.E of this Chapter, as applicable, and will result in the same or greater number of dwelling units; and in the case of existing affordable dwelling units, that the dwelling units will be replaced at the same or deeper affordability levels, and that applicable tenant protections of the Long Beach Municipal Code will be met.

Section 21.68.020 Definitions
A. High Quality Transit Bus Corridor (HQTC)…
B. Inclusionary Unit or Inclusionary Housing Projects: a dwelling unit/project required to be affordable to very low or moderate-income households and subject to an inclusionary housing regulatory agreement in areas subject to Inclusionary Housing Requirements outside of the coastal zone.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
7 C.B. M ajor Transit Stop…
D.C. Qualifying Project…

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects that are not subject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projects Requirements of LBMC Chapter 21.67 (“Non- Inclusionary Projects”). …
Table 21.68-4 Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-Inclusionary Housing Projects …
Note: For EDB projects that are s ubject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projects Requirements of Chapter 21.67 of the Long Beach Municipal Code ("Inclusionary Projects"), including projects in the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-5 Maximum Number of Concessions for Inclusionary Housing Projects Subject to LBMC 21.67 (“Inclusionary Housing Projects”) … Suggested Modification 2: Ensure density bonus concessions/incentives do not adversely impact coastal resources, including public access opportunities.

21.68.040 Procedures.

21.68. 07 0 Types of eligible concessions/incentives.

A. The following are the by-right “on menu” concessions/incentives that an EDB project may request based on the number of concessions/incentives a project is eligible for per the concession/incentive Tables set forth above. In the coastal zone, concessions/incentives including but not limited to parking and open space concessions/incentives shall only be authorized or allowed by-right if there will be no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources, including but not limited to public access and environmentally sensitive habitat area, and if found consistent with the policies of the certified LCP.:

1. A floor area ratio (FAR) increase of forty (40) percent per concession; LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
8 2. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in non-r esidential parking per concession;

3. A thirty (30) percent reduction in open space per concession;

4. An allowance for all shared/public (in lieu of private) open space;

5. An averaging of floor area ratio (FAR), density, parking, open space or access across zones (one (1) incentive per development standard averaged);

6. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in transitional height requirements;

7. A thirty (30) percent reduction in an individual setback per concession (maximum one (1) incentive per side or front yard with a maximum of two (2) incentives on the rear yard);

8. A maximum of one (1) additional story in height in the Base and HQTC areas and a maximum of three (3) additional stories in height in the Major Transit Stop area. …

21.68.090 Parking requirements.

Table 21.68-6 EDB Parking Ratio Table
0-1 Bedrooms 1 space/unit
2-3 Bedrooms 1.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit
Commercial
Parking
Outside the Coastal Zone: First
6,000 square feet exempt; certified
zoning code parking requirements
apply beyond 6,000 square feet.

Within the Coastal Zone: Certified
zoning code parking requirements
apply.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
9 Table 21.68-7 EDB Parking Ratio Table for Projects in the Coastal Zone Comprised of One Hundred (100) Percent Affordable Units 0-1 Bedrooms 0.25 space/unit
2-3 Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
Nonresidential
Parking
Certified zoning code
parking requirements apply
Suggested Modification 3: Fix typographical error.

Table 21.68-1
…Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the Base Area and be eligible for a 15% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

IV. FINDINGS
A. Amendment Description
The City of Long Beach is proposing to amend its certified Implementation Plan (IP)—more specifically, the City’s certified zoning code—to add enhanced density bonus (EDB) regulations. The purpose of the amendment is to continue to address the need for affordable housing in Long Beach and California by implementing the State’s Density Bonus Law, as found in Government Code Sections 65915-65918, through proportional increases in maximum residential density for projects that provide affordable housing or other qualifying housing types. The City’s LCP already contains policies that protect and encourage affordable housing; however, the City found that the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s existing zoning regulations have not been effective in addressing affordable housing needs. Thus, the City developed and adopted the subject “enhanced” density bonus regulations to provide additional incentives for the creation of new affordable housing units.

The General Housing Policy (part of the LUP) includes provisions that require the replacement of any affordable housing units that would be removed by new development at a one-to-one ratio and demonstration that those units would be replaced prior to issuance of a coastal development permit (CDP) to demolish them. In addition, the certified zoning code includes Chapters 21.61, Maintenance of Low Income Housing in the Coastal Zone, and 21.63, Incentives for Affordable Housing, which implement State LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
10 regulations including the Mello Act and State Density Bonus Law,1 respectively. The subject EDB LCP amendment would be an additional tool that not only protects existing affordable housing stock but encourages developers to include affordable housing in new residential and mixed-use development projects. The proposed IP amendment would go beyond the State Density Bonus Law by increasing density bonuses and incentives especially in high quality transit areas.

Specifically, the City-adopted ordinance defines a qualifying project (“EDB project”) as a residential or mixed-use project that includes On-Site Restricted Affordable Units at a parcel(s) where residential uses are permitted and five or more housing units could be built without a density bonus. The affordability levels—very low, low, and moderate income households—are defined by the California Health and Safety Code and are required to be restricted affordable for a minimum of 55 years. Any replacement affordable units must be provided at a one-to-one ratio at the same or deeper affordability level in association with the EDB project. Affordable units in an EDB project are required to be evenly distributed throughout the project and comparable in design and interior/exterior finishes to any proposed market-rate units.

The incentives, bonuses and concessions, would be granted based on geographic location and project type. For example, EDB projects located at Major Transit Stops2 would be eligible for more bonuses than those located at High Quality Transit Corridors,3 and projects at High Quality Transit Corridors would be eligible for higher bonuses than projects in Base Areas (non-transit priority areas). In other words, EDB projects that are closer to public transportation infrastructure qualify for more incentives to encourage the concentration of development in transit priority areas. In addition, Inclusionary Housing Projects—new residential projects located in Downtown (partly in the coastal zone) and Midtown that are already required to provide affordable units—are eligible for fewer concessions than Non-Inclusionary Housing Projects. To summarize: the higher the bonus, the more concessions and the greater the incentive to provide new affordable housing.

As proposed, the concessions/incentives include increases in floor area ratio (FAR), reductions in non-residential parking, reductions in open space or replacement of private open space with shared/public open space, averaging of requirements where a project

1 California’s State Density Bonus Law was originally enacted in 1979. By 1988, Chapter

21.63, Incentives for Affordable Housing, of the certified zoning code had been certified as part of the LCP to implement the state law. In 2007, after the state law was updated, the City requested to amend that chapter, but the amendment request was deemed incomplete and was not certified. In any case, the State’s incentives for affordable housing have continued to evolve, and, as outlined in the subject EDB ordinance, the City will offer incentives consistent with the most recent version of the state law or the proposed new EDB chapter.
2 containing a rail station or the intersection of two or more public bus routes with a service interval of fifteen minutes or less during peak commute periods 3 a corridor with fixed route public bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours
LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
11 spans multiple parcels with different zoning designations, reductions in height, and reductions in setbacks. There would be special bonuses for affordable units that are large in size and that have on-site care, and if 100% of the new residential units would be affordable, then no parking would be required. In addition, an applicant that qualifies for at least a 40% density bonus (a relatively high density bonus) may also request a concession that is not listed in the ordinance (“off-menu”), but that concession would count as two and be subject to review and approval by the City Planning Commission. The ordinance also includes a change to certified IP Section 21.25.506, Site Plan Review Findings Required, that would require the Planning Commission to find the project consistent with the City’s No Net Loss housing policies.

As proposed, the EDB regulations would sunset when the City meets its Residential Housing Needs Assessment affordable housing goal of 26,502 units or on January 1, 2030, whichever comes first, unless otherwise extended by the City Council.

The proposed IP amendment applies throughout the coastal zone, but there are only a handful of areas where properties eligible for EDB concessions are located (Exhibit 4).

These areas include Downtown, Alamitos Beach, Belmont Pier, Belmont Shore, Belmont Park, Bixby Village, and Alamitos Bay Marina. Only the Downtown area and part of the Alamitos Beach neighborhood contain or are located close to Major Transit Stops, as defined in the ordinance, and Bixby Village contains or is close to a High Quality Transit corridor. Thus, EDB projects in those areas would be eligible for higher density bonuses than the other qualifying sites in the coastal zone. Additionally, numerous eligible sites throughout these neighborhoods are within visitor-serving areas, near the beach, and/or adjacent to coastal waters and wetlands.

B. Consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan
The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the IP, pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, is whether the proposed IP amendment conforms with, and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The certified LUP contains policies to preserve affordable housing, maximize shoreline access and opportunities for coastal recreation for all people, maintain residential character in certain neighborhoods, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The certified General Housing Policy of the LUP states that “the intent of these regulations is to maintain the present number of very low, low, and moderate income housing units within the Coastal Zone.” The Shoreline Access Policy states it is “a principal objective of this plan to improve public access to the beach.” Regarding consistency with the General Housing Policy, the subject LCP amendment includes “no net loss” regulations that implement this policy by preventing the loss of any existing affordable units and requiring a minimum one-to-one replacement ration. In fact, this amendment surpasses that requirement and encourages not only the development of more affordable housing in the coastal zone, which can increase access to the coast for populations that have historically been excluded from it, but more equitable housing by requiring that the affordable units are mixed in with and comparable in design and interior/exterior finishes to any proposed market-rate units. Thus, in this way, the proposed IP amendment is consistent with the public access policies of the certified LUP, as well as Coastal Act Section 30604(g), which LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
12 calls on the Commission to preserve and encourage affordable housing. In addition, this LCPA forwards the Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy for these reasons.

The certified LUP also protects the residential character of certain coastal neighborhoods, including near Downtown Long Beach and Belmont Shore. For the Pike Area, the certified LUP states that “new development in the area shall be primarily residential in character.” For Area D, as defined in the LUP, the relevant policy states: “the fundamental goal of this policy plan is to maintain and enhance the very special character of Belmont Shore. Aside from the existing commercial strip along Second Street and the node at Ocean and Granada, the Shore shall remain entirely residential in character. Preservation of viable neighborhoods, a principal goal of the City’s General Plan, shall prevail as a policy of this LCP.” The proposed IP amendment is consistent with these LUP policies because it encourages residential development in these areas.

The Long Beach LUP, including the Transportation and Access Policy, Mobility Element, and parts of the Scenic Route Element, also requires and encourages new development to reduce VMT through use of alternative modes of transportation and transportation demand management. By concentrating density—through provision of more density bonuses—in transit priority areas, the subject IP amendment is consistent with and adequate to carry out these LUP policies. In addition, the majority of the Long Beach coastal zone is urbanized and can support additional residential density without expanding into undeveloped areas where coastal resources are more sensitive.

Therefore, for the reasons described above, the general intent of the IP amendment and most of the implementing regulations described in the previous subsection of the staff report (Section IV.A) conform with, and are adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP. However, some of the proposed changes submitted with the subject LCP amendment request are not consistent with the LUP. As described in more detail in the following section (Section C), some of the proposed by-right EDB incentives could, in theory, allow for reduced setbacks from sensitive habitat, reduced public parking availability/public access opportunities, reduced open space, and increased structural heights/potential view impacts and, thus, be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the LUP policies requiring protection of coastal resources. Therefore, modifications are suggested to ensure LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 conforms with the certified LUP (Section D).

C. Rejection of LCP Amendment as Submitted
For the reasons enumerated below, LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 is inadequate to carry out and does not conform with the provisions of the certified LUP, as submitted.

The certified LUP contains policies that protect natural resources, water quality, scenic resources, and public access opportunities. One of the first policies in the City’s certified LCP document requires there be “a balance between human use and ecological concerns.” Other specific LUP policies include Goal (g) of the open space policies, which requires the preservation of “areas which serve as natural habitats for fish and wildlife species;” Program 2.3 of the Open Space and Recreation Element, which requires water resources be protected; and Goal 3 of the Open Space and Recreation Element, which requires the provision of “sufficient open space for adequate protection of lives and LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
13 property against natural and man-made safety hazards.” There are many other policies in the LUP preserving scenic views, open space, public beach parking resources, visitor- serving uses, and biological resources, including requirements for buffers from environmentally sensitive habitat areas, maintenance of public view corridors, and protection of water quality.4
As described in Subsection A above, there are eligible sites for EDB projects located adjacent to Alamitos Bay, the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and other open spaces, including beaches, and within visitor-serving areas. As proposed, the IP amendment includes density bonus incentives that would, by-right, allow reductions in setbacks, open space, parking, and height requirements. Such existing zoning requirements were determined to be necessary and/or adequate to carry out the LUP when they were certified. As adopted by the City, the subject ordinance is not clear about whether EDB project concessions would be awarded without an analysis of the impacts to coastal resources and consistency with the certified LUP. Thus, reductions in these requirements without proper analysis of potential impacts to coastal resources could result in adverse impacts.

For example, the aforementioned “on-menu” concessions could be inconsistent with the LUP and result in significant impacts to coastal resources in, but not limited to, the following circumstances. There are eligible parcels in the general vicinity of the Alamitos Bay Marina that abut the Los Cerritos Wetlands (Exhibit 4) where new development is required to be set back at least 100 feet from wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat area; if the EDB project qualifies for at least one concession and the developer chooses to reduce the setback, highly sensitive habitat or species could be harmed. At the north end of 62
nd Place on the Peninsula there are eligible parcels that extend over public tidelands/waters; if an EDB project were proposed there and qualified for multiple concessions, the resulting development would not be adequately set back for a flood- prone location.5 In these cases, if required setbacks and open space requirements were relaxed as incentives for EDB projects, then the development would not be consistent with the LUP.

4 Preservation of Natural Resources, Goal (d), of the open space policies states: To maintain open vistas of the ocean across public lands; Open Space Node: Alamitos Bay & Recreation Park, Goal (d), of the open space policies states: Preserving the water surfaces of Alamitos Bay from intrusion by man-made facilities, except for those which are clearly for a public purpose or are necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare; Policy

2.4 of the Open Space and Recreation Element states: Preserve, enhance and manage open areas to sustain and support marine life habitats; Program 2.3 of the Open Space and Recreation Element states, in part: Preserve and protect water resources available to the City of Long Beach…; Southeast Area Specific Plan, Priority 3, states: Preserve public views of the hills, mountains, and coastal waters and maintain the scenic environment through control of building or structure placement and/or height. 5 Any development in or over public tidelands would be within the Commission’s retained permit jurisdiction and, thus, the Commission would process, at least part of any future development application at this location. Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act would be the standard of review and the LCP would provide guidance.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
14 Regarding public access, while the City of Long Beach has public transportation, bike trails, and other alternative transportation options, many people, especially those who do not live close to the coast, drive and require parking to access it and recreate there. One of the “on-menu” incentives would allow for reduced parking requirements for new EDB projects and there would be zero onsite parking required for projects where all residential units are affordable. Studies, including a 2019 parking study by Crain & Associates (Appendix A), suggest that even 100% affordable housing projects do not have zero demand for automobile parking. In addition, as proposed, commercial uses within a mixed- use EDB project that are 6,000 feet or less would also be exempt from parking requirements. Given that many visitor-serving areas in the Long Beach coastal zone are areas that could support EDB projects, reduction or elimination of required parking spaces for new residential or mixed-use projects could further impact limited parking supply if residents and/or employees take up public parking spaces or parking for commercial uses is not provided. Thus, as proposed, the City’s IP request would not be adequate to carry out the LUP policies that protect public access opportunities, including public parking spaces.
6 Lastly, the City-adopted ordinance contains references to regulations that are not part of the certified LCP. Thus, future changes to those regulations would not be reviewed by the Commission for consistency with the LUP and would thereby have the potential to change in a manner that may adversely impact coastal resources.

Therefore, as proposed by the City, Amendment Request No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 is not adequate to carry out the policies of the City’s certified LUP and must be rejected.

D. Approval of LCP Amendment if Modified as Suggested
As submitted, the City’s proposed LCP amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 does not conform with, and is not adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. The first two modifications are necessary to protect coastal resources, including public access to the coast and biological resources, reduce risk from coastal hazards, and make the City’s LCP amendment consistent with the certified City’s LUP. The third modification would fix minor typographical errors. All suggested modifications were developed in coordination with City of Long Beach staff.

Suggested Modification 1 removes references to regulations that are not currently part of or proposed to be added to the certified LCP and clarifies that density bonus projects must comply with the certified LCP in the coastal zone. As adopted by the City, the ordinance

6 LCP Document, Subarea D, General Development and Use Standards, Parking, states:

The existing number of public parking spaces shall be retained…; LCP Document, General Traffic Recommendation 1.A states: All new construction shall conform to zoning ordinance-parking requirements; LCP Document, Area A, Locating and Planning New Development, General Statement Regarding Entire Area states: Strict parking standards should be imposed on the building of new structures in the area, so that new construction does not place an added burden on the already inadequate supply of parking in this area.

New developments should be required to provide complete on-site parking amenities for its residents and adequate parking for guest.

LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
15 references uncertified regulations pertaining to No Net Loss housing policies and Inclusionary Housing. While these City regulations are intended to implement state laws, they have not been reviewed for consistency with the Coastal Act, nor did the City propose to add these regulations to the LCP. Thus, the regulations may be inconsistent with the LUP, could change in the future without review for LCP consistency, and might result in impacts to coastal resources. Therefore, Suggested Modification 1 is required to eliminate references and clarify that EDB projects in the coastal zone must be consistent with the certified LCP. With the elimination of references to the Inclusionary Housing chapter, a definition of inclusionary housing is suggested to be added to the IP so the implementation of the ordinance remains clear. As modified, the City’s proposed references to municipal code chapters that are not part of the certified LCP are no longer inconsistent with the LUP and are adequate to carry out its provisions.

Suggested Modification 2 ensures density bonus concessions/incentives do not adversely impact coastal resources, including public access opportunities and biological resources by, first, clarifying that: (a) the new EDB Chapter and State Density Bonus Law do not supersede the Coastal Act and, (b) in the coastal zone, density bonus concessions will only be authorized if it is determined that the project is consistent with the LCP and all adverse impacts to coastal resources are avoided or minimized and adequately mitigated.

This modification ensures that City-required setbacks and buffers between new development and coastal resources and hazards, which are in place to protect new development and coastal resources, are observed. This would also mean that, as suggested to be modified, all parking requirements in the LCP would need to be followed.

While providing parking as required in the current certified zoning regulations would ensure that public beach parking is not used by residents, it conflicts with the LUP’s affordable housing policies and, in a different way, the public access policies of the LUP because parking is often a zoning requirement that contributes to the infeasibility of affordable housing projects in the coastal zone and, thus, a barrier to coastal access for lower income populations.

So, to balance the different elements of public access protected by the LUP, Suggested Modification 2 offers parking ratios (contained in a new table, 21.68-7) for affordable housing units that are less than what would otherwise be necessary pursuant to the certified zoning requirements and less than the proposed City-adopted parking requirements for mixed affordability EDB projects as laid out in Table 21.68-6. The suggested ratios reflect the parking study discussed previously, which was determined by City’s Traffic Engineer to be applicable to the City of Long Beach coastal zone. Staff would note that the Commission recently certified LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-SAN-19-0063-1, which allowed permanent supportive and transitional housing projects located within a half mile of a major transit stop to provide zero parking spaces. In the City of Long Beach ordinance, EDB projects are not limited to transitional and supportive housing and are not exclusively allowed in major transit areas. Thus, applying the reduced parking ratios better protects beach parking resources while still allowing for dramatic reductions in the amount of parking required for affordable housing units.

Regarding the City’s proposed commercial parking incentives, the ordinance, as submitted, would exempt commercial use areas under 6,000 square feet from parking requirements. The City did not provide information that suggests there would be no or less LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
16 demand for parking for commercial uses that are connected with affordable housing project elements. There are many sites where commercial uses are allowed, especially near the Belmont Pier and along 2nd Street, that are less than 6,000 square feet. If these were redeveloped into mixed-use EDB projects, as adopted by the City, parking would not be required for the commercial uses. The City finds that businesses under 6,000 square feet are neighborhood-scale establishments and, thus, would have less parking demand because they would be frequented by residents that could walk or take alternative transportation. However, the LUP also identifies these areas as visitor-serving commercial areas, so the parking exemption for commercial uses under 6,000 square feet without adequate mitigation could impact the availability of public parking for visitors to the Long Beach coastal zone. Therefore, Table 21.68-6 is suggested to be modified to eliminate the parking exemption for commercial uses in the coastal zone and Table 21.68-7 is added to clarify that this also applies to non-residential uses in mixed use developments with a 100% affordable residential units.

Therefore, as suggested to be modified, the proposed amendment to the certified IP would conform with the policies of the certified LUP.

Suggested Modification 3 fixes a minor nomenclature error.

Thus, as suggested to be modified, the proposed amendment to the certified IP would conform with the policies of the certified LUP.

E. California Environmental Quality Act
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code – within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing environmental review documentation in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCP. The Commission’s LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. (14 CCR § 15251(f).) Thus, under Section 21080.5 of CEQA, the Commission’s review and analysis of the LCP amendment in this staff report satisfies CEQA environmental review requirements. Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in approving an LCP submittal, to find that the LCP does conform with the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. (14 C.C.R. Sections 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b).) The City of Long Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 consists of an amendment to the Implementation Plan (IP) of City’s certified LCP.

As outlined in this staff report, the proposed LCP amendment, if modified as suggested, will be consistent with the policies of the LUP. Furthermore, as modified, there are no other feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the LCP amendment may have on the environment.

Thus, the Commission finds that LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2, if modified as suggested, is in conformity with and adequate to carry out the land use policies of the certified LCP and will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts under the LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Enhanced Density Bonus (City of Long Beach)
17 meaning of CEQA and will be consistent with Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the Public Resources Code.

Appendix A – Substantive File Documents
Lincoln 100% Affordable Housing Project Low-Income Restriction and Transit Availability Effects On Personal Vehicle Ownership and Parking Demand, Crain & Associates. Dated March 12, 2019.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 E Ocean Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
Th12b
LLCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 (City of Long Beach, Enhanced Density Bonus) June 8, 2023

EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Ordinance No. ORD-21-0034...............................................................................2 Resolution No. RES-21-0113.............................................................................18 Administrative Draft of City Changes...............................................................21 Eligibility Map......................................................................................................30 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >. 6 12 ~ ~.Q
Ct'. ~ u..
o~£B 13 I= <( O> "'
<C~-e'~ /:u ~<C 14 -ZJ!20
Osz 6,c
W 0::: a) 0
15 J: <( C fii
r n. ro ©
lL ID 0)
offi 0 g 16 ..J Q D
UJ a:: . ...J
'=' <( la:
lL r- 17 Qu~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ORDINANCE
NO. ORD-21-0034

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 21.68, AND
SUBSECTION 21.25.506.A.7, ALL RELATING TO

ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the goal of the Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) ordinance is to increase housing production outside of the Downtown area; provide an incentive structure to support inclusionary housing and to implement the recommendations of the May 2017 study "Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing" and the "Everyone Home" plan in order to augment the number of housing units in the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.150, the California Legislature has found and declared that, among other things, California faces a severe housing crisis and is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand with serious consequences for the state's economy and its residents, particularly lower and middle-income earners; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has declared that the lack of readily available housing, including a variety of housing types for all income levels and special needs groups, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-23-20 declaring that California faces a severe housing crisis that has made housing unaffordable for too many Californians and, in turn, has exacerbated the problem of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the housing crisis harms families across California and has 1 MJM:KJM A21~01198 8/28/21: 9/22(21 01316030.docx
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance No. ORD-21-0034
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 1 of 16
~ "15 z :g .Q
0:: B ~ N 0--o
1=<"'"' " -o c::r: :'::' 'E 0)
i:: (J g: <{
- z-~u us;: :.'.l .
wn::~-fi
~&:c;
"'(I)
LLro~o
o'::10 §
UJ n:: . _J
9s,:s le J:: ~
oU~
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 resulted in, among other things, an increase in poverty and homelessness, especially first time homelessness, has forced lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing conditions, particularly in urban areas, has forced health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which in turn exacerbates disaster response challenges in high cost, high-congestion areas and increases risk to life; and WHEREAS, the housing crisis has, and is, severely impacting the State's economy with employers facing increasing difficulty in securing and retaining a workforce; and schools, universities, nonprofits, and governments facing similar difficulties attracting and retaining teachers, students, and employees; and
WHEREAS, the State of California recognizes the importance of developing affordable housing in the state and has developed a Density Bonus Law (California Government Code§§ 65915 et seq.) to promote such housing development, which law requires that cities offer certain density bonuses, incentives, and concessions, in exchange for the development of qualifying projects, provided enumerated criteria are met; and
WHEREAS, while the most significant barrier to the construction of affordable housing is a lack of public funding, the other major obstacle is the existence of low-density zoning regulations because mixed income and affordable housing projects need density to leverage the economies of scale that are necessary to offset the cost of providing the needed affordable units; and
WHEREAS, the State Density Bonus Law specifically permits cities, including chartered cities such as the City of Long Beach, to adopt ordinances and other regulations offering density bonuses and incentives that exceed and enhance those bonuses and incentives currently mandated under the State Density Bonus Law; and 26 27
WHEREAS, the City
of Long Beach has not produced sufficient overall
housing stock in the City, and is producing insufficient levels of affordable housing to meet 28 the demonstrated need of the City; and
2 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/28/21; 9/22/21 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 2 of 16
~ f~ O:'. ~ 11.

0..8J.::N
~ ~ 0) g
"' • 0 <( ;t' "E 0)
~U~<;( • mO -Z-
(.) Q 5 .c: UJo.:ooo
I<:Ccro
i-o.. (D~
lLC!)~o
ow 0 c:::
w ii . ..:l g :i: s
u. -~u~
1 WHEREAS, despite its stated goals and objectives, the State Density Bonus 2 Law has proven inadequate to encourage needed housing production in the City and has 3 only been utilized a few times in the City during the past two decades; and 4 WHEREAS, because of the failure of the existing State Density Bonus laws 5 and regulations to produce much needed affordable housing, the City is in need of new 6 ordinances and regulations such as the Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) Ordinance 7 considered herein; and
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 WHEREAS, the proposed EDB Ordinance would amend Title 21 of the Long .

Beach Municipal Code to establish regulations to allow for increased density bonuses in excess of those permitted by the State Density Bonus Law in exchange for increased levels of on-site, deed-restricted affordable units, in order to facilitate the development of mixed-income, multi-family housing Citywide, with increased density bonuses and incentives focused in high quality transit areas.

WHEREAS, an EDB ordinance designed to tailor the inceritive structure to local conditions presently existing in the City will complement the City's recently enacted inclusionary housing regulations by providing incentives for affordable housing in areas outside of the Downtown and Midtown areas; and
WHEREAS, the EDB ordinance would provide the greatest bonuses in areas of the City served by the highest quality transit, which furthers the goals of the City's 2019 General Plan Land Use Element Update and state regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, an EDB ordinance is also critical to help the City achieve its 26,502 unit Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement through 2029, as demonstrated by the City's current Housing Element and site inventory, recent housing development trends in the City, and the City's current restrictive zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed EDB regulations and ordinance provisions on June 17, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity 3 MJM:KJM A21"01198 8/28/21; 9/22/21 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 3 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >,. 0 12 IJJ a, 0
Zc-O'. ~ u.

Og:SN 13 1-c:{CD~
~~"E~
~ 0 ~ <{ 14 • a, 0 z-u 2 5 .c w er ro o 15 :c <( ro
!--- 0. ~ &l
tL if.) ~ 0
Owoc 16 UJ a:! . 5
"<( $
u. J: - 17 t:5u~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 to, and did, testify either in support of or against the proposed EDB regulations. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the City adopt an EDB ordinance for the purpose of enhancing the construction of much needed market-rate and affordable housing in the City; and
WHEREAS, even though the adoption of an Enhanced Density Bonus Ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines because adoption of this zoning ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and this project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; the City did prepare, and the City Council does hereby adopt and approve, Negative Declaration ND 08-20 together with the "Findings" contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the EDB ordinance is meant to be a temporary measure that will sunset on October 1, 2030, unless otherwise extended by the City Council; or if the City first fulfills its 6th Cycle RHNA requirements and goals for very low, low and moderate income units, whichever occurs first
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach ordains as follows:

Section 1 . The Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 21.68 to read as follows:

21.68.010 Purpose.

Chapter 21 .68

ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS
The purpose of this Chapter is to create an Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) incentive program that exceeds and enhances those bonuses and incentives currently provided under the State Density Bonus Law 4 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/2BJ21; 9122/21 01316030.doc.x
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 4 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Gj >, 0 12 z ~ .2 !r'. ~ u.

O~-,!;N
13 t= <( Cl) ~ >- - 0
<r::::"E:0>
i'=u ~< 14 - m U -Z-
0 Q ~ .c wo::coo 15 ~ o:i: C :
lL m "1
LL U) ~ D
Owoc 16 UJ~ ._g
Q < $ tL:c ~
17 ~u~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 (Government Code Section 65915) that could be utilized by qualifying projects in lieu of, but not in addition to, the State Density Bonus law provisions, in order to facilitate the development of mixed-income, multi family and special needs housing Citywide, with increased density bonuses and incentives focused in high quality transit areas. The provisions of this Chapter are adopted in order to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement through 2029; support inclusionary housing in the City; and implement the goals and objectives of the City's "Everyone Home" program as well as the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, in order to augment and produce sufficient levels of market-rate and affordable housing across a variety of housing types to meet the demonstrated housing need of the City.

21.68.020 Definitions.

A. High Quality Transit Bus Corridor (HQTC): A high-quality transit bus corridc;ir means a corridor with fixed route public bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen (15) minutes during peak commute hours, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21155.

B. Major Transit Stop: A site or location containing a rail station or the intersection of two (2) or more public bus routes with a service interval of fifteen (15) minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21064.3. The stations or bus routes may be existing, under construction, or included in the most recent Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

C. Qualifying Project: A residential or mixed-use project that includes On-Site Restricted Affordable Units at a rate that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements lo satisfy the Enhanced Density Bonus 5 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/28121; 9/22121 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 5 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, 0 12 WW 0
2 " -"' ~ u.. Q O .c N
13 ~ ~ 01 ~
" • 0 <( :=' 'E Ol
~ 0 ~ <( 14 • w 0 -z-u S2 :::i .
w Q'.'. &: ·§
15 F<ic:l

0. ffl "'
u.. Cf,l ~ 0
Ou10 c: 16 Wei ._3
S! ;;_; 5
17 It u :: 0 <t
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Incentives and as set forth in this Chapter. A qualifying project must be proposed on an eligible parcel, and meet or exceed the income thresholds as defined below.
1 . Very Low-Income Households as defined in Section
50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. Low Income Households as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

3. Moderate Income Households as defined in Section
50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

21.68.030 Eligible parcels.

Parcels in the City may be eligible for an Enhanced Density Bonus where any residential uses, including live/work units, are permitted either by the zoning district or the General Plan Place Type designation; and where five (5) or more housing units could be built without a bonus, based on the allowable densities and site size.

21.68.040 Procedures.

B. All deed-restricted affordable units approved utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall be deed restricted for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.

C. All projects utilizing the provisions of this Chapter are required to undergo Site Plan Review (SPR) in accordance with the provisions set 6 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/28121; 9/22121 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 6 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- » a 12 w <l> 0
~ELL
oiLsg 13 I=; <( 0, "' >- -o <( :t::: 1? 0)
1:u ~<C 14 -"'u -Z-o:;25,.c:

WQ'.'.(D C.l
15 J: <( C (II
f- 0. ro Ill
"- <l> "' oU>oo LU Q c 16 w ~ · .9 s? <( $ "- :r ~
17 ~ o;:
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 forth
in Chapter 21.25.

D. No density bonus granted in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall exceed one hundred (100) percent; and the total number of additional incentives/concessions shall not exceed nine (9), and shall not exceed six (6) incentives/concessions for projects that are also subject to the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21 :67).

E. No-Net-Loss

1. All projects utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to "no-net-loss" provisions that exceed State and City mandated requirements and regulations; and shall include the replacement of any affordable units lost as a result of the approval or construction of the project on a one-for-one basis, in addition to the minimum number of affordable units required by this Chapter (as calculated as a percentage of the total base units). Existing units shall be deemed affordable and subject to the replacement requirement if either the income of the household qualifies as low income at the low, very low or extremely low income levels or if the rent level, regardless of household income, is affordable to low, very low or extremely low income households. The number and affordability levels of the replacement units to be provided shall be determined by both the income level of the household and the rent level of the unit regardless of household income.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 7 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, 0 12 W ru o
z E cc
OC.9.cN 0 ..... - a 13 I- < 0) ex::,
~ £1?~ ~
i::<.l "'«: 14 _ziu U::z5..c wn:cn o
15 I<( c <O
f- l'l... (0 Ql
lL l'J <O
o"' o UJ Q C 16 UJ ..J 0
,2!:[~-'
lL :I:~
17 ~ ()~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 II
II
affordability levels. The requirement to provide an accounting of rents for the preceding five (5) years applies retroactively to any units that may have been demolished or vacated within the five (5) year period preceding the application. No demolition or construction permits shall be issued for multifamily developments consisting of five (5) or more residential dwelling units until the required documentation is provided and approved; and an application is submitted to the City that incorporates both replacement and density bonus units for the proposed project.

F. Rounding and calculations.

All calculations for affordable housing requirements, bonuses and /or incentives shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

G. Affordable unit size, mix and location.

Affordable units shall be evenly distributed throughout the project and shall have equal access to on-site amenities. Affordable units shall be generally reflective of the mix of unit sizes and number of bedrooms of the overall project, and shall be comparable to market-rate units in terms of design, and exterior and interior finishes.

21.68.050 Density bonus eligibility and percentages.

The Tables set forth in this Section establish the percentage of affordable units in a proposed EDB project and the eligible density bonus that can be granted based on the level of afrordability for each of three (3) geographic tiers: (1) the Base Area; (2) High Quality Transit Corridors; and (3) Major Transit Stops, as defined above.
8 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8128/21; 9/22/21 01316030,docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 8 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 i;:; ,., is 12 z ~ .Q 0: ~ u..

0.9.cN
13 I-~ 0) ~
~ ~1r~
'>-Um<t;
14 f:. 2 · ii o u S2 ::::i •
wo:: ~15 15 J: c::( C ro 1-o.mQ;
Ll-m ~~ 0 w O c. 16 LU--" 0
0 0: ;;: ---'
-- " U.. I ~
17 ~ (.)~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25.
26 27
28 Affordable
Component
3 (*)
4 (*)
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
Table 21.68-1
Base Area
Bonus tor Very Low
Income (VU)
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
Bonus tor Low Bonus for
Income (LI) Moderate
(Mod)
3 4
5 10 6
15 7
20 8
25 9
30 10
35 15
40 20
45 25
50 30
55 35
60 40
65 45
70 50
55 60
65 70
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability component only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the Base Area and be eligible for a 15% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordab1eunits in a project.

Table 21.68-2
High Quality Transit Corridors
Affordable Bonus for Very Low Bonus for Low Bonus for
Component Income (VLI) Income (LI) Moderate
Income (Mod)
3 (*) 20 5
4 (*) 25 10
5 30 15
6 35 20 6
7 40 25 7
8 I 45 30 10
9 I 5o 35 15
9 MJM:KJM A21~01198 8/28/21: 9/22121 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 9 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >· ~
12 UJ ~ 0
z ~ .Q
0: ci LL Q..., .c N
13 t=~O)~
,:( ~'Eg
~(j !l!<i: 14 - z-~u
0 25..c:

UJ 0::ID d
15 :r-<cIB 1-CLro 00 "- (I) <I)
ow 0 g 16 UJ..-Joo
s,2~;;:..J
"- I ~
17 ~ (.) ::;
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Affordable Bonus for Very Low Bonus for Low Bonus for Component Income (VU) Income (LI) Moderate
Income (Mod\
10 55 40 20 I
11 60 45 25 I
12 65 50 30 I
13 70 55 35
14 75 60 40
15 80 65 45
16 85 70 50
17 90 75 55
18 80 60
19 85 65
20 90 70
21 75
22 80
23 85
24 90
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordable components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units, For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VU) in the High Quality Transit Corridor and be eligible for a 20% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Affordable
ComJ:>onent
3 (*)
4 (*)
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Table 21.68-3
Major Trans it Stop
Bonus for Very Low Bonus for Low
·lnc0me-(VLI) Income (-LI)
35 15
40 20
45 25
50 30
55 35
60 40
65 45
70 50
75 55
80 60
85 65
90 70
95 75
100 80
10 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/28/21; 9/22121 013.16030.docx
Bonus for
Moderate
Income (Mod)
6 10 I
15 I
20 I
25 I
30 I
35 I
40 I
45 I
50 55
60 California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 10 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, 0 12 ~ ~ ..Q
"'~ u.. o fL.s~ 13 r: <( °'- ~
<( £ 'E 0)
f'.:u ro<( 14 _zio () S2: :::} .
w a:: i6 TI 15 I <( c: ro I- o.. ro ©
u.. m ro
offiog 16 _j O 0
UJ tr s: -1
Q <(
lL:,: -
17 Bo~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Affordable Bonus for Very Low Bonus for Low Bonus for Component Income (VLI) Income (LI) Moderate
Income
(Mod)
17 85 65
18 90 70
19 95 75 I
20 100 80 I
21 85 I
22 90 I
23 95 I
24 100
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordable components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in a Major Transit Stop eligibility area and be eligible for a 35% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects not subject to the lnclusionary Housing Requirements of LBMC Chapter

21.67 ("Non-I nclusionary Projects"),
The following Table shall determine how many incentives/ concessions a "Non-·lnclusionary Project" may be eligible for, based on the percent density bonus a project has qualified for. (See above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-4
Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-lnclusionary Projects Concession Eligible Density Bonus
1 20
2 30
3 40
4 50
5 60
6 70
7 80
8 90
9 100
Note: For EDB projects that are subject to the lnclusionary Housing Requirements 11 MJM:KJM A21-01198 B/28/21; 9122121 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 11 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, 0 12 UJ © 0
z c-tl'. ~ u.

Q O..c:N
13 l=~ai~ >- ·o <(~~O)
f'.:Og?<>:: 14 • m O -Z-
Usz 5.C w rr.: rn o
15 I<(c~ !- o.. rn al
0 CJ)~ 0
16 W~O§
o"';i-' ;:;::f- 17 tu~
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 of Chapter 21.67 of the Long Beach Municipal Code ("lnclusionary Projects"), including projects in the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-5
Maximum Number of Concessions for Projects
Subject to LBMC 21.67 ("lnclusionary Projects")
Total# Eligible Maximum Eligible Maximum Eligible Maximum Concessions Density Concession Density Concession Density Concession Bonus for Height Bonus for Height* Bonus for Height*
(2023 (2022) (2021)
and
beyond)
3 70 1 story 50 1 story 40 1 storv
4 80 70 60
5 90 2 stories 90 2 stories 80 2 stories
6 100 3 stories 100 3 stories 100 3 stories
*Note: Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R 1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single-family home or duplex, shall step back any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten (10) feet from the exterior face of the ground floor of the building.

21.68.070 Types of eligible concessions/incentives.

A The following are the by-right "on-menu•
concessions/incentives that an EDB project may request based on the number of concessions/incentives a project is eligible for per the concession/incentive Tables set forth above:

1. A floor area ratio (FAR) increase of forty (40) percent per concession;

2. A fifteen ( 15) percent reduction in non-residential parking per concession;

3. A thirty (30) percent reduction in open space per
concession;
12 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8/28/21; 9122/21 01316030.docx
I
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 12 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >-, 0 12 ~ ~ .Q
"' ~ u. 0 0 .c ("\j
13 ~~O)~ ,,_-o <(,_ "Em
r- () "' -,; 14 - z- i (.) US25.c wo::rou 15 I <( c ~
1--o.. roc:i
~W~o UJoc 16 w·-1 o
s,~,s:--'
u.. :r ..- 17 ~o;
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 4. An allowance for all shared/public (in lieu of private) open space;

5. An averaging of floor area ratio (FAR), density, parking, open space or access across zones ( one ( 1) incentive per development standard averaged);

6. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in transitional height requirements;

7. A thirty (30) percent reduction in an individual setback per concession (maximum one (1) incentive per side or front yard with a maximum of two (2) incentives on the rear yard);

8. A maximum of one (1) additional story in height in the Base and HQTC areas and a maximum of three (3) additional stories in height in the Major Transit Stop area.

Only projects eligible for a minimum of forty (40) percent density bonus may seek an off-menu concession/incentive. No concessions related to signage shall be granted.

C. Height Concessions.

1. A story shall not exceed twelve (12) feet;

2. Each additional story in height counts as one ( 1)
incentive, except that any additional stories in height above one ( 1) in the Base and HQTC areas shall count as two (2) incentives;
3_ Maximum Height Concessions. Projects are limited to a 13 MJM:KJM A21-01198 8J281'21: 9122l2.1 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 13 of 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >-- >, 0 12 w ~ 0
~ 0 II:
0"' ,s s 13 I= <( a, "'
<( ~"E~
/:Ug!<( 14 -z~u
(.) 52 5 .c:

W 0: CD CJ
15 :!: <( C f\'!
1-a.asW
LL © CO
0 wo □
Woe 16 w ~ . .3
"'<( ;,; u. ::c ...-
17 (:>u;
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 maximum height concession of two (2) stories in the Base area and three (3) stories in the HQTC area. Additional height above one (1) story in both the Base and HQTC areas is considered "off-menu" and is subject to the provisions of 21.68.070.B.

4. Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R 1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single-family home or duplex shall step-back any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten ( 10) feet from .the exterior of the ground floor of the building face.

21.68.080 Special bonuses for large units and on-site childcare.

A. Projects with large/family units are eligible for additional density bonuses up to an additional twenty (20) percent. Bonuses are additive; however, total bonuses shall not exceed one hundred (100) percent. Eligible projects must provide affordable units, and mix of affordable units must include some proportion of the large units:

1. More than twenty-five (25) percent two (2) bedroom
units of nine hundred seventy (970) square feet (SF) or larger;

2. More than five (5) percent three (3) bedroom units of eleven hundred forty ( 1140) square feet (SF) or larger.

B. Projects with affordable units that equal or exceed twelve ( 12) percent that also provide an on-site childcare facility are exempt from floor area ratio (FAR) and parking calculations for the childcare use. Such projects are also eligible for one ( 1) additional incentive from the list set forth in Section 21.68. 060 .A.

21.68.090 Parking requirements.

Parking. EDB projects are eligible for parking reductions and may avail themselves of either the reductions offered by the State regulations or 14 MJM:KJM A21~0119B 8/2Bi21: 9/22/21 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 14 of 16
>-- »O Ul ID 0
z c-a'. ~ lL
0 E..c N
~ ~ oi ~
<£"2g
i:o ~<(
_z_mU o-::, .
w~~-§
~ ii: r:: ;g ro ro
lL {/) ~ 0
Owoc Wei ._:l
"'r/s lL - -
t5 0~
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 the parking reductions offered by Table 21.68-6. Projects may use either of the reductions, but not both. EDB projects comprised of one hundred (100) percent affordable units shall not be required to provide on-site parking.

Table 21.68-6
EDB Parking Ratio Table
0-1 Bedrooms 1 space/unit
2-3 Bed rooms 1.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit
Commercial Parking First 6,000 square feet exempt;
zoning code parking requirements
apolv bevond 6,000 square feet

21.68.090 Sunset Clause.

The ordinance will sunset, unless otherwise extended by the City Council, when the City meets its affordable component of its RHNA allocation of 26,502 units, or on January 1, 2030, whichever occurs first.

Section 2. Subsection 21.25.506.A of the Long Beach Municipal Code is 16 amended by adding number 7 to read as follows:
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24 II
25 II
26 27
28 7. The project is in compliance with the housing
replacement requirements of Section 21.11 .050 of Chapter 21.11 (No Net Loss) or Section 21.68.040.E of this Chapter, as applicable, and will result in the same or greater number of dwelling units; and in the case of existing affordable dwelling units, that the dwelling units will be replaced at the same or deeper affordability levels, and that applicable tenant protections of the Long Beach Municipal Code will be met.
15 MJM:KJM A21-D1198 8/28/21; 9122121 01316030.docx
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 15 of 16
>- C
IJ.l >. O
2 ~ .Q
a'. C "-

0.8.cN
--o I="'"'"' <£12~
i'.: (.) ~ <l'. -z-~U
usz 5.c
UJ 0: f1l 0
J: c{ C ro I- CL ro w
"- "' ro ofil 0 g -' 0 0 UJ er . .J
Ii <l'. ~ \± I ~
o o-;
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the City Council and cause it to be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach, and it shall take effect on the thirty-first (31st) day after it is approved by the Mayor.

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of ____ O_c_to_b_er_s ____ , 20_~, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilrnembers: Zendejas, Allen, Price, Supernaw, Saro, Uranga, Austin, Richardson.

Noes: Councilrnembers: None.

Absent: Councilrnembers: Mungo.

Recusal(s): Councilrnembers: None.
22 Approved:
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY CLERK OF
BY: ;'A
DATE: / 2-/f4 /z._o L/ •
MJM:KJM A21-01196 8/28/21; 9/22121 01316030.docx
H
16 California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 1; Page 16 of 16
Exhibit 2 - Resolution No. RES-21-0113
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 2; Page 1 of 3
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 2; Page 2 of 3
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 2; Page 3 of 3
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

ORD-21-0034: Enhanced Density Bonus Regulations

21.25.506.A Findings Required, Development Projects
…7. The project is in compliance with the housing replacement requirements of Section

21.11.050 of Chapter 21.11 (No Net Loss) or Section 21.68.040.E of this Chapter, as applicable, and will result in the same or greater number of dwelling units; and in the case of existing affordable dwelling units, that the dwelling units will be replaced at the same or deeper affordability levels, and that applicable tenant protections of the Long Beach Municipal Code will be met.

Chapter 21.68

ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS

21.68.010 Purpose
This purpose of this Chapter is to create and Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) incentive program that exceeds and enhances those bonuses and incentives currently provided under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) that could be utilized by qualifying projects in lieu of, but not in addition to, the State Density Bonus law provisions, in order to facilitate the development of mixed-income, multifamily and special needs housing Citywide, with increased density bonuses and incentives focused in high quality transit areas. The provisions of this Chapter are adopted in order to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement through 2029; support inclusionary housing in the City; and implement the goals and objectives of the City's "Everyone Home" program as well as the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, in order to augment and produce sufficient levels of market-rate and affordable housing across a variety of housing types to meet the demonstrated housing need of the City.

21.68.020 Definitions
A. High Quality Transit Bus Corridor (HQTC): A high-quality transit bus corridor means a corridor with fixed route public bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen (15) minutes during peak commute hours, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21155.

Exhibit 3 - Administrative Draft of City Changes
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 1 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

C. Qualifying Project: A residential or mixed-use project that includes On-Site Restricted Affordable Units at a rate that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements lo satisfy the Enhanced Density Bonus Incentives and as set forth in this Chapter. A qualifying project must be proposed on an eligible parcel, and meet or exceed the income thresholds as defined below.

1. Very Low-Income Households as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. Low Income Households as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

3. Moderate Income Households as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

21.68.030 Eligible Parcels.

21.68.040 Procedures.

B. All deed-restricted affordable units approved utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall be deed restricted for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.

C. All projects utilizing the provisions of this Chapter are required to undergo Site Plan Review (SPR) in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 21.25.

E. No-Net-Loss

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

units). Existing units shall be deemed affordable and subject to the replacement requirement if either the income of the household qualifies as low income at the low, very low or extremely low income levels or if the rent level, regardless of household income, is affordable to low, very low or extremely low income households. The number and affordability levels of the replacement units to be provided shall be determined by both the income level of the household and the rent level of the unit regardless of household income.

2. Applicants shall provide evidence/documentation to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or designee, in order to establish the rent and affordability levels of all individual dwelling units that will, or may, be removed as a result of a proposed project. Such documentation/evidence shall include an accounting of all rents charged for the individual units over the preceding five (5) years. Rent levels will be compared to Average Median Income (AMI) to establish the units' affordability levels. The requirement to provide an accounting of rents for the preceding five (5) years applies retroactively to any units that may have been demolished or vacated within the five (5) year period preceding the application. No demolition or construction permits shall be issued for multifamily developments consisting of five (5) or more residential dwelling units until the required documentation is provided and approved; and an application is submitted to the City that incorporates both replacement and density bonus units for the proposed project.

F. Rounding and calculations.

All calculations for affordable housing requirements, bonuses and/or incentives shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

G. Affordable unit size, mix and location.

21.68.050 Density bonus eligibility and percentages.

Table 21.68-1
Base Area
Affordable
Component
Bonus for Very Low
Income (VLI)
Bonus for Low
Income (LI)
Bonus for Moderate
Income (Mod)
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 3 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

3 (*) 15 3
4 (*) 20 4
5 25 5
6 30 10 6
7 35 15 7
8 40 20 8
9 45 25 9
10 50 30 10
11 55 35 15
12 60 40 20
13 65 45 25
14 70 50 30
15 55 35
16 60 40
17 65 45
18 70 50
19 55
20 60
21 65
22 70
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability component only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the Base Area and be eligible for a 15% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Table 21.68-2
High Quality Transit Corridors
Affordable
Component
Bonus for Very Low
Income (VLI)
Bonus for Low
Income (LI)
Bonus for Moderate
Income (Mod)
3 (*) 20 5
4 (*) 25 10
5 30 15
6 35 20 6
7 40 25 7
8 45 30 10
9 50 35 15
10 55 40 20
11 60 45 25
12 65 50 30
13 70 55 35
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 4 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

14 75 60 40
15 80 65 45
16 85 70 50
17 90 75 55
18 80 60
19 85 65
20 90 70
21 75
22 80
23 85
24 90
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the High Quality Transit Corridor and be eligible for a 20% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Table 21.68-3
Major Transit Stop
Affordable
Component
Bonus for Very Low
Income (VLI)
Bonus for Low
Income (LI)
Bonus for Moderate
Income (Mod)
3 (*) 35 15
4 (*) 40 20
5 45 25 6
6 50 30 10
7 55 35 15
8 60 40 20
9 65 45 25
10 70 50 30
11 75 55 35
12 80 60 40
13 85 65 45
14 90 70 50
15 95 75 55
16 100 80 60
17 85 65
18 90 70
19 95 75
20 100 80
21 85
22 90
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 5 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

23 95
24 100
Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in a Major Transit Stop eligibility area and be eligible for a 35% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects not subject to the Inclusionary Housing Requirements of LBMC Chapter 21.67 (“Non-Inclusionary Projects”).

Table 21.68-4
Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-Inclusionary Projects Concession Eligible Density Bonus
1 20
2 30
3 40
4 50
5 60
6 70
7 80
8 90
9 100
Note: For EDB projects that are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Requirements of Chapter 21.67 of the Long Beach Municipal Code ("Inclusionary Projects"), including projects in the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-5
Maximum Number of Concessions for Projects Subject to LBMC 21.67 (“Inclusionary Housing Projects”)
Total # Eligible Maximum Eligible Maximum Eligible Maximum California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 6 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

Concessions Density
Bonus
(2023
and
beyond)
Concession
for Height
Density
Bonus
(2022)
Concession
for Height*
Density
Bonus
(2021)
Concession
for Height*
3 70 1 story 50 1 story 40 1 story
4 80 70 60
5 90 2 stories 90 2 stories 80 2 stories
6 100 3 stories 100 3 stories 100 3 stories
*Note: Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single-family home or duplex, shall stepback any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten (10) feet from the exterior face of the ground floor of the building.

21.68.070 Types of eligible concessions/incentives.

1. A floor area ratio (FAR) increase of forty (40) percent per concession;

2. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in non-residential parking per concession;

3. A thirty (30) percent reduction in open space per concession;

4. An allowance for all shared/public (in lieu of private) open space;

5. An averaging of floor area ratio (FAR), density, parking, open space or access across zones (one (1) incentive per development standard averaged);

6. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in transitional height requirements;

7. A thirty (30) percent reduction in an individual setback per concession (maximum one (1) incentive per side or front yard with a maximum of two (2) incentives on the rear yard);

8. A maximum of one (1) additional story in height in the Base and HQTC areas and a maximum of three (3) additional stories in height in the Major Transit Stop area.

B. In addition to the above "on-menu" concessions/incentives, an Applicant may propose or request a concession/incentive, not otherwise listed herein, that will be considered "off-menu." Each such concession proposed or requested shall count as two (2) concessions and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission based on the physical necessity of the incentive for the provision of the affordable units. Only projects eligible for a minimum of forty (40) percent density bonus California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 7 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

may seek an off-menu concession/incentive. No concessions related to signage shall be granted.

C. Height Concessions.

1. A story shall not exceed twelve (12) feet;

2. Each additional story in height counts as one (1) incentive, except that any additional stories in height above one (1) in the Base and HQTC areas shall count as two (2) incentives;

3. Maximum Height Concessions. Projects are limited to a maximum height concession of two (2) stories in the Base area and three (3) stories in the HQTC area. Additional height above one (1) story in both the Base and HQTC areas is considered "off-menu" and is subject to the provisions of 21.68.070.B.

4. Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R 1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single-family home or duplex shall step-back any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten (10) feet from the exterior of the ground floor of the building face.

21.65.080 Special bonuses for large units and on-site childcare.

1. More than twenty-five (25) percent two (2) bedroom units of nine hundred seventy (970) square feet (SF) or larger;

2. More than five (5) percent three (3) bedroom units of eleven hundred forty (1140) square feet (SF) or larger.

B. Projects with affordable units that equal or exceed twelve (12) percent that also provide an on-site childcare facility are exempt from floor area ratio (FAR) and parking calculations for the childcare use. Such projects are also eligible for one (1) additional incentive from the list set forth in Section 21.68.060.A.

21.68.090 Parking requirements.

Parking. EDB projects are eligible for parking reductions and may avail themselves of either the reductions offered by the State regulations or the parking reductions offered by Table 21.68-6. Projects may use either of the reductions, but not both. EDB projects comprised of one hundred (100) percent affordable units shall not be required to provide on-site parking.

Table 21.68-6
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 8 of 9
Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed additions are shown in underlined text.

EDB Parking Ratio Table
0-1 Bedrooms 1 space/unit
2-3 Bedrooms 1.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit
Commercial Parking First 6,000 square feet exempt; zoning code parking requirements apply beyond
6,000 square feet

21.68.100
The ordinance will sunset, unless otherwise extended by the City Council, when the City meets its affordable component of its RHNA allocation of 26,502 units, or on January 1, 2030, whichever occurs first.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 3; Page 9 of 9

T E M P L E A V E
LAKEW
OO D
BLVD

L O N G B E A C H B L V D

A T L A N T I C P L

G A R DEN G R O V EF W YA L A M I T O S A V E
4 T H S T

P A C I F I C C O A S T H W Y

G R E E N L E A F B L V D

A T L A N T I C A V E

A R T E S I A B L V D

A N A H E I M S T

M A R K E T S T

O R A N G E A V E

A T L A N T I C A V E
7 2 N D S T

S O U T H S T

C H E R R Y A V E

S H O R E L
INE DR

N I E T O A V E

B I X B Y R D
7 T H S T
P A C

IFIC P L

SAN D I
EG O F
W Y

PACI F I C C

OAST H W Y

OC EAN BLVD

S P R I N G S T

P A R K A V E

W I L L O W S T

L O N G B E A C
H
FW
Y

A R T E S I A F W Y

X I M E N O A V E

M A G N O L I A A V E
L O S
C O

YOT E S
DIA
7 T H S T

N O R W A L K B L V D

D O W N E Y A V E

O R A N G E A V E

CA R S O N S T
S A
N
G A B
RI E L
RI V E
R F
W
Y

H I L L S T
O

UTERTRAFFIC
CIR
T E R
M
I N A
LI S L

AN D F W Y

S T U D E B A K E R R D
C H

ER R Y A V E
7 0 T H S T
QUEENS
W
A Y

A N A H E I M S T
HA R B
OR

SCEN I C
DR

B R O A D W A Y

H A R D I N G S T

L I V I N G S T O N D
R

S A N T A F E A V E

B E L L F L O W E R B L V D

M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R A V E

L O Y N E S D R

P A C I F I C A V E

A P P I A N W A Y

C H E R R Y A V E

C A R S O N S T

S P R I N G S T

R E D O N D O A V E
2 N DS T

S A N D I E G O FWY
1 0 T H S T

O C E A N B L V D

P A L O V E R D E A V E

W A R D L OWRD

C L A R K A V E

DE LA M O B L V D

P A C I F I C A V E

S A N A N T O N I O D R

P A R A M O U N T B L V D

L O N G B E A C H B L V D

A T H E R TON S T

W I L L O W S T

O R A N G E A V E

W A R D L O W R D

W O O D R U F F A V E

S T E A R N S S T
Enhanced Density Bonus
F o r i n f o r m a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s o n l y . E x a c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f e l i g i b i l i t y w i l l d e p e n d o n p a r c e l s i z e a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s . P a r c e l s s h o w n o n t h i s m a p c o u l d a l l o w c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 5 o r m o r e u n i t s b a s e d o n u n d e r l y i n g z o n e . 0 10 . 5
M ile
P a r c e l i n z o n e a l l o w i n g 5 + u n i t s M a j o r S t r e e t
P a r k
S c h o o l
C i t y B o u n d a r y
Z o n e s i n c l u d e d : R - 3 - T , R - 4 - M , R - 4 - N , R - 4 - R , R - 4 - U , C C N , C N R , C C R , M U 1 , M U 2 , M U 3 , R M U 3 , R M U 4 , S P - 1 - T N , S P - 1 - C D R , S E A S P - M U - C C , S E A S P - M F R , a n d P D - 3 0 ( D o w n t o w n ) Exhibit 4 - Eligibility Map
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2
Exhibit 4; Page 1 of 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CORRESPONDENCE
From: Christopher Pederson
To: SouthCoast@Coastal
Cc: Huckelbridge, Kate@Coastal; Hudson, Steve@Coastal; Ziff, Dani@Coastal; Warren, Louise@Coastal Subject: Public Comment on June 2023 Agenda Item Thursday 12b - City of Long Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB- 21-0088-2
Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:37:59 AM
Dear Chair Brownsey and Commissioners:

The stated intent of the staff recommendation regarding Long Beach’s “Enhanced Density Bonus” (EDB) LCP amendment is laudable: allowing additional density, incentives and concessions for multi-family housing that includes more than the minimum required affordable housing while still protecting significant coastal resources.

Unfortunately, the proposed suggested modifications are likely to deter projects with affordable housing from being built in the coastal zone even in the absence of adverse effects on coastal resources. This would violate the Coastal Act’s mandate that the Commission encourage low- and moderate-income housing.

(Pub. Resources Code, § 30604(f).) In
addition, the staff recommendation regarding parking disregards numerous certified land use plan policies that call for moving away from reliance on automobiles and towards reliance on public transit and increased pedestrian and bicycle access opportunities. The parking recommendations also do not account for recent changes to state law regarding parking requirements.

The City submitted this LCP amendment as part of its implementation of its state-approved Housing Element and to comply with the City’s “regional housing needs allocation” (RHNA).

The recommended suggested modifications would impede the City’s efforts to comply with state housing law, but, as explained below, lack sufficient Coastal Act justification for creating this avoidable conflict with state statutory requirements.

The Proposed Suggested Modifications Will Deter Affordable Housing in Violation of the Coastal Act
The proposed suggested modifications are likely to deter projects with affordable housing because they are contradictory and ambiguous about when density bonuses, waivers, incentives, or concessions are allowed. The suggested modification to section 21.68.070 states that incentives or concessions may only be allowed if “consistent with the policies of the certified LCP.” Incentives or concessions, however, are by their very nature exceptions from, and therefore inconsistent with, some provision of the LCP. Applied literally, this would prevent allowance of any incentives or concessions for EDB projects.

In addition, given that this is an amendment to the LCP’s Implementation Plan (IP), the suggested modification as drafted exceeds the Commission’s authority. The City’s certified land use plan (LUP) is the standard of review (Pub. Resources Code, § 30513(b)), but the suggested modification as drafted purports to prohibit exceptions to any LCP policies regardless of whether they are LUP or IP policies and regardless of whether a project-specific exception to an IP requirement would conflict with any LUP policy.

To avoid this internal contradiction and to comply with the legal standard of review, the Commission should revise the suggested modification to section 21.68.070 to require incentives or concession to include a finding of consistency with the policies of the certified LUP, not non-LUP provisions of the LCP.

Even with correction of this internal contradiction, however, the proposed suggested modifications to sections 21.68.040 and 21.68.070 lack clarity and are ambiguous in ways that are likely to deter EDB projects. The suggested modification to section 21.68.040 allows density bonuses, waivers, incentives, and concessions only if “coastal resources are protected as required by the Coastal Act and the LCP.” The suggested modification to section 21.68.070 allows incentives and concessions only if “there will be no significant impact to coastal resources” and “if found consistent with the policies of the certified LCP.”

These two suggested modifications establish different standards and do not clarify what qualifies as a “coastal resource,” do not explain how to determine whether an impact is “significant,” and suggest that, even if an incentive or concession’s impact is insignificant, it must be denied if it’s inconsistent with some policy of the LCP even if that policy is unrelated to, or unnecessary for, compliance with some Coastal Act requirement.

A developer contemplating an EDB project in the coastal zone would face tremendous uncertainty with accompanying risks of arguments, delays, mounting expenses, and litigation.

If the Commission wishes, as the Coastal Act requires, to encourage low- and moderate- income housing, this is not the way to do it.

The Commission should instead revise the suggested modifications to sections 21.68.040 and

21.68.070 to provide much greater clarity and specificity about exactly when density bonuses, waivers, incentives, or concessions may be granted while still complying with LUP policies related to implementation of Coastal Act requirements.

The City’s Proposed Parking Requirements Conform With the Certified LUP Whereas the Staff Recommended Suggested Modifications Do Not
Staff’s recommended suggested modifications regarding parking disregard numerous LUP policies and do not acknowledge the effect of recent changes to state law regarding parking.

Prepared during the energy crises of the late 1970s, the Long Beach LCP directs the City to move away from dependence on the automobile and toward reliance on public transit, walking, and bicycling. This directive aligns well with the Coastal Act mandates to minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled and to promote public transit and other non- automotive modes of transportation. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30253(d), 30252.) Both the LCP and the Coastal Act, if implemented properly, can also advance the state’s current goals and strategies for addressing the climate crisis.

The introduction to the LCP states that “[t]ransportation and land use decisions of the past have imposed access difficulties which are not nearly impossible [sic] to overcome using conventional auto/parking methods. Instead, this LCP seeks to maximize access by transit, bicycle, and foot.” (City of Long Beach LCP, pg I-4
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/advance/general-plan/local-coastal-program-with-seasp-and-pd-

2.) It elaborates that “[i]ncreased auto circulation in the coastal zone is discouraged by this program because (1) it would not provide increased access to coastal resources; (2) it would have an adverse impact on the fragile coastal neighborhoods; and (3) there is little unused capacity available in the street system.” (Id.)
The LCP’s transportation and access general policies declare, “[s]tated succinctly, the Long Beach LCP transportation and access policies are:

1. Increase reliance on public transit.

2. Decrease reliance on automobiles.

3. Provide slightly more parking.

4. Increase pedestrian and bicycle access opportunities.” (LCP, pg. II-3.) They explain, “[t]he long-range solution to coastal access problems in Long Beach, then, appear to be founded in improving transit capability while increasing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access. In the short-range, some accommodation of the motor car is essential. The LCP proposes both of these strategies in the Community Plans.” (Id. (emphasis added).) The short-term accommodation of cars that the LCP identifies is “some increase in parking lot capacity on the beach.” (Id. at pg. II-4.)

The general policies of the LCP also state that new development should provide “adequate” on-site parking (id.
at pg. II-5), but that leaves the City with considerable discretion to determine what qualifies as “adequate.” That determination, however, must take into account the LCP’s primary emphasis on prioritizing transit, walking and bicycling. Now, more than forty years after adoption of the LCP and with the increasing severity of the climate crisis, the time for “short-term” accommodations of the automobile has passed.

The City’s original proposed language to exempt 100 percent affordable housing from the LCP’s parking requirements therefore conforms with and is adequate to carry out the LUP.

The staff report relies on three LCP provisions to justify the suggested modification that would require 100 percent affordable housing development to provide off-street parking. (Staff report, pg. 14 fn. 6.) None of the three provisions justifies the suggested modification.

The first provision applies only to public parking, not to private off-street parking, so it is simply inapplicable. (It’s unclear exactly where in the LCP the cited provision is. As referenced in the staff report, it applies to “Subarea D,” but there is no “Subarea D” in the LCP. To the extent the report intended to cite a provision regarding “Area D” (aka the Belmont Shore neighborhood), the LCP provisions that address Area D do not appear to have the quoted language. I could find the quoted language only in the chapter addressing the Belmont Pier Planned Development District, but the proposed LCP amendment would not apply there.)
The second provision cited in the staff report merely requires construction to conform to zoning ordinance parking requirements. It does not in any way dictate the details of what the zoning ordinance parking requirements should be. Of course, the pending LCP amendment would establish the zoning ordinance parking requirements for EDB projects. The cited provision therefore does not support the staff recommendation.

The third and final LCP provision that the staff report cites does call for strict off-street parking requirements. Indeed, it would arguably even preclude the parking requirements that staff recommends for 100 percent affordable housing. That provision, however, applies only in “Area A” (aka the Bluff Community), so it cannot be the basis for suggested modification language that applies outside Area A.

In addition, the provision is contained in the Appendix of the LCP. To the extent that the detailed policies contained in the Appendix are part of the IP rather than LUP (the LCP is not clear about this point), they are not the standard of review for this LCP amendment. Even if the Appendix policies are part of the LUP, they are expressly subordinate to policies contained in the “Policy Plan Summaries” of the LCP. (LCP Appendix, pg. 2.) To the extent of any inconsistencies between Policy Plan Summaries and the Appendix, the Policy Plan Summaries govern.

(Id.) As explained above, the overwhelming emphasis of the LCP is on moving away from automobile dependence and towards transit-, pedestrian-, and bicycle-oriented development standards. Those policies amply justify the City’s decision to waive off-street parking requirements for 100 percent affordable housing.

The recommended modifications would also require smaller-size commercial units in mixed- use EDB projects to comply with default zoning code parking requirements. The staff report justifies these modifications by raising concerns about parking impacts in visitor-serving commercial zones, specifically the Belmont Pier area and 2nd Street. The LCP amendment, however, would apply only to areas north of Ocean Blvd. that are located farther away from the Belmont Pier, and would apply only to a very small segment of 2nd Street. Most of the commercially zoned areas subject to the LCP amendment are expressly designated in the LCP as pedestrian-oriented and neighborhood serving (see, e.g., LCP pp. III-A-10 (along Broadway), III-B-11 (along Broadway), III-C-13 (along Broadway), III-D-9 (Granada & Ocean)). Given that most of the areas where this LCP amendment would allow mixed-use EDB projects are neighborhood-serving, pedestrian-oriented districts. the City appropriately proposed to waive parking requirements for smaller commercial spaces. The staff recommendation does not justify requiring off-street parking in those non-visitor serving areas.

Finally, the suggested modifications do not take into account recent changes in state law regarding off-street parking requirements. AB 2097 imposes strict limits on when local governments or the Commission may require off-street parking for development located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (See Gov. Code, § 65863.2.) Housing developments located within half a mile of a major transit stop that have fewer than 20 units or that dedicate 20 percent of the units to low- or moderate- income households, students, senior citizens, or persons with disabilities are entirely exempt from off-street parking requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65863.2(c).) Other developments are also exempt unless a local government makes specified findings. (Gov. Code, § 65863.2(b).) Some areas close to downtown Long Beach are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (see https://longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/sb9/transit-priority- areas-map), so the Commission should adopt a suggested modification noting the applicability of Government Code section 65863.2 to areas located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

AB 2011 prohibits off-street parking requirements for eligible mixed-income housing development located along commercial corridors.

(Gov. Code, § 65912.123(e).) To the extent
any streets affected by the proposed LCP amendment qualify as a “commercial corridor” within the meaning of that statute (see Gov. Code, § 65912.101(a)), the Commission should also adopt a suggested modification noting the applicability of Government Code section 65912.123(e).

Although the details of zoning code parking requirements can be mind-numbing, they have important ramifications. Off-street parking is expensive to provide, which can make it an obstacle to the construction of affordable housing, which is difficult to finance in the best of circumstances. Parking requirements increase traffic, undercut public transit, and degrade conditions for walking and bicycling. For these reasons, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends reducing or eliminating parking requirements as part of the state’s strategy for reducing vehicle miles traveled and carbon pollution.

(See CARB, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents, Appendix D, pp. 11, 22-23; Appendix E, pp. 27-28.)

Because the parking provisions of the proposed LCP amendment conform with the certified LUP and because the suggested modifications recommended by the staff report do not, the Commission should certify the parking provisions of the LCP amendment as proposed by the City, with suggested modifications noting the potential applicability of Government Code sections 65863.2 and 65912.123.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,
Christopher Pederson

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4325
VOICE (562) 590-5071
FAX (562) 590-5084

Th12b

ADDENDUM
DATE: June 2, 2023
TO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties
FROM: South Coast District Staff
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ITEM Th12b, LCP AMENDMENT NO. LCP-5-LOB-21- 0088-2 FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING ON THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2023.

This addendum addresses correspondence received and includes corrections/ modifications to the staff report dated May 25, 2023. First, in Section I, Commission staff updates the record by supplementing it with correspondence that was received after publication of the staff report. Section II provides responses to issues raised in the recent correspondence, and Commission staff proposes the Commission incorporate these responses into its findings. Finally, Section III provides corrections and modifications to the staff report in light of the correspondence received.

I. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
The Commission has received one letter in opposition to the suggested modifications from a member of the public.

The correspondence is available on the Commission’s website at the following address:
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/6/Th12b/th12b-6-2023-corresp.pdf.

II. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The following is added as a Response to Comments section to the staff report (as subsection E on staff report page 16, thus renumbering the CEQA section as subsection F):

In a comment letter received on May 31, 2023, a member of the public (Christopher Pederson) asserts that: (1) modifying the City’s proposed amendment to require enhanced density bonus (EDB) projects be consistent with the LCP is inconsistent with 2 the affordable housing policy of the Coastal Act and internally contradictory, given that the intent of offering concessions for EDB projects is to encourage affordable housing and relax restrictions that are included in the IP; (2) the suggested modifications that would require the general protection of coastal resources from significant adverse impacts and project consistency with the LCP are too ambiguous and should be specified; (3) the suggested modifications relating to parking requirements are not required for conformance with the LUP because the applicability of the parking-related LUP policies that are referenced in the staff report are questionable and the City has multiple LUP policies that encourage less reliance on automobiles; and (4) recent changes in state law, especially AB 2097, were not taken into account. Each of these contentions is addressed as follows:
(1) To summarize the findings in the staff report dated May 25, 2023, the City’s proposed EDB regulations go above and beyond its previously certified density bonus regulations, as well as the State Density Bonus law, to provide additional incentives for the construction of affordable housing. While this is consistent with some LUP policies (the standard of review for the subject LCPA) that call for the preservation of affordable housing and maximization of public access, there are some locations within the coastal zone where EDB projects could adversely impact coastal resources if offered incentives such as reduced setbacks from sensitive habitat. Thus, modifications to the City-adopted ordinance are suggested to ensure that, in these cases where coastal resources may be endangered, the resource protection policies of the LCP would take precedent.

Even in these cases, only the incentives that would adversely impact coastal resources would be adjusted or taken off the “menu” of concessions in order to find the project consistent with the LCP’s resource protection policies. Where coastal resources would not be impacted by an EDB project, all of the City- adopted incentives would be available.

The suggested modification to Section 21.68.040, especially the second sentence suggested to be added, makes clear that incentives can be applied to EDB projects in the coastal zone as long as they are consistent with the coastal resource protection policies of the City’s LCP. Similarly, the modification suggested for Section 21.68.070 states that concessions can only be allowed by right if there would be no adverse impacts to coastal resources. While this portion of the modification is clear, the comment letter contends that the following phrase—“and if found consistent with the policies of the certified LCP”—is confusing since the LCP contains existing regulations for zoning densities, parking, setbacks, building height, etc. that are intentionally more strict than the proposed incentives. The comment letter also asserts that the modification should only reference the LUP policies since they are the standard of review for the subject IP amendment.

While the LUP policies are the standard of review for the subject IP amendment and the modifications are suggested in order for the IP amendment to be found consistent with the LUP, there are resource protection policies within the IP that should also be considered. Therefore, requiring all LCP policies be considered 3 when acting on an EDB development application is necessary for coastal resource protection. In any case, to provide additional clarity as suggested in the letter, the modification to Section 21.68.070 is revised to reference the resource protection policies of the LCP.
(2) The comment letter also suggests that the IP amendment should be further clarified to define “coastal resources” and “significant impact.” “Coastal resources” are not defined in the City’s LCP or in the Coastal Act but are understood to include public access and recreation opportunities, biological resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, water resources, public views of the coast, archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, and the character of special coastal communities. In addition, a “significant impact” is not defined in the LCP or Coastal Act because the finding of significance is made on a case-by-case basis based on information available by the agency with permit authority. The City’s LCP includes procedures for processing local CDPs and direction for determining what impacts to coastal resources may be significant. In the Commission’s retained jurisdiction, the Commission’s regulations and the Coastal Act outline those processes. While, as suggested by the commenter, the City could have added specificity to the IP amendment by, for example, calling out each of the areas or sites where potential EDB projects could impact coastal resources and identifying, in those cases, exactly which incentives should not be offered, the City did not propose that level of detail, and the IP amendment, as suggested to be modified, is adequate to carry out the policies of the LUP.
(3) The main assertion the commenter makes about the suggested modifications relating to parking incentives is that the LUP contains many policies that encourage a relatively rapid transition from automobile reliance and infrastructure to alternative transportation methods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This statement is true.

However, the LUP also contains policies that call for the maximization of public access for all people. At this time, while the City is taking numerous steps to encourage greater use of public transit, bikes, and other less car-centric transportation options, many people, especially those who do not live close to the coast, still rely on cars to access the coast. The City did not provide adequate evidence that the reduced and/or eliminated parking standards would not impact public access opportunities.

Based on the LUP’s public access policies alone, the modification relating to parking resources is required. The Amendment as submitted would allow new EDB projects that include a 100% affordable residential component with no parking at all; however, the City did not provide any evidence that such projects, which could include uses not related to affordable housing, would not generate new parking demand. Failure to provide adequate onsite parking for residents and other users would result in the displacement of on-street parking available for members of the public, including beachgoers. Commission staff worked collaboratively with City staff to address this issue, and based on data from 4 several affordable housing projects previously approved by the Commission, developed Suggested Modification 2, which requires new affordable housing provide no more than 0.25 parking spaces per unit. Although this standard is a significant reduction from the parking standards for new residential development required by the certified LCP and the parking requirements proposed by the City for mixed-income EDB projects, this reduction in parking standards is appropriate to provide adequate parking for new fully affordable housing developments based on analysis of parking demand associated with similar developments.

To respond to the commenter’s contention that the three parking policies called out in the staff report are unclear and/or not applicable: The LUP policies relating to parking are called out in the section of the staff report that explains why the City’s IP amendment, as proposed, is not adequate to carry out the LUP. Thus, the commenter’s suggestion that none of the policies justify the suggested modification is not relevant because the public access policies justify the modification as explained in the findings for approval of the IP amendment if modified as suggested. The commenter also points out that the first policy requiring retention of public parking resources is not applicable. The policy was misidentified and does apply to the Belmont Pier Planned Development District, which does not appear to contain any EDB-eligible properties. Regarding the second referenced parking policy that requires construction to adhere to zoning requirements (General Traffic Recommendation 1.A), the commenter asserts that the reference does not support the findings for denial of the IP amendment as submitted because the proposed ordinance would then become the certified zoning requirements. The inclusion of this policy reference is intended to show that at the time of certification, the LUP policies included ones that aimed at ensuring adequate parking is required, which serves to avoid impacts to public parking stock. Regarding the third policy listed (General Statement Regarding Entire Area), the commenter asserts that since it only applies in Area A of the coastal zone, it cannot be a basis for imposing a suggested modification.

However, as stated previously, the references to these policies are included in the section of the staff report for denial of the IP amendment as submitted. In other words, the proposed EDB parking standards were not adequate to carry out this policy in that area, but as modified, parking standards would be analyzed using a coastal resource impact lens if such conflicts arise. (4) Commission staff discussed AB 2097 in the context of this LCP amendment with City staff. AB 2097 requirements were not originally included because the subject ordinance was drafted and adopted before the law was enacted. The outcome of the discussion was a mutual understanding that AB 2097 would still apply to any applicable development project, including EDB projects near the Downtown area, and that the City could address the new law in its LCP if it so chooses pursuant to a future amendment. Thus, pursuant to AB 2097, parking would not be required for eligible EDB projects within a half mile of a major transit stop.
5 In conclusion, while City staff agree with and understand how to implement the proposed IP amendment, an additional clarification is made to the language suggested to be included in the new EDB chapter and an error is corrected.

III. REVISIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT
The following modifications and corrections are made to the staff report dated May 25, 2023. For the following change to the suggested modifications (subsection a), the City’s adopted language is shown in plain text. The suggested modification, as stated in the staff report, is shown in underlined text, and language to be added to the modification is shown in bold, underlined text. For changes to the staff report (subsections b-), the language of the staff report is in plain text, additions are identified using underlined text, and deletions are shown in strikethrough text.
a) Modify Suggested Modification 1, Section 21.68.070 at the bottom of page 7 as follows:
[…] A. T he following are the by -right “on menu” concessions/incentives that an EDB project may request based on the number of concessions/incentives a project is eligible for per the concession/incentive Tables set forth above. In the coastal zone, concessions/incentives including but not limited to parking and open space concessions/incentives shall only be authorized or allowed by-right if there will be no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources, including but not limited to public access and environmentally sensitive habitat area, and if found consistent with the resource protection policies of the certified LCP.: […] b) Modify Footnote 6 at the bottom of page as follows:

LCP Document, Subarea D, General Development and Use Standards, Parking, states: The existing number of public parking spaces shall be retained…; LCP Document, General Traffic Recommendation 1.A states: […] c) M odify the last full paragraph on page 10 as follows:

The incentives…In addition, Inclusionary Housing Projects—new residential projects located in Downtown (partly in the coastal zone) and Midtown that are already required to provide affordable units—are eligible for fewer concessions than Non-Inclusionary Housing Projects. […]
d) M odify the paragraph in the middle of page 11 as follows:

The proposed IP amendment applies throughout the coastal zone, but there are only a handful of areas where properties eligible for EDB concessions are located (Exhibit 4). These areas include Downtown, A
lamitos Beach, Belmont Pier,
Belmont Shore, Belmont Park, Bixby Village, and Alamitos Bay Marina. Only the Downtown area and a small part of the Alamitos Beach neighborhood contain or areis located close to a Major Transit Stops, as defined in the ordinance, and Bixby Village contains or is close to a High Quality Transit corridor. […] STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
301 E Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
June 13, 2023
Chr
istopher Koontz, Planning Bureau Manager
Long Beach Development Services
411 West Ocean Boulevard – 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Re
: Long Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 Dear
Christopher Koontz:

You
are hereby notified that the California Coastal Commission, at its June 8, 2023 virtual meeting, approved with modifications Local Coastal Program (LCP) Major Amendment No.LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2. LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 amends Implementation Plan portion of the certified LCP to add enhanced density bonus regulations.

The C
ommission approved the LCP amendment with suggested modifications. The suggested modifications are attached. Therefore, LCPA No. LCP-5-LOB-21-0088-2 will not be effective for implementation in the City’s coastal zone until: 1) the Long Beach City Council adopts the Commission’s suggested modifications, 2) the City Council forwards the adopted suggested modifications to the Commission by resolution, 3) the Executive Director certifies that the City has complied with the Commission’s June 8, 2023 action, and 4) the Commission concurs with the Executive Director’s determination that the action by the City Council adopting the suggested modifications is legally adequate. The Coastal Act requires that the City’s adoption of the suggested modifications be completed within six months of the Commission’s June 8, 2023 action.

Therefore, the deadline for City Council adoption in this case is December 8, 2023.

Thank
you for your cooperation and continued coordination on LCP amendments. We look forward to working with you and your staff in the future. If you have any questions, please contact Dani Ziff at [email protected].

Si
ncerely,
Dan
i Ziff
Coastal Program Analyst
Attachment B

SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
For the following suggested modifications:

Language of the currently certified IP is shown in plain text.

The City’s proposed language is shown in underline text.

The Commission’s suggested additions are shown in bold underline text.

The Commission’s suggested deletions are shown in bold strike out text.

The following suggested modifications, prepared in collaboration with City of Long Beach staff, are necessary to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP:

C.B. Major Transit Stop…
D.C. Qualifying Project…

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects that are not subject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projects Requirements of LBMC Chapter 21.67 (“Non- Inclusionary Projects”). …
Table 21.68-4 Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-Inclusionary Housing Projects …
Note: For EDB projects that are subject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projects Requirements of Chapter 21.67 of the Long Beach Municipal Code ("Inclusionary Projects"), including projects in the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

21.68.040 Procedures.

21.68.070 Types of eligible concessions/incentives.

1. A floor area ratio (FAR) increase of forty (40) percent per concession;

2. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in non-residential parking per concession;

3. A thirty (30) percent reduction in open space per concession;

4. An allowance for all shared/public (in lieu of private) open space;

5. An averaging of floor area ratio (FAR), density, parking, open space or access across zones (one (1) incentive per development standard averaged);

6. A fifteen (15) percent reduction in transitional height requirements;

7. A thirty (30) percent reduction in an individual setback per concession (maximum one (1) incentive per side or front yard with a maximum of two (2) incentives on the rear yard);

8. A maximum of one (1) additional story in height in the Base and HQTC areas and a maximum of three (3) additional stories in height in the Major Transit Stop area.
…

21.68.090 Parking requirements.

21.68-7.

Within the Coastal Zone: Certified
zoning code parking requirements
apply.

Table 21.68-7 EDB Parking Ratio Table for Projects in the Coastal Zone Comprised of One Hundred (100) Percent Affordable Units 0-1 Bedrooms 0.25 space/unit
2-3 Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
4+ Bedrooms 0.25 spaces/unit
Nonresidential
Parking
Certified zoning code
parking requirements apply
Suggested Modification 3: Fix typographical error.

Attachment C

FINDINGS
Enhanced Density Bonus Code Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) Application No. 2012-25 (ZCA20-017)
September 19, 2023
The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) does not require specific findings for the adoption of a Zoning Code Amendment. The proposed Amendment, however, is consistent with State law and guidelines and applicable elements of the City’s General Plan; will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development of the City; and is in conformity with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good planning practice. The City of Long Beach makes these findings in support of its adoption of the proposed Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) - Zoning Code Amendment.

The Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with objectives, principles, and standards of the General Plan. The Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) would not conflict with the City’s General Plan, the 2010 Strategic Plan, local coastal program, or any other applicable land use plans and policies. The purpose of the proposed code amendments is to facilitate the development of housing units to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by establishing an enhanced density bonus incentive program that offers a density bonus and development concessions in exchange for the provision of on-site, deed-restricted, very low-, low-, or moderate-income units. The ZCA is consistent with goals, policies, and strategies in the Land Use Element (LUE), Housing Element (HE), and Mobility Element (ME) of the General Plan by facilitating and incentivizing a range of housing units Citywide, including affordable housing, with a focus on locating housing near transit. The Project is designed to implement both the LUE and HE by helping to address the existing and forecasted need for housing in the City and to help meet the 26,502 housing unit RHNA allocation for Long Beach as part of the 6th cycle Housing Element update.

Overall, the Project does not introduce uses that are materially different from those otherwise permitted in the respective PlaceTypes or zoning districts. The Project would allow for mixed-use or wholly residential development projects in zoning districts that allow such uses. While the Project may change allowable density, intensity, or height on individual development sites, overall total development levels and numbers of housing units are not anticipated to exceed those contemplated Citywide under the 2019 LUE.

The Project includes a clause that the Enhanced Density Bonus Ordinance would sunset if any of these conditions are met:
 On October 1, 2030 unless extended by City Council
 The City fulfills its 6th Cycle RHNA requirements for Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income Units.

Furthermore, the General Plan LUE includes implementation measure LU-M-25 to amend the Zoning Regulations to include flexible standards targeted for infill development. LUE Measure LU-M-26 also supports amendment of Title 21 of the Municipal Code to allow higher density development and new infill opportunities. The EDB ordinance is also consistent with the following General Plan policies:

Land Use Element (LUE)/Urban Design Element (UDE) policies:
 LU Policy 1-2: Support high-density residential, mixed-use and transit-oriented development within the downtown, along transit corridors, near transit stations and at neighborhood hubs;
 LU Policy 12-1: Allow a variety of housing types in new residential developments with the goal of establishing new opportunities for persons of varied income ranges, ages, lifestyles and family needs;
 LU Policy 12-2: Encourage the provision of housing opportunities, services, and amenities for all income levels, age groups, and household types, with opportunities to age in place;
 LU Policy 13-1: Promote an equitable distribution of housing types for all income and various cultural groups throughout the City; avoid creating concentrations of below-market-rate housing in underserved and low-income neighborhoods.  LU Policy 13-2: Provide new housing opportunities in neighborhood-serving centers and corridors, within transit-oriented development areas and downtown; and
 Policy UD 14-2: Acknowledge transitions between commercial and residential uses by requiring new development in higher-density centers and corridors to transition in height, massing, scale, and intensity in a thoughtful way to provide a buffer to lower density residential development.

This proposed ZCA supports planning and zoning best practices, builds upon existing studies, and provides another strategy to facilitate housing production to address the housing crisis. The ZCA is an early implementation measure of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element Update and will help fulfill the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Additionally, the proposed ZCA is intended to help make progress toward Goal #4 in the current Housing Element, which is to provide increased opportunities for the construction of high quality housing. The ZCA specifically will implement Policy 4.2, which encourages a balance of rental and homeownership opportunities, including high quality apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and single-family homes to accommodate the housing needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community…; Policy 4.5, which encourages residential development along transit corridors, in the downtown and close to employment, transportation and activity centers; and encourage infill and mixed-use developments in designated districts. Lastly, the ZCA is consistent with principles contained in the Mobility Element that support “complete neighborhoods” in which daily destinations are within walkable or bikeable distance (ME, p. 7).

The ZCA also builds upon policy recommendations adopted by City Council on May 2, 2017 that were prepared by the Affordable and Workforce Housing Study Group, appointed by the Mayor, to address the affordable housing crisis in the City, as well as the Everyone Home Long Beach 1 report, which City Council received and filed in December 2018. These zoning code changes respond to this identified need and do so with zoning tools that provide incentives while respecting community context through implementation of policies from the Urban Design Element (UDE) of the General Plan, including Policy UD 14-2 which calls for new development in higher-density centers and corridors to transition in height, massing, scale, and intensity in a thoughtful way to provide a buffer to lower density residential development. Additional General Plan policies that the ZCA is consistent with can be found in the staff report for the ordinance. Lastly, the proposed EDB helps implement the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), by providing incentives to focus the greatest amount of housing near high-quality transit and jobs to reduce emissions associated with automobile usage.

The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development of the City, and is in conformity with public necessity convenience, general welfare, and good planning practice. The City of Long Beach adopted the State density law in 1988, with a most recent local update in 2006, to provide density bonuses consistent with the State Density Bonus Statute for projects that include lower income housing, moderate income condominiums, and housing for seniors and disabled residents. The State Density Bonus has only been used a few times in the past two decades due to regulatory and physical constraints and has proven to be ineffective in generating affordable housing as a component of market-rate development.

The proposed Enhanced Density Bonus project involves amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, primarily to Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) to establish regulations to allow a “bonus” of increased density, development standard concessions, and other incentives in exchange for increased levels of affordable housing and other desired services such as on-site childcare, in order to facilitate the development of mixed-income, multifamily housing Citywide, with increased density bonuses and incentives focused in high quality transit areas. This is consistent with planning best practices for facilitating needed housing to address the welfare of the community and focusing housing near transit and jobs to reduce carbon emissions associated with transportation. EDB projects would be subject to the Site Plan Review process to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. This code amendment is designed to help address a well-documented community need for affordable housing and the need for a diverse housing stock. The change is consistent with good planning practice and furthers the public interest to promote development and investment that is consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed Zoning Code Amendment is consistent and compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No adverse environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. The project involves legislative changes; no development project is contemplated at this time. Although the proposed Project could result in larger individual projects than if the proposed Project were not in place, the total increase in development Citywide under the proposed Project has already been contemplated in the recently updated General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), adopted in 1 https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/everyone-home-lb/media-library/documents/news/everyone- home-lb-task-force--recommendations-sm-file
2019. The LUE anticipated buildout contemplated 28,524 housing units, the impacts of which were already analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the LUE. The EDB sunset clauses described in the Project’s Administrative Procedures would take effect if the City were to meet its 6 th Cycle RHNA housing unit allocation of 26,502 housing units, or by 2030, whichever comes first. Therefore, the scope of development that these incentives may help facilitate does not exceed that which is already contemplated by the recently adopted General Plan LUE Update.

Through implementation of the City’s regulatory framework, including the LUE and its companion UDE, any future discretionary project facilitated by the EDB ordinance would include project-specific conditions of approval that minimize its impact on surrounding areas. Subsequent development projects facilitated by the EDB may also have to undergo their own environmental review, as required pursuant to CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND-08-20, has been prepared for the project and finds that the project will not result in significant effects to the environment.

The modifications proposed by the California Coastal Commission at its June 8, 2023 hearing would ensure that the implementation of the EDB ordinance would consider the protection of coastal resources, including but not limited to coastal access.

Bold = CCC Inserted Text Attachment D
Strikethrough = CCC Removed Text
Title 21 - ZONING
CHAPTER 21.68 – ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS
Long Beach, California, Municipal Code

Page 1 of 10 ends

CHAPTER 21.68 ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS

21.68.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to create an Enhanced Density Bonus (EDB) incentive program that exceeds and enhances those bonuses and incentives currently provided under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) that could be utilized by qualifying projects in lieu of, but not in addition to, the State Density Bonus law provisions, in order to facilitate the development of mixed -income, multi-family and special needs housing Citywide, with increased density bonuses and incentives focused in high quality transit areas. The provisions of this Chapter are adopted in order to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement through 2029; support inclusionary housing in the City; and implement the goals and objectives of the City's "Everyone Home" program as well as the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, in order to augment and produce sufficient levels of market-rate and affordable housing across a variety of housing types to meet the demonstrated housing need of the City. ( ORD-21-0034 § 1, 2021)

21.68.020 Definitions.

A. High Quality Transit Bus Corridor (HQTC): A high-quality transit bus corridor means a corridor with fixed route public bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen (15) minutes during pe ak commute hours, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21155.

BC. Major Transit Stop: A site or location containing a rail station or the intersection of two (2) or more public bus routes with a service interval of fifteen (15) minutes or less du ring the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, as defined by California Public Resources Code 21064.3. The stations or bus routes may be existing, under construction, or included in the most recent Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

DC. Qualifying Project: A residential or mixed-use project that includes On-Site Restricted Affordable Units at a rate that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements to satisfy the Enhanced Density Bonus Incentives and as set forth in this Chapter. A qualifying project must be proposed on an eligible parcel, and meet or exceed the income thresholds as defined below.

1. Very Low-Income Households as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. Low Income Households as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.

3. Moderate Income Households as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. ( ORD-21-0034 § 1, 2021)

Created: 2023-06-08 14:03:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

Page 2 of 10 ends

21.68.030 Eligible parcels.

21.68.040 Procedures.

B. All deed-restricted affordable units approved utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall be deed restricted for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.

C. All projects utilizing the provisions of this Chapter are required to undergo Site Plan Review (SPR) in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 21.25.

D. No density bonus granted in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall exceed o ne hundred (100) percent; and the total number of additional incentives/concessions shall not exceed nine (9), and shall not exceed six (6) incentives/concessions for projects that are also subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.67).

E. No-Net-Loss.

1. All projects utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to "no -net-loss" provisions that exceed State and City mandated requirements and regulations; and shall include the replacement of any affordable units lost as a result of the approval or construction of the project on a one-for-one basis, in addition to the minimum number of affordable units required by this Chapter (as calculated as a percentage of the total base units). Existing units shall be deemed affordabl e and subject to the replacement requirement if either the income of the household qualifies as low income at the low, very low or extremely low income levels or if the rent level, regardless of household income, is affordable to low, very low or extremely low income households. The number and affordability levels of the replacement units to be provided shall be determined by both the income level of the household and the rent level of the unit regardless of household income.

Rent levels will be compared to Average Median Income (AMI) to establish the units' affordability levels. The requirement to provide an accounting of rents for the preceding five (5) years applies retroactively to any units that may have been demolished or vacated within the five (5) year period preceding the application. No demolition or construction permits shall be issued for multifamily developments consisting of five (5) or more residential dwelling units until the required documentation is provided and approved; and an application is submitted to the City that incorporates both replacement and density bonus units for the proposed project.

Page 3 of 10 ends

F. Rounding and calculations. All calculations for affordable housing requirements, bonuses and/or incentives shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

G. Affordable unit size, mix and location. Affordable units shall be evenly distrib uted throughout the project and shall have equal access to on-site amenities. Affordable units shall be generally reflective of the mix of unit sizes and number of bedrooms of the overall project, and shall be comparable to market -rate units in terms of design, and exterior and interior finishes.
( ORD-21-0034 § 1, 2021)

21.68.050 Density bonus eligibility and percentages.

Table 21.68-1
Base Area
Affordable
Component
Bonus for Very Low
Income (VLI)
Bonus for Low Income
(LI)
Bonus for Moderate
(Mod)
3(*) 15 3
4(*) 20 4
5 25 5
6 30 10 6
7 35 15 7
8 40 20 8
9 45 25 9
10 50 30 10
11 55 35 15
12 60 40 20
13 65 45 25
14 70 50 30
15 55 35
16 60 40
17 65 45
18 70 50
19 55
20 60
21 65
22 70

Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordability component only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the Base Area and be eligible for a 15% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Table 21.68-2
High Quality Transit Corridors

Page 4 of 10 ends

Affordable
Component
Bonus for Very Low
Income (VLI)
Bonus for Low Income
(LI)
Bonus for Moderate
Income (Mod)
3(*) 20 5
4(*) 25 10
5 30 15
6 35 20 6
7 40 25 7
8 45 30 10
9 50 35 15
10 55 40 20
11 60 45 25
12 65 50 30
13 70 55 35
14 75 60 40
15 80 65 45
16 85 70 50
17 90 75 55
18 80 60
19 85 65
20 90 70
21 75
22 80
23 85
24 90

Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordable components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in the High Quality Transit Corridor and be eligible for a 20% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project.

Page 5 of 10 ends

13 85 65 45
14 90 70 50
15 95 75 55
16 100 80 60
17 85 65
18 90 70
19 95 75
20 100 80
21 85
22 90
23 95
24 100

Footnote (*): Use of 3% and 4% affordable components only permissible when the total number of affordable units across multiple restricted income levels equals or exceeds 12% of all units. For example, an applicant may propose 3% Very Low Income (VLI) in a Major Transit Stop eligibility area and be eligible for a 35% density bonus; however, the 3% can only be used in conjunction with one or more other affordable components that total a minimum of 12% affordable units in a project. ( ORD-21-0034 § 1, 2021)

21.68.060 Eligible concessions/incentives for EDB projects that are not subject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projects Requirements of LBMC Chapter 21.67 ("Non- Inclusionary Projects").

The following Table shall determine how many incentives/concessions a "Non -Inclusionary Project" may be eligible for, based on the percent density bonus a project has qualified for. (See above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages.)
Table 21.68-4
Maximum Number of Concessions for Non-Inclusionary Projects Concession Eligible Density Bonus
1 20
2 30
3 40
4 50
5 60
6 70
7 80
8 90
9 100

Note: For EDB projects that are subject to the Iinclusionary hHousing projectsRequirements of Chapter 21.67 of the Long Beach Municipal Code ("Inclusionary Projects"), including projects in the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, the following Table shall be used to calculate the number of incentives/concessions a

Created: 2023-06-08 14:03:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

Page 6 of 10 ends

project is eligible for. In the Downtown (PD-30) and Midtown (SP-1) areas, incentives/concessions shall be based on the total percent density bonus a project qualifies for (see above, Density Bonus Eligibility and Percentages).

Table 21.68-5
Maximum Number of Concessions for Inclusionary Housing Projects Subject to LBMC 21.67 ("Inclusionary Projects")
Total #
Concessions
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2023 and
beyond)
Maximum
Concession
for Height
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2022)
Maximum
Concession
for Height*
Eligible
Density
Bonus
(2021)
Maximum
Concession
for Height*
3 70 1 story 50 1 story 40 1 story
4 80 70 60
5 90 2 stories 90 2 stories 80 2 stories
6 100 3 stories 100 3 stories 100 3 stories

*Note: Any height increases on a lot sharing a lot line or across an alley from an R1 or R2 zoned property occupied by a single- family home or duplex, shall step-back any height increase over twelve (12) feet at least ten (10) feet from the exterior face of the ground floor of the building.
( ORD-21-0034 § 1, 2021)

21.68.070 Types of eligible concessions/incentives.

A. The following are the by-right "on-menu" concessions/incentives that an EDB project may request based on the number of concessions/incentives a project is eligible for per the concession/incentive Tables set for th above. In the coastal zone, concessions/incentives including but not limited to parking and open space concessions/incentives shall only be authorized or allowed by-right if there will be no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources, including but not limited to public access and environmentally sensitive habitat area, and if found consistent with the resource protection policies of the certified LCP. :