Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution approving and certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND13-19) for the 300 Studebaker Road Industrial Park Project, consisting of the demolition of existing structures and development of two concrete tilt-up industrial buildings, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local guidelines; making certain CEQA Findings and Determinations relative thereto; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with those measures set forth in ND13-19; and Deny the appeals by Ann Cantrell, Joe Weinstein and Corliss Lee (Citizens About Responsible Planning) (APL19-009) and Anna Christensen and Ann Cantrell (Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force) (APL19-010); and approve a Site Plan Review (SPR18-056), Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP18-034), Standards Variance (SV18-004), and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA18-002) for the demolition of existing structures and development of two concrete 
Nine. It's all but six. Thank you. Motion case. We're now moving on to our third hearing, our final hearing of the evening, which is under seven hearings, 17 on the Studebaker Road. Appeal Report from Development Services, recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving and certifying mitigated negative declaration for the 300 Studebaker Road Industrial Park Project, making certain sequel findings and determinations relative there to adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and deny the appeals and approve the site plan . Review for the demolition of existing structures and development of two concrete tilt up industrial buildings with surface parking, associated landscaping and offsite open space on a site located in the coastal zone at 300 Studebaker Road District three. Thank you. First have a report from staff on this. Linda Tatum, director of development services, will be presenting the report. We will have a brief staff presentation on this item from Marianne Cronin, the project planner. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and honorable members of the City Council before you this evening as a request to receive documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider appeals for a project. Locate at 300 Studebaker Road. The project is located at the intersection of Loynes Drive and Studebaker Road and encompasses approximately 6.69 acres of land on the east side of Studebaker Road and 1.81 acres of land on the northwest and south west corners of Studebaker, Road and Loynes Drive. The total project area is 8.5 acres. The project includes a proposal to construct two new concrete tilt up industrial buildings totaling 139,200 square feet of building area. With a 168 parking spaces. An additional 43 optional parking spaces are provided in the form of Grass Creek parking to allow a flexibility of uses which include light manufacturing, warehousing, assembly and distribution as long as with ancillary office uses. Both buildings are sited on the front of Studebaker Road with vehicular access and parking located between and at the rear of the two buildings. Vehicles will access the project site via a new 61 foot wide driveway that creates the fourth leg of the intersection, as well as the re-use of an existing driveway on the north side of the project site. In the seating area, there is a 30% onsite open space requirement. As part of this application of standards, various variances sought to provide offsite open space on the southwest and south southeast, the north west and southwest portions of the site that are called the western parcels that are shown in green on your slide. This land would be transferred from private ownership to a Joint Powers Authority, which is the Los Angeles Wetlands Authority or state or local government agency. And it would also be dedicated in perpetuity, as well as restored in accordance with the restoration plans for the wetlands area. Both buildings, as previously noted, are oriented to eliminate visibility of the loading docks from Studebaker Road. A bird safe window and glass treatments are also proposed and included as conditions of approval. As part of this application, a lot line adjustment would also be proposed. The lot line adjustment is shown on the screen, and it would move a vertical North-South oriented property line to the east side of Studebaker. Road to divide. Divide the two properties for subdivision purposes. This slide provides an overview of the previous project approval. On November seven, 2019, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project with conditions of approval. On November 14, 2019. Two applications for appeal were received. The project appeal summaries include that additional environmental review and coastal impacts are required to be analyzed and an ER must be prepared. Staff has prepared responses to the appeal issues raised by the appellants are included in this appeal. Notes that the mitigated negative declaration was prepared in accordance with secure and that all environmental review was done satisfactory with legal requirements. The staff's response to the appeal are included with noted responses to each issue raised. As a result, the Planning Commission approval nor the project will result in an effect on the environment and the project is consistent with all required findings. This slide shows a summary of the required findings that have been made, and all required findings can be made in the affirmative. For the first findings, a site plan review. The project is consistent with the step development standards where the required local coastal development permit. The project is consistent with the local coastal program as well as CDP for the industrial development to the east side of Studebaker Road and the dedication of open space on the West Side of Studebaker Road would meet the intent of the LCP to preserve, restore and dedicate open space areas in the sub area. And finally, the standards variance would also provide the offsite open space that is necessary to meet the intent of the local coastal program, to have open space, usable and accessed access by the public. And the required findings for the lot line adjustment can also be made in the affirmative. Staff analyze the project in accordance with the required findings for the site plan, review local coastal development, permit standards, variance and lot line and adjustment entitlements and finds that positive findings can be made for each approval. The approval. The appeal materials provided by the appellants with the materials considered by the Planning Commission were also approved by the project. Therefore, STAC staff recommends the adoption of the resolution approving and certifying the mitigated negative declaration, the denial of the appeals, the upholding of the Planning Commission's recommendation, and the approval of all the requested entitlements. This concludes staff's presentation. Both the applicants and the appellants are present in the audience and available for questions. Thank you very much. We're going to have the applicant and then the appellants come forward. Obviously, we allow a reasonable amount of time for any arguments unless there's any objection and they need more. I'm going to have the applicant go up to 5 minutes unless you need more and let me know. And then I'm going to give each of the appellants 5 minutes. We're okay with that. Any objection to that? There'll be a total of ten, then four, but each one gets five. And then the. I'm saying no. Is there a problem with that? Okay. I'm going to give I'm going to. Mr. City Attorney, I think a reasonable amount of time for each one. I'm going to go ahead and give up the 10 minutes and I'll go ahead and allow the the applicant up to 10 minutes. Of course, you don't have to use all 10 minutes, but it'll be up to 10 minutes. And we'll begin with the the applicant and we'll have the court put the time up and then we will begin. Thank you, everybody. I am going. To be brief. I really just want to answer. Any questions tonight. I think staff did a wonderful job of presenting the project. I'd like to maybe use some of my unused time to. Be able to answer questions. If that's okay and if there's questions from the council, I think they can they can ask that. So. Okay. If you'd like to. Anything else you'd like to say? Yeah, just that we. Really. Took a long time with this project to. Make a concerted level. Of outreach to the local community. We met with the Wetlands Authority. The Wetlands Trust received support letters from them. I think they're in the audience tonight to show support and met with the University Park Estates homeowner group several times and implemented a lot of suggestions. And so I'm I'm very pleased that that we went through that process. And, you know, that's really all I have to say. Sir, before you leave the mike, could you please identify yourself? Yes, sir. Sorry about that. I'm Mark. Payne with Panattoni. Development Company. Great. Thank you so much. And then we'll have McCann first citizens about responsible planning for a total of 10 minutes, however you'd like to present. And then the philosophy of the Wetlands Task Force for a total of 10 minutes where we would like to present. The clerk was set up the time. I'm sorry. You said the Low Surveillance Wetlands Task Force. That's what I have. I have to. Appellants. I have. I have. The task. Force. Okay. All right. Well, that's what the notes say, but you'll I'll let you introduce yourselves as well to the opponents. So why don't we begin with with carp the citizens about responsible planning at 10 minutes? Please begin. Good evening. And Cantrell. I'm speaking for citizens about responsible planning and the Sierra Club Most Serious Wetlands Task Force. So let me clarify something, because I have Mr. City attorney, I have on here two separate appellants. One is the citizens about responsible planning, and the second is the Sierra Club and Lo Cerritos Wetlands Group. So. We double checked the actual appeals. There is one internal appeal. Letter, number one, and it indicates citizens about responsible planning as the organization. With the appellants names and control Joe Weinstein. And Corliss. Lee. Correct. I have that one. And. Appeal. Number two. Indicates. Sierra Club lost this Wetlands Task Force. That's why I have. Issues with the appellant's name. And. Christiansen and. Cantrell. Is there any objection this control? I can combine it for a total of 20 minutes and you can divide that time up however you'd like among the five folks. So I explain that I am also on the Sierra Club Task Force. It's not the Wetlands Land Trust. Absolutely. So I'll give you a total of 20 minutes, up to 20 minutes for the two the two appellants. I hope we can get that. Okay. Thank you. Please go ahead and we'll put the time up. Thank you. The project site is listed as being located at 300 Studebaker Road in Long Beach. This address is not correct. If you Google 300 Studebaker Road in Long Beach, you will see a photo of a lot at the corner of Studebaker Road and PCH next to the pumpkin patch. The correct address for this project is 300 North Studebaker Road eight is at the property. North of this address is 690 North Studebaker Road. So the north is recognized as being necessary as part of the address. As all of the documents pertaining to this project, including the mitigated net negative declaration referred to the wrong address, CARB and Sierra Club Lost Readers Wetlands Task Force request a postponement of tonight's hearing until this is corrected. And could I have a ruling by the city attorney as to whether this is relevant? I think you need to continue with your presentation. All right. If it's decided to hold the hearing in spite of the incorrect address, the following comments are from appellants Carp and the Sierra Club, Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force as to why you should deny the Planning Commission's approval of this project. Attachment l in your packet contains the city's responses to our appeals, starting with number one. The 2006 Environmental Impact Report done for another project on this site was found inadequate by a court of law. This program negative declaration, which also includes standards variance, is even more inadequate. The city response is that the previous project is a different land use and project sites. Yes, we agree this is a different land use and size. All the more reason to do a full year. The previous project, our Home Depot, was retail. One of the main objections was the lights and noise of night delivery trucks. This project contains two warehouses light manufacturing facilities with 24 seven truck deliveries with the same or increased threat of lights and noise on the low cerritos wetlands just across Studebaker from the facility. In 2008, the court ruled the Home Depot Environmental Impact Report inadequate for a variety of issues, including biological impacts, wetlands, delineation, light noise, traffic and circulation and air quality. And this negative declaration is even more inadequate. One of the appellants in the 2007 lawsuit, ESL meters was concert bargaining. He was concerned about the possible requirement to build a 12 foot security wall between Home Depot and the power plant to reduce public safety and security impacts. This photo of the property from Loynes Drive shows the east plant immediately adjacent to the property. Also, it would seem the 24 hour truck traffic, which uses the same driveway as yes, might present a safety problem for a yes. Yet no security plans were included in this negative deck. Another issue not addressed by the negative deck is the disposable disposal of the tanks and the non-working oil pump currently on the property. The 2008 court order states, in part the city of Long Beach is ordered to fully comply with the requirement of California Environmental Quality Act by preparing a complete and comprehensive EIA for the project. Respondents and Real Property of Interest Studebaker, LLC, is restrained from any actions in furtherance of the project unless the air has been properly prepared , publicly circulated and approved in a manner required by law. I wonder how a judge would view this in adequate that negative declaration. This negative declaration uses both. See, sip and see dip in the zoning plan for the project. The current zoning plans see Dip and the local coastal plans state. The parcel on the southwest side of Studebaker is to be the site of an interpretive center and overlook for the wetlands. The other personnel on the northwest side of Studebaker is to be dedicated for park and play ground purposes. The negative, devastated uses for these parcels are not in conformance with see them and therefore cannot be approved. The city's response agreed that see that is the existing adopted plan and agrees that uses for the Southwest Parcel are an overlook and interpretive center. However, argues the interpretive center has been moved to an alternate location. This should not preclude sea depths. Planned use for the interprets d center at Moorings and Studebaker. Best practices would keep the Interim Lee Center out of the wetlands to reduce negative effects on the wildlife. Having this overlook and interpretive center on the edge of the wetlands should provide the public a view of the habitat without doing damage to habitat. The city's argument that the other parcel is not sized or suitable for a playground may be valid. But until the California Coastal Commission approves sea CIP, the city must abide by sea dip and the local coastal act. Reason three is the standards variance. The Planning Commission approved a portion of the required 30% on site open space to offsite vacant parcels located on the northwest and southwest corner of the intersection of Studebaker and Loynes. That's the green portion on the map. The land is to be transferred to other owners. The developer cannot use it as open space for his development if he no longer owns it. The city's response states. See, that requires 30% of the site to be developed in as open space. The project would provide a portion across the street, and this transference of privately owned land to the Joint Powers Authority would fulfill the remaining portion of the open, onsite open space requirement, while also furthering the goals and policies of sea DEP and the local coastal permit permit. We agree that c dip and LCP require the portions on the West Side to be preserved and restored as open space. We argue that this open space cannot be included in the required 30% open space on the development side of the east side of Studebaker. The city says that sea dip does not require open space to have public access and that transferring these parcels to the sea will preserve this land for public access. This sounds good, but currently there is no way to access this property. Both Loynes drive, as you see here, and Studebaker Road have no parking signs, no sidewalks, and the closest place to park is in College Park neighborhood. These parcels may be transferred to the public, but the public will only be allowed to pay for the cleanup and restoration with no access. Appeal. Number four, the applicants assert this is what we assert, that the current owners of the parcels should be required to clean up hazardous waste before the transfer of the property. The response by the city was prior to the transfer of the property to the CWA. The project applicant shall coordinate with all CWA regarding further hazardous materials investigations. This is just a note that we're at 10 minutes to the courtesy. Thank you. I still have many to go. Just let me know that there's only a total of 10 minutes for both the appellants combined. So there's there's 10 minutes left, and. I think I'm allowed to present all of our. Actually, I. Think that's. Actually Ms.. Cantrell, according to the city attorney. It's a it's a reasonable amount of time, which we discussed earlier and agreed to be 10 minutes. And so that's for both combined of the appellants with a total of 20. So we're done. Now. You've you've used some of my time. Thank you. And I'll be happy to give it back to you. I'm waiting right at the end if you go over. Our objections to this is the property owners should be responsible for the cleanup, not the taxpayers. Whether this property goes to al-Qaeda or some other government entity, the clean up of any hazardous waste will have to be paid for with tax dollars. Since both C, DEP and C CIB zone, these private parcels as public open space, the property owner is unable to use the property for anything else and is foisting the cleanup costs off on the taxpayers. In response to our comment that bird safe glazing should be applied to all glass components of the building. The city states that CDP doesn't include a requirement for bird safe building treatments. This is because in the 1980s there was little knowledge of the number of birds killed by glass or buildings. So I'm going to just stop us right through such a the quick Ms.. Control. So you had 10 minutes? I said a total of 24. Both. So unless the other other folks in the group want to continue to give you more into their time, there is a total of eight, 8 minutes and 45 seconds left for total for the appellants. And so unless I hear from the other members of the group, including, I think Mr. Lee and Ms.. Christiansen, I don't know how they would like to proceed, but I want to make sure that the other appellants got the chance to say something. I am responding to the response control. I'm just following the rules laid out by the city attorney. So that's what I'm trying to do. I. So, Ms.. Control, give me 1/2. So, Ms.. Christiansen and Ms.. Lee, would you guys like to like to give. Can I. Yes, please. Come forward. Off the clock. Now you're on the clock. Please come forward. No, I don't want to be on the clock. You asked if it was okay. I'm not on the clock. What I'm saying is that when we pay $125 each for an appeal we are given, we are allowed the time to fully present our arguments. It's not a time thing. Actually, ma'am, I'm just I'm my job is to follow the rules set forward by the city attorney. So which is what I'm doing? All right. Thank you, Ms.. Christiansen. Thank you. Actually, Nancy, Miss Cantrell, Miss Cantrell, you actually can't do that. But this is a hearing, as you know, CMA Judicial. So please address me. And I will I will ask the question. I will ask. You. Actually, no, Ms.. Control, 1/2. And I want to make sure you. Are not allowing me to speak. Miss Cantrell, let me finish. So what I would like to do at this time, as we said at the start of the hearing, is a total of 20 minutes for the appellants. I just want to make sure that you know, that you have eight and a half minutes left. I'm going to allow you to continue and then I'm going to confer with the city attorney. But please continue. In addressing the bird safe glass. It's only going to be on 65% of the buildings. We think that's inadequate. All of the glass should be bird safe. LSD and truck headlights will affect the animals and plants in the loss saarinen's wetlands across Studebaker from the 24 seven facility. The response to this concern states no new information was raised and that there is existing lighting on and around the project site. So this control image goes for suppertime real quick. Then confer with the city attorney. As the rules are laid out by by the hearing, the total amount of time that you have for both appellants is 20 minutes. We are now down to seven. What's the time left? You have 8 minutes left. So unless I'm going to allow Mr. Christiansen to come forward now at this time, unless she wants to give up her time, there's only 7 minutes total left for the appellants. And this is being reiterated by our attorney per the rules. I'm just following the rules set out by the hearing. We were not able to give all of our I'm sorry use in that control. So and Richardson. Would would record. Well we can't go to the Coastal Commission unless we have given all of our issues. Thank you. And I. I'm here, but I have. All. This control. Mr. Christiansen, please come forward now. Okay. You give your time. I'll keep talking. And I would like to point to the record. That's actually that you can't you can't speak from there. So the time just as clear the time will be up when it hits the end of the time. So. Ms.. Control continue. Mr.. Mr.. MAYES Do you want. To add anything? I was just going to say. Miss Cantrell, if you have written material that you want to submit to the clerk at the. Conclusion of your presentation, you certainly can do that. And that would become part of the record as well. So please continue. And just as as as as a note, time will be up when she's when when the time is up. Go ahead. We quote the court's ruling on the Home Depot E.R. for the same location, night lighting and noise impacts. The nearby most serious wetlands were not analyzed. The city concluded the project would not have an effect on the wetlands from traffic, light and noises. The EIA simply states that without support, without support, these sources already exist and are not expected to increase substantially. No baseline study of lighting was done and noise measurements were taken during one late morning period. If this didn't pass and are the same. Excuse given for the negative deck is not going to pass the court's approval. We are also concerned about truck traffic on Lawrence Drive Condition 36 says the operator shall require driver education to require bound trucks to utilize designated truck routes and avoid the use of Loynes drive. There are no signs currently on Lawrence Drive going west from Studebaker and one sign going east saying no trucks over three tons. This special condition does not seat the size of trucks to be prohibited. We are also concerned about the runoff. And. The wildlife, and I'm going to stop now and not talk about these other things and let the Sierra Club address different items. Thank you. In representing Sierra Club's lo Cerritos Wetlands Task Force. Tonight, I speak for the oldest and largest grassroots organization in the United States, founded in 1892. In California today, the club in our state has almost half a million members. Nationally, over 1 million members. Grassroots means that task forces such as ours are led by volunteers who have the full backing of our Regional Angeles chapter and the national organization as well. I gave you this addendum to the appeal, and so I doubt that you'll be able to study it. I certainly do not have time. Thanks to our mayor's arbitrary decision. Thanks to the rules laid out by the city. Yes. Sorry. I'm taking my time now because that caused me to respond to you and I. And so I hope that you will peruse this. You know, I'd also like to say, although I have very little time, that we don't come here for these arguments, but we are constantly thrown off balance in engaging in these petty seconds and minutes. A million people stand before you through me, and they would appreciate having a few minutes of your time. Just just a note, sir, with all due respect, you know, to the law that you claim to be representing. So basically, when you when you look over this, we truly believe that there are state laws and processes that are that are out of order here. And and we hope that you care enough about sequel law and the Coastal Act to know these problems that adequate surveys, whether they're surveys of birds and wetlands, have not been done . And because of that, the analysis is flawed, that one of the things that really jumped out at me is and the irony too of it is that the that the part and parcel that is going to have the giant buildings on it is declared completely. Dead and dead in the water and can't possibly be restored, whereas the parcels that right across the street are going to be restored. And we're going to pay in case they have toxic residue on them, by the way. Now, just last year, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and the city and associated agencies such as the. Coastal Conservancy and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy made the decision and the Coastal Commission as well made the decision that 100 year old polluted, heavily polluted oilfield just down the street could be transformed into a healthy wetlands and would cause no problems when it when the then when it was mixed in when the worm came down and it became our precious last surviving ancient marsh. So if you if you truly believed when you voted for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration and Oil Consolidation Project. All but Mary here missing is that that it is possible to restore a heavily polluted hundred year old oil field. Then have a little faith that a meadow which is currently supporting wildlife, which actually is a corridor, can be can be saved as well. And do not dismiss out of hand the idea that that this is just written off. And that's not the law. The law says that you have to consider the potential of a site to be a natural space. That's absolutely not done here. I think that's a really, really important point to note when we envision the future. What we do, we follow any old developer's vision or do we have a holistic vision as a community for our wetlands and wildlife? You know, we know we we know that projects are made and done by the communities where the community here, the ones that are here now. Want those wetlands restored. This project site could be part of that could be associated with it. A warehouse with 24 hour trucks is not is not going to cut it. In fact, it's going to hurt. It is going to hurt our existing wetlands as well. So I think that's a very important point. I honestly, you know, meant to just stand up. And the other point I would like to make is regarding the law and tribal cultural resources. Once again, our city claims that they have done their due diligence regarding tribal consultation. Unfortunately, they have not. There's two points to make. One. All members on the tribal consultation list of the Native American Heritage Commission were not contacted by the city. So that's a flaw in the report. The other fliers that the project proponent states that it contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and can confirm that this is not on their list of sacred sites. Absolutely false. The this this project is on the list of the Native American heritage. It's within the territory of a massive sacred site of Pere Burgman. So that's a. So you've got incorrect, insufficient, you know, information in this document. If you approve it, then you approve, you know, something that is not true. And therefore, you know, it does not, you know, do service to your to your responsibilities. I would say in it. And the last thing is that in so doing, if you approve this document tonight, you will abuse your discretion. Let me read what that means. I won't let you go. I'm not going to let you go. Another about 20 seconds, because I didn't see something up here. Okay. Missing and abuse of discretion. Missing and inaccurate information. Leads to false conclusions invalidating this project's proposal 21168.5 of secure quote abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law, or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. An agency fails to proceed, quote, in a manner required by law when it fails to comply with the information and procedural requirements of sequence, a present prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs. If the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and inform public parties, thank you very much, thereby just finishing the sentence, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the ER process. Why do we. Thank you very much. That concludes the appellant's thank. Appreciate that. Now we're going to move on to additional public comment for the hearing. If I read your name, please come forward to the mic right now at this time. Tommy Privé House, Van Light and House of Bud Light. I'm sorry if I mispronounce it. I believe it's a Sally G. John Freese and Dave Sekula. Those folks. And please come forward. Mayor Garcia and fellow councilmen councilmembers. My name is Tom Evolv. I represent IBEW Electrical Workers Local 11 and we're here in support of the of the project that independent Tony Development is proposing tonight. And we urge the council to deny the appeal so we can move this good project forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, council members. My name is Sally G and I'm here to represent the lawsuit as Wetlands Authority on behalf of our executive officer, Mark Sandy, who couldn't be here tonight. The loss of Rita's Wetlands Authority are CWA and supportive of the Studebaker Industrial Park Project. We're in partnership with partner Tony, in which we're supportive of the transfer of open space, where there's an opportunity that there's a chance of open space to restore new wetlands in the lawsuit as wetlands into perpetuity for the public benefit. The CWA was established in 2006 with the mission to protect the lawsuit as wetlands and to create new opportunities for public recreation. As part of our mission, we have worked with private landowners in the area to acquire properties for restoration, and today we have acquired around 170 acres of the 500 acre lost wetlands complex. And additionally, we will be working with Tony to ensure that the restoration of the Western parcels will be consistent with our restoration plans in the area. Our CWA is currently developing a programmatic air for restoration and public access of the entire 500 Los Alamitos Wetlands complex, with various project phases to be achieved over time. And we expect to release our draft air in the coming months for public review. The Cedar Baker Industrial Park Project will support these goals to restore our wetlands and to replace them into public lands so that they may be preserved into perpetuity. Our CWA is confident that our partnership with Panattoni will aid in the development of a great project and we thank you for your support. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Is it is husband like to hear. Horns on finance? No, that's my writing, not your reading. I trust me. Hands, man. Light. I'm actually with the law firm of Routan and Tucker and I'm the attorney for Pennington Development. And you'll find it in your packet somewhere. A letter of the date of January 3rd, responding to the comments of the applicants point by point, which is really the , to a great degree, restates the analysis that staff provided previously to you looking at it. But we wanted to emphasize the fact that the issues that were raised had been previously addressed. A couple of things that were said tonight. I just want to make sure we're clear on number one. The fact that there was another project at another time with another analysis is is legally and factually irrelevant to this proceeding. The issue before you is the adequacy of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration that is before you, which so far no factual or legal error has been pointed out. And that's the conclusion of your staff. And quite frankly, it's our conclusion as well. In addition, there have been comments about some other topics, a number of which you're not really seeking issues, their comments about the desirability of the project. And and quite frankly, you know, that is a question which is entrusted to the judgment of the council based upon all the information that's been provided to you. We fully support the Planning Commission's decision, obviously, and we support the staff's recommendation. And with Mr. Payne here, we are here to answer any additional questions. But we see no evidence in this record of any environmental impact which was not analyzed and demonstrated to be less than significant. Thank you. At Chantry Space. Good evening, council members. My name is John Freeze. I'm the president of the Low John's Wetlands Land Trust. The purpose of the Land Trust is to support the protection and improvement of the low Sabrina's wetlands, to move as much of the property of the wetlands into public ownership as possible. We have worked at this job for many years and a substantial portion of the wetlands is now in public ownership of one type or another. This project is a small industrial park, much different from the previous Home Depot proposal that we fought against and sued over. And the. In a more perfect world than this one, we might like to see something else done with this property. But the Land Trust recognizes public, private, private property rights. And the owner of the property has a right to. His property and to develop the property. The development he has proposed is consistent with the zoning of the property and he has the developer has further agree to implement a number of protections for the wetlands bird safe lighting, sheltering trees to protect the wetlands as much as possible from truck lights. A native plant palette on the green area and directing traffic north on Studebaker to avoid as much impact as possible on the wetlands. We believe the developer has done a good deal to meet his obligations and to protect the wetlands and the Lowes. Rita's Wetlands Land Trust supports the project and urges you to vote to allow the project and for the recommendation. I thank you. Thank you. Finally discover. They've Shukla Shukla, a very old Brahmin. They get her out pretty quick. My parents bedroom window is across the street from where this this project will be located. It's all but a foregone conclusion at this point. I respectfully request that you work with the developer and specifically my councilwoman, Suzy Pryce, if she's still listening. Stipulate that to the degree that the tenants can be screened and the tenants can be kept from running their trucks between 10 p.m. and 6 p.m.. There's a lot of old elderly people who live adjacent to Studebaker, and I don't think a single one of them knows that it's a potential outcome of tonight's hearing that there could be 18 wheelers running up and down that road at all hours of the night. Beyond that, I'd just like to say, for the sake of posterity, that once we have a climate plan, once we take seriously the amount of carbon load and pollution load that we as a city are adding and shifting off onto our citizens, a project like this will be a thing of the past. That day is coming. This is one of the last dinosaur type projects. And, you know, there's there's nothing to entice the city more than than the prospect of land, especially land for a project like the wetlands. Nonetheless, if for any reason there's an earthquake, there's a spill from a truck, there's, God forbid, the wrong thing stored in one of these warehouses. Every single one of the environmental benefits. Every single one of the perceived benefits of this project will be negated and we won't be able to say we didn't know. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. We're going to go to Councilmember Price. So, Councilman, the motion there is a motion that's been made by Councilwoman Price, and I want to go and turn to her. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Mr. Shukla. Yes, I am still listening. So thank you for your comment. I want to thank the speakers who spoke on behalf of this item tonight. Of course, as well as the staff and the Planning Commission for their work on this project and getting us to this point. I want to start first with the comments of the appellant. I want to thank them for speaking and voicing their concerns on this this afternoon. This evening, as always, I find Ms.. Cantrell and Ms.. Christian comments to be enlightening. Having said that, I would like to turn it over to staff and our city attorney to ask, were there any points that were raised by the appellants this evening that caused our city staff, our city attorney, to have the difference of opinion with the recommendation that was brought before the comments made by the appellant? Council member from the staff table, Christopher Coons. We heard this evening many points that have been made previously in writing and orally by the appellants, and no new information that would change staff's determination or our recommendation. And we'd be glad to answer any specific questions you or other members of the council may have. But we did not hear anything today that would change the factual basis for this project. Okay. And I'm assuming that remains the same for our city attorney, Mr. Mays, is that correct? That's correct, Councilmember. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do want to make sure that that I feel that we're on solid legal ground, of course, before moving forward on this. So having heard from the city attorney and staff, I want to weigh in a little bit on on some of the comments and specifically on this project. You know, I think it's really important to note that there's been a lot of speculation about what this project is going to be. In fact, Mr. Fuqua and his comments tonight referred to, quote, this type of projects. And the reality is that this project, we don't know who the tenants are. So we don't exactly know what, quote, type of project this is going to be a similar facility that this developer has. And within the region, for example, is a facility where they sought uniforms. So we're not exactly sure what type of project it's going to be other than it's zoned for light industrial use and that the developer has the right to develop it as such. And so we are mindful that certainly there are many projects in private properties throughout the city that we would love to see be turned into a park, be turned into additional wetlands, be turned into a lake. But the reality is, when we're dealing with a private property, we have to work with the developers to make sure that their rights are not infringed upon at the will of the city. And so I want to thank the developer and this particular project, because they engaged with the city early. We talked with them, gosh, probably more than a year ago that I first met the developer and we talked about bird safe glass that that be something that the included incorporated into this project that traffic mitigation be something that's included in this project. And so I am going to be supporting this project with the inclusion of two additional conditions based on the type of building and the type of business that would be operated here. I think it's the right type of development that takes into account the community and the sensitivity of the surrounding properties. On this development, as I've already mentioned, will be considered a light industrial use. We expect that most all operations I believe all operations will occur indoors. For some reason, there's a lot of speculation and untrue rumors out there about this being some sort of a truck parking or truck facility. That is absolutely not true. There will be deliveries to the site, I'm sure, as with any other office complex or industrial complex. But truck operation is primarily a daytime activity. Trucks would not be allowed access on long drive. I understand that we're going to be reconfiguring the Studebaker and Moines intersection. So a southbound left turn lane on Studebaker Road will be added to allow direct access to the site, along with a signal modification which we need. The inside eastbound right turn lane on both ends would also be converted to an eastbound thru lane for vehicles entering the project site from Moines. Additionally, the development will provide further community benefits, including and as chair of the Restoration of Wetlands Authority. In the passing of the current vice chair, almost two acres is actually 1.8. One acres of land will be donated to the restoration of wetlands authority for preservation and restoration of wetlands purposes. I understand the points that were made about access and parking, but the reality is we're taking private property and putting it into public hands in perpetuity in connection with and in support of our wetlands restoration project. So I want to thank Councilman Randa who sits on CWA with me because that is one of the primary goals for our CWA is to take private property and put it in the public hands so that it cannot be built upon in the future. And to me, that is the major public benefit that's coming from this, the developmental function of the visual screen to the large ADF industrial plants that will be situated immediately behind it. It will be more attractive and less industrial looking in terms of the building sites and the view that claim by drivers and residents, it will block the stacks and the storage tanks that are currently visible from wind and Studebaker. This developer has thus far been a great partner and engaged in the community early to seek input and ensure that they're building a positive relationship in the city. With that, the additional conditions that I would like to ask and I ask my colleagues to support are as follows. Condition number one Within six months of full occupancy and operation of the facility, the operator shall return to the Planning Commission for a general overview of the project, including, but not limited to occupancy information, collaborative efforts with the city and CWA on the property surrounding the facility and a review of code violations of any FAA facility. In the event of any violation, staff shall compile factual information to present to the Planning Commission regarding the violations, including, but not limited to police and fire calls for service and consult with CWA and the low street US wetlands land trust regarding biological issues caused by noncompliance with sea, sap or sea that adjacent to the site. The Planning Commission may direct staff to pursue code enforcement proceedings pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 1.32.040 to address any code violation activity arising from operations at this facility. Again, it's unlikely that such violations will occur. I am hopeful that they will not, but that conditions should be in place in the event that they do. Condition number two it is envision that operators of this facility will follow performance standards for daytime and nighttime operation consistent with the Long Beach Municipal Code and in due consideration to the surrounding community and wildlife. Any violations of the standards shall be handled pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 1.32.00 to address any code violation activity arising from operations at the facility. Additionally, information regarding nighttime operations shall be included in the six months report back to Planning Commission. So with that, I ask my colleagues support for this project, and I thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. Thank you. And there is a motion and a second to receive the supporting documentation and to deny the appeal. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I want to thank everybody that came out and spoke today. This development is not in my district and I have not had any significant meetings in regards to this topic. But I did just want to ask a couple of questions and I want to thank Councilmember Price for your addition to this. I think having it come back in six months is a is a great opportunity for community members. Could staff just recap for us? I know that Councilmember Price asked the question about any red flags that made you change your mind. But if you could just recap quickly for us how the trucks will be mitigated knowing that it's light industrial, there will be trucks in and out, even though it might primarily be during the day. I believe there might have been some changes to the original plan. If you can share that with us, I'd appreciate it. Sure. So this project does include we did a traffic study that assumes a certain number of truck trips. So there was a reference to very large trucks. There may be some number of large trucks, but with a facility of this type, what you're more likely to see is a 20 foot truck or more what you see in your neighborhood with sort of a UPS, FedEx kind of oversize fan. You'd have a big truck come in and then you have smaller vehicles kind of going out throughout the day. But we did a traffic study and in determining whether there is an impact, there's a numerical standard, you know, is there more than 50 peak hour and does an intersection fail to perform? So none of those triggers were hit in this case. But nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, it's the lines restriction that's placed on trucks because that is more of a neighborhood street and less appropriate for truck traffic. So the operator, the future tenant, will use whatever technology they choose to avail themselves of. But there was some reference in the testimony about there aren't sufficient signs or there aren't sufficient controls. I think all of us on the staff table know from our own pool vehicle system here, when you're an employer and you have an employee driving those vehicles, the employer knows everywhere that vehicle goes how fast it goes when it was there. If people are braking appropriately or if they're driving too fast, there's enormous amounts of information and then corrective action can be taken so that there is a condition about not having trucks on lines and doing that through driver education. And that's what that was referring to. And then Councilmember Price introduced the condition to provide further clarification that this is primarily a day time facility. Again, we don't know the tenant, but what we see in other locations is not really nighttime operations. But you may have some employees come in very early in the morning and you and I may think of that as nighttime, but they think of that as the beginning of their day at four or 5 a.m.. But the bulk of the operations are during your sort of mart typical 9 to 5. Does that answer your question? It does. It does. And I think I had heard that the developer was was open to some of those conversations and making sure the signage and education was a part of it. And so I want to make sure that that was clear for those members of the audience that might not be as fully tuned in. And then the two other questions. I know that any time we have developments around the Las Vegas wetlands area, you know, there's a divide between what we would like over there. I've had the pleasure of taking an extensive, like, half day tour, and I just think it's wonderful that we are still preserving part of that and opening it up and creating access and knowing that we're still protecting our wildlife as much as we can, given that this is a private development. My last question comes to the cleanup, and just if you could clarify for us a comment around what type of cleanup they might have been referencing and who's responsible for that. So the agreement between CWA and the current property owner requires that the property be handed over in a condition that's acceptable to CWA that would facilitate public access and habitat value. So there is past industrial use on both parcels, the donation parcel and the parcel where the light industrial building is going. The bulk of the known contamination is actually on the parcel where the development is to occur. Because sometimes you don't know until you get in the soil, it is possible that there is contamination on the wetland parcel as no buildings will be constructed there. What will occur is a limited amount of testing to determine and then not the city but the wildlife authorities. So that would be I'll CWA in consultation with State and Federal Fish and Wildlife will have to make a determination of whether it's acceptable to clean it up or sometimes it's a better course of action if it's a light amount of contamination to leave it, because removing the soil means disturbing the plant life above the soil. So that process will occur prior to the conveyance from the current property owner to all CWA. And they'll have to meet the standards not only of the city but of the wildlife agencies that have purview over that topic. Thank you very much. So a customer appears for a good OC Councilor Murang'a. Thank you. And I want to thank the individuals who did step up to express their concerns over this project, as it was mentioned by Councilwoman Pierce Price. I sit with her on on the LCD way, and we did listen to all the arguments at that point in terms of what was going on with that property. Anytime you have a property owner, be able to convey parts of their property to public lands. I mean, I think is exceptional and rare. So I want to also thank the developer for offering those two parcels of land to become public, to become open, to become part of what already exists there, which is the wetlands that the lesser those wetlands of. Opportunities there if they could find another way of saying it. But anyway, so that was a unanimous decision that the authority took, and I would respectfully request that my colleagues here also voted unanimously to accept it. You think there's emotion and a second to receive the documentation and deny the appeal by Councilman Price. So I'm going to go to a roll call vote on this. District one. Hi. Mr. two District 3i4, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Motion carries and the appeal is denied. Thank you very much for that. That concludes all three hearings. We are now going to move. I said we would get as close to 630 as possible on item 22.