Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider an appeal by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility; Adopt resolution approving and certifying an Addendum (EIRA-02-19) to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Long Beach Downtown Plan (EIR-SCH# 2009071006) related to the project at 131 West 3rd Street 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 the Downtown Plan; and Approve a Site Plan Review (SPR 18-038) for a project consisting of 345 residential units in one 23 story mixed-use tower, and one 8 story mixed-use building, 14,481 square feet of retail space, 563 parking spaces, and 128 bicycle parking spaces; find that the proposed vacation of a segment of Roble Way, a named alley, and vacation of portions of Pacific Avenue are in conformance with the 
Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Price Councilmember. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor. Andrew's Councilmember. Urunga. Councilman. Your Compton member Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Thank you. We are going we have a third hearing, so we're going to do the third hearing, which is hearing number eight. Orphan Development Services recommendation received supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and consider an appeal by supporters. Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. Adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the EIA related to the project at 131 West Third Street. Making certain secure findings and determinations. Adopting a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and approve a site plan review. Find that the proposed vacation of a segment of. Roadway way. A vacation of portions of Pacific Avenue are in conformance with the general plan. District one. Thank you. And we know this is a this is a de novo appeal. So the applicant itself has the burden of proof. We're going to begin with the staff report. There is an oh. So if anybody who will be testifying can stand and raise your right hand. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the courts now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Christopher Coons, planning bureau manager, will be presenting the staff report. And I'm going to introduce Marianne Cronin, who was the planner on this particular project. Thank you. Thank you. Good and good evening, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. Before you this evening is a request to receive supporting documentation to the record, conclude the public hearing and consider an appeal for a project consisting of the approval of a mixed use project located at 131 West Third Street in the Downtown Plan PD 38 Incentive Area. The project was approved on September 19th by Planning Commission and a subsequent appeal was filed on September 27th. The site is located on the east side of Pacific Avenue, between West Third Street on the south and West Fourth Street to the north. And Solana core an alley to the east in the downtown plan zoning district. The site encompasses six parcels and a portion of an east west alley away that is proposed to be vacant as part of the project for a total project area of 1.22 acres. The project site is currently developed as a paved at grade parking lot with parking spaces. Adjacent uses are typical of the downtown setting, including the historic Walker building to the north and hotel restaurant and multi-family residential uses nearby. The site is well-served by public transit and is in proximity to the I-70 ten freeway to the West. The proposed project consists of a new mixed use residential development. The project will replace the surface parking lot with two mixed use buildings, including one tower with 23 stories in height and one mid-rise building eight storeys in height with parking structures above ground and at subterranean levels in each building. The project includes a total of 345 market rate dwelling units and would range in sizes from studios to three bedrooms. There is no city requirement for the project to incorporate affordable units at this time, and the project includes approximately 14,481 square feet of retail spaces, over 500 parking, 563 parking spaces and 128 bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the project will be constructed in phases, which is worth noting for the provision of the open space for sale between the two buildings. During the first phase of the project, the mid-rise building would be constructed as well as the four Paseo alley improvements and adjacent improvements within the right of way. During phase two, the construction of the South Tower will commence. A tentative track map combines the existing lots and vacated portion of the alley into a single ground lot and create six vertical airspace lots between the two buildings. The site is within the height incentive area of the PD 30 plan area, a sub area that does allow building heights up to 500 feet when certain development criteria are met. The proposed development bonuses are subject to three criteria that have been established for this project and are included in the project description, which includes LEED Silver certified or equivalent green roof or eco roof with an option to for 31 to 60% of the building footprint to be for green roof standards as well as public open space option one, which is equivalent to 10% of the site, which would be satisfied by the open space paseo between the two buildings. The overall floor area ratio for the project would be 9.48, where a floor area ratio of 11 is maximum permitted with the incentives. The total height of the South Tower is proposed to be 269 feet above grade, and the North Mid-rise building would be built at 85 feet in height, which is within the base height limit for the area. As aforementioned, the proposed pedestrian paseo provides a mid-block pedestrian crossing and amenity space that satisfies the PD 30 criteria for a floor area ratio. The Planning Commission found that the project is compatible in design, character and scale with its surroundings, which include the adjacent mid-rise residential uses on the north side of West Fourth Street. The 23 storey tower would be substantially taller than the nearby mid-rise buildings, but the incorporation of offsetting building faces, balcony patio areas as well as other architectural features, would break up the massing of the building to soften the presence of the tower structure in the downtown setting. The project's form and massing have been designed to be respectful of nearby buildings while making a positive contribution to the streetscape and downtown skyline. Additionally, Planning Commission considered and accepted the addendum that was prepared for the project. The required findings can be made in the affirmative. Okay. We're going to have the applicant presentation and the appellant. We're going to put a maximum time of 10 minutes if that's appropriate for both sides, unless there's an objection to that of the applicant. Mr. MODICA Did you want to have the applicant? I think we have a couple more points that we have to make for the record. Okay, sure. Thank you. As noted on this slide. Pursuant to Secure the California Environmental Quality Act and the guidelines that were established, an ER addendum was prepared consistent with the program air for the downtown plan. And the EIA addendum determined that the project would not result in any new impacts that exceed those that were analyzed in the Downtown Plan Program air with mitigation measures incorporated. The appeal that's before you today asserts that the project introduces new environmental impacts that were not considered and that a tiered air must be prepared. Staff has prepared supplemental responses and subsequent to the filing of the Application for Appeal, which are included in your packets, that note that the use of a secure air addendum was determined to be appropriate for the proposed project. Its application was duly noted pursuant to the Long Beach Municipal Code. Five comments were received and are included in your packets before you staff finds that positive findings can be made in support of this application, and staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the ER addendum and upholding the Planning Commission decision to approve the project subject to conditions. The applicant is present and available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Does the applicant want to make a presentation? In addition to that, please come forward. Dale Goldsmith representing the applicant. I think it might be a better use of your time if I was to provide rebuttal of the appeal, given that the Planning Commission approved the project. Staff prepared a very comprehensive presentation and the appellant may raise some new issues. And you'll have an opportunity to do that as well, if you like. So that's okay. We can we can keep going forward in the hearing. You'll still have an opportunity to do a rebuttal. Thank you very much. The appellant. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, honorable. Members of the Council. My name is Brian Flynn here on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. Here to urge the council to not approve the addendum for this project. Instead, send it back to planning staff for any to prepare an air. I'd like to use my time to quickly discuss two of the issues with which highlight why this. Addendum is not appropriate for. This project. First off, the city is improperly relying on an addendum. Addendums are intended for minor. Minor modifications made to existing projects. The plain language of the school guidelines on which the city relies do not allow for an addendum in the scenario and rather relevant case law in the school statute itself require the city to. Prepare any air. And second, there is. Substantial evidence that this project will have significant impacts that were not analyzed in the. Downtown plan air and not analyzed in this addendum document. So as to my first point, the improper reliance on the addendum section 15162 of the school guidelines explains the criteria for when an air has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, and then whether a subsequent EMR must be prepared for quote, that project. Here in air was developed. For the downtown plan, not for this project. An addendum may be proper if the city were making changes to the downtown plan, but that's not what's happening here. You're analyzing a specific project within an area for which an air has been prepared. So no air has been prepared for this project. And by the plain language of the guidelines. An addendum is not appropriate. Instead, when there is an overarching. Programmatic air like the downtown plan, the first consideration is whether the new proposed project is covered by the programmatic air. The second consideration is whether the later activity, meaning this. Project, would have effects that were not. Analyzed in the downtown plan. Air Program. Air may only serve to the extent that it. Contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project. If a programmatic air. Does not evaluate the environmental impacts of a project, a tiered EIA must be completed before the project is approved. And for these inquiries, the fair argument test standard applies. So in this situation, CPA requires the city. To prepare an initial study to determine if the. Project may cause significant environmental effects not. Examined in the downtown plan program air. And there is substantial evidence supporting the argument that this project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the downtown plan. Air. So there is. Substantial evidence in the record, some of it in that lengthy comment that you just received. That the project will have significant. Indoor air quality impacts, significant health impacts from emissions during construction. And operation of the project and greenhouse gas impacts. We had a certified industrial hygienist, Francis Offerman. He looked at the addendum and concluded it's likely that the project will. Expose future residents to significant impacts related to indoor. Air quality, in particular emissions from the cancer causing chemical formaldehyde materials commonly used in residential buildings for flooring, cabinetry. Baseboards, window shades, interior doors. Window trim, door trim all contain an off gas formaldehyde. Mr. Offerman calculated that the future residents of the project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately a 125 per million. The full time employees in the commercial spaces may be exposed to a cancer risk of 18.4 per million. And these calculations. Are, even if the materials meet the most recent. Standards from the California Air Resources Board. And these calculations both exceed the South. Coast Air District's threshold of ten in 1 million. Now this impact can be mitigated. It's pretty simple. It's done in other projects. You just require them to use no formaldehyde added materials that can reduce. The impact of formaldehyde emissions. To less than significant levels. In addition, there are significant impacts related to. Construction and operational air quality. The addendum determined that the project would result in a less than significant health risk from diesel particulate matter emissions. However, this conclusion is not supported by. Substantial evidence because a quantitative health risk assessment was never prepared for the project. The expert environmental consulting firm Sweep did a health risk assessment based on the data provided in the addendum, and they. Concluded that the excess cancer risk to adults. Would be 31 in a million. To children. 280 in a million and to infants, 240 in a million. Again, the threshold. From the South Coast Air District. Is ten in 1 million. And even if you use the less conservative, you know, those previous numbers all deal with that age sensitivity factors. Even if you use a more conservative. Health risk assessment. That the risk. To adults is 31 in a million children, 93 in a million. In infants, 24 in a million. So these greatly exceed the South Coast thresholds and the addendum never attempted to quantify this impact and now must do so in light of expert evidence. In the record demonstrating. The significant impact to human. Health. Also issues with the greenhouse gas calculations. The analysis is deficient because it. Relies on South Coast 2020. Service. Population. Thresholds. It's improper because the project's construction and development continue beyond 2020. It's not even become operational until 2021. As a result, the greenhouse gas analysis should have compared the emissions from this project to the South Coast 2035 efficiency. Standard. In order to evaluate the project's emissions from 2021 and beyond. When that threshold is used, the project's 2021. Exceeds these exceeds the 2035 thresholds. And again, this constitutes substantial evidence that the project will have significant. Greenhouse gas impacts that must be analyzed in. An air. So little time left. Really, the city should not approve this addendum at this time. Instead, the city should prepare a yes to proceed under sequence hearing provisions and prepare an air as required by law. Importantly, we're not saying that this project should never be built. It's just that when we do these sort of things, let's go through the proper environmental review to ensure the health and safety of the neighborhoods and the future residents. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to hear the appellant, please. Rebuttal. I'm sorry. The applicant. Please go ahead. Good evening again, honorable council members once again, for the record, Dale Goldsmith. I'm a lawyer with the law firm of Archbishop Goldsmith, the Dail back representing the applicant. I'd like to refer to two letters that were submitted today. I apologize for them being late, but we only got the safer letter. Late yesterday afternoon we worked late into the night to respond to it. And those letters, both from our firm and from the expert air quality firm of ramble, thoroughly refute the the late comment letter that was submitted yesterday. I'll briefly touch upon some of the issues in those letters regarding the claim that an ER is required or a tour de air. The city determined in its discretion as lead agency that the addendum was the appropriate level of seek review. It tiered off the downtown plan which analyzed the full impact of build out under that plan, including build out of the project site. So contrary to the comment, the the project was covered by the air and the city prepared the addendum to determine that and to investigate whether there was any project specific impacts that would be greater than or new beyond those set forth in the program. Air. The addendum and its expert studies provide substantial evidence that no such impacts exist, and therefore the addendum was the appropriate level of seek review. The appellants interpretation of the law is just wrong. There's a case called Monti Brothers versus City of Los Angeles with completely refutes his contention earlier. Happy to discuss that case further. In addition, as set forth in the program, this er was intended to streamline, seek review and avoid redundancy of the secret process. The program the EIR provides that projects that are consistent with the develop ment intensity. Intensity the plan shall not be subject to additional review except to the extent that they may result in project specific, new or substantially greater impacts. The project is fully consistent with the downtown plan. The addendum confirms that there are no such project specific impacts, so therefore under secure guidelines, section 15183 no further seek review is required regarding the assertion of indoor air quality impacts as set forth in the expert letter from Ramble, Safer uses a number of flawed assumptions in calculating these really scary numbers of cancer deaths. Indeed, unbelievably scary numbers. The flaws include a failure to include the voluminous regulations that have been adopted both on the state and local level, to address indoor air quality, including ones that limit the amount of formaldehyde in building materials. In addition, formaldehyde emissions decrease over time. The analysis didn't take that into account. It also assumed that workers would remain in the same job in that building for 45 years and that residents would remain there for a 70 year lifetime. Those assumptions are just overly conservative and quite frankly, not realistic. The Ramble letter confirms that the project will not have any significant air quality impacts regarding the health risk assessment. The appellant asserts that the city should have prepared a quantitative health risk assessment for the project's construction and operational emissions. Neither the city nor the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires health risk assessments or areas for short term construction activities due to the limited duration of exposure of emissions from those activities. According to the air district's methodology, health effects from air contaminants are assessed based on a lifetime that's 70 years. In this case, the construction would be 20 months, a fraction of those 70 years. Therefore, under the applicable methodology of the Air District in the city, no quantitative health risk assessment is required. In addition, the current SC HQ, M.D., HRA guidance recommends recommends an operational source HRA only if a project will generate a substantial amount of diesel particulate matter from diesel vehicles. So therefore they would call for such an assessment, for heavy fruit, for for projects with lots of heavy duty trucks, including truck stops, warehouse distribution centers, transit centers, ship hoteling IT ports and train idling. None of those uses are part of this project as projects in urban infill project consisting of residential and retail that will not generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips and therefore no quantitative HRA is required. Moreover, as set forth in the Ramble letter we submitted today, the crude screening level health risk assessment submitted by the appellant in their last minute letter yesterday is based on a number of flawed assumptions, including substantially overstating both the operational and the construction emissions and is simply not credible regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the appellant asserts. The Dentons GHG analysis should have used a decade old draft numeric threshold that was never adopted by the academy or the city, and indeed there is no applicable threshold. And therefore sequel allows the city's lead agency to come up with its own threshold. In this case, the threshold selected consistent with both the school guidelines and school case law, was consistency with applicable greenhouse reduction plans. The addendum concluded that the project was so consistent and therefore properly concluded that impacts were less insignificant. And keep in mind, this is an infill project that's well-served by transit. It's going to have a green roof and achieve LEED certification. This is the sort of project that represents smart growth and that will reduce greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled and impacts on the climate. Lastly, I just want to reiterate that the project will have a lot of important public benefits. It's going to increase the city's housing stock without displacing any existing homes. Elad Housing within walking distance of transit jobs, retail entertainment uses downtown. That will reduce help reduce dependance on automobiles, which will in turn reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air emissions, pollutant emissions, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. It will provide public open space in the form of a pedestrian paseo, and it will promote sustained sustainability in water and energy conservation by including a green roof and achieving LEED silver certification or equivalence. In addition, it will implement and is fully consistent with the downtown plan. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's well-reasoned approval of the project. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that, that concludes the rebuttal. We're going to go ahead to any concluding remarks by staff. Are there any. Preferable, only four questions. Okay. We're going to go and go to public comment. Those are two here to speak on the hearing. So let me go to you here. No, I mean, is Brian Flynn, Leona Noble, Christine Boss and Lillian Chen, those first four speakers, please come forward. Brian Flynn. O'BRIEN okay. Liana, Christine, Lillian and Sam. Then those will be the first four. My name is Lana Noble. I'm here tonight on behalf of the North Pine Neighborhood Alliance. I live in the Walker Building, which is right adjacent to this project. But I'm speaking on behalf of our neighborhood group. And we are not here around the environmental issues that have been raised by the appellant. But we're seizing this opportunity to tell you as our counsel, that having worked with staff and we appreciate the accessibility and the patience of the staff and working with us as a neighborhood group. But we have been consistently saying to anybody that we communicate with what our neighborhood needs is not market rate housing. We need affordable and low cost rental housing. And nothing in this project addresses that for us. Our other concerns about being next to a 23 storey tower are that you are going to have a major impact on commuter and daily traffic trash delivery and pick up, which is a horrendous problem. It's cowboy Wild West in our neighborhood because of all the private haulers that all of these day to day issues that are very real to us as residents downtown are going to be. Exacerbated. By this density. We support density. That's why a lot of us live in downtown. But this project does not serve the residents of our neighborhood. Thank you so much. Kristine Boslough, Ian Chen, Sam for Zena for if I mispronounce some of these names. Right. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members and staff. My name is Christine Voss. I serve as the government affairs manager for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm here tonight on behalf of our 800 members, leadership and community stakeholders to express our support for the approval of the Third Pacific Project. The Chamber has a long standing position of supporting projects in a similar scope. Currently, a main public policy goal of our organization is to support more housing development in Long Beach, especially housing that's located near public transit. In addition to the increase in housing, the project will also offer commercial and retail space, which in turn will create more local jobs in the downtown area, complementing our goal to support and encourage economic development in Long Beach. We support the project to Third Pacific because it will make the most of its location offering housing located near transit while simultaneously increasing jobs and walkability in the downtown area. We appreciate your time and thoughtfulness on these considerations. Thank you. Thank you. Lillian Chen, please. Good evening, everyone, and thank you so much for your time. And then I am Lillian Chen. And 1/2. I'm sorry. Is Sam next? Yes, Sam, please come forward. I want people just to line up behind Sam present. John Connally is and. Oh, no, no, no, no. You're going to continue. I just need to call my folks up. Lillian Sam. And then is. Is John Connelly here? Okay. Is Ken controlling to speak to this? Please come forward in behind John and then call this rally right behind and control. Thank you. I am the second district resident and my story of moving to Long Beach about a year ago has motivated me to stand here and tell you my story. One thing that I like the most about downtown Long Beach is that it's an incredibly walkable and transit friendly city. I have been living in Long Beach for more than a year and working in downtown, and I don't have a car. I take the bus, I take the metro to L.A., I take the bike, and I sometimes scooter with my friends. And I think it's a big part of my enjoyment in living in downtown Long Beach, which is why I believe that a project like this in the high density area in downtown Long Beach would encourage people to start using their car less and taking the transit more often. In addition, I really like the idea that more developments are coming to market as the streets start feeling safer and I start seeing more people on the street and it makes the city feel more lively and more pleasant to live in. So I fully support this project and thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much. Next week, please. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Sam Zina. I'm a resident of the second district. I also serve on the board of the DLP and I am an employee of Long Beach based on some real estate investments. I just wanted to vocalize my support for the project. I believe it's a tremendous contribution to the Renaissance. It's already well underway in Long Beach. As Long Beach begins to. Transform into more of a Class. A, you know, walkable, urban waterfront that people want to live, work and visit, I think it does fantastic things in terms of enhancing the pedestrian experience and creating new connectivity between area Pacific right now that's underutilized and pine, creating this great new pedestrian sale and activating the streets with new retail. In addition to that. With the 345 units. Going in in the 500 plus new residents that this will surely bring about. That's 500 new people that are activating our streets, contributing to our community and supporting local businesses. So, again, it's here today to support the project. Thanks. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. John. After carelessly Austin is going to come up and after ostensibly be Joannie Cunningham and then during. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. I'm here to talk about an issue that hasn't really been brought up other than the fact that 563 parking. Spaces are supposed. To be produced in this building. For any of you who live in the First District, as I do, you already know that on street parking is a nightmare and there's totally inadequate. Preparation on behalf of the existing buildings. To accommodate. The people who. Don't have assigned parking. It is a critical situation. To watch people. In the evening driving around looking. For a parking space for a half hour, an hour. Or more. In the previous letter to our departed first District Representative, somebody was complaining that he was going to run against her simply because he couldn't find a parking space at night. This was in our local run, your newspaper. What we need is. To establish a parking. Program that meets the needs of the upcoming population that we now have. As it grows in this area. Thank you. That's my statement. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. And Cantrell and I first learned about this project at the Planning Commission hearing, and I was astounded to find out that the city owned this property. Two parking lots. And now there's going to be a 269 foot building built. When there is no parking available. Well. There's going to be parking for 128 bicycle riders. I'm surprised that you can find. That many people riding bikes, living in this area. When there is not one affordable unit planned. For this building, you could have used the city owned property to build affordable and low cost housing, which is desperately needed. It's also not going to be a gold LEED. It's going to be silver, which means it's not going to have solar. Unless it's going to be sold or ready. But they are not having solar on the roofs. Those. If you're going to allow this to be built, I urge you to require some affordable units and premium. Thank you so much and lead. Thank you very much. I closely. Carelessly. I'm here in support of the appeal. I was really surprised to find out that there was going to be 23 stories built and another one with eight stories at market rate. We hear over and over again from the city how we need additional low income housing and affordable housing. And this is an opportunity where you could have made that happen. Additionally, there's the town looking looking at the Internet. I checked out the word gentrification and Long Beach and all of downtown is colorized to show that it's been gentrified. So that basically tells you the data is in and the intent is there to move low income people out. There's going to be increased traffic problems, potentially between 507 hundred more cars rolling out the driveway. I don't see how that cannot be an air issue. And if you look at the parking, there's 563 parking spaces, which I think should probably really be about 700. So you're going to have 150 people looking for parking out on that street. This seems like it's a bad experiment. I, I met a man named Jack Broten, who was a colonel in the Air Force, who was in the foremost air base close to Hanoi back in the days when I worked for Rockwell. Thank you very much. Mostly. I'll tell you that story another time. I said. It's on him. Perfect. All right. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Oscar Montoya. I am with the downtown Long Beach Alliance, and I'm here to speak in favor of the 13 Pacific Project. Some of you may know the downtown Long Beach Alliance is a nonprofit organization that manages the two business improvement districts in downtown. And our stakeholders are comprised of business owners, commercial property owners, as well as residents. And through that community based process, the deal, they came to support this project, particularly through our Economic Development Committee, which is comprised of business owners along in North Pine, as well as on Pacific residents in the North Pine area, as well as property owners. And they all unanimously, unanimously chose to support this project. We believe that the project aligns with the downtown plan. The downhill mine has served as a guiding document for encouraging impactful, community oriented and mixed use development. And Third and Pacific Project aligns with those goals. And moreover, we agree with the city's assessment that this project itself aligns with the development standards and the program air prepared in the downtown plan. One final piece to note is that we believe that the project will be able to connect both Pine Avenue, North Pine and Pacific Avenue. Supporting a lot of our new investment are new businesses along Pine Avenue and helping them. To create foot traffic for. People to experience what is happening in downtown. So I appreciate your time and the opportunity to share our support tonight, and we encourage the city council to vote in favor of this project. Thank you. Johanna Cunningham and then Jordan Wynn, and we'll go back to the council. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Johanna Cunningham, founder and CEO for National Short Term Rentals, and I'm here to express my support for the Third and Pacific Project. As a downtown business owner on Fourth Street, I'm excited to see the ongoing revival and investment in this downtown area. Particularly, I'm happy to see the site along Pacific Avenue between third and fourth Street being developed. The nearly 345 residential units will help bring increased resident traffic to North Pine and Pacific Avenue. The third and final project plan of 345 residential units assists in that goal by creating a consistent flow of pedestrian foot traffic by potential customers throughout this downtown corridor. I thank you for your time and I encourage you to support the project. Thank you. Jordan. Hi there, Jordan Wynn, recent second district resident. I actually just moved downtown and I have two concerns about this project. One is similar to the appellate. I do see that there are some significant environmental impacts that I do believe require an area that is more than just, you know, an addendum. I think that, you know, moving into this new neighborhood has me a bit concerned about the environmental impacts that the development will have on me as a new resident. And the second concern that I have is, of course, about affordable housing. One stat that's not really talked about very much is the vacancy rate in our city, and that is the number of units that are sitting vacant. It's very low, it's below 3%, which is considered not healthy for a cityscape. Many of that vacancy currently sits in our downtown area as certain units that are gentrifying. People out of the first and second districts are pricing up the market in sitting vacant. Unfortunately, I don't want that to be the case here. I do think it's a bit of a shame that there aren't affordable units in this development. I do support density and I do think that density is an important part of building an efficient and effective city of the future. But I also believe in affordable housing for all, and that housing is a human right. And so I urge you to consider those two things. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to close the public hearing and go back to the to the council. I'm. The vote itself, of course, is to deny the appeal. That's correct. Mr.. Mr.. Mr. Mays. Correct. That's not the recommended action. Okay. And there's a motion and a second. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, I had a few questions. One is on timing. Obviously, we don't have a councilmember in the first district. And so just wanted to be clear that this was a vote that we needed to, in fact, take today. Yes. Councilmember under the municipal code, it's 2120 1504b. This action has to be taken within 60 days. We're hitting that 60 days. If you were to fail to take an action tonight that the appeal would be deemed denied. So there is no opportunity to extend or delay this. We need to take an action tonight. Okay. Thank you for that. Just a little bit of context before I make the motion. Obviously, with the downtown plan that happened in 2010, there was overall E.R. that was done as part of that. There was a process that said how many residential units we would have, how many hotels we would have as a community member on the outside of of city hall at that time, we advocated to include some affordable housing, some set aside, and we were not able to get those things at that time. And so it's my understanding that this item in front of us is in alignment with the downtown plan. That's correct. This item meets all of the provisions of the downtown plan. And what's in front of you is just an appeal of a planning commission consistency finding. So we're not determining whether the project is good or bad or making a policy analysis. We are looking at the more narrow issue of whether it complies with the downtown plan as adopted. Right. And I wanted to lift that up because we do have opportunities coming up, whether it's in PD six, whether we're talking about the land use element, where community members should be advocating for affordable housing as a general policy of the city versus project by project. If I felt like there was a way to have a discussion around including affordable housing in this project that is not in my district, then I most certainly would. But that is not what is before us today. And so, again, I applaud the affordable housing advocates that have worked hard on other issues and want to make sure that you don't mess up other opportunities to advocate for inclusionary housing. It is, you know, after reviewing everything and talking to several folks, I would like to deny the appeal and move forward with this vote today. So thank you. Thank you. That's the motion that's in front of us today. There's Rosemarie Andrews and any comment on the second? Then the motions on the floor as recommended by staff. And it's to conclude the public hearing to consider an appeal. Right. And deny the appeal. That's correct, Mayor. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. That's the last hearing on the agenda. We're going to move on to the other items on the agenda, beginning with item 13, please.