Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 30-1 of Chapter 21.30, Table 31-1 in Chapter 21.31, and by adding Subsection T to Section 21.31.020, and adding Division III to Chapter 21.31 by adding Sections 21.31.300, 21.31.310, 21.31.320, 21.31.325, 21.31.330, 21.31.340, 21.31.350, Table 31-8, and 21.31.360, relating to planned unit developments, read and adopted as read.  (District 8)
Report from Development Services Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to planned unit developments. Read in adopted as read. District eight. Councilman Andrews. I'm sorry, Councilman Austin. I moved this part. Thank you. Public comment, please. For what it's worth, Lorie Angel. I live at 458 East Street addressing our representatives of the public. One thing I did want to mention that is I did go through the city council video last week, and part of the basis for approving the project was the fact that the residents were in favor of it. Well, there were 30 speakers, 31 speakers. 14 of the speakers lived in the neighborhood. Six were for it and eight were against it. And of the total speakers it was 2 to 1 against and we didn't bring a bus. So my concern. Is not. Even the issue that we push this thing through when it isn't really all as favorable as it's being lit up to be, is that the concept of a PUD is included in this ordinance and it hasn't been discussed anywhere except in the context of the Riverwalk. The public hasn't had a chance to weigh in. And not only that is what it says in this ordinance is already in direct conflict to the one project that you have in the books. It says that it has to have a driveway. Well, the Riverwalk doesn't have a driveway. So what happens now? They don't have any driveways. Is that okay? Does that get vetted anywhere? Is there. I mean, where the process is really fouled up here? Has anything gone through the planning commission, as they said, that, oh, you have a variance, you don't have to have a driveway and maybe that doesn't matter. I know everybody's tired, so let's just go home and just vote yes. I mean, this is a problem. It's an issue. You're creating something that's going to have an impact on neighborhoods henceforth. And also the ordinance just looks at APD within the context of itself. It doesn't even have reference to anything outside of it, except if a river runs through it or a street runs through it. Well, what about the impact to everything outside of APD? It's not even addressed. This ordinance is not ready to be passed. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe Weinstein again. Oh. Like the other speakers, I have to point out that this this was not properly noticed. To the extent that it could have been said to be noticed at all. It was put in such a way that you wouldn't notice it. Mind you, the last of several resolutions that appear to pertain to all of two parcels in one district of the city, and suddenly something that applies to land use throughout the city. This is patently against the spirit, if not the law of due notice. It's so totally anti transparent. But then let's look at the actual. Zoning option that's provided. It was a. It was a straw man question that people allegedly asked whether this would change zoning anywhere else. No, it doesn't. But it provides options. And what kind of option does it provide? Essentially, it essentially an anything goes. If you have five acres, you can put any you can ask for any number of units on that acreage. It's true. They all have to fit within. There's only a certain number of lots per acre, but you can pile several dwelling units within a single lot and there's essentially no limit. Impost. What you have then therefore is in place of a son of cracker box, which some people derisively referred to this. It's not a son of cracker box. It's a clan of cracker walks. And in fact, the way you try to put it over, it's a clandestine of clan of cracker box. And basically the more honest way to do this is to go to Houston. Houston has got a problem. No zoning. That's honest. This, in effect, says Houston, we want your problem. Thank you. And Cantrell last week when it was pointed out that this PUD would affect. Development in other parts of the city are. We were told. No, that's not right. This is only for. Riverwalk. I'd like to read what the staff report says. Use of R one and development standards are not consistent with a new large subdivision or the current goals and objectives with enhanced site planning, unit designs and community amendments. Staff therefore proposes to create a planned unit development PWD zoning district that could be used for this and other similar large scale residential projects currently in the development pipeline or on potential infill sites on suitably large lots. Therefore, this could be used in any one of your districts in the city. It could be used for the city college property. In the fifth district on los coyotes and wardlow. It could be used for c dip in the third district. It could be used any place. There's still five acres left to cram in a large development and create. Density. I'm wondering if you even read the staff reports. Because I can't see how you could vote for something like this without allowing the public to know that this is what is going to happen in their city. True, the developers will still have to go through, get their permits and go through planning and come to you for your blessing on their developments. But now they have the ability to ask for 13 houses per acre where before they did not have this ability. You are changing the whole zoning of the city. Think carefully. My name is Richard Ivey, and I'd like to echo the comments that have been spoken here earlier. It was very anti transparent. It looked like it was only relating to River Walk. It was hidden in a bunch of other items. And it applies to the whole city. I don't think people are aware of the impact that this items had. Normally we have hearings. We have opportunity for input. We have. Public meetings. Throughout throughout the city. We've. Looked at zoning and our resident are. Things that we've wanted to and ways that we've wanted. To develop our our community. And. And this. Just totally overrides all of that. I think that down the road we will look and look back at this and say, this is what? We'll have the beginning of a very. Big change in our city that will not have good effects. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello again. I think I'm very fortunate. At least I have an advantage that I. I was able to speak to the planning department before I came to this meeting, and I spoke to this lady at length. So. I do know that there's been a lot of things that's been vetted in the within the city, and I think Ms.. Mungo's office for at least putting me in touch with these people. But I will admit that this is very difficult language for the average person to kind of understand what's taking place. And I am going to kind of echo what they're saying, but not quite, you know. I will admit that that yeah, this, this, this pussy pudi where the zone is going to increase the density for sure and. Trying to stay on the same subject that I have been. There's going to also be a lot of. Uh. Um. Water usage coming from there and what, 161 people, something like that that's going to be in this unit. They're going to be sucking up a lot of water. And it's going to be more than even the parts that we supposedly made a memo against because they were using water. So we got a little bit of a contradiction in that respect. But I also want to echo what Incontrol was saying regarding this. Many of these there's many zones in Long Beach that it intends to have an institutional zone. And this is going to just make it a little bit easier for the for the. The developers are going to look for these type of things and they're going to they're going to do their best to use this as a template for stamping this thing out. And that's really kind of more the fear that I have is that, you know, we have this land, the property that Encontro mentioned is near my house and it has been tried before it was fought off. Gosh, I don't know, maybe ten, 12 years ago. I mean, I've been in Long Beach in this area for 50 years at least, you know. And so this is kind of somebody left their pin up. Um, this is kind of on. We're having a lot of difficulty. How do you prevent? Is it possible for maybe a council person to say, look, this isn't even though we might be able to choose, can we leave this? This is going to designate this as a like a blue area or something just to let a developer know that it's been marked that way. I mean, I don't know. There might be a suggestion, but we also probably need a map. To locate the different areas that this other developers might choose. At least make that available for people to kind of vet so the council people can bring it out to their public to in fact that so. That's why I have to say good luck. I've still got a water issue, you know, but life goes on. Thanks. Thank you. Members, cast your vote. No. Councilwoman Mongo motion carries. Item 35 I'm sorry. 34 Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to speed limits. Read the first time and lay it over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District six and nine.