Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record; conclude the public hearing, and Adopt resolution certifying EIR 01-15 and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Riverwalk Residential Development project (State Clearinghouse No. 2014091011), for a new 131 single-family home subdivision (Riverwalk) at 4747 Daisy Avenue;
Report from Development Services hearing to consider the land use entitlements for the River Walk Residential Development Project for a new 131 single family home subdivision located at 4747 Daisy Avenue in the eighth Council District. This hearing requires an oath. Those that are planning on testifying to the hearing. Please, please stand up. Okay. If you plan on testifying at the police, stand up. Okay. The clerk revealed. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Okay. Thank you all very much. So I'm going to turn this now over to city management, who will introduce the item and begin the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. The staff report will. Be given by Amy Bodak, our Director of Development Services. Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council, thank you for your indulgence tonight on this very important public hearing. As the mayor indicated, we will be doing a staff PowerPoint presentation, which will be followed by a PowerPoint presentation from the city's secret consultant. Joe Power of Rincon. Once staff and our secret consultant have concluded their PowerPoint presentation, we will like to turn it over to the applicant who is represented by Ed Gallagher of Integral Communities. After his brief presentation of the project, we would turn it over to the City Council for questions and or public comment at your discretion. So with that, I'm going to walk you through this PowerPoint presentation and orient you to this site. This is an approximately 11 acre site in North Long Beach and District eight. It is currently a vacant, undeveloped land, but was previously used and owned by the Boy Scouts of America and is colloquially known as the Will Jay Reed Boy Scout camp. The project that you're going to hear about tonight is called River Walk. It includes 131 new single family detached homes in a gated community, which would also include a recreation center and a tot lot on site, and then also a an additional turf area that will be used for environmental remediation purposes as well. On the on the project site, this is the current design that has been recommended by the Planning Commission for the 131 units. It is a single entry point with a gated entry. All private streets within the project, around a circle, two story homes towards the north end of the site, and then three story homes in the middle and towards the south. The southern boundary of the site abuts the existing UPR railroad embankment and the western boundary of the site actually abuts the Los Angeles River embankment. It is accessed through Daisy Avenue as the main point. There is also emergency access through another point on Oregon Avenue. This is an example. This is a representative example of the design of the turf area that will be used for infiltration, as well as the recreation house and the pool and spa area that would go with this community. As I said earlier, all streets and drives within the development will be privately owned. Each house is going to have their own private two car garage. Guest parking is required as part of this project and would be provided on the main circular road. Additional guest parking above code requirement has been provided. Guest parking is not allowed to be used for storage of excess cars or trailers. There will be a homeowners association that will have conditions of approval that will require the property owners to park their cars in the garages, not park in the in the guest spaces and not park in their driveways. This is a representative example of the layout of these cul de sac streets around the ring road where each small street is basically a cluster of six homes in a very neighborly like setting. And all of the entrances front the street, as well as the driveways. We were we worked quite a bit with the developer in honing and refining the architectural style. When it was originally submitted, there was multiple architectural styles as well as I'd say, 11 different floorplans and we were able to narrow that down for a more cohesive neighborhood environment and worked with the architects on the high quality architecture that they are going to be proposing. So this was a representative example of their different plans for two storey homes and then also their representative plans for three storey homes. We spent a lot of time working on the architecture, making sure that the massing and setbacks for the homes were appropriate, that there was a lot of light and open space with the homes, as well as clearly no blank walls fronting the streets. This project does require a number of entitlements. First and foremost is the certification of an environmental impact report. This project includes a general plan amendment to change the general plan designation of the Boy Scout site. It also includes a general plan amendment for a community park that would be developed outside of the projects boundaries. This would allow the city the ability to have the park at Oregon and Alamo constructed, which was a former redevelopment project. I'll get into that in a little while. We're also asking that the city council consider a zoning amendment to create a new planned unit development ordinance, as well as a zone change for the River Walk site and the Oregon Park site. This also requires site plan review, which the Planning Commission is recommending vesting tentative tract maps that the property can be subdivided for individual ownership, and then a statutory development agreement, which is quite critical to the the development of this entire project. I want to talk a little bit about the zoning because this is a little bit new for you as a city, as a city, a seated council. We do have areas in the city where we have developed this type of housing, but they are not known to be developed under the PUD term, which is a technical planning term. But the creation of a PD allows quite a bit of flexibility for the city in how it works with developers in laying out traditional development sites for residential property. Tonight's action, I want to make it extremely clear, is site specific only? There have been numerous blogs and Web posts indicating that your action tonight would clear the way for this zoning to apply be applied to other institutional zoning districts citywide. And that is categorically false. Tonight's zoning request would allow the creation of a brand new zoning district, but it is only being applied specifically to tonight's site. If anyone else in the city that has a property that is currently zoned institutional wishes to take advantage of this, they must go through the traditional process of a rezoning with public hearings and public input. A plan development unit also allows us to configure densities like like allowing three story units in the center of this project and two story units on the edge of the project. This is very similar to how Spinnaker Bay was developed in District three, although that was developed under sea dip many years ago. It has a similar look and feel. This is also similar to the Crown Point project in I believe it's in District seven now, right near Los Cerritos Park, off of Del Mar Avenue that has a similar look and feel as well. With that pad and those densities, we are able to achieve a higher quality development through the use of this pad. When you're dealing with a large subdivision and so we are asking for your consideration of doing that. The pad that we have selected has been also the subject of quite a bit of discussion over the last year. The developer had looked for higher density than the city staff was comfortable with and we eventually settled on a density of approximately 13 dwelling units per acre. To give you a reference point, the The Crown Point Project on Del Mar Avenue has a higher density than 13 units per acre. That's actually at 14.5 units per acre. So that's the one that we were able to find that currently exists that's most applicable to this project, although that one has higher density. The development agreement is a tool that we are allowed to utilize under state law. So this is a statutory development agreement which gives the city the authority to enter into a long term contract or agreement. We have previously entered into development agreements for most notably the Douglas Park Project with Boeing, and we also recently entered into a development agreement for the Golden Shore Development Project in the downtown. So this would be a similar type of contract. It provides the city the opportunity to negotiate benefits for the city. Above and beyond those are which are normally allowed under traditional planning entitlements. This project and this development agreement would be a ten year contract. It would reserve the rights to the developer for this zoning designation for that entire period of time. It does, as I said, allow the city to to accrue benefits, if you will, to the city in exchange for higher density. In this case, we are looking at significant public improvements, including the construction of a park at Oregon and Alamo, which has been stalled due to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. In addition to the public improvements which will detail later, the developer will also commit $100,000 in cash to the city to be placed in a traffic mitigation fund that will be used at the discretion of the city engineer, the city traffic engineer in order to mitigate ongoing or future neighborhood traffic mitigation issues that may arise. Additionally, since the developer will be constructing a number of public improvements for the city, we are requiring a performance bond that is 115% of the total amount of the public improvements. We have pored over this project, as I said, and have a number of conditions of approval, which I think are valuable in protecting the city and ensuring that this project will be the quality project that we expect it to be. There will be a construction management plan that is going to manage construction traffic throughout the entire time of construction. There will be a new minimum of six foot six, but up to an eight foot block wall that will surround the site. And we have the ability to to go higher if that is the desire of the city council through a zoning administrator process. We are asking them to bring adjacent streets and sidewalks into ADA compliance, do significant public improvements along the adjacent streets, including Daisy and Oregon Pacific, 48th and 49th streets. We will be asking them to either grind an overlay or to slurry as determined by the city's director of public works. A number of streets in that area, and that includes 48th Street, Pacific Avenue and 49th Street. I believe the developer has an exhibit which will show the extent of the offsite improvements that the city is requiring as part of this project. I am going to momentarily turn this over to Joe Power of Rincon. He's going to address the Environmental Impact Report and the process that we went through in order to get to where we are today. If you could bring that PowerPoint back up, it's the same PowerPoint that Joe will be using that I was just referring to. Okay. Thanks, Amy. Again, Joe Power from Rincon Consultants. We assisted the city in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. I'm here tonight with Greg Martin. Our project manager will both be here to answer questions, if any come up later tonight. I'm going to quickly talk about the process and then I'm going to talk about some of the air findings to begin the process. The city issued a notice of preparation of the draft air back on September 4th of of 2014, that there was a 30 day comment period in which you were taking input on the air scope that ended around October 3rd. During that 30 day period, the city also held two public scoping meetings. Those were on September 24th and September 30th. We had a number of attendees and got a lot of input from the community regarding their concerns for the project. And then most recently, the draft IRR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period in May. The final air on the air includes responses to 23 comment letters that the city received during that 45 day public review period. Those included four letters from agencies and 19 from individuals, mainly folks living in the neighborhood, the adjacent neighborhood. The final air also includes the draft air text with some minor eddies, mainly requiring involving some clarifications that were that came up in the responses to comments, as well as the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program. The final year determined that with all recommended mitigation measures, impacts associated with the project could be reduced to below a level of significance. Here's just a very quick overview of the process. I mentioned that notice of preparation and up at the top. That's where we got input on the air scope. Then the draft air was circulated for public review. With those comments, we responded to all of them, prepared the mitigation monitoring program and the findings and all that is before you tonight where we're ready to make a decision on the project. Now the environmental impacts are identified in the air. We had no Class one or what we call significant and unavoidable impacts. There were a number of impacts that we identified as significant, but that could be mitigated to below a level of significance with mitigation measures included in the air. Those were in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, land use, noise and vibration and utilities and service systems. Now just a quick overview of the impacts that we found to be significant, but medical for air quality, this related to construction emissions. And we had two mitigation measures to address both dust and emissions associated with construction equipment. And with those measures, we could bring the impacts to below a level of significance for biological resources, the impact that we identified significant related to potential impacts to nesting bats and birds, and that's addressed through a pre-construction survey and as necessary avoidance of any nest that are identified during that survey. For the area of cultural resources, we found potential impacts related to archeological and paleontological resources. There are no known resources on the site, but the mitigation is there to address as yet unidentified resources that may be uncovered as grading occurs on site for the area of geology, the impact related to liquefaction and settlement. And we have a mitigation measure requiring placement of properly compacted fill, as well as another measure requiring the building foundation to be properly designed to address those kinds of impacts for land use and planning. The impact relate to local policy consistency, and this impact is really addressed by mitigation measures found throughout the air in such issues as noise, air quality and the like. And then lastly, for utilities and service systems, the impact related to wastewater infrastructure. And we have a mitigation measure, measure requiring the applicant to submit a sewer study and if necessary, upgrade the sewer system to provide needed capacity. Now again, just to reiterate the opportunities for public comment, there have been a number of them that in OPI that I mentioned previously, back in September of last year, there were the two scoping meetings also held in September. The draft IIR public circulation. From May 5th to June 18th. There was a planning commission study session during that public review period on May 21st and then a planning commission hearing on October 15th and of course, tonight's hearing. Now, in addition to the significant impacts that we identified, I want to touch on a number of items that the community expressed concerned about. And in some cases, we identified significant impacts in these areas. And in others we didn't. One that I'd say was the top concern that we heard from members of the community was traffic in specifically cut through traffic on Daisy and through the residential neighborhood adjacent. Air quality was a concern. Land use and zoning changes. Amy touched on that a little earlier. Noise was a concern. Parking and soil stability and seismic hazards are going to go through those very quickly. For traffic. There were concerns both about construction traffic as well as operational traffic for construction. The grading phase would generate about 236 daily trips. Those would be spaced out over the course of the day. Generally, we think avoiding peak hour times building the building construction phase would generate the highest number of peak hour trips by employee trips with about 54. There was a traffic analysis done of the construction vehicles and how they would affect the system. And it was determined that that the level of service standards of the city would not be exceeded by construction traffic. Nevertheless, as Amy mentioned earlier, a construction management plan is going to be required to ensure that traffic is managed during construction . With respect to operational traffic, the project would generate an estimated 98 Olympic hour trips and 131 peak hour trips. The impact would not exceed the city's level of service standards at any of the study intersections. The larger concern was about that we heard was an increase in traffic on local streets, in particular Daisy Avenue. I will say that there was would be in percentage terms a pretty substantial increase in traffic going from an estimated, I think it was 75 daily trips to over 1200. However, the city does not have a specific significance threshold or standard for trips on residential streets, so we did not identify a significant impact despite that pretty substantial increase in percentage terms. Air quality. This was about both construction and operational emissions. We did the modeling based using the standard procedures based on South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines. We did not find any operational impacts that would be significant or that would exceed AQ MDA thresholds. Project construction, as I mentioned before, would generate emissions exceeding thresholds. But with mitigation measures, recommended impacts could be brought below significant. Next slide noise. There were concerns about both construction noise and operational noise. Construction noise would be temporary and would occur only during daytime hours, so it would not be significant there, although there clearly would be an increase in noise and does not exceed the level of significance. There's really not anything unusual about the construction noise. It would just be it's just going to be loud as construction is. With respect to operational traffic noise, we did model traffic noise based on the air traffic study and found that though there would be an increase in noise on a number of streets, Daisy Avenue in particular, that increase would not exceed city standards or thresholds. With respect to parking, the air does recommend that construction management plan that I mentioned before to address parking concerns during construction. Within the long term, the project includes 302 parking spaces, including 260 private parking garage parking spaces and 40 on street guest parking spaces. I will just mention as an aside as well, parking really is not a sequel issue per se that was removed from the the secret guidelines about five years ago. So it's not an issue we typically are looking at as a potentially significant impact. In sequel terms. Soil stability. The issue that we heard about was a concern that the site may have formerly been used as a landfill. We did not see any evidence of that particular issue. There was a phase one environmental site assessment done for the site, and there was no historic record of there being a landfill there. I skipped over the first concern. A number of folks expressed concern about there maybe being a fault trace running through the site. Again, we've seen no evidence of that based on local or state maps mapping. Fault zones through the city. We do have a number of soil stability mitigation measures to address potential concern. There was the landfill concern was largely about the potential for settlement and how that might affect the project and adjoining neighborhoods. We do have these measures that I mentioned before. Excavation, too adapted for people of existing grade to address foundation concerns as well as the recurring foundation systems to use specific items to address this impact. No alternatives. We didn't study for alternatives. These are required by secure. These were the no project alternative. That one is required under Sequoia and assumes that this site would remain in its present condition. The second one is what we call the reduced density alternative, and that would essentially comply with the current zoning for the site. About 65 units total for about half of what is proposed. We have an alternate alternate site alternative that would put all of the residential development on the Oregon Park site that is proposed for a park that was one that was suggested by the community. And then the revised access alternative, again, this was suggested by the community during the scoping process would involve two points of access, one at DC and another at Oregon. With respect to the alternatives, we really didn't find that they would eliminate any significant impacts. The revised access alternate, for example, would we think, move some trips perhaps up to Oregon Avenue. But as some of you are aware, north of 48th Street, Oregon really narrows. And we think that's going to be difficult for people to pass. And they're probably going to go right back to D.C. and use that to get out of the neighborhood anyway. So we don't think there's going to be a substantial change in the traffic pattern based on that alternative. As I mentioned before, the EIA, the project does not have any significant, unavoidable impacts. So of course, the although the all of the alternatives may incrementally reduce impacts, they would not avoid any significant impacts that that would have under the project anyway. Back to Amy. Thank you, Joe. So the planning commission did hear this in a study session in May. They made comments and got a briefing on the air, which was in circulation. They then held a public hearing in October and did recommend that the City Council certify the air and grant all of the entitlements. As I said earlier, it's an extensive list of entitlements and so I'd like to walk you through them. Some of these are a little bit less common for you to see. The first one is your standard resolution certifying the air. That is something that you are required to adopt should you choose to move forward in certifying the air the section. The second action is to adopt a resolution amending the land use element. This allows us to change the land use designation for the Riverwalk site from Elwood 11 to Elwood three. A It's essentially from an open space institutional zone to a residential zone. We're also asking you to adopt a resolution amending the land use element for the for the Oregon Park site. The Oregon Park site has been approved. It has its own environmental document. However, the amendment to the general plan was never done due to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. So we are asking for your consideration of changing the land use designation from Elwood one to Elodie 11, which would be open space. We're asking for a zone change on the River Walk site from Institutional to the RPE 13, which is our new PUD zoning classification. We are asking you to make a zone change from institutional to park to allow the construction of the park. We're asking you to declare an ordinance allowing the city manager to execute a development agreement in substantially the same form that is presented to you tonight. Also investing tentative tract map, which would allow for the subdivision of the 131 homes into individual parcels for sale. Clearly a review of the site plan. Then the next ones are a little bit less common for you to see. We are asking that you consider an ordinance to allow a credit against the transportation improvement fee. The staff report details that the developer expects to expend at least $1.65 million on traffic improvements in the immediate neighborhood. And there is a credit that we would be asking you to consider in that they would normally be paying a traffic improvement fee of $147,000. So we're asking you to give them a credit for the $147,000 in exchange for the $1.65 million in improvements. Similarly, they would be required to pay a Parks and Rec facility fee in the amount of $604,308. Instead, we are asking that you give them a credit and instead accept the construction of the Oregon Dilemma Park, which has a developer value of approximately $2.25 million. So again, instead of accepting $604,000 in cash, we would instead be giving them a credit in exchange for $2.25 million in park improvements. Lastly, we would ask that you declare an ordinance allowing a zoning amendment for the creation of this new PWD ordinance that would allow this new zoning designation to be in place. I have two items of correction that I'd like to make. One is that the resolution granting the credit for the transportation improvement fees did not include the correct dollar amount. So we would ask that you allow the city attorney's office to provide the correct amount of the traffic improvement fees in that ordinance at $1.65 million or more . The second thing that I would ask is that in the development agreement, we would like to add a clause that would give discretion to the director of public works to determine whether the streets in the surrounding area need to be slurry sealed or whether they needed to be have a full grind mill grind and overlay applied to it. This will allow the the director to have discretion to say a portion of this street is eligible for salary seal, but the other portion of the street must have a full overlay constructed. The developer understands that request, and that would be to Exhibit C of the development agreement. No other changes to the development agreement are expected at this time, but we do have in the ordinance authorization for the city manager to execute the development agreement in substantially the same form that you have it in front of you tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions at this point, or we can take public comment at your pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. I believe we're going to go through the applicant the applicant part of the presentation. I'm sorry. Yes. We would like to introduce the applicant. This is Ed Gallagher from Integral Communities. He has a presentation that we would like to bring up. And so with that, I'll introduce Ed Kane. We're putting another applicant who requested. Well, two things. One. Mr. Mays mentioned me. The applicant requested 15 minutes for the presentation, and then the applicant also requested an opportunity to do the five minute at the end rebuttal. If there's anything that he wants to to rebut. Is that correct, Mr. Mays? That's correct, Mayor. Okay. Just for that, for the hearing process there. So with that, Madam Clerk, I can just make sure you set the time for for this and please begin. Mary Garcia, members of the Long Beach City Council. My name is Ed Gallagher with Integral Communities in Newport Beach. And we want to thank the staff for the amount of hard work they've put in and all of the all the negotiations that we've done. And I think that the the the we have a vision we had a vision of what we wanted to see with the development and we worked with staff for it's been over two years now and we think we have a community that's a, a great community and we think that the staff has, has enabled the city to get a lot of public benefits out of this. And we completely concur with that. Um. We started this in December of 2013, and here we are today without going through all the steps which aren't necessary. I think we want to focus on a couple of things. One is that we have really think that we've made a really strong effort to engage the community in what we've been doing all throughout the process. Our first community meeting was in November of 2013 at Mike and Diana Julia's house, who live on 48th Street, the back up to the project. We then had another neighborhood meeting once the project was fully designed and had gone through a conceptual review and comment by the city. And we came up with a plan that you see before you tonight. And we had another meeting on on July 30th at the George House. And I want to thank them so much for being accommodating. We then had a meeting in mid-August of 2014 at the Del Amo Mobile Home Park to address concerns and questions that the mobile home park residents may have. And as as was said by Rincon, we had a scoping meeting in September of 2014 to meetings in September of 2014. And we heard what the residents had to say, and we've tried to address those concerns. We finally had another another neighborhood meeting, adult elementary school in November of 2014. As we've gone through the process and the EIA, the draft here was was out. Do we Amy, could we play the video? Yes, Jeff is. We have a little video that we'd like you to see that kind of capsulize. For what. Community? A planned community is in the neighborhood bounded by Del Amo Boulevard, Long Beach Boulevard, the Los Angeles River and the Virginia Country Club. Oregon Park today and Oregon Park in the future. The development of Oregon Park, which will have a multi-use artificial turf field, will take place simultaneously with the development of River Walk, transforming this vacant lot into a beautifully landscaped and active destination for the neighborhood. It will have a large parking lot surrounded by picnic areas, a playground with state of the art equipment, fitness stations and also modern restrooms. The park will serve the city of Long Beach and the families who live not only in this neighborhood but other neighborhoods as well . Today, Riverwalk is vacant land that will be converted from unused property to a new home planned community with a dramatic entry supported with quality architecture. Next to the secondary exit gate at the terminus of Oregon Avenue, there will be a tot lot serving the children of the Riverwalk community. As we enter the community, we pass through the entry gates, pass the recreation center and travel the street that loops completely around the community delivering the homeowners to their new destination. The homes are designed with variations of the Spanish theme, all with two car garages and fenced rear yards. The entire community. Including the streets. Interior landscaping and the new landscaping on Daisy and Oregon Avenue, will be managed and maintained by a professional homeowners association. What a beautiful community and what a great addition to the neighborhood. Thank you. When bringing the application before the city of Long Beach and the Planning Commission in the City Council. And I think. We're. We want to kind of capsule8 the the what we think are public benefits and how we feel as a public private partnership to to develop this community and to to create benefits for the city. Obviously, you've heard a lot about Oregon Park, and it's a 3.3 acres. It's got a an athletic field that accommodates a regulation soccer field and it accommodates a couple of other things. Amy, can you put those on the screen? The park alternatives. It'll accommodate to youth soccer fields. It will accommodate a two softball or little league diamonds, and it will accommodate a star in the video yet. But it will accommodate a miniature football field 70 yards long. Um, and we're, we've in the development agreement, the details of the park improvements are have been enhanced quite a bit to the tune of about an additional $400,000. So that 2.25 is more like 2.6 to $3 million. We have state of the art restrooms and restrooms have grown have grown to be twice as large as they were to begin with. We have six fitness stations instead of one. We have play equipment for two different age groups instead of one. And we have state of the art lighting that went from 15 to 20000 a night to 60,000. So I hope these lights are really good. And so I think that the the the park itself is is a is a it's a it's going to be a it's an a great location and it's going to accommodate not only people in this neighborhood, but other children and people in other neighborhoods. We want to put that one back up, Amy. The next thing I wanted to go through is the off site street improvements that were that we're doing. And you can see by this map behind you, it's pretty hard to read, but I'll go through it quickly. You can see that there is a traffic signal that's at Del Amo and Oregon Avenue. If you come down, you'll see that there's full street improvements from 48th Avenue South on Oregon and 48 Avenue South on Daisy. There is a Oregon Avenue frontage improvements right in front of the park with new curbs and gutters and sidewalks and landscaping. Then from 48th Avenue there is grind and overlay and new ada handicapped ramps on the three intersections of 48th and Oregon and Daisy and Pacific. In addition, you can see in the blue that those streets which are Pacific 49th and 48th Street, we are we are replacing the curb and gutter on those streets as applicable, which probably is going to be a lot. And then we're either going to slurry or we're going to do grind and overlay, depending on the condition of the street and what the street will handle physically. So we're doing a lot of road improvements that are necessary, and we think that the community is going to benefit but is really going to look sharp. You'll also see on the map that there are two access points to the walking path that are next to the Dominguez Gap wetlands, one from Oregon Park and one from the subdivision, too, to to allow access through the public, through the public and the private community. And as Amy said, we're in the 1.6 to 1.7 million for those street improvements. I think in addition to these improvements, there are other benefits to the city. Property values are obviously going to go up. The property taxes just from this community will generate about $900,000 a year in increased property taxes. Local businesses are going to benefit by business generated from the residents of this community. Jobs are going to be created. And we we. Are. Giving the city about one point, a little over 1.4 million an impact fees and the school district over 1.6 million and school fees. And we think that this community and this development, both the community itself and the park, is creating increasing opportunities for youth activities, enhances the existing neighborhood, and it's making an economic reinvestment in this area . We we realize the temporary inconveniences to our neighbors and an effort of that consideration. We've reached out to Daisy residents and offered to enhance the neighborhood. The neighborhood? So far, what we've done in that neighborhood is and I'll try to go through it quickly, it's a big list, but we've painted 39 houses, we've installed 19 fences painted , six fences painted. We planted drought resistant yards, we've installed window blinds. We've removed 42 tons of trash, installed six security lights, port two driveway pads, repaired four walkways, and the list goes on and on. And we've spent a lot of money doing it because we feel that the neighbors deserve it. And we want we want the neighborhood to feel good about this development. I think that I think that we're we're really excited about developing the site and hopefully the city council will be just as excited as we are. I'd like we have some supporters in the audience and not every single one of them is going to come down here because we want to go home sometime tonight with our supporters. Please stand up. Don't be don't be bashful. Thank you. And you know, if you have any questions, I can answer some now or I'll be around to answer any questions that you might have down the line or or answer objections or positive notes from the audience. Thank you, sir. We're going to keep the hearing going, so thank you. And then you'll have a few minutes at the end, okay. For for any other additional comment. So moving forward, we had the applicant presentation. So now we're going to public comments. So if you're going to comment on this, please come forward. The clerk will set 3 minutes for public comment. And just please make sure you say your name for the record and then begin, sir. Kenneth Kern, 474 Virginia Avenue, about two blocks away. You look like common sense people. Although D Andrews is in here, so I hope he abstains. From the vote. Before certifying this EIA, please ask staff the following four questions How can it. Be justified in the. EIA using the Long Beach average of 2.8 persons per household? While these include tens of thousands of one in ten, one and two bedroom units, while the well, what they're going to build, they're going to be three and four bedroom units. The U.S. Census report indicates 3.6 persons, which is a 29% understatement of all impacts. Second, why are they using 2.0 vehicles per household when the U.S. average is 2.3? This understatement equals 40 additional vehicles for which there is no room to park and the development they will have to park in the already crowded nearby area. Third, why was the fact that Oregon, which is only 18 foot wide and the Daisy and 48 Street, which are only 30 foot wide, was omitted from the report. Doesn't even mention it. Recommended street widths are 36 foot, with 32 foot being the minimum. Will this not create even more unsafe conditions with this increased traffic? Fourth. What specific street do they intend to use for the projected 2064 dump trucks of dirt? If any of these mentioned streets are to be used, how are the vehicles going to pass each other? They can't get through. The air is flawed and biased and should be rejected because all impacts and mitigation measures are underestimated. Adoption of the reduced density alternative allowing 65 homes. Will be the the need to revise. The R and B in keeping with the current zoning. You are inviting a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act. If you certified the sea air and approve these 131 homes. I beg you to ask those for common sense questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and council people. My name is Don Hobson. I live at 4965 Pacific Avenue. I didn't come with a speech tonight. I've lived there 27 years. I've witnessed many accidents at. The intersection of Pacific and Alamo, which is not signaled. The majority of the traffic in the neighborhood use this Pacific Avenue because it's wide enough that two people can pass each other going opposite directions. Daisy Avenue. That's not possible. It's a give and go situation and they're talking about increasing the traffic load to 1200. It's it's impossible. But nobody has addressed the. Comments that have been put forth on the air other than to say that. There is no problem with the road widths. But I beg you to go out and measure them and drive them and. Try to try to pass each. Other on those roads. It's impossible. I'm just concerned about. The long term traffic that will be impacting our neighborhood and running into the ground in the long term. Please reconsider the air on. This and look into some of the statistics on it, as was. Mentioned earlier, and see if there isn't a better way that we could improve this community. I'm in favor of it, of building. Homes, but 65 homes would be a lot less impact and more. Tolerable. Than 131. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Ann Cantrell. There are so many things wrong with this development. I don't have time to address them all. Density, parking, traffic. Air quality noise. Water bill availability. Lack of solar artificial turf in the Oregon park, the PD and adverse biological effects on the project site and the nearby Dominguez Gap. The mitigation for the birds and the other wildlife is inadequate. Putting a 25 foot zone, a buffer zone around a nesting site is not going to help the birds with the construction noise and the people that are around there. It was stated that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any repair and habitat, federally protected wetlands or any other sensitive natural communities. This is 200 feet from the defense gap. How can they say that the noise of the construction and the traffic will not have an effect on the habitat of the Dominguez gap ? Also the pod's zoning is, uh. We've tried increase density before with cracker boxes in the 1980s with disastrous results no available parking, increased crime and deteriorating neighborhoods. Staff calls this good urban planning. Anyone familiar with the rat and mice studies of John B Calhoun would disagree with this. He saw a breakdown in social structure and normal social behavior when rodents were crowded together. They were given everything they needed except space. As the population increased, the behavior deteriorated until finally the population quit breeding. High density doesn't work for rats and it doesn't work for humans. Instead of changing the zoning, the developer should change the project. And if you insist on allowing this flawed project to proceed. Do not make this a one size fits all zoning by allowing similar crowded conditions in other projects around the city. In addition to space, the city does not have the water nor the infrastructure to continue to increase its population. Please deny this disastrous plan. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Nancy Embry. I live at 4125 Linden Avenue. I'm concerned about this project. Most specifically, I think that a lot of the things that have been mentioned are problems, but the most specific ones are traffic and land use. Stacy Avenue is very narrow. I've taken it with my son who goes to school in Carson. Also, Delano is very congested, very difficult to get through on Delano. And because of the river and because. Of the freeway, it's it's hard to get across from Long. Beach to anywhere to the West except on board Lower Delano. And now we're going to add to that congestion. In addition to the land use, changing. The from open space. And park to townhomes is just a big mistake. In the northwest part of Long Beach, we're very much underserved with open space and parks. If you'll recall, the other parts of the city have recreation park, which is in excess of 300 acres. We have El Dorado. Park in excess of 300 acres. Hartwell Park in excess of 200 acres. What have we got in the northwest? You know, a. Few acres at Oregon Park is hardly. Compensation for doing this high density development in our neighborhood. Really what we need is more open space and more parks, and that's what we should be doing with this property. So I am absolutely. Against specifically adopting the. Resolution to amend the land use element of the general plan from DE 11 to D3. It's just wrong. So I urge you to vote against this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes. Thank you for hearing my vote on my comments. My name is Richard Reason. I'm a resident here of Long Beach. I think in this area of this part of North Long Beach, I consider it North Long Beach with the. Beginning. Of the. Agenda of the area that you were talking about earlier, about the wetlands and so forth. This is going to go great with the Oregon Park area. It's also going to bring jobs. It's also going to bring more, better living status in. The area. And upgrade the area of. That neighborhood of. Between Oregon. Daisy and Pacific. The contractors and people that are working on this project have nothing but positive attitude toward this thing, and I know they are out to do the best for that neighborhood. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah. Joe Sopko, fifth district. You have my address. Mayor City Council member. Staff I've been selling real estate in Long Beach for over 30 years, and so I drove that area where the project is proposed and. The whole infrastructure. I mean, all those streets, everything is it's not going to take the traffic at all of those streets to need to be replaced, like much of North Long Beach. It's been neglected. It's been second or third on the list. It's it just it needs a lot of help. Now, that presentation was very nice. But it was like putting lipstick on a pig. You know, they didn't point out the railroad tracks right on one boundary. I live in a two story house and believe me, it takes a while to get that second story. And they're going to build some three story homes. You know, I've never heard of a three story house. I don't live in that. I mean, you'd have to have an elevator in every one of these houses. If if I took one view after this project was built as a client to take a look at this project, you'd say, turn this car around. I will not live here. And this developer, Mr. Gallagher, seemed like a nice fella. But someone should have told him back in December of 2013. It's not here. It it doesn't work here. Education's real important. All of you that have had children or grandchildren, you know how important education is. And you want your children in the best schools that you can look up on. Look on the Internet and you can judge schools. It's terrific. And you've got a you've got a2a3 and a five rating on schools. That's just totally unsatisfactory. No one would move there if they had children. No, I don't know. No prices were quoted, but I've heard $600,000 for one of these units. That's you're not going to have a homeowner or someone with children wanting to live there with those low ratings on schools. God bless the schools. I'm sure they're doing the best they can do. But anybody who's going to invest 5 to $600000 in that area would have to have better schools than that. And they certainly are not going to send it to private schools because we just can't afford that. So. So I would tell you, too, that in the eighties, when I was selling real estate, I always wanted to testify against a project that was destroying the community again. And just project zip is like the cracker boxes in the eighties. Please don't do this to the community. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Renee Lawler. I live in Wrigley on San Francisco Avenue. And you hear a consistent theme in my message regarding equestrian. And this is another project that is in the L.A. River Recreation area that does not address adequately the negative impacts to the equestrian community and the historic trail. So this this project does have a Class one issue where the equestrian community has not been addressed. Not only do the Wrigley equestrians rely on the trail that's directly adjacent to this project subject zone, but also the stables in DeLand, Alamo, and any equestrian that use that uses the trail system is potentially negatively experiencing a negative impact . You have a high density development which is directly opposing what the equestrian experience is all about, and to put a high density development right on top of the historic trail without including and incorporating setbacks, without incorporating safety signage, when when you're having all of those new homeowners access and cross over the trail. Again, I reiterate the dangers and concerns that that are not really being addressed for that equestrian community. You have existing zoning law here in the city of Long Beach. You've got an equestrian overlay document which is applicable to the Wrigley Equestrian Zone. But there are certain guidelines within that horse overlay that talk about setback with respect to residents, with respect to anything that is adjacent to, you know, that is residential adjacent to an equestrian existing equestrian area. And and that that zoning overlay should have some application to this project. In addition, you are basically inhibiting and eliminating the continuous mobility of the equestrian user groups. If you proceed with the construction of this project during the time of construction, I understand that there's going to be about a two or three year period of construction with the contractors intending to utilize the the river easement and or trail area for for construction vehicles and equipment and access. So you have disrupted the trail not only from the Delano users coming south, but the equestrians in Wrigley going north. And you've provided no mitigation plan for alternative route for that equestrian trail and the users that are currently dependent upon it, it's our lifeline. It's the only access we have for exercising our horses and we need to be considered. And I oppose this. I ask you not to vote for this project. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Dody Soto and my address is 4784 Virginia Avenue. I've lived there for 40 years. Daughter Would you mind just pulling your mic? Do you. Can you hear me better? Okay. I've lived there for 40 years. That's hard to say these days, isn't it? And I'm an angry resident. I'm sorry you have to see this side of me tonight. But my concerns for the Riverwalk housing project led me to petition against it as well as other my other 250 neighborhood residents. My blood pressure is up in my thoughts for peaceful retirement. I don't imagine squeezing 131 homes and ten acres. Of land that is just incomprehensible to me. I will also add that not once during the planning committee meeting was the possibility of a reduced density alternative discussed or debated. This would at least lessen the number. Of homes to. 65 that could be built. Because of the number of petitioners who could not attend this meeting and have their voices heard, either due to their work schedules this evening or the availability of free VIP bussing to City Hall, such as was provided to selected residents only by the developer this evening. This seems to present a very biased situation. We have been an unheard group of residents, even by our eighth District Council member, Mr. Elston, who never wanted to share our grievances and the impact of this project with us. But come election time, Mr. Austin, you will feel the impact of the voters. It appears your goal is to build a park at Oregon and Delano and generate more tax revenue. Great idea. But did you have to trade off to the Will Rogers Boy Scout camp to accomplish this? Parking issues. Traffic noise, more pollution. I plead with the council. Is this what you would want? Your neighborhood? You want to Disneyland in your backyard? I think not. Council, can you please tell me one question? Are petitions still do they still hold a voice in today's public? Is it a waste to go and have petitions? I have 250 petitioners here, local residents that have lived there as long as I have. We're mortified with this. We do not want this in our area. It doesn't fit. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Janice John. I have been working in this area and. Just make sure if you can just name and address or neighborhood for unless you have it on file. I'm I'm sorry. I live in this Long Beach area and I have been working out here as well. And I see a lot of good coming from this project, a lot of benefits. I think the park is awesome because there's not a whole lot of that in that area that is available to the children, in the family , in the community. I do see with the project itself a very beneficial, um, can I say an increase in quality of living being introduced. And I think that also impacts the schools. I have been working in schools for several decades and I have also started out in schools that have been on the lower end of the rating having difficulty. But I've also seen when there has been an introduction into the community with a more, uh, increase in quality of living, you tend to get more involvement in the schools as well from the families. That in turn also increases the quality of the schools. I am definitely in favor of this project and I do hope it goes through. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Hayley. Argo and I live in the north Long Beach area and I work in the Bixby Knolls area. And personally I think the project, um, it, it's a good project. It will create more jobs in the area and I think that's important. Me as a college student, that's a big concern. And, um, I just think having more jobs in general is great, especially in that area. I think it'll boost the economy. I think it to me it sounds as though the developers are very interested in not only making the quality of life for the development and. The project itself. Um. I guess, bringing the quality of it up. But the surrounding areas as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yes, hello. My name is Randy Wise. I live at 200 West 48th Street on a corner of Portland, Oregon. First of all, mayor, to you and the count and to the council chamber. And also, I like the knowledge of my vet, my fellow veterans and their families. You know, thank you very much for your service. I am a vet as well and I'm a disabled vet. I'm really totally against this project because when they first had to preliminaries, had contractors coming and cutting down trees, as the trees were hitting the ground, cracks was coming all out to my house and me and my wife . We still went into this day. If this project began, how would it affect our house? Because of trees can fall and hit the ground cause cracks like that. And we're like, who's going to fix this? Right now we face what cracks unbelievable in our house because of the impact of the trees in the ground. No one gave us warning. No one mentioned anything about the contractors coming in. But now we're faced with cracks. All of our house. Some of these cracks look very I mean, it's really frustrating. So if if those cracks are from trees, once they start shifting to Earth, what's going to become of our house, not just our house ? What about our neighbor house who's elderly? Can't speak. What about the neighbors down the street? You know, I think it's great that the city of receiving revenue, I'm I'm totally with that. But it shouldn't be done at the expense of somebody losing their home or home caving in. They come home. Major problems at home. Who's going to fix this problem? You know, we're faced with problem problems right now that we trying to wonder who's going to fix this? No one. No one young lady gave me her card, told me to call her by the name of Miss Diane Ripley, sent her email. That was like four weeks ago. And she says, You call me in two weeks. Never heard nothing back from her. That's great that they fixing up the neighborhood on paint jobs and all that. That's a blessing. But what about the people who homes are affected once they start shift in the dirt? I'm right in the eye of the storm. So once this happened, what's going to become of my house? Is it gonna cave in when I come on? One day, me and my family are going to be in danger. We'll be sleeping at night here, crack. Next thing, the whole house caved in on us. What's going to happen? That's a good question. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is John Sloan and I live at 163 West 48th Street, right across from where the new development is going. Going into it, going into I happen to support the new development because of all the positive changes it's bringing about in the neighborhood. Because you can see my neighbors are all here. This is the first time I probably met some of them, but I fully support it just for the fact that it is bringing positive change. I like my neighbor, Randy. I'm on the front lines. I'm right across the street from the development and being right across the street from that development, I've dealt with a lot of crap that's going on in our neighborhood. And what I mean by a lot of crap is I'm constantly over in the Ian where Organ Avenue ends, picking up trash along with three other my other neighbors and including that trash that we pick up. We're picking up condoms, we're picking up just trash, weed, weed bottles and all that other stuff. So I do support positive change that's coming through the neighborhood. The reservations I wanted to bring, what I want, what I wanted to bring up is I do have a few reservations with the increased amount of traffic that's coming in the neighborhood that's going to again, that that kind of it scares me already. We're having difficult issues parking in the neighborhood and we get the traffic from Dilemma Avenue during the busy, busy hours. And, you know, we just get a lot of people speeding around that corner where I live, and it creates a problem for me and my neighbors. Other reservations I do want to mention, my neighbors are just right, I'm afraid for them as well, especially the neighbor, the neighbors that are in that cul de sac. Because I do see their street is sinking. I'm concerned for them. They are good neighbors. I love my neighbors in that area and I don't want to see them have to move just because or get hurt just because what the new development may bring. So there are some reservations, but all in all, I do support this positive change. I do I mean, I do wish that they consider dropping the amount of homes from 131 to a little smaller amount. But all in all, I do support what goes on in that community. I do support what Al Austin is doing in that community. Fantastic job. And I just want to say thank you and thank you for my neighbors are coming out here and carrying. Thank you, sir. I like your jacket and let's go pitch next speaker. Segway I got my name is Tammy Bennett and I am immediate neighbor on two on one for you eighth street. I'm nervous because this is very dear to my heart. What's going on? I let you know where I'm coming from. I am very proud of my city. I'm proud of the work that all of you have done, especially tonight with approving the development of the Forest Park. I moved here from Northern California just to go to Cal State, Long Beach, go Beach. And I. I am proud of where Long Beach has gone. I'm proud, Mayor, that you have been working really hard with all of us, with the river uplink as well. I agree with Richard, who commented that the forest that will blend with my neighborhood at the Dominguez Gap. I do not agree that this project will blend with my neighborhood and the Dominguez Gap. This I have gone to all the neighbors that at all the neighborhood meetings that I had mentioned. I went to the scoping meetings. I have studied the reports, kept up communication with the eighth District Council office, made public comments, reported code and ordinance violations to this city. That has happened with integral communities. I have attended the public hearing. I've been speaking up and I have searched through the legislator appendix and findings that you all received. And I am not confident that what Ed says they've been trying to work with with the community. It's not showing up for us. We we want to know that off site traffic studies will reflect what we brought up as a community of the scoping meetings with the width of the streets, all the streets in and out of that area. My my neighborhood does have a distinct character. It has the eucalyptus trees that line the perimeter of the property. They sway in the breeze. They attract the birds who live near the Dominguez gap, and they absorb the noise pollution from the metro line, the Union Pacific Freight Lines. They are blowing their their horns last night, mid midnight, mid-day early morning. The buffer zone that they want to put here with this particular project has only 20 feet high. Freeze. They will not. If I fear they will not give the privacy to to my neighborhood and keep the the the quality of life that my my neighbors and I have been able to go. I want to be proud of of my neighborhood. I, I deal with the blight. My neighbors and I deal with the blight in and out. We use the Go Beach app to get the trash cleaned up off of the 48th Street berm Union Pacific. I want to know what you would be proud of. This project doesn't reflect that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi there. My name is Gabrielle Weekes. I'm a resident of the second District, but I'm the elected chair of the Sierra Club for the 11 cities in and around Long Beach. So I represent members in all the council districts. You guys got a letter a few weeks ago from one of our volunteers, Justin Ramirez, suggesting that some other things happen with this property because Long Beach has been such a leader with union issues as well as environmental issues. We were surprised that this didn't call for a union labor to build these things, but also that we lost an opportunity to be environmental leaders here. There are developments going in in a lot of neighboring communities in Southern California that require for large developments like this that they have solar on the roof, that they have gray water, drought tolerant landscaping. I heard tonight that the developer is gifting drought tolerant landscaping to the neighbors to to buy their, you know, support for the issue . I'd like to see some drought tolerant landscaping on this actual development. Maybe some other environmental components like, oh, I'm sure increased insulation that that would require less air conditioning and heating in the seasons if they did more than just the bare minimum that's required by law. So there's a lot of things that with a large development like this, whether it's 60 some odd homes or 130 that you guys could have this really be an example for what transit oriented development. Make a special bus stop there or as well as just environmentally responsible development could look like. And so I hope you guys will maybe search through your emails and look for that letter from just a Ramirez. It had a few ideas, I'm sure there maybe even some more. If you guys want to make that, hold that to the same standard that like Signal Hill and Irvine are now doing for large developments. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Kobe Sky. I'm a second district resident. My address is on file. I'm also an environmental engineer. I'm on the Sustainable City Commission and a board member of the local Sierra Club as well. And I know that often Sierra Club is painted as opposed to development. And I just want to make clear that we're not opposed to development. But we have spoken out at council meetings before in opposition to the development that has a significant negative impact on the environment, on the quality of life of residents, on developments that don't have redeeming qualities in terms of environmental mitigation, affordable housing, other criteria that we as a city hold are important and developments that have terrible precedence in terms of land use, in terms of secure, in terms of the environmental impacts. And this project hits all of those. And so I won't repeat comments that have already been raised, but I think that, um, we're very concerned about the way this project has been moving forward, and we hope that the Council send it back for further consideration. Also, just to echo comments that were raised earlier, I think further vetting of projects like this, especially at this scale, we haven't seen a project of this scale, a residential project in many years. And we have a great Sustainable City Commission with a lot of really great expertize, and we'd love to see projects of this scale come to that commission so we can help the developers get some of the environmental issues that are raised. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, I'm Joel Weinstein. I live in District eight. I walked out to this site just a couple of days ago. I drove to the Gateway also to get a real feel for this. What strikes me is that what you're being asked to do tonight, the whole list is illogical. You're being asked to designate a new zoning. When this is not even part of the menu that you're able to do legally. And then later you're being asked to approve this new zoning citywide. There was a comment, I think, from his body that no, it really wouldn't apply citywide. But if you look at the language, it would it just is that apparently her department doesn't intend to immediately invoke its provisions because there aren't projects immediately in the pipeline to apply it to. Now, if, in fact, you think you can pass a new ordinance for which there's been no due notice, I think you have something to think about. The process is probably illegal and is for sure illegitimate. It is unfair. There has been no public discussion of a citywide policy. Every call, every call to these hearings emphasized that this is about River Walk About or Oregon Del Amo Park about that neighborhood. So there's no clue to residents except that there's no clue to residents of the city. What's really at stake? It's citywide. Now, is the news possible new zoning a good idea? Well, I think if you look at this project. Well, first of all, the new zoning is a catch all because it's not only R.P. 13, it could be R.P. anything. In other words, it's total flexibility, which is regarded by the proponents as a good thing. Actually, you have zoning regulations not to permit total flexibility, but to have constraints. So really, this is kind of an anything goes new zoning with a particular case of our P 13. And you see what that case may mean when it's played out at this project site. This project essentially has been designed as a high class ghetto. It has a one gate. I'm on like the planning documents of ten and 20 years ago in the city, which said, let's have higher density, but let's put the residents along transit corridors and business centers so that they can be well-served by good public transit to get to their jobs and they can patronize businesses there. This is not it at all. Rather, what it reminds me of is my father's memoirs. When he came to the USA. They passed through Warsaw on their way from the Ukraine and they lived for a couple of days with relatives in a Warsaw tenement. One gate served hundreds of people. There were tenements and then tenements and tenements. And of course, 22 years later, that became part of the Warsaw Ghetto. That's sort of what you're acting for if you go with this. Thank you. Thank your next speaker, please. I'm not a public speaker. So I wrote this down. My name is Diana Drew, and I live at 116 West 48th Street. Um, our house is directly adjacent to the proposed development that would literally be in our backyard. When we chose our house, we chose it for a lot of reasons, one being the privacy that we had. The Boy Scout Park was back there filled with acres of trees and it was really nice. But things change and we all know that they're going to change. The Boy Scout Park is not there anymore. That land is going to be developed by somebody somehow. So. We need somebody that's going to make it better, not worse. We think that with this property going in, this development going in, it's going to increase our property values. It's not going to decrease them. If this doesn't go in, somebody else will come in and maybe they come in with more townhomes. Maybe they come in with condos, maybe they come in with lower income. And that decreases our property, but it also increases the crime. This group has come out into the neighborhood. They've gone door to door. They've talked to all of us and asked us what we need. Some people answer, some people don't. Some people like to complain. There's nothing I can do about that. But they've asked us. They've helped us. I don't know what more we can really ask. We want our neighborhood to improve. We want our area to improve. They want our area to improve. It seems like our goals are kind of the same. Is it a perfect plan? No. You know, is ever going to be happy about it? No. But considering the possible alternatives that are out there, I think it's a good plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Laurie Angell. I live at 458 East Platt Street, which is probably within a half mile of the of the development in real estate. It's location, location, location. Now, I don't have a problem necessarily with density. The problem with the density of this project is where it's located. There's no easy way in and out of that neighborhood. If you picked up that piece, that parcel ten acres and put it elsewhere where people could get in and out of the neighborhood be a completely different story. So it isn't being adverse to density. It's been adverse to that level of density in an area that you can't get in and out of. So it doesn't really belong there. That's the problem. So what you need, you need to reduce the density of that project if you're going to have it there. Otherwise, you're introducing lifelong problems to that neighborhood that's going to impact them for the rest of their days. It's the it's the wrong thing to do. The parking is inadequate. I mean, they don't have driveways. You just have to park in your garage. I did notice that there's a little street parking, but I can hardly see it at all. We were told there's no significant impacts with parking, but there's going to be 1200 increased trips per day through the neighborhood. 1200 increased trips. But the city doesn't have a standard, so it's no problem. The city doesn't have a standard, so it's no problem. Are you kidding me? We're going to allow the increased traffic because the city doesn't have a standard for that and there's no way to mitigate it. It's going to happen. So so what my suggestion is, I mean, I was part of redevelopment. We bought the property for for Oregon Park. We want Oregon Park. I worked on that for years and years and years. Don't do Oregon Park. Don't do the level of improvements to that neighborhood that you're doing that is forcing the developer to have that level of density in the neighborhood. Don't do it. We'll do the park some other time. It's a wonderful little thing to just put in front of you, but the cost to the neighborhood and the individuals and the safety issues on the street are overwhelming. So talking about alternatives, the only alternative we got was 131 units. That's our alternative. Give us an alternative that works better for everybody. So the city and the developer have been working on this for two years. What we got was a fully baked, baked plan with. Absolutely. I mean, you know, the incidental public input that you have to do for these plans without any real anybody really listening to us. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Josette Sangria, and I live on D.C. Avenue for eight, six, six D.C. Avenue. And thank you for your time tonight. Pardon me for my vocal chords. Not really functioning well. But I'm perfect. No problem. I'm sorry. I said you sound perfect. Oh, thank you. I was here on October 15th, and tonight I would like to continue on supporting this project. I am very excited. And for my children who grew up in Long Beach and who also received scholarships, not to underestimate the schools in Long Beach. You know, we have a motto at home that anywhere you go, anywhere, any place you go, the first teachers are the parents. And it is the teaching at home and the discipline at home that helps the children grow. So and we have been to the other in a city in Carson also. Of supporting the project long before the Home Depot. And we were other ground breaking also for that one because we wanted our children to grow in a community to to be part of a community where sports also are emphasized. And this park here in Oregon would welcome the inner cities, too, to give them a chance to make their minds busy. A lot of teenagers, a lot of young people growing up and we know the fact that there are so many, you know, broken homes due to addiction, all that. And we want to integrate our children the education itself. And not only that, sports, too. And for this project, it has really. Given our community like we are? Well, I have been there almost 20 years, and I don't even know some of the some of the residents there. Now it's uniting our community. And it's I think I'm very, really excited and want my children and my grandchildren to be proud that I'm a part of supporting a project like this. Because my children grew up and they had scholarships in college and in tennis, and now they're successful. And now they are also looking for homes in Long Beach. And my other daughter lived in San Diego, moved back and she's she looked at a change and she wants more change, too. And this is a big change. And I'm so thankful for the Riverwalk homes and the developer. Thank you so much for your time. And I am here to support every every step of the way for it. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Edward Giles. I live at 240 West 48th Street. I live in a cul de sac on 48th Street that's neighboring. To. The River Walk project. Family lives and homes matter in our community. Fans in this community have complained that their homes and streets are thinking. They have not received a response to any of the fan. Satisfactions from the lobby city officials. As soon as a developer. Wants to come and totally. Rearrange our community. We have pending. Infrastructure. The Planning Commission approved the Riverwalk project. To be presented to the. City Council for final approval. During this commission. Session, it appeared to this writer that the general consensus of the Planning Commission that it was going to be inevitable that the Boy Scout. Camp grounds that is not open area will be. Resolved by developers and communities should be happy with the deal that was on the table. I know that this may be. True and the committee must make some sacrifices. But to build 131 homes, the 4747. Daisy Avenue is. Overwhelming and not acceptable. The traffic volume, pollution parking problems will create a major impact. To the infrastructure of our communities. The neighboring homes to the river project should not have to endure two and. Three story homes overlooking our homes, which will eliminate privacy, peace and tranquility. It's one thing to remove. Well over 100. Mature trees. But to lose your peace and tranquility to two. Two. Two and three storey homes will have a negative, negative impact to my family. The developer's efforts to reach out to the community are well noted. But all the paint. Fences, fences. Pruning of trees. To to affect the. Curbside appearances for the residents. Close to the entry and exit the daisy and organ avenue would not change the facts. Too many people. Vehicles and water drought will still have a dramatic negative effect on the infrastructure. Of our community and my family. Our concerns were brought to the attention of our eighth District Council member in informal gathering. His response. Was, Just ask the. Developer for what you want done in the community. Chances are. You get it? I shouldn't have to negotiate with the developer for infrastructure concerns. I have observed other areas in the community within the district. And sidewalks that are maintained new paved by the city of Long Beach. Why does our community have to negotiate with a developer for infrastructure construction concerns? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, council members and good evening. I'm Eric Garcia and my name is Virgil and I live in DC Avenue and between 40 and 49th Street and I live there since 1999 and I'm here in support of the Riverwalk project I'm supporting is because this is the continuation of the beautification of the not Long Beach. It's virtually done by your ex-mayor and you as a mayor right now that you're doing a good job in the not long bits. No indication of the alley and the not the Long Beach volleyball road. And the reason why I'm supporting this is because the not Long Beach now is losing a lot of businesses. One hope is that we lost the arts, we lost the rails, we lost the harbor paths and all those small businesses in these buildings and not Long Beach Boulevard. You can see a lot of vacancies, a lot no tenants now. But because of this Riverwalk project, this will help boost the surrounding businesses and all the restaurants and all the gasoline stations and everything will benefit from all this Riverwalk project vacation. You can see the beautification. They really help get behind the surroundings of the Dixie Avenue, Oregon Pacific and about eight and 49 Street. And this is this will continue the beautification project of Long Beach Long Beach mayor and and and others. And I can I can see the big picture that this will really help boost the air and the value of the homes in the surroundings. And also, you know, the traffic that is normal here in LA, in Southern California is it's always there, this tropical wherever you go, especially on grass hours. And I'm pretty sure this project, city project will have a solution to those. That's why they're putting a traffic light. And I also emphasize I think this is better than the leave. This land, idle and useless is better. They have something in there, it's gasoline. Or you going to have a beautiful park where they put the people around the area will benefit and it's good. And the Del Amo that all those cars passing by will see the dedication that's going on in the area. That's why I'm here in support of this project. I can see the big picture and I know that this is will help a lot of things in the area. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm going to I'm going to go ahead. And unless there's anyone else close the speakers list, please just get in line. If you're if you're planning on speaking, sir, move, move the the line down so I can get everybody in there. But I'm going to. Go ahead, sir. Hello. My name is Luke Halsey. I reside in 4956 Daisy Avenue on the list on this address for 60 years. To me, it seems like this project is being rushed through by some special interest groups who want to make some quick money. This project, in its present form is too big for the area. The three story home just don't fit in fit. In the area. The streets in this area. What they said before falling apart, they need to be dug up. The slurry seal doesn't do the job also and it is too much. Traffic on these streets is ridiculous. And also. Maybe by losing development, who was looking at a rusting railroad, bridges all full of graffiti and everything. And that bridge was built in 2002. And has never been painted. I mean, what an eyesore you and and see what else to do to the project. This development is being cut back by at least a whole bunch of homes. I don't know the exact number. Daisy Avenue would have to be made a one way street between. 49th and Alamo northbound. Only because two way traffic is a disaster. Coming down the street is just too narrow. And also as far as the park goes. What are they going to do about that park being a magnet for crime, gangs, trash. Graffiti and everything else out there that's going to be fenced. Off yet to have a post, a guard, 24 hours a day there, that just could be. A magnet for crime. And also when we. Do get the police, the police are too busy being south of the Pacific Railroad. Tracks are all hiding on Bixby Knolls and Virginia Country Club. And when they do come to town, they run it through the. Real quick and disappear. So anyway, this is this project needs to be examined. More thoroughly before a decision is made. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Richard Ivey. My address is on file. I'm worried that this sets a precedent like we did in the 1980s, where we created all those cracker boxes. We have adjacent property of the oil operator site. We have the idea that this can go on in in other districts without really thinking about this, without having, you know, the proper outreach, the idea of permitting and in fact, encouraging to the point of creating a special zoning designation for a land use form we do not want is baffling. We do not want high density development in most of Long Beach as one of the reasons we live here rather than in downtown L.A.. It is because even though we are an area with a high population, we are spread out. And that's what makes Long Beach the great city that it is. This would be great in the area surrounding city hall, around city hall. This proposed ordinance might make sense where New could replace some of the old, severely outdated projects that do not provide parking and basic necessities like laundry area recreational amenities. Ironically, though, this is probably one of the few areas in Long Beach that other areas in Long Beach that this will encourage to have high density development. The Gaslamp District down in San Diego. There was not the high density that we got with the cracker box houses, and those areas have been able to be restored and regenerated. This is going to set the precedent where, again, like some areas where we have the cracker box houses, I've done property management. It's really hard when you're on a block with something that's overbuilt and you can't change it to try to restore a neighborhood. And this is going to we can rebuild our cities. We're looking at the future. They did a project on the genome in the 1990s and they determined, you know, they were talking all about it was genetics. It was this. We rely on our city to develop infrastructure, to develop the environment we're going to live in, to determine the kind of people and the kind of city we're going to have in the future. And genetics determined to be irrelevant. They determined the most important thing that is environment. And we're setting the future of our city and we're not making a good precedent for environment. If you do support before before the next speaker. Just the gentleman. The end is the last speaker. So, Mr. Good, who you already are, were in line. So you called. But the gentleman in the end. Raise your hand real quick there. That's your final speaker there. Okay, so we're just going to close the speaker's list. We got everybody else in line. Sir, your next. Thank you. I'm John Bolton. I'm the director of the Long Beach Boy Scouts. And on behalf of the board of directors of the Boy Scouts, I want to thank you for the opportunity of addressing you all. I just wanted to share a few things tonight about about this project and about the process that the Boy Scouts went through in determining what we were going to do with J. Read Scout Park back in 2008 at the downturn, economic downturn, we were seeking ways that we could be fiscally sustainable and manage the assets that we currently had. And we embarked upon a new strategic planning process at Tenet. Most of you might not be aware, but we had a tenant at will J read a long view private school that at its peak at 225 students in it and that closed in 2008. And so as we went through that process, we clearly carefully evaluated all our facilities for current usage patterns, future use of patterns, deferred maintenance, and also what could be a replacement of usage. And we'll do a read scout part kept on coming to the top of our lists to be evaluated in an effort to preserve the site . We worked with nearly a dozen groups, including private schools, other youth groups and community organizing organizations trying to preserve the property. In 2011, we brought in the Trust for Public Lands, a nationally recognized land conservation group. TPL worked for a year and a half to form a coalition to purchase and operate the site by the expiration of the contract in 213, TPL was not able to garner enough interest for a public access facility, and so we decided to put it on the open market, and now that's where Indigo Properties purchased it. So what does that meant to us and what does that meant for the Boy Scouts? The sale has allowed us to invest in our other properties. We lease RC based on a Naples Island. We own a square mile in the mountains, and it's given confidence not only for us to invest in those properties, but confidence for donors to invest in us. We have completed $200,000 improvements at our base and we put $1,000,000 into camp targets and we use very little from the proceeds of the sale for that. That's all come through donations. In addition, we've raised an additional $2 million towards other projects with an eventual goal of 5.8 million to invest in the sea bass in our current service center. I think that the ultimate thing that this will mean is more families for scouts, more families, schools, more families for businesses, and plus a new park. And I hope that you approve it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next week for peace. Good evening. My name is Carmen Valdez. I'm an eighth district resident and coincidentally, a proud mother of a first class scout. This is just an aside that came to me tonight. Rules and regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, Article nine, Clause six specifically states the Boy Scouts of America shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, its charter councils or members, involve the scouting movement and any question of political character. I would like you to take that into consideration when you consider the previous speakers comments. This year, the city of Long Beach ranks as 18th in Park score out of the largest 75 cities in the U.S.. It would have done better if not for the fact that the size of a median park in Long Beach is a mere three acres. Tonight, you can lower our rank by eliminating a park that is three times the medium size by rezoning it. The chairman of the Long Beach Planning Committee mission, Mark Christopher, stated, quote, This property is too valuable not to develop. I asked the council today. Have any of you researched the cost of the city to transform ten and a half acres of already developed land into parkland? Is it even feasible? Excuse me for disagreeing with Mr. Christopher's shortsightedness. Earlier this year, tens of thousands of Long Beach residents went without power for five days. Let me repeat that. Tens of thousands of Long Beach residents went without power for five days. This was followed weeks later with another lasting three days. Have any on this council or the office of the mayor considered that this outage was due to the strain of an outdated infrastructure and the continual development of the downtown area in the last few years? During the Planning Commission meeting. When asked about the additional load to the existing grid, added Gallagher of Integral two communities flippantly replied If everyone's power will be off when the system is taxed, so will those in this development. Tonight, the Council will vote on the countless health, social, environmental and economic benefits of Parkland to a community council member. Austin. Is it your legacy to be that of the council member who thought parks are overrated and not necessary and that cookie cutter homes as ubiquitous as fungus which paint the landscape of Orange County, are more valuable than our health, wellbeing and safety. How about making this land the crown of the divorce wetlands about which you so enthusiastically spoke earlier? Where do your priorities lay? I ask that you reject the rezoning of this land from you. Allowed number 11 to elude. Three. Elude. Three. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Ray Gavlak, eighth district. And I'd like to ask if you would please listen for comparison. The following Long Beach parks are close to the same size as will Jay Reed, Ramona Park, Martin Luther King Park, Mother's Beach, Los Cerritos Park, Golden Shore, Reserve and Cherry Park. They're all between seven and a quarter to ten and a quarter acres. Now, imagine these parks tucked away in the corner of an underserved neighborhood with ingress and egress limited to only two locations onto these currently overburdened and narrow streets, streets that have not been maintained and are beyond being able to be fixed with. A slurry. Seal. Now envision that they're within blocks of a large mobile park that serves 131 mobile homes. Their entrance and exit onto Oregon that has no parking allowed on the street and can only support one car in one direction at a time. On the opposite border of this enclosed neighborhood is the Gresham housing project that was built to support Section eight housing needs. The other two borders are the lovely Dominguez Gap wetlands that serves our residents with a quiet, open space opportunity. And the other is Union Pacific Railroad at the top of a 30 foot embankment. And you heard they travel throughout the night. Can you honestly state that you would relocate or suggest to a friend or a family member to invest $600,000 in a home in this type of neighborhood? The Dominguez Gap residential community itself struggles with poor property maintenance, crime, parking issues, abandoned properties and narrow streets. These descriptive words were used at the Planning Commission meeting by people that spoke in support of the project. I'd like to say kudos to the developer for providing exterior paint on dozens of these homes, fixing gates and yards to gather support for their project. But even this act of bribery does not seem sufficient to entice new homeowners to drive to their private gated community tucked in the corner of this isolated neighborhood. Daisy and Pacific are defined as the main entrance off of Delano Boulevard for this proposed development. Driving west on Del Amo, both left turn pockets are limited to two cars maximum. What happens during the high traffic hours in case you don't drive it, it's gridlock. With the approval of this project, there will be an additional 300 vehicles. Council members. You may want this new zoning for other areas like the property being sold at Los Coyotes and Woodruff in the fifth district or the seventh District oil field properties in Wrigley. But even those have better access than what we're talking about tonight. It is a separate issue. And Councilmember Austin, please take the lead on this. You were elected to improve quality of life for our residents, not support negative development that isn't even from our city. Don't allow this to move forward by approving new zoning that will give the developer the opportunity maybe to sell it off now with entitlements back to the community with zero leverage. Thank you. Right. Time's up. Keep this. Land is open space for the citizens of Long Beach. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Hello. My name is Mike Driller. I live on 14th Street. My wife spoke earlier. We're right on the property line there. I feel a little funny speaking with all of these good speakers who have obviously done a lot of homework. My homework is kind of. Now let's say it's much less. I talked to Al Austin. Of course, he's a politician. And I talked to Ed Gallagher, who's essentially a salesman in this situation. But I like what they say. I believe them. And I think that the good guys that are trying to do what they can. In the situation. It's not a good one. I mean, there's a lot of. There's a lot of downside to this, but they paid $6 million for this ground. And it's not a Boy Scout camp anymore. It's going to be sold. It's going to be developed. And I'd like to try to do it with that company and the people that have been coming around. I know they're just painting houses and fiction gates, but I appreciate that. And maybe I'm just easy to bribe. But I like Moran. I think I approve of this development. Thank you. But after this gentleman, Mr. Good here, you're going to be to this gentleman and the last few speakers. I think he's the last one. So, Mr. Good here. You will go before him, okay? No, no, not before him. Go ahead, sir. Your next. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Councilman. My name is Victor. I live on Daisy Street, 48th Street and 49th. I'd like to say that the project Riverwalk is is is going to bring a lot of positive and, you know, a lot of progress to our area. When buying a home sometime in 2011, 2012, I was discerning where to buy and I couldn't afford Bigsby. And if there's more development in this area north of the railroad and an improvement to the area, I would really like that because it increases the value of my property where I stay right now. So I'm. All for the Riverwalk. Project and there's some mitigation. Actions perhaps that have really been touched on, like traffic and parking. But I'd like to thank the the lady Diane, who, who has been explaining a lot of things to the about the project to me and I. I think it's a good project and I'd like to endorse it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Good evening and thank you for your service to the community. My name is Carol Beery and I own a residence at 48th and Daisy. I'm in opposition of the proposed 131 unit project due to the impact of such increased density on the neighborhood and streets that are well below city standards for width. Our 13, 13 homes per acre. That's dense. Yes, the developer has had many meetings, but several of us have been opposed all the way. I've seen how they're improving properties in the area to buy approval and bussing those people into this meeting and last month's commission meeting. Regarding density, this small quadrant neighborhood is mostly single storey residences, yet the developer proposes 131, two and three story homes. These homes are to be three and four bedrooms. HUD states that there is a two person per bedroom policy which indicates actual occupancy will be 6 to 8 persons per household. However, the developer has stated that there will be 2.82 persons per household. This is a 29% understatement of all impacts. Why has this number been skewed and understated? Parking. The developer proposes 131 homes with two car garages and no driveway parking. They have indicated that there would be 40 guest parking spaces. The developer stated that they do not anticipate outside parking of the development as each residents will have a two car garage. However, the number they have used for vehicles is two vehicles per household when the national average is 2.3. Why has this number been skewed and understated, and how many? Two car garages do you know where 2.3 or even two cars are actually parked in them? There's not nearly enough parking provided within this development. These extra 100 plus cars will have to park in the nearby neighborhoods streets that are already crowded with vehicles at night and on street sweeping days. What will happen on weekends and holidays when residents have guests for parties and family gatherings? Regarding the roads, why was the fact that there are substandard streets, substandard side streets leading into this project omitted from the report? For example, Daisy is only 30 feet wide and Oregon is only 18 feet wide, according to the standards published by the University of California at Berkeley. Recommended street widths are 36 to 40, with 32 being the. Minimum for two sided parking. Regarding traffic, using the national average of 2.3 vehicles per household at two trips per day, this equals 524 additional in and out trips per day on these narrow streets where vehicles already have difficulty passing one another. The condition of the streets is poor and the winds are substandard. Unsafe conditions for residents and pets will ensue. With this increased traffic, how would even. Emergency vehicles access this development? The E.R. E.R.. Is flawed and biased and should be rejected because the facts are distorted. Why should zoning be altered to accommodate? Thank you, Bill. This project would set a terrible precedent. MAN Time. Time is up. Time's up. West. 65 homes instead. Thank you. Actually, sir. Mr.. Good to hear your next. Mr.. Good to hear your next note. This gentleman's lesser. Mr.. Good to hear your next. Okay, then just come up. He wanted to use less of mine, so go ahead. I'll be brief. Before getting to my overarching concern, just let me say I share the thinking of Reagan-Bush, of Joe Sabo and Cantrell, and particularly the gentleman that spoke of it reminded him of the Warsaw Ghetto, which comes close to what I was thinking when I looked at that picture. I said to myself, that is certainly, certainly a very fantastic design and looks very good. That would be ideal in a third world country where they would probably, unfortunately, have to put 10 to 12 families in each one period. There is no question this issue puts. Not only the current head, the councilperson for the district has been, but the entire council on a war footing with the rest of the city. If you've tried to follow this paradigm, period. I think it should be cut down, but at least by a third. But I want to now turn to something that you really never even that nobody else has mentioned. I don't think you've thought of the impact that this is going to have. If this goes through and particularly if it if it seeps out to other districts to have on the hotel business and the tourist business, on the business to the the attendance of the aquarium and the Queen Mary. Think for yourself as a parent, as a family member, would you take your family to a city? Where there's obviously something in the tap water, that ginger, this type of damaging thinking period, it makes absolutely no sense. And indeed it does put you on a war footing. I hope you realize that. And I understand that. And that's not just in the ninth District, that's across the city. And that's particularly true combined with the head up the rear decision of having a building here on Ocean Boulevard with having only requiring one parking space per unit period. It's just there is something in the tap water that needs to be addressed. Thank you. Final speaker. Hello, I'm Richard Gutman. I live at six of 2/37 Street and Wrigley Heights. It said that you would even consider allowing this property be built upon. It's one of our last open spaces along the L.A. River. It could be purchased or even taken by eminent domain for a few million dollars. I'm sure you claim we don't have the money yet. You're able to spend hundreds of millions for a new civic center without making a serious effort to explore retrofitting the current city hall. I watched this item recently when it came before the Planning Commission, over 250 residents signed a petition opposing it, and a number of people came down here and spoke against it, presumably, and uncompensated, just wanting to preserve the character of their neighborhood. I don't think the same can be said for all of the eight or ten who spoke in favor of this project. The developer admitted he planned houses. He painted houses of 23 residents and worked on over 30 homes to improve the neighborhood. Tonight, he gave even larger numbers. It's nice to have the homes fixed up, but this is little different from giving money in exchange for support. So as for executives of individual communities illegally contributing $750 to councilman, you're on this officeholder count. One $750 contribution is the legal limit. The council member returned the money. But are we to believe Integral Communities just gave him $3,000 out of the goodness of their heart? What bothers me more still is that you're wrong. It's like councilman and this same developer is trying to buy the oil operators highly contaminated property in my Wrigley Heights neighborhood, and he wants this same zoning planned unit development to build more sun cracker box homes there. I have an email I obtained on the public records under a public records request from Amy Bodak, in which she suggests that this same zoning be used in oil operators, be used on oil operators property in my neighborhood. The proposed ordinance states that the purpose of a planned unit development is to reduce or eliminate rigidity in traditional development standards. This is contrary to the very purpose of development standards. It does make more money for developers, though. After reading this proposal that this proposal allows houses only 16 feet wide, I made it my own homes frontage. My house is pretty small to 112 square feet, but it's 36 feet wide. A 16 foot wide house is ridiculous. Our neighborhood of standard 6000 square foot lots was the first outside of Belmont Shore, Naples, where the city allowed homes to be built on 2400 square foot lot. Please go take a look at what was done to Golden Avenue, north of Ward Road before you vote on this proposal. These two 400 square foot lots are neighborhood records. No place for kids to play, nowhere to park cars. And they are unbelievably narrow, 25 feet wide, but still wider by five feet than those in this proposed development. The late. Start times. Say one more. One more sentence. But the late Ray Robinson accounts for our district, told a developer who had built them, you built substandard houses on substandard lots on a substandard street. Thank you, sir. Okay. So we've we've closed public comment. So now the the appellant has an opportunity for a couple of minutes of rebuttal or additional now serve you you use I believe 13 minutes of the last. So if you can just keep us to two or 3 minutes, that would be ideal. Please. I'll keep it really short. Thank you. Just a couple of definitive things to say. The I've heard some negative comments on several issues and we want to clarify some things. For example, the use of artificial turf on the park is that was what was the city wanted. And we can go either way on that. The gentleman just spoke, said something about 16 foot white houses. That's completely incorrect. That's not true. And I think that the education, the school we like, the schools, I mean, sure, they could get better, but they're not. They just got bad. For some reason, I don't understand it. And for the gentleman who spoke about worrying about if his house is going to fall down, if we do anything on that site to cause damage to houses, we will fix it. I urge you to read the nine letters of support that were delivered earlier. And then there was one comment about about union issues. Well, all the public improvements that we're doing are all going to be paid by prevailing wage. So that will foster the the union involvement. Um, and I think one of the ladies mentioned that we should have drought resistant landscaping that's condition 12, that's requiring of the subdivision drought resistant landscaping. So I just wanted to bring those things clear so that the council understands that some of those things weren't quite correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. So we're going to go back to the hearing. At this point, we closed the public comment portion as well as the hearing and do the deliberation and any action from the council. Before we get into this portion, I just want to remind the body that there are a series of motions if the council goes in that direction and that the the city attorney has well has laid those out. So those are what's what's in front of us. In front of us. So at this time, I'm going to close it out back to the council and go to Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I really want to take this opportunity to thank the many residents who came out this evening to speak either for or in opposition to this. This project has been noted that we have been the city was first notified and the sale went through a couple of years ago. And so this is a been about a two year process. I met with many residents. There have been a number of community meetings in living rooms at the local park. You know, we've we've we've had, you know, impromptu meetings throughout the community on this particular issue. I've heard from a lot of people. And from the very beginning, I think I was I was clear to everybody because I thought that this this project brought opportunity for for the community, opportunity to bring people together. What I'm seeing here this evening, I would say that that was successful. I see people from this community that have never been to city council meetings. I see people who don't know or didn't know their neighbors prior to the conversations and discussions about this project and the the mitigations or the impacts that it would have on their neighborhood. And so with that. In mine. I think we made some progress. Residents, I got to tell you that I'm a bit my tongue throughout this this process, because I heard some very disparaging remarks about what I believe is a great community with good schools and good people. And, you know, I took a tally throughout the public comment and, you know, there were about 29, 30 speakers here this evening. And, you know, and I think there all the residents were coming. I want to thank all the people from outside of the neighborhood who have an interest in this as well, you know, because this is your city as well. But I'm really listening to the residents who live in this community. My ear is there because I said that from the very beginning. There's been a lot of not a lot of opinions is a lot of misinformation has been you know, there have been political agendas, obviously, associated with this. And, you know, I've been very. Patient and I've listened to everybody. I was out walking the neighborhood just last week. I wanted to do my due diligence in terms of listening to the residents, not hearing about it on social media, not hearing about it, hearsay, third party, but talking to residents at their door. And I had an opportunity to talk to some of you even who spoke this evening. My Italian residents who live in the impacted neighborhood. Seven were opposed. Eight were in favor. This is a split community. This is a split community. I mean, the jury is it's not clear whether or not one way or another we oppose it or in favor of it. And a lot of people are indifferent in talking to them. They were indifferent in that. Yes. If we can mitigate traffic, if we can, we can deal with that. The issues that that are that are obvious, you know, we can do that. And they would be in favor of it. I would I want to just say that my mission as a as a council member, I mean, I walked I've talked to many residents over the last three and a half years. My mission has been to upgrade uptown, right, to improve the quality of life in our communities and to take advantage of opportunities that are in front of us. And I see this as a rare opportunity. I want to walk through the the brief history, because I think it's very important to put that perspective for everybody at home. I think the Boy Scout executive director did a good job of it, but I'm going to recap some of it and Will will get read was a ten acre park gifted to the Boy Scouts of America in 1941. And it served our community and served the scouts for many years. And during the mid 2000 there were some talks between the city and the Boy Scouts for a possible land swap for the city to obtain. Will J read? But nothing was ever worked out. And I'm sure I mean, we had some speakers here. We had a former council member here who has some perspective on that to tell us why. I don't I'm not exactly privileged to all of that inner city staff who can tell us more about that. I had a long meeting with our former city manager, and he had some perspective and background on this this property as well. In 2012, the Boy Scouts voted to put Wil J. Scout Park up for sale due to financial difficulties and maintenance costs. In July 2nd May 2012, when I took office, the Boy Scouts voted to accept a purchase offer from 4.8 million from the Trust for Public Lands. However, the Trust's Trust for Public Lands still had the opportunity or had to identify partners to finance the acquisition as well as to operate and maintain it. The terms of the purchase contract with the Boy Scouts provided the trust for public lands. Nine months agreement to find the financial backing. The TPL then contracted. Contacted the department. Water replacement district. I'm sorry. The County of Los Angeles. The City of Long Beach, and other public agencies to request funding partners, but not nothing was available to finalize any agreements. Keep in mind, I'm in July 2012. At the time, TPL was asking for funding. The city of Long Beach had a structural deficit of $17.2 million, requiring major cuts to our police, fire, parks, libraries. In other city city services. The balance our brothers budget. The city, unfortunately at that time did not have the money available to either purchase nor maintain that property. The county wasn't interested. The Water Replenishment District. Was loose, loosely interested, but there was not the the the the the the agreement or the the ability to really put together the resources to purchase that property. And I can tell you that I was privileged to at least five or six meetings during that period of time with TPL as well as other agencies to try to make that happen. In April 2013, the Boy Scouts voted to deny the request of the TPO to renew their option agreement and instead decided to put the property back on the market for sale in October 2013. The Boy Scouts voted to sell the property to Integral Communities for $6 million. This was a private land transaction between the Boy Scouts and the developer. And I will just emphasize that enough. I can't emphasize that enough. There's a lot been said about, you know, keeping it park space. It was never park space. If you look at the maps of greenspace and parks based in the city of Long Beach. Well, Jerry was is not on there. It's clearly not there because it was public. It was private land and always had been. In November 2013, after Integral Communities purchased the property, my office received some calls and emails from for residents adjacent to the property who concerned about the cutting of some trees and what the plans were for the property. A coordinated meetings with the residents immediately adjacent to the property with integral communities to discuss the site. Integral Search subsequently initiated separate meetings with residents near the property. In the spring of 2014, Integral Communities submitted an application and site plan to the city for Riverwalk. In September 2014, the notice of preparation was issued to the city for an environmental impact report, and there were two public scoping meetings held, one at Shire Park and the other at duly elementary school. The Planning Commission held three sessions and a hearing on this issue before voting on their recommendation to the City Council. And I met with many neighbors on several occasions. Like I said, I walk the neighborhood and I talk with many people who live in the neighborhood about the proposed park project. And before I get into some additional comments, I'd just like to ask a couple of questions which I've heard from residents this evening just to get some clarification. And for city staff, I heard a lot of express concerns about losing privacy, particularly those who live on 48th Street. And I just want to clarify. I think I heard it. I want to make sure that I'm clear. Will there be any three storey homes in this development immediately adjacent to these existing homes? Councilmember asked. And the answer to that is no. We actually have a requirement in the project that the homes abutting the 14/48 Street northern boundaries be two story. We also have a requirement that there be at least a minimum of a six foot six inch block wall, which can be increased to eight feet in height if that is desired. He. Thank you. Hey, guys. No one can be asking questions from the audience, from the audience, or. Can. Also, as. A fan staff discuss some of the potential projects or issues that can be addressed with the $100,000 traffic medication fund that is being proposed for the development. Let me just be a little more specific as well. I know there was a there was a lot of conversation about the Meryl Streep Daisy. I was out there walking the other day. One of the speakers, Mr.. Mr. Causey pointed out. And we were talking in front of his house and, you know, he made a great suggestion that this be studied as a as a one way street. Would that be something that we could look at using that plan to do? Certainly the concept of a traffic mitigation fund was used very successfully in the Douglas Park Development Agreement, whereby the city was able to utilize the funds to address very specific traffic issues that were raised by the development of Douglas Park that were unanticipated. It allows the city's traffic engineer to be very site specific and very responsive to the needs of that immediate community. It is absolutely within the purview of the city traffic engineer to utilize those funds for those purposes. So certainly if a study needed to be conducted and it was determined that a one way street couplet or a one way street pattern was most efficient and desired. Yes, absolutely. That's something that could be done with these funds. Okay. And another concern that was was pretty consistent was the fact that that that particularly residents who live immediately adjacent to the property or around the property were concerned that people or residents in the property would be parking outside in their areas. And I'm sensitive to that that concern. I'm just curious whether or not we could look at preferential parking. And I think we can. Obviously, I think that's something that we can do. But I'd just like to get staff response on preferential parking, the possibility of doing so at a later date. That is also something that is is readily applicable to this mitigation fund. So if there is that a preferential parking district does require a survey and a certain petition process, certainly these funds could be used to go through that process and determine if that is warranted and if it's desired by the immediate community. I met with several residents on 48th Street who said their homes were built on a former dumpsite. Can staff address the research found regarding that? Certainly, as Joe Pera of Rincon indicated earlier, through the secret process, we scoured the state databases and have not been able to find any evidence of a landfill. Further, when this issue was raised at the Planning Commission, we went to a separate landfill consultant that the city has worked with in the past, who also did a database search and can find no evidence of any documented landfills in that area. That's not to say that the that this area might not have been subjected to illegal dumping or to improper compaction when the residential tract was developed in the forties and fifties, that there is no evidence of an actual landfill having ever existed on that site . Thank you very much. So I understand that there are many different opinions on the project. Many residents I spoke to in the neighborhood believe the project will be good for the neighborhood and they like the project. Some residents overall like the project, but have specific concerns, are issues they'd like to see addressed. And I think some of those have been addressed through the mitigations proposed for the project. Ultimately, I must weigh all of this input and these opinions to decide what I believe is in the best interest of the community. For one, this is not city property, but private property. The city had the opportunity a few times to acquire their property, but that was never realized, whether because of fiscal limitation or other factors. It's a land remained in private hands while it was undeveloped. When it was owned by the Boy Scouts, it was never a public park, nor was it publicly accessible open space. We have a lot of open space, by the way, in a district. The biggest open spaces is not publicly accessible. It's actually a country club. We have open space in the Carlitos housing. We have seven acre urban farm there. There is a lot of open space. We voted this evening on 39 acres of open space for for native habitat restoration. There's a lot of open space. And yes, this is private development, ten acres. And we're going to get three and a half acres of public park space. I'm weighing this out and I'm having a hard time seeing where this is bad for the community. As the Planning Commission chair, Marc Christoval, said last month during his hearing. To believe that this property would be remain open space forever. Is is really a pipe dream. It's not not feasible. I want to remind you comments from earlier from Councilmember former Councilmember Val Lerche, how long it took to find the forest wetlands. So three decades. Are we really, really, really willing to wait that long to do improvements in this neighborhood? Hey, guys. First of all, we can't go. We can't do like this. I don't think. Thank you. This is private property is going to be developed as residential. So. Watch this. This takes us to this particular proposal. The quality is, I believe, a quality proposal. As a development services director is indicated, the homes are of quality design. And this is a quality development that will be a complement to the neighborhood. In addition, the development includes a development agreement that provides many community benefits to the Dominguez Gap neighborhood. Most notably, the new park at Organ and Animal. When I was first walking this neighborhood running for office a few years ago. And ever since then I've been asked by numerous residents in the direct neighborhood and around the neighborhood when we when are we going to build this park that we were promised seven, eight years ago? The land was acquired by the redevelopment agency and was supposed to be built with read about development bond proceeds. But that money ran out and we no longer have redevelopment. So the city does not have the funds to develop the park at any time in the foreseeable future. This is an opportunity, folks, that I don't believe will come again to build a new city owned park that will be well-used by kids throughout the neighborhood and throughout the community. I think there are great benefits to having a park there with active recreation. I've said on many occasions, if you go north of the four or five freeway, you have very limited active recreation for our youth in that community. This park will serve a need when I say active recreation, soccer. Rugby football. Things that keep our kids running. That bring families and communities together. The development agreement also assures that several streets in the Dominguez Gap neighborhood will be repaved. 48th Street, from Oregon Avenue to Long Beach Boulevard. 49th Street from Morgan Avenue to Long Beach Boulevard. Daisy Avenue, Oregon Avenue to Pacific Avenue will also get repairs. And I know some of those streets need more than just flowery silk. I'm not I wasn't born yesterday. I've been I mean, I've seen the conditions of the streets. I've driven the streets. I've walked the streets they need for grind and overlay. And this is why I've asked for an amendment or further conversation on this and to give our public works director the ability to approve whatever improvements are going to be made there. I'll be making my motion. The request. I'm sorry. The development agreement. Also, there's a $100,000 traffic mitigation plan that we've discussed. I've also heard from residents that they want to explore having some sort of streets become one way because of the narrowness of the streets. And I think we've addressed that and will address that. Others have asked about having speed bumps. This mitigation plan can be used to study these measures and implement the necessary traffic improvements to address some of these concerns. It's not a perfect neighborhood. It's not a perfect development. It's not a perfect situation. But I think this is with almost $4 million in public improvements that are going to be directly into this neighborhood as a result of this project. There's something very difficult to walk away from. Plus there are additional public safety and school impact fees that will be going toward these services. Some residents who live adjacent to the property have expressed concerns about losing their privacy. With the new homes right next door. And we as we've established, there will be no three story homes up against homes along 48th Street. We also ask that the perimeter wall be eight feet high rather than the proposed six and a half feet, and that mature trees be planted along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the homes. And if we can preserve existing trees, I would ask the developers to look at that option as well. No one can be for sure what the future holds or what the market conditions will be a year or two from now. We certainly did not see ten years ago being in this situation. We didn't see five years ago being in this situation. But we have a unique opportunity when all said is done. I believe this is a project that the city can be proud of. The community can be proud of in the neighborhood with new homes, a new park and new streets, as well as 39 acres of wetlands just across the Llano will be much better off. So council members weighing in strong support of this project and would ask that you join me in approving it. And there are a number of motions that I would like to to read. Two. But should we take it from the council first? Yeah, I think what we'll do is if you I know you've you've made a motion or there's a second by Councilman Richardson. I think on the first the first part of the motion, I'll go through the members that are there, whether cued up, and then we can go to that vote and then go through the votes. Okay. Okay. So just to keep this organized. Next is Councilman Mongo. Thank you, councilmember austin. I think your outreach to the community and I've heard from neighbors who you knocked on their door personally. I actually ran into one last night and they think that that's wonderful that you've continued to keep that connectivity with the community. And I appreciate that. Even after a presentation from Miss Bodak, I heard from the community in public comment and perhaps they prepared their questions in advance of the presentation. But I just wanted to ask two or three questions really quickly, just to once again confirm what I had heard earlier in the presentation and what you and I had discussed earlier, which is come to the attention of our office, that there is misinformation out in the community, and we just want to correct the record once again. Ms.. Modak, does approval of this project exempt any other development in the city from going through the necessary approval process, including Title 21 zoning within the Long Beach Municipal Code? No, ma'am, it does not. And will the development project in the eighth District at DC Avenue impact any other current or proposed or future projects? No, ma'am. Each project is determined and verified on the basis of its own qualities and characteristics. I appreciate that, and I know we've discussed it several times. And the final question, which was very specifically called to my office on numerous occasions today because of misinformation in the community. If there is, for instance, an existing parcel in the fifth District that's zoned institutional. Does approving tonight's list of items from Mr. Austin grant an automatic zoning change for any of those properties? Categorically no. Thank you. I really appreciate the amount of time you've spent on the phone with constituents across the city. I want to thank my staff for fielding the numerous calls and properly informing the community. There's a process for a reason and there are no secret projects. The words are there. To inform the community and engage the community. And I hope that we can all stand together and talk through the fair process that we have in in knocking on doors and talking to the community and getting involved. And I want to thank every single person that came here tonight, because it's really important that you came to voice your opinion. And thank you to all of those who called to get clarification, because you didn't think that Councilmember Austin or any other member of this council would try to be deceptive. And we're really here to move the community forward. And I want to thank Councilmember Austin for his leadership. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I took a lot of notes and sort of have been following this here recently and just the start. I think this is just a tough position for the city council one way or the other. You know, I would love to say that we should acquire Jay Reed, invest that money, expand open space. But the reality is it's we're just in a position where you have to find an opportunity to expand open space and other places. I think, you know, there's you know, this is this is seems like you're taking a difficult situation and making it creating a win or dilemma. Park Oregon Park looks great from the renderings. So, so I'll just start by I'll just applaud all the residents and the Boy Scouts for coming out. I got a history lesson tonight on the history of all the efforts the Boy Scouts made to try to preserve that space. Seems like they went through the right steps, but it wasn't it wasn't possible. So I just have a few questions based on things I've heard tonight. So. When my residents in North Long Beach were very close to this area and including myself, I don't live very far, just the Long Beach Boulevard. When we think of parks and open space parks and recreations, historically folks haven't thought about Will J. Read. Was this ever open? Was the site ever open to the public for recreation use? Not to our knowledge. It was never considered a public park. The city has not used it as a public park. The city has not maintained it as a public park. Certainly it was available for special events and the Boy Scouts had a number of events, including overnight campgrounds, camping at that location. So I'm sure that there are a significant number of people in the community who have had access to wheelchair read in the past. But it is not and has not been publicly accessible to the residents of Long Beach. Okay. Is there now? I know that we're in the process of identifying, opening space and building new parks and trying to figure it out. And, you know, a big part of this is funding. And that's why it took so long with the de force wetlands opportunity. So is there funding available that I'm not aware of that the city has at this point to acquire the site and develop it into a park? I would leave that to the city manager or the assistant city manager, to my knowledge. No. No, sir. The Oregon Park site. What is the current development plan and timeline for that? If this isn't approved, including funding and timeline. If this is or if this if this. Is not. If this is not approved, we do not have any funding lined up for any portion of this project. It would still be owned by the former successor agency and now the city of Long Beach. But we do not have any identified funds for the construction. In the event that we cast a vote in support of this project. What is the timeline for park construction? The timeline for the park construction is concurrent with the overall development of the residential homes. Grading of the project site would be concurrent with grading of the park site. The developer would be required to deliver the park site prior to the 33rd issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 33rd home. And the city would then enjoy the warranty maintenance period on the landscaping. And then the city would need to accept the park for use maintenance and essentially the rights to use the park and to maintain the landscaping by the 67th certificate of occupancy for the residential. We were very cognizant of the the need to ensure development of the park since that is a significant benefit to the neighborhood and we wanted to ensure that that would be done prior to completion of the residential project. So it sounds like when the project's halfway done, 67th occupancy permit is when we take the park back over. Correct. Okay. And how long is that going to take? I would say that the developer is best able to answer that somewhere around probably 18 months or so. So an 18 months or more park can be open. 18 months from, I would say, grading? Yes. Okay. And there were concerns I heard about the traffic on the Alamo. And I know that like I take the Alamo pretty often and the traffic is pretty bad, but and it's the same way on Artesia and Artesia, we're doing a master plan to look at active transportation and things like that, to try to make sure that people who want to connect to the blue line station that's right at the Alamo. And what is that Santa Fe think? It's the Alamo. Santa Fe. They have access. Are there any current, current designs or plans with the blue line station? I would ask or to connect to that. I would ask the council member or anybody else, is there something in the works already to add, you know, bike facilities or something on Alamo? Not that we're aware of. Certainly there is on Artesia, as the councilmember is aware, there's an effort by the Gateway Cities to do a significant multi-jurisdictional project on Artesia. Is is since you're building a park on Artesia, is that something the developer can can work on? Developing the park at Oregon Dilemma. Yeah. I mean, since we're building a park and we build bike lanes or. I would defer to our bike coordinator to see what sort of master planning efforts are currently in the works in that area. I'm just not versed enough to be able to speak to that. I want to know. Do. Okay. I guess I'll get that answer and some other point and then preferential parking. So I know that. What was it? Maybe three years ago, we created a new ordinance for construction related preferential parking that didn't have the the whole elongated timeline. It was supposed to be immediate subject to public works on if there was any sort of construction related impact we could utilize this this tool and I think we've only utilized it once is our would that be a tool that can perhaps help mitigate some some of the potential parking impacts or perceived parking impacts. Certainly during construction? Absolutely. In addition, there is a requirement that there's a construction management plan for the project that will also mitigate the impacts of the construction vehicles in the neighborhood as well. Okay. And then as you know, I represent Long Beach on SAG as well. And every city in the region, including Long Beach, has been issued RINA numbers addressing housing needs. What is what is Long Beach is most immediate housing housing need as indicated by by okay. So sag hands down and allocates numbers to all jurisdictions within the region and are required arena numbers which stands for regional housing needs assessment is a little over 7000 units that we need to be able to have appropriate zoning for. They break out the arena numbers into different categories are very low, low, moderate and above moderate income units. And of that 7000 and change arena number, our biggest need is for above market rate residential housing. Is that what this is? It's. Of our total arena numbers of 7048, we are required to have adequate zoning to accommodate 3039 above market units. Are these above market units? Yes, they are. So this helps meet that requirement that every city has, excuse. Me, above moderate income units. Okay. And so the shrinking the sinking street stuff. Is there anything written in to make sure if anyone's house sinks? We don't think it. Certainly the developer has offered to deal with those issues if they are found to be the responsibility of the developer. Certainly on site there are absolute requirements from a geotechnical perspective and a soil compaction issues to ensure that the site is capable of withstanding this construction and that we don't have these issues. Okay. So from my from my standpoint, you know, to conclude it earlier, earlier today, we talked about the forest wetlands, huge open space opportunity. It took 30 years to get to get there. And what I see here is the Boy Scouts have tried to do the right thing. Now they've come to the city and was able to help us figure out how to add a park that we have no strategy to build at a park to North Long Beach, which the city hasn't even figured out how to add more parks in North Long Beach. And this the Boy Scouts and the developer has figured that out. I think that's something to be acknowledged. And and this is a good thing that in 18 months, we're going to have new open space in terms of Oregon Park and the forest wetlands. I think that's and I think that's something to be to be recognized. I know it's I know it's a tough situation for everyone to be in. But I think that the key word here is diligence. The Boy Scouts have done their diligence. The developer so far seems like they've put out like a open call saying, hey, what can we do to help to fix it? So from my standpoint, I think this is a project that I'm going to support and encourage the council to support for the sake of open space in North Long Beach. Thank you. Councilmember Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. For the purposes of transparency, yes. Integral did give me $750 for my officeholder account back in earlier in the year, January or so, before I knew that they were involved with this project. And when I found that out, I gave it back. And I also gave back about another $3,000. A letter from other donations that potentially might put me in a. Conflict of interest situation. So I'm listening. I hear it. I'm trying to do the best thing I can as well. And it's not welcome when there are aspersions thrown at not only at me, but at my fellow council member when threatened with a vote. I mean, we all have an important job to do here, and it's not easy. The easiest vote for me to take today would be to say no. To say, let's leave things be as they are. Let the open land stay open and undeveloped and become a blight to the community. There was a comment made earlier today about maybe we could use eminent domain. Eminent domain went away with redevelopment. So that is not there. It's been mentioned before, and I will re-emphasize that again. The Boy Scouts did a stellar job in trying to do the right thing. They put it for sale. No takers. They put up for sale again. There was a taker. It's private property, folks. And when it's private property, the property owner has a right to do what they want with that property. There are other properties in Long Beach that are going through the same process. There's there's property. The mansion that was also mentioned by the same gentleman who put a price on me on that. That, you know, we had the oil properties out there. The oil properties has been a vacant land for. Oodles and oodles of years and nothing being done there. You want to keep that there. Keep smelling that oil coming out of there. Instead of when you can have a developer come in, clean it out and make something beneficial out of it that would benefit the city and benefit the residents. I spoke with Integral about the project at hand. They are a responsible developer. They are. They've offered to build a park, which is part of a community benefit. And when a company comes to me and says, I'm going to give you a community benefit, I'm listening. It's not totally about the development itself. It's about giving back to the community. And that's what they're doing. It's a responsible way of being able to develop a project that is going to be welcomed and that is going to benefit the community more than it's good that will be there if not developed. So that's that's the option. If we don't vote for this tonight, what are we going to have an empty lot? If I don't if we don't do anything with the oil property, what are we going to have? Another empty lot? If I don't if we don't develop the land, the other part of my district which is out there and Santa Fe and PCH, close to the Long Beach State Tech Park. What's that gonna stay vacant land. These are properties that are owned by private companies who have the. Ability to develop something there that can be positive, and we need to support that. Now, should there be more community involvement? Absolutely. Should there be community benefits coming out of these projects? Absolutely. And we're going to work towards that. And I know this city council is responsible towards doing that. And that's what we're going to do and that's what we're trying to do here. The fact that there is going to be a park, Oregon park is a is a huge benefit to the community. Now, is it everything for everybody? No, it's not going to be. Is it too close to the to the. With that the path. Well, the wetlands. But the the gap. Yeah. The the the forest gap. I mean, we can't please everybody. But, you know, in the long run, the benefits outweigh the negatives. And I would also be supporting this project. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to the staff. I found tonight's presentation to be very informative. I did have the opportunity to read all the correspondence that came to our office, as well as the emails. I believe we received over 20 emails over the last week, so I've had a chance to review all that, and I did receive a packet of letters that were sent to us today. I actually had to read them during the meeting because we received them so late. But I want to thank everyone who did submit letters and express concerns. I also want to take a moment to just again, the staff's presentation was very informative, very educational for those of us who don't know the history. And I just had a couple of questions and then and then I'll make my final comments regarding what were the conversation that's gone on tonight in regards to this the the negotiations that have taken place with the developer? Ms. BODAK How common is it to ask a developer to make improvements to adjacent streets? Typically when we are working on a development project, we are obligated to work within the existing state guidelines that only require us to ask for improvements that have a direct nexus to the impact from the project. In this case, because we are entering into a statutory development agreement, it provides the city a much greater level of flexibility in focusing on that nexus, and it allows the city to ask for additional things that may not be directly related to impacts caused by the project. So in this case, because the developer is asking for a statutory development agreement, we had the ability to ask for much greater level of improvements. If this had been a a zone change and a general plan amendment. Without the development agreement, we would not have been able to ask for the extensive park improvements or a number of the street improvements and. Based on your experience. Would you would you. Conclude that we've done a good job in terms of the city's position of of getting the most public benefit with this project that we can under the circumstances? Yes, ma'am. I do feel very comfortable with that. I have been involved in the other two development agreements in the city, and we have received quite a bit of benefits from the Douglas Park Development Agreement. And it's to be seen what we will get out of the Golden Shore Development Agreement. But this one also has a number of public benefits that far exceed our abilities normally to get these type of benefits. I may have missed this during the presentation, but what is the anticipated square footage of the plan one and plan to homes? So the houses range in size, but the average square feet of a house is about 2500 square feet with a two car garage. Okay, so the units range in size from 2100 square feet to 2900 square feet. And I know there were some comments about personal speculation about sales price. Has any of that been determined in terms of what the price per square foot might be in this area, what the fees might be, anything like that. That's not within our purview. So we don't get involved in that. That's purely a market issue. I don't know if the developer has those pricing available or not. I want to you know, I know this is not an easy decision specifically for Councilman Austin. I want to thank him for his leadership because he's really taken the time. I appreciated his presentation tonight and his talking points. I'm very much a visual learner. I need to read things and I appreciate that he enumerated for us all the what he's been through and kind of the history of the project. That was very beneficial for me. He has done his due diligence. I think it's really important that he reached out to the community to the best of his ability to try to get their feedback and that his intent here is very good. It really is. I know that Councilman Austin cares very deeply about his community, and I know that he's done the work on this project. And it is he has no desire other than to better his community. And I know that his leadership on this issue and his request to his council colleagues tonight to request support is based on a premise that he believes he's doing what's best for his community, a community that he is intimately familiar with. So I will be supporting his request this evening. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Okay, thank you. And I know this has been a long night and I want to thank everybody who has indulged this council on this particular item. Again, I want to thank our city staff for their great professionalism and their due diligence and hard work for the last two years, developing and working with the developer, negotiating the community benefits. I want to thank the developer for being a good community partner thus far. Their outreach to the community, their transparent process. I want to again thank the residents who participated for every step of the way, those who were in the scoping meetings, who who who submitted comments in the draft ADR, who participated in public comment at Planning Commission here. I want to thank the Planning Commission for their work on this. And I want to just just applaud the process for being open and transparent. Whether you agree with the decision being made here tonight or not, I understand that the process was transparent, that the process was open and the process was fair to everybody involved. And yes, the city is getting nearly $4 million in community benefits from the project, which will, in my opinion, make this neighborhood a better neighborhood for for all of its residents and for North Long Beach as a whole. And so, members, I'd like to make the motion to adopt the resolution certifying the EIA are adopting findings and approving a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program. As the first motion. Case was just just let's go where we are right now. So there's a motion in a second for the first motion, and then we'll go through through, down, through all of them. Mr. MAYS. Okay, thank you. So there's a motion on the floor for motion number one for Councilmember Austin's motion. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Motion number two, please. If we can get a motion in a second for motion number two. Thank you. And just just to be clear, Mr. Mayes, you had mentioned that public comment is for all the motions and that was that was adequate just to you can.