Recommendation to declare ordinance approving a First Amendment to the Riverwalk Development Agreement in substantially the same form as attached; and authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the first amendment with Riverwalk 131 Group, LLC, read and adopted as read.  (District 8)
Motion carries. Thank you. Hearing number two, please. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and find that the First Amendment to the development agreement is within the scope of the project. Analyzed under the River Walk Residential Development Project Air. Declare Ordinance approving a First Amendment to the development agreement between the City of Long Beach and River Walk 131 group LLC authorizing city manager to execute it in the same form as attached. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting for Final Reading District eight. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this hearing? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. We have to go to we have to go to staff comment first. Staff. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We have a short presentation by Linda Tatum, our planning bureau manager. Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Richardson, members of the council. I'd like to present to you a brief overview of this request for an amendment to an existing development agreement for the River Dale Development Project. I like to just summarize this. The site location here at the very north of your screen, the the vertical I'm sorry, the horizontal street there is the Alamo Boulevard. To the west is the Los Angeles River. That's the westerly boundary of the project. To the easterly boundary, it's Long Beach Boulevard. Into the south is the Union Pacific Drive. The site there that you see outlined is the Riverdale, the location of the Riverdale Project. And the Oregon Park Project is the site of the formerly named Oregon Park, but it's now been renamed to Molina Park. And those are the two projects that are the subject of this development agreement, which I'll be going into briefly. So just a really brief overview of the Riverdale Development Project. It's a new 131 unit, subdivision project, detached single family homes, and they sit on a 10.5 acre site. It is, as many of you know, it is the former will J. Read Boy Scout camp in the The Riverdale Project. The subdivision was approved by Planning Commission and by the City Council back in 2015, and it was approved in conjunction with the development agreement. And as you may recall, the development agreement is an agreement between a city and a property owner that establishes certain rights and privileges and benefits to the city. The Riverdale Project is now currently under construction. And just as a background information, it's an exciting project for the city because it's the first detached single family subdivision with a fee, simple ownership lots in more than 20 years. So it's a really great achievement for the city to have this kind of development. The next slide is just an overview of the project site. For orientation purposes at the north or the top of the screen, there is the the northerly part of the project that abuts the adjacent neighborhood and to the west there, if you look to the left of your screen, that's the location of of the Los Angeles River. And you can see there the the vertical area going down into the project is the main entry the project has. It's a gated community with private streets and they have on site park area within the project of these 131 units. Okay. So here's a just a an image of the three different product types within the project. So I'll go directly into the development agreement and the request. Essentially, the development agreement that was approved by the city provides an obligation for the developer to construct the Molina Park, formerly Oregon Park, and the construction in addition of of onsite improvements throughout the and on the site itself, but also several of the streets surrounding the park. We know that the approximate cost of the improvements to the Molina Park are approximately $3.4 million, and that is in addition to the costs for the upgraded streets that are in the surrounding area. And there are other infrastructure improvements and I won't go into those in detail. But essentially the terms of the development agreement called for a partnership between the city and the developer for those infrastructure improvements, the construction of the park in exchange for the development approvals on the project and one of the other requirements for annual review of the developers compliance with the terms of the development agreement. And I would just note that they have received a 2016 and 2017 approval of their annual compliance through the Planning Commission. So the subject of the request for tonight's consideration is that essentially the most significant term of this development agreement is the construction of the Molina Park and the associated improvements, the offsite improvements. I would just note that in discussions with the Parks Department staff, they have noted that the the process for the improvement of the park have been moving along generally according to schedule, and they're on track for completion for mid-May. So sometime next month the developer anticipates being completed with the project. Following completion of the project, there would be a 90 day period during which the city makes a determination as to whether or not all of the improvements on the site are acceptable to the city, in which case the the park would then be turned over to the city for long term maintenance programing and operation. So one of the preliminary or one of the provisions of the development agreement, which is intended to provide flexibility for the developer to move forward with the project, yet for the city to get some certainty that the improvements that are called out for improvement in the park are actually conducted. So the way that that was addressed in the development agreement initially was for to require that the developer, prior to issuance of the 33rd certificate of occupancy for the homes that the city have accepted the Molina Park improvements by the city and to accept those improvements prior to the issuance of the 67th certificate of occupancy for the homes that they constructed. The other provision was that, or I should note that to date 48 building permits have been issued for 48 of the homes. 36 permits are pending for the homes, and a total of 20 certificates of occupancy for the homes have been issued. So essentially 84 of the of the total 131 units or somewhere in the building permit process. So specifically, the request of the developer in the way of amending the current development agreement is to change the requirement so that rather than completing the part prior to the issuance of the the 33rd certificate of occupancy, they be allowed to complete the park prior to the issuance of the 49th certificate of occupancy the second. So the cities in negotiating those provisions or that request with the the developer, the city has proposes that they would actually halt building inspections at the rough framing stage. That is prior to the completion of the framing of the project after the 48th certificate of occupancy until the park is complete. Essentially, it assures that the city has complete control of the project and that we can assure that the improvements that are outlined in the development agreement are completed prior to the developer being able to get any building permit. So that's really essentially the city's it's essentially a carrot and a stick. That's the city stick to make sure that those improvements are completed. The other provision is that park acceptance will be required after the issuance of the 117th building permit instead of prior to the 67 permit, as was initially proposed in the development agreement. The other component of this project, aside from those two components which change when the park has to be improved and when they could be issued, their final certificates of occupancy is a strip of land that's immediately to the west of the project site that's currently owned by the County of Los Angeles Flood Control District. And I'd like to show you a brief sketch that shows you this property. This piece of property is immediately adjacent to the river. It is actually owned by the L.A. County Flood Control District. And initially when the development agreement was being crafted, because that that strip of land was immediately adjacent to the park property and it was already landscaped and fairly well maintained, there was some perception that maybe we could just incorporate that as a part of the park. However, the developer just advised the city that since it is owned by the Los Angeles County, it's not really practical for the city to own it and incorporate it as a part of the project or as a part of the park. So the request as a part of the other request for the amendment is to to detach and to remove the requirement for the the park to include this strip of land that the city doesn't own, nor does the city maintain it. Currently, this property, because it is owned by the county, is actually maintained by the Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Department. And further, the city's Park Department weighed in and indicated that there is no reason or it would just be additional cost for the city's Parks Department to maintain this strip. So they are in full agreement with eliminating or removing this strip from the from the description of the park or the requirement in the development agreement to maintain this as a part of the city's park. So that's essentially the background of this request for the those two amendments to the part inclusive of the strip being removed. Staff supports the requested amendment because these amendments allow continued accountability of the developer and compliance with all of the terms of the development agreements obligations. The developer has to date operated in good faith in terms of over the first two years of the project. They've maintained the improvements that they're currently underway in the park. Generally on schedule, the requested changes, we think at the staff level they provide the developer some flexibility, but they also give the city absolute accountability in terms of assuring that the park improvements will be completed before the developer can take occupancy of a higher number of the units than what was originally proposed in the development agreement. So we feel comfortable that the staff supports this request by the developer. And we would just note that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item back in March, March 20th of 2018, and they recommended that the City Council support and adopt an ordinance amending the development agreement. This is a public hearing. So public notice was required and the notice has been mailed out to property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the park site. And we've also published notifications in the local newspaper. That concludes the staff presentation. I'd like to just acknowledge that the developer here is here tonight to respond to any questions you might have. In addition to staff responding to any questions. And I'd also like to acknowledge Scott Kinsey, who is the project planner on this project, and he is also available. Should you have any questions on this request? That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, Ms.. Tatum, for that presentation. At this point, we're going to go to public comment. So with anyone who would like to speak on this item, please line up now. And. Okay. I see. One, two, three, four, five people in line. Ma'am, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Felice Bachrach, and I live on Oregon Avenue directly across from the proposed Malina Park. I do want to say, since the developers are here so far, they've done. It's really astounding. It's beautiful. However, I would urge you to vote against the proposed amendment that to the development agreement delaying the completion of the park until they sell more units. And the reason I. Feel this is, you know, this is this has been a really kind of difficult time for this neighborhood. The parking situation. Has been. Impacted. It's a it's a dust bowl, aside from the recent winds that the lot is, you know, just unpaved. It's it's a dirt park. They they removed five mature trees. So we're getting. A lot of dust. We're getting a lot of traffic from the construction. And also since the the park is they finished the the playground and they finished the the restrooms, but there's no fencing to speak of around the park. Other than temporary fencing. If they were to stop. Working on it now. I shudder to think what would become of that park. And so I just feel that, you know, the the the neighborhood's kind of gone through a a difficult process with all of this construction. And the sooner that. We can complete at least the park, I think the neighborhood would feel a lot better about putting up with the rest of the inconvenience. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. My question is, is that I think. Let's start with your name for the record. Thank you. This way, Marsha. I'm sorry. My question is, is there building a gated community? But they're saying you're going to have access to the park or whatever and it's along the riverbed. What they're not saying is that is homeless people that live in these different areas closer to the riverbed that are being pushed out, being threatened , being harassed, stabbed, being thrown away, you know, and it's like, yeah, regardless of the person is human, is that living inside of the house or outside of the home? You still post the respect the person, treat them with humane, you know, humanity and respect. And it's not being done. A lot of these developers come in and they start building or whatever the case would be. You have officers dispatched like, okay, well these people are a nuisance, are just in our way, so we need to move them by any means necessary. But you guys are telling the developers, okay, we'll give us $3 million, give us the park, and we allow you to do certain things or whatever the case would be. Every time I come here, every meeting I have, I hear about how you guys turn around and say how you want to help the community, the city, the residents or whatever. But you guys continue to have the residents and the community and the developers and the retailers at each other's throats. All the money that these guys put in, you have them attacking each other is never one group that is agreeing with the other. A got to be some kind of mutual agreement for something to get along. But as you guys know that, hey, this is going to mess with these people, oh, we're going to accept it. But they are we're going to turn it over to these people, whatever. I mean, that's just biting at each other. And you guys supposed to be here to, like, eliminate that, but it seems like got more and more fuel to the fire as you go along. Then other people that are, you know, resonates. They're like, well, when did this come into play or when was this at the hearing or why you guys didn't answer this or why you guys didn't answer that? And you are so quick to pass a bill or say, Yeah, let's agree to this, they got to retract it or bring it back or whatever. When you guys already don't take these people money, $3 million or whatever. So if people weren't agreeing, it is you're building gated communities. Why is homeless people where you are getting millions for. I don't see no homeless building is going out. There's 21 stories in the air or seven stories or whatever the case would be which opposed the got all this money to help with homelessness. Okay. And nothing is being done. Guys, have a good night. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name's Abby. I'm a resident of the Dominguez Gap neighborhood, where the Riverdale Riverdale Riverwalk are going to be interchangeable, is being developed. And I'm here to ask you to reject the amendment to the development agreement submitted by Riverdale and Brandywine. When this development was first proposed, there was quite a bit of neighborhood resistance. One of the selling points made by Brandywine at several town hall meetings was their plan to build a park and soccer pitch on the corner of Oregon and Alamo, which would benefit the entire community. Riverdale is now requesting that the city increase the number of certificates of occupancy to 49 homes prior to the park's completion rather than the contractually agreed upon 33, which is an additional 16 homes. And then also to quote, they want to halt the building permit issuance after the 117th home until Molina Park is accepted by the city instead of the original requirement of park acceptance prior to the issuance of the 67th Certificate of Occupancy. If I'm interpreting this quote correctly, this seems to be semantics. Basically requesting permission to delay completion of the park until 67 homes have received certificates of occupancy, which equals a total of 34 more homes than they originally agreed to initially agreed to, which is double the amount, almost with the caveat that they would be punished severely. No more building permits if they fail. I suspect they have locked down plans to finish the park before the 67th certificate of occupancy. I think the important question here is why are they so far ahead with the villa construction and so far behind with a park? I think I know the answer. There's no investment return on the park, but I believe a contract is a contract. And I see no reason for the city to allow delays on the agreed upon completion of the Molina Park. The completed park will benefit countless residents consenting to this amendment will only maximize profits for a private developer. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Gabrielle Weekes. I live in the second district but represent all of South L.A. County for the Sierra Club. This gated development, I feel, is a real lost opportunity for the city. And I know I said this back when all the permits and the project were being allowed. I think this gated development could have had a local hire requirement, maybe some union workers. I know it's a little late, but as we move forward with new development, union electricians and carpenters, union plumbers, this would be a good opportunity for some for to make stronger buildings and with, you know, good jobs locally and there's no affordable units. And this is I understand I'm hoping that going forward, we could do a little better. And maybe even for a city that wants to be green, have some green components required. Next, big development, you all green light, maybe some increased insulation. So we're not using so much HVAC and energy, maybe solar panels on the roof. A friend of mine bought a townhouse in Signal Hill and they made the whole development with a lot of environmental attributes. He's got low flow showerheads, beautiful solar panels. They put down tile in a lot of places because it's easier to upkeep than carpet, and the whole thing is really green and well-insulated. And I asked him if he paid extra for his his unit to be like that. He said, no, they're all like that because it's upscale, because people pay more for it, because it's the way of the future. If Signal Hill can do that, I'd like to think we can do. And his wasn't gated as if the neighbors can't be trusted. So I think that's kind of more of a that's how I sort of feel we might want to go for in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Let's pick be complete. Good evening Vice Mayor Council members. I'm here on behalf of Indigo, who was the original firm that got the entitlements for the River Walk project, now named River Dale. Joan behind me is from Brandywine. He'll be speaking in a minute. I want to point out the positive news. A lot of times we come down here and there's the negatives. Let me point out some positive news for the city to take into account here. Every single phase that was proposed so far is sold out. You think about that for a minute. How many single family homes have been built in Long Beach in the last, say, five, six years? Single family homes, not apartments? Every single phase has been sold out. We're talking up there by Delamar. What, the 710 do you want the value of those homes are the sold out? The minimum is over 600,000. Some of them are 700,000. Now, the fact that there's interest in getting these homes, that's what's amazing. That's what Lambie should be talking about, is you're taking brand new homes in a community, you're improving the surrounding community. I live up in the eighth, you're surrounding the community around there with property tax increment. Their benefit of their homes, their value of their homes is going to go up. Where do you see 600, $700,000 homes being built in Long Beach these days? You don't. I think the developer should be commended for building a project like that. The part will be done shortly. You'll have that finished and you're going to have a terrific community up there. That's a testament to what you guys approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next week, a police vice-chair, member of the city council, Alex Hernandez, representing the ownership of the Riverdale development. I want to thank you for taking this opportunity to listen to us on the positive news. A guest update, more on those facts. We have actually moved in 20 new families into Riverdale and we have sold 80 homes to this point. So basically, people are waiting for these homes to be finished at this point for construction. It's been very well received in the community and we've done everything we can to be a good neighbor. With regards to the delays on the park. There was no, you know, strategy or anything of that nature. It's just a matter of thinking about the different agencies and coordinating the different efforts between the city parks departments, building departments , public works departments, Edison, and then even the county. As we were reaching out to them to try to get agreement, agreements on easements and things of that nature took a lot longer than we expected. We're underway. We're moving this thing that this park will be completed probably in the next month or so. Hopefully you've seen some of the progress we've made out there in the community. We will turn that park over when it's accepted to 100% to the city satisfaction. We have already contracted the $3 million worth of work out there and we will can then continue to finish up all of our improvements per the original agreement. So we're satisfying all the original requirements all. Unfortunately, we got hit with an unfortunate delays. And that's all this amendment is addressing is giving us more time to finish those improvements. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anna Kristensen. Well, I have to disagree with the prior speaker in saying that's all the amendment is asking for is more time. Because what the amendment is also asking for is for the city parks department to be released from the strip of public land. That's the county land. Now, this was not a surprise when the city entered into this agreement or the developer entered into it. It wasn't like they didn't know it was county land. And I think that when you're looking at the tradeoff here, which, of course, is a tremendous sacrifice of public space that we could have had, I mean, as a swimming pool person, you know, that could have been the actual forest public pool in Long Beach. But those that's chance slipped away. So what I would say is, you know, let's look at this strip of county land. If the developer and the city aren't interested in that open space, then let's have some more open space, maybe a couple less houses, a little more park space or some more amenities for the park, but or maybe even contributing. Here's an idea to the upkeep and maintenance of the Dominguez Gap wetlands, which on one minute are beautiful. And the next minute when you take your friend there from San Francisco, are filled with dead fish. So there's there's an issue, even there, of maintenance. So let's get something other than a, you know, more upscale housing in a gated community. Let's let's get something natural. Thank you and thank you for listening and not, you know, being more preoccupied with candy than with public speaking. It's really disheartening. I got to say, I know I'm over it line, but at least I didn't yell it. Please, people, if you don't want to listen, have public comment, don't have it. Let's cut it for one minute. But if you if you agree to for public comment, then at least try to stay off your cell phones. It's like being back a teacher in high school, man. Come on. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Andrew Carroll. I live in the second district. Thank you for listening. I just want to say, I think you all do a good job of listening. I know you're dealing like 12 different things out there at the same time and you're here every Tuesday and we really appreciate it . I appreciate it again. So I'd like to start with that. I don't know why I'm speaking because this has already passed the point of me doing be able to do anything as a citizen. But I feel it would be, I guess, remiss not to express that this city in this state is facing a housing crisis, and we're building a gated community of single family homes in Long Beach. I think that's disappointing. I'm not sure why people who live in a gated community need a park. It doesn't seem like they like the public, seems like they want to live in a gated community, hence the gates. Also, I'm not sure why we need a park for people who up front in backyards, but that's a different question too. There's a lot of privilege in this conversation and not a lot of narrative about some of the other sides of these issues. I think that's a missed opportunity for the city again, to have done something different. I think our priorities on this are just really messed up and I don't know. That's all I have to say. I guess if we wonder why rent control is coming, this is why it's coming. And yeah, it's a it's again, it's as I said three weeks ago, it's unfortunate because rent control is not it is not a perfect policy. But this is why the city is in the hands that it's in. And this is why the people decided to bypass the city completely and just put it to it initiative, because the city continues to approve these single family home projects as the land use element proved with some of the folks who spoke here tonight. We're on the wrong side of that as well. The land use element is going to increase single family homes in the city and pretty much shrink Long Beach. Long Beach is a growing, vibrant city. We want to be green. There's nothing green about single family homes. There's nothing green about suburbs. I encourage everyone to look at the literature into that as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes public comment will now take it back behind the rail. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank you, thank staff for the great comprehensive report and I want to thank the public commenters as well. I think there are some some some misconstrue, some conceptions, this misinformation that I'd like to just try to clear up on this. Number one, the park in particular, this was a key point of the development agreement. It was, I thought, a win for the neighborhood because the neighborhood had been promised the park for at least ten years prior to that. And the the site that the park now, the future Molina Park will be on was a blighted site that had no possibility or no future because we had run out of redevelopment funds. And so we had to get creative. When this development agreement came forward to to build single family homes, it was actually rejected by many of the residents. As was mentioned, there was a lot of concern that it was too dense. So I don't know that I would have been able to get any other type of development agreement approved in the neighborhood, particularly anything with any more density. And it was a tough, tough trial to to to pass the agreement as as as is, which, in my opinion, is very still very good for the neighborhood. In the biggest gap area that we have, a $3.5 million park being built, developed, but also guarantees for street sidewalk improvements, a new traffic signal and other improvements for the neighborhood, a neighborhood that has been neglected for decades. When I say at least three or four decades had been had been neglected and had no sense of community or public investment in that neighborhood there whatsoever. And so this development agreement came in, provided an opportunity for us to to to make some changes. I was very, very steadfast in and heart with the and was was proud of the development agreement that was negotiated because it held the developers feet to the fire to build homes, but also to develop and deliver a park. But what we did not foresee in for forecast is the construction delays that come with the entitlement process. This was a multi-agency endeavor. They had to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers, L.A. County, several city departments, departments. Development Services, public works, parks and RECs. And there was that strip of land, which I think is a little bit of misunderstood that is owned by the county that was actually came up after the development agreement was actually approved. And that took several weeks to to kind of vet out with L.A. County. I think it's it's prudent for us to and I'm supportive of the amendments to the development agreement, and I'm asking my council colleagues to support it as well. This is a good project. And to the point that this is going to delay anything. I don't see that happening and I don't see that that is in anybody's interest that the park is going to be delayed. I think if anything, it'll be fast tracked. But what what I understand from the changes that that have come forth, this is just an insurance policy to make sure that that that that everything falls together in line. As you can see, the park is close to being complete as is. I'm very impressed with the the progress that has been made on the development, not only the housing development, but the park as well. And I look forward to hopefully cutting a ribbon in the next few weeks with the community. Thank you very much. And I encourage my colleagues to support as well. Thank you. And I'll just add my strong support for as well as a great project. It figured we figured out through this how to get that park built. When Councilman Orson articulated, redevelopment ended and there was an expectation to build a park there. So when you look at that, you look at, you know, the biggest gap that offers wetlands, the improvements to the river. I think there's going to be become a very, very special place that the whole community can be proud of. So I just want to say good work and my support. Yes. Thank you. And also want. To just just point out the Dominguez gap is maintenance by the county of Los Angeles. Good morning. We're doing a lot of park improvements and a lot of wetlands improvements along the L.A. River, just across the Alamo. We'll be kicking off the the the Forest Wetlands Project, which will be maintenance by the city of Long Beach. The lands and the the maintenance agreements and development agreements are pretty complicated. And unless you know specifically who that we're the ownership or the means, it can be very confusing. And so I appreciate all the comments. Thank you. Thank you. Good project members. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.