Speaker 1: Hearing item one and authors require. It's a report from Development Services. Item one involves the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the development of real property located at 3655 North Norwalk, below a project with 40 detached single family homes. And the appeal of that recommendation by Warren, Blair, Starsky and Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development District five.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Before we begin to do the oath now.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 0: All right. That's handle. So, city manager?
Speaker 2: Yes. Interim deputy city manager Anita Will Dempsey will introduce this item.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of the council. We're asking our planning bureau manager, Linda Tatum, to provide the staff report.
Speaker 11: Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, I'd like to give you a brief overview of this item. It is a proposal for a series of discretionary approvals that would be required to facilitate development of a a new 40 unit single family subdivision. We're really excited about this project. It has been some quite some time in the making and there are so few parcels in the city that are available for single family detached subdivision. So we're really pleased that this project has made it to this point in the process. First. I'd like to just give you an overview in terms of the site itself. It's a five approximately five acre site. It's located in the very far north part of the city. And just to orient you there, that the street on the right of the property is Norwalk Boulevard. To the north of the property is 226th Street. So that's a rough area in the far northwest part of the city in terms of this. Immediately north of the project site there, just south of 226th Street is a senior housing development. And that project is actually within the City of Hawaiian Gardens. This property is literally on it. It abuts the city, limit lines on the north and to the south. There are single family dwellings in the city of Long Beach. And to the to the east, there are also single family red residents. And there's a drainage channel immediately west of the project site.
Speaker 6: Next slide.
Speaker 11: Just to give you a feel for the site. It's an existing there is an existing church on the site. The church was developed back in 1957. It was a drive through church. And you can see the church building is still there. After the church was the drive through church was established. The church itself was built and it had a series of expansions that continued through 1972. So this is the site, what it looks like generally today. And that open space in the rear of the church property was just used by the church for various activities. Next, the approvals that are requested. This project requires several actions. I'll read through each one of those actions briefly. The first one is a statement of overriding consideration and findings in order to certify a final environmental impact report. The second item is to amend the city's general plan, and that request is to amend the general, the current general plan land use designation, which is institutional. The current zoning reflects the church use that's there now, and the request is to change that land use designation from from institutional and schools to elude. Number one, which is a single family residential general plan designation. The next item would be a zone change. Again, the zoning on the property is currently institutional and that reflects again the use of the property as a church and the request is to change it to a single family residential zone. r1m And that reflects the proposed density of the project. The next action that's requested is approval of the vesting tentative tract map, and that is what would actually subdivide the property, the 5.7 acre property into 40 residential lots and one common area. And the the next action that is being requested tonight is a site plan review. And that site plan review is for the review of the single family homes and all the appropriate conditions of approval. And lastly, a an appeal for this project was filed when the Planning Commission heard the item. And the final action that's being requested is for the council to act on to uphold the designation or the recommendation on the project by the Planning Commission. Next slide. This is a summary site plan of the project. Again, for purposes of orientation, the Norwalk Boulevard is there to the right of the screen to the north.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 11: Is the senior project. And this just gives you an idea of the orientation of the project. And I'll briefly go through some of the some of the amenities on the project. This is a view of the site of the proposed site from the entry. You can see that it would be a gated community with gated access, very lushly landscaped there at the entry of the property. Next slide, a couple of other key features of the property. You can see on the slide at the upper right that there is a meandering walkway that separates the both the backyards of the properties. And all of that would become an open space that would be used by the residents of the property. So in addition, you can also see that there are there's an outdoor play area. There is a picnic and barbecue area and of course, seated bench areas. And to the lower left, that's again, another schematic of the entry, the the circular entry with the gated access to the site. Again, this gives you an idea of the parking and circulation on the site. The site does have all of the code required parking for single family residents. In addition, they have provided guest parking for the site and that the guest parking is up north is highlighted. In addition, there is parking on one side of the street. This gives you an idea of the architecture and design of the project. It is influenced by the craftsman style architecture, and the units are three and four bedrooms. The the smallest of the units is about 2400, and the largest of the units is 2700 square feet. And you can see that there are three different designs and a couple of different design styles within each one of the unit types that makes for a little bit of a variety. In terms of the unit selection within the project. Look. Like to talk a little bit about the environmental review and why a project like this required an environmental impact report. The rationale for requiring an environmental impact report is that the project did have a a historic church, which was the drive through church that was on the site or is was previously operated on the site, was determined to be a historical resource and accordingly a draft environmental import impact report was completed. However, after the analysis of that report was completed, it found that the proposed project would have potentially significant and unavoidable unavoidable environmental impacts in the area of cultural resources. Regarding the chapel structure and of course the historical drive in church facility. And because the it is significant from a cultural perspective being that it was the first drive in church in the region and the architecture of the church itself was an example of a mid-city century, modern architectural style that was applied to an institutional use. So those two features made the project, the actual church itself, a significant historical resource. And after looking at the potential alternatives, there is no alternative to move forward with the project except with the demolition of the church. And because that is a historic resource that cannot be replaced, the that is a significant and unavoidable impact. So after the mitigation requiring archival documentation of the church and the chapel, the impacts related to the demolition of the building would remain significant and unavoidable. And therefore the City Council, if this project is to move forward, would be required to adopt the findings and to approve a statement of overriding considerations for the project. And that statement has been prepared. And I mentioned earlier that the mitigation requirement would be that there would be a full documentation of the resources on the site as a part of the mitigation measure for this action. I'd also like to point out that the appeal that was filed for this project, it was quite unusual because typically you file an appeal for an action that would not otherwise have to be heard by the City Council anyway. However, an appeal was filed on this project and the appellant in summary stated that they felt that the project was inadequate in the openness and the transparency of the planning and development process relative to the secure, the air and the historic buildings. So that's a summary of the application, the appeal application that was filed and a copy of which was included in your packet. So I'd like to to summarize and to close out by saying that on January 5th, the Planning Commission heard this item and voted unanimously to approve each of the actions that I've mentioned and recommended that the City Council approve the project, including the ER and all of the other associated actions. And so staff is recommending that this project move forward. I would like to go on the record and say that today we did receive a letter of support for the project. And with that, I would like to close the staff comments, but I would like to acknowledge that we do have our environmental consultant here to answer any detailed questions. We also have the project planner, Monica Dick, of work and who worked on the project, as well as our environmental liaison, Craig Shell, Fonte and Rincon. Our environmental consultant is also here and will be available to answer any questions you might have on this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Tatum. Before we begin the council's deliberation, we have public comment. Is there any public comment on this hearing? Now be the time.
Speaker 3: I believe the person that filed the appeal.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the appellant gets to speak first. That's correct. Mississippi attorney want to outline how this.
Speaker 2: Goes, the way that this should work. Mr. Blazer She is the appellant in this case, speaking, I believe, on behalf of himself and a group that he's identified in the appeal. Staff has already given its report. Mr. Lisowski now gets a chance to make his presentation. Then we would open it up for public comment and then back to the City Council for deliberation and determination.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lisowski. You have the floor. And before you begin, let's clarify what is the time constraint here?
Speaker 2: I think in a hearing such as this, we provide a reasonable amount of time, but there's no set timeframe. Okay.
Speaker 0: Let's say let's start with 5 minutes.
Speaker 10: Oh, how about ten? Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I've got my own clock up here to here on behalf of myself and Long Beach Citizens for Fair Developments with respect to this project. Staff noted that it was unusual that we appealed the planning decision. Well, we wanted to make sure that we opposed the environmental impact review process in its the way that it was carried out. I've entered a letter from our attorney, made a copy for each member of the council and handed a copy also to the city clerk. And I would like to read some of those comments into the record. The air is inadequate. It should not be certified and it should be revised. The project is an exercise in impermissible spot zoning and should not be approved. The alternatives analysis, discussion of historic and cultural resources and traffic analysis contained in the EIA are inadequate. This letter and my comment tonight are intended to inform the council that the E.R. and the statement of overriding considerations prepared in relation to the project are inadequate under California Environmental Quality Act secure. And that if you approve this development as planned, you would be exercising impermissible spot zoning. I won't review the project because staff already did that. I'll just start with the fact. Let me highlight the high points. Number one, the E.R. failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives as required by secure. Number two, the E.R. underestimates the campus's historical significance. Number three, the E.R. contains inadequate analysis of traffic impacts. The number for the project is an exercise in a legal spot zoning. And finally, the E.R. violates secure in approximately 20 other ways, which I will briefly run through. The alternatives analysis in the Environmental Impact Report is flawed because the E.R. only analyzed alternatives that meet almost none of the project objectives. The project objectives are to have desirable housing be created. The ERs should be required to consider a reduced development alternative that meets some of the project objectives. They should have also considered the project involved develop some housing and also keeping some of the historic structure, which is the chapel. The E.R. should have analyzed the alternative of building homes to the extent possible without demolishing the chapel itself. Such an alternative could potentially meet all of the project objectives and reduce the impact on historic resources. Instead, what happened was the E.R. impermissibly analyzed project alternatives that met almost none of the objectives. So they only looked at destroying the chapel. They should have been an alternative up zoning of neighborhoods nearby to allow for the level of development that's contemplated by the project. By only rezoning the chapel parcel to allow higher density development is a problem. And finally, the E.R. should have analyzed the alternative of building the project at another site, which did not have such historic structures . A little bit about the historic significance. This drive in church came about at a time when it was originally broadcast from their weekly national television broadcasts for a ten year period between 1971 and 1981. The buildings are historic. Examples of the automobile centric development in Southern California, also associated with early televangelism, which gave rise to, excuse me, televangelism and as a phenomenon in American history. More notably, the building was designed by Beano Fisher, who was a Nazi war camp survivor. He also designed the Los Angeles Martyrs Memorial, and he helped design what became the Crystal Cathedral with Richard Neutra, a world renowned modern architect. So we've got this example of mid-century modern architecture. It has this distinct expanses of glass. It's a beautiful space if you've seen the pictures and it is eligible for listing on the California historic resources and for a designation as Long Beach City landmark. As you know, myself and other organizations are pretty upset about the destruction of historic buildings like the Jurgens Trust building. And so this would be another example of a historic building that could be saved here in Long Beach. The traffic impacts the way that the air analyzed the traffic impacts was merely to assume that there would be less traffic coming and going in a residential setting than there would be with a church or a preschool or other use. And the project is also an exercise in a legal spot zoning. Spot zoning is uniformly frowned upon as a poor you poor land use planning that that points towards favoritism. It's our understanding that. If we want to challenge spot zoning, there's a lower standard because. Spot zoning constitutes a blatant example of discriminatory land use legislation. There's some government code sections, for example, 65 852 that requires all zoning regulations to be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone. But the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those type of zones. I think the council people, I hope, would see that when you're looking at the slew of approvals that need to happen from changing the general plan to changing the zoning in that particular spot to approve any site plans, it's all being pushed through in a business as usual type sense. Briefly, the E.R. also violates secure in failure to analyze and mitigate traffic impacts. Air pollution impacts biological resources. Also, we see no evidence that under the California code that the Native American organizations were consulted for any significant Native American prior uses of the site. Also, there was no analysis of whether the building can be relocated. We've got one of the 40 under 40 designees is has a business that has been supported by this council specifically for the purpose of saving buildings and moving them. Unfortunately, the transition did burn down, but we have those abilities here in Long Beach. And so school requires the E.R., the Environmental Impact Report, to have a significant description of existing environment that may be affected by the project. And this just does not meet those guidelines. And like I was saying, I don't see any evidence in the report of consultation with Native Americans as required under Senate Bill 18. Just to finish up here, when we looked at the A.P., there was no notice in the A.P. there was alternative uses being suggested. One of them was for a technical college that wanted to use the site to retrain veterans returning from war. And they were begging that this not be spot rezone so that they could possibly purchase the property to continue being used as a day to day school, Montessori day school, preschool and also a place to retrain returning veterans . And the single family use of this doesnot does not for the best and highest use of the community and does not follow. That's been about 8 minutes, 45 seconds. If the vice mayor wouldn't mind, I would like to save a minute or two for any rebuttals that might happen later. And I'm also available for any questions that the counsel or staff might have.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. So we have the applicant here and they have a right to speak before a public comment as well with the applicant, like an opportunity to speak. Go ahead. Proceed. Give us your name and go ahead and proceed.
Speaker 2: My name is Brian Coggins. I am with Preface. We are both the applicant and the land owner. So good evening to the council tonight. Vice Mayor We just want to say a few quick thank you and address a few of those comments. We are. We had a great experience working with staff, so I wanted to thank staff. We originally brought this project to staff and it was the same number of homes or lots, which was 40 a couple of years ago. And staff asked us, they said, look, we're very, very pleased about large homes for families in our Long Beach community, and that's something we'd like to see. And it's very rare and this is an are one very low density project. So staff said this is a great project, but we'd like to push you to bring more communal or common spaces into the project so that the gated entrance, the quarter mile loop inside the pocket parks, the picnic areas, the barbecue areas, the project is designed such that kids are playing in the streets, kids are shooting basketballs, everybody is hanging out, you know, doing barbecues together. It's definitely intended to be a communal atmosphere. So I want to thank staff because they really pushed us in that direction to address, you know, there's a lot of approvals necessary tonight. And he he mentioned several of those. The only reason tonight that we need a general plan amendment and a zone change is because of those common areas in your Long Beach City Code, as Linda will certainly tell you, are one or a low density residential project is absolutely approved approvable in the institutional zone. So in your zoning code, this project is absolutely allowable. But again, credit to staff, they wanted to see this much cooler community, an interactive community. So that's the reason for the general plan, amendment and zone change. 40 lots are allowed under current zoning. I want to thank Councilmember Mungo's office. She was fantastic, facilitating large, large community outreach meetings with the stakeholders. And then want to thank the the excellent Eldorado Park Estates community adjacent to us. We, within weeks after buying this property, met I think there was 115 people at the first meeting. We had three or four other very large meetings. So I've been doing this 15 years. I've never seen something like this where hundreds of people from the adjacent community come out and they support the project, they help you design the project, they talk to you. They say, We want to see a gate, we want to see these colors, we want to see these number of bedrooms. So big credit to that to the community there. I think in the back of your packets, you'll find 70 excuse me, 70 to 80 people who are supporting this project adjacent to us. And we did not go seek those comments. They did that organically. We as the developer did not ask them to do that whatsoever. So I've never seen that in doing this for 15 years. Just a couple of quick comments. Spot zoning is typically when you put, say, a residential project in the middle of an industrial zone, this has a residential all around it, northeast, southwest. This is not spot zoning whatsoever. Traffic, a low, low density six units per acre residential project is substantially less traffic than a a church use which is there today. He mentioned high density. This is actually the lowest density in your city, the absolute lowest. And then he mentioned alternative projects. But, you know, this church was in need of capital and they put the property up for sale. They've since moved on this. The church is still thriving, but they downsize. So we're seeing that in a lot of a lot of places. But myself, Derrick and our whole team, happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. We we did allow you the one minute if you want to take it. Otherwise, I'm going to pull the comment. Mr. Borkowski. One minute, please. Before public comment. Mr. Lisowski, you have one minute.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would just want to respond to the developer and say, why don't you try to save the church steeple? And one more point here is that the way that the city did, the E.R. process. They submitted a draft E.R. and there was significant new information under public resources Code 21092.1 and guidelines of Sequel 150885 that a new fine. Before the final air was distributed, the city failed to recirculate the air or any portion of the air as as a result of the city's failure to recirculate the air, the public and other public agencies were being deprived of any meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the project. And just finally, the 700 foot zone that that you'd notice residents, local residents on projects. I mean, that zone is nowhere in sequel. That 700 feet. That was something that this council did by ordinance a decade ago. And that zone could certainly. Thank you. That zone could certainly be expanded. And also we could use technology. I see. Thank you. Excuse me. I see all of you on Facebook, Twitter, etc.. We could certainly have a place for citizen input to where a draft air could actually have input and not from the restricted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Boesky. Thank you. So at this point, we're going to open it up for public comment. If you have it, if you want it, if the public would like to comment on this, please come forward. And there's 3 minutes. Please give us your name and go ahead and begin.
Speaker 3: And Cantrell and I live in Eldorado Park Estates, not exactly adjacent to this proposed development. And I know of other people that are not as thrilled with this, especially the people that live along Ring Street in one story houses. And these are going to be two story houses looking right into their yards and houses. I'm a little concerned, confused about whether this is three or four bedroom houses. I understood they were all going to be four bedrooms with three baths. Tonight I heard that they're three and four bedroom houses. Nonetheless, they're very large houses, over 25,000 of 2500 square feet. And I agree. Long Beach needs more housing, but I think they need low cost housing. These houses are going for 700 to $900000. This. The cultural. You're being asked for overriding considerations to destroy this culturally historic church. As Mr. Lacasse said that there was an organization that the College of Industrial Technology that wrote to the Planning Department and offered to buy this to train returning veterans and injured workers. They said that they would retain the church. They would retain all the buildings. The church they care of that has been going, been there before, could continue. And I never saw any response to this proposal from them. I think there were other alternatives that could have been explored in Institutional. You can have hospitals, you can have medical offices, you can have schools and. Of course, this doesn't make the money that 700000 to 900000 houses do. I question the trip generation? Because according to the table with single family homes there, there will only be eight. In and 23 cars out for a total of 31 cars in the mornings and a total of 40 cars in the evenings coming back.
Speaker 0: Thank thank you for your time has been 33 minutes. We have to stick to the rules.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: My name is Diana, but I'm from Wrigley. I attended the Planning Commission's report on the final. Ali al e where they were. Packing people into regularly on the West Side and central Long Beach and said there's no place to do any building on the east side. And here suddenly we've got a place and we're going to build elitist homes when we have a housing shortage, a need in this city. And we're going to put we're going to increase the density in in my neighborhood where that's ten times more than in this fancy neighborhood you're building. It's time you got some some creative architecture to make some some multiple storey housing for people at the VA, Cal State, Long Beach and and start equalizing the city by putting your your your multiple housing on the east side instead of packing us in on the west and central side.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Yeah. My name is Robert.
Speaker 10: Pete and I.
Speaker 8: Come and they met Trump. So I agree with her.
Speaker 2: Everything she said as elitist, wrong you.
Speaker 8: She's got multiple housing. Don't try to keep this. That's the problem from Carson in the Alamo and that's the problem with our neighborhood soon as we got 18 ain't no ain't no apartments out there so we had a choice. You can either go to Hawthorne.
Speaker 2: You can go to L.A..
Speaker 4: And go to Compton.
Speaker 8: You go to Long Beach. And most Alamo people choose Long Beach because rent's low and it's nice. You know, unlike what Josh Butler said, the rest rent is highest in the world, is low and is nice. So the thing is, is though by the college. That's true what she said. I mean, that's an elitist stuff to only make houses. And that's kind of what they did in my town. They kept houses, no apartments except way over by Scott Park. So everybody ends up having to move out. And now Carson isn't winning no more championships because when we were there, we were the kids and a generation after some grandkids with us, great grandkids. Carson High banning is sorry everybody knows that because we ain't had no new kids coming any young people some different so whatever you know come on do the right thing don't be elitist multiple story, you know, get that going. Listen, what that lady said, she's right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: My name is Barry Harris. I live in the Eldorado Park estate and I frequent frequently talked to my neighbors because of the business that I'm in real estate. And I asked them what they thought about the project going in in their neighborhood. And I have to say, overwhelmingly, I got very positive reviews from many of my neighbors. I did have a few negatives, but mostly they were all positive. They're glad to see more help me going in the area. We don't have enough homes in our area to house families. And so we're thrilled to see some home, some larger family homes going in the area to bring families into our area.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your time next week, please.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon. Councilman Malcolm Bennett, a business owner in Long Beach and a 42 year realtor. I certainly support this project. There's not a day that goes by that every newspaper article hears about the housing shortage. Long Beach has an opportunity to take a stand and really make something happen. Stop talking about housing, start really do something about housing. When you think in terms of the jobs, the income, and in order to create housing, you have to have move up housing like this, maybe a little on the high side. But if people in current places don't have anything to move up to, then you'll never be able to bring in more in terms of affordable housing. I've served for three years on the California Association Realtors Housing Homeless Committee. Tomorrow we're meeting with the Regional Homeless Advisory. There's just a lot of talk about housing, but someone needs to put a shovel in the ground and build some houses if we're going to get people off the street. So I support this project. As the gentleman said, has very low density and we just can't keep saying no. And people are looking for every loophole there is to prevent a project from moving forward. We need to set new standards and we need to wake up and realize we have a housing shortage. If we don't build houses, we're going to continue to have a housing shortage. And is that simple? People need houses to live in. You have a project that that meets all the environmental and all of the other steps and takes. And so why would we then just look at every little nitpick and loophole to prevent this project from moving forward? Thank very much for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Our final speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Excuse me. My name is Ryan Bailey. I grew up in Long Beach, just down the street from this site. This is a great use for this property. The church is long gone. So, you know, instead of having a homeless encampment, which it's becoming, to put in some nice houses would be a good thing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that concludes public comment. So at this point, we'll close the hearing and take the deliberation behind the rail. So is there. So, Councilmember Mongeau, are you making the motion here or is there a second here?
Speaker 3: Okay. Five motions to read.
Speaker 0: All right. So it's been moved and I think I see Pierce. Okay. And so let's go ahead with our deliberations.
Speaker 3: So first, I want to thank the developer. This has been a long process, a process that has been open and transparent since the very beginning. While there have been comments of more density, I think that even at the very first meeting, the developer gave those options to the community, that a meeting where over 100 people attended the community had, I think, little sticky dots, where there were multiple options of where what do you want to have as your next door neighbor? And so the community who was there really responded. I think that it was very interesting to hear how many of the neighbors who actually live adjacent are in homes developed by a developer, S.A. back in 1964. And they are actually being aged out of their homes because there are no bedrooms on the first floors of many of the two storey residents there. And so in the discussion about some of them are either three bedroom or four bedroom. There's a den option in one of these where if you decide to buy a lot, you could have your master bedroom on the first floor. So should you have ailments that don't allow you to move up and down the stairs as you get older in life and these properties are made in a way where they could be changed later in life and or start in a position where you have a bathroom and a bedroom on the on the ground floor. So I think that that was really important to a community that everyone who lives in this site of Long Beach wants to stay in the site of Long Beach, but perhaps is in a financial position where they could give their home that's no longer suited to them, to a family member, and perhaps move adjacent to a neighborhood and stay nearby. With that, we talk about open and transparent. The developer has been open and transparent throughout the process. They've had meetings both on site and in the neighborhoods adjacent, and I think that that's been remarkable. They've gone through several plan revisions, which has gotten them down to the 40 homes and they've taken every single comment from the planning department. We appreciate Linda Tatum and her team who've brought in a wealth of knowledge and information to ensure that this community is the best and brightest. The neighbors adjacent are very concerned about property values. And so they want to see like housing, housing that is most similar to the housing that they have so that they can maintain their property values and that those homes will sell in the range of the high seven hundreds or more. And I know the one thing that's still outstanding, I hope that my colleagues will support me on this. I will read the five motions, but also there's a lot of discussion about the school district. And while it previous discussions, Superintendent Steinhauser had said he'd be open to letting this development into Long Beach Unified, it is not currently along each unified school district property. It would actually currently be with the neighboring school district. So we want to make sure that those homeowners have options so that your neighbors don't have to go to a different school than their next door neighbor. So we'll keep that in mind as we move forward. The residents have reached out to me and said approve it and approve it quickly. We don't want a vacant lot anymore. We want to take down the tarps and build and we want to see and get past the dust and dirt that will be with construction. So we. Enthusiastically. I ask for my colleagues support in one. I make a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. And then I the appeal of Warren Liszewski and Lombard Citizens for Fair Development. Motion to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Adopt a resolution clarifying final environmental impact. Report 04-16 and adopt findings related there to adopt a statement of override considerations and adopt a mitigating monitoring and reporting program for 40 new, detached single family homes located at 3655 North Norwalk Boulevard. Motion to adopt a resolution amending the land use element of the general plan from a flood number ten Institutional and school to lady number one Single Family District. Motion to Declare Ordinance Amending the Zoning District Map by amending portions of Part 20 from Institutional II to single family residential AR 1 a.m.. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and Motion to approve the vesting tentative tract map for the subdivision of 5.76 acres into 40 residential lots and approve the site plan for 40 new, detached single family homes located at 3655 Norwalk Boulevard, suite five votes, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes. Excuse me, Vice Mayor Richardson, that we can take those in order. We have to have separate votes on each of those. We can refer to them as motions one through five. And I'd point out for three of the motions, one with the zone change, one with the best intended map, the other with the site plan review . There are findings in your packet. Those motions include adoption of the findings, as is our normal practice.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we'll just go through. So we're going to call for motion number one. So that's been moved in second. It all in favor of motion number one. Say I any opposed? Say nay. Motion number one is adopted. Motion number two.
Speaker 3: Moved.
Speaker 0: Second. Second move by Mongo, seconded by Andrew's councilmembers. So all in favor say I.
Speaker 2: I I'll.
Speaker 0: Oppose they may oc motion number two is approved motion number three move by mongo seconded by. Seconded by Pryce all in favor say I any oppose seeing none. Motion three is approved. Motion number four. Okay, Mongo. And I think I heard Austin and all in favor say I.
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-16), and make certain findings relative thereto, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 40 new detached single-family homes located at 3655 North Norwalk Boulevard (SCH#2016081047);

Uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the City Council and deny an appeal by Warren Blesofsky and Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development;