Speaker 2: So we're still a ways away from that. Okay. So we are going back and now we're going to hearing item number 20. And if I can ask people to exit quietly, just out of respect to the rest of the meeting, please exit quietly.
Speaker 11: Report from and services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Adopt resolution certifying the revised program Environmental Impact Report. Adopt a resolution adopting the updated plan. Use elements of the Long Beach General Plan. Adopt resolution. Adopting the new urban design elements, the Long Beach General Plan and adopt resolution to submit amendments to the California Coastal Commission for approval citywide.
Speaker 2: Q Thank you. There is a. Can I get a second on this motion? Mr. Modica. I need everyone to please quiet as they exit. And if we can just exit and close the doors on our way out, that would help us facilitate the meeting. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Linda Tatum, director of development services, will be doing the staff report. Yes, Mayor, I'd like to introduce the project team.
Speaker 2: We make sure that we close those doors on our way out, please. Just so that we can. Q. We'll just give. We will. That's a good suggestion. Just give it a quick minute. Please exit if you can expeditiously. And we will continue the meeting. Okay. I just need everyone to if we can please keep those doors closed and we need to continue the meeting.
Speaker 6: Aron members of the Council, I'd like to introduce the project team who have been working diligently on this project for the more than the previous five years. That is planning manager Christopher Koontz and the lead staff planner.
Speaker 4: Allison.
Speaker 6: Spindler. Ruiz and Ms.. Spindler. Ruiz will be making the staff presentation for this item. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council. I'm here to present stats recommendation on the land use element and urban design element of the City of Long Beach General Plan. To provide a bit of context. The Council recall that the city of Long Beach is general plan as a policy document required by state law, which establishes the goals and policies that will guide future growth and development in the city through the year 2040. The general plan land use element for short has not been updated since 1989. The scenic route element is an optional element that was originally adopted in 1975 and has not been updated since that time. The urban design element, or UDC for short, is a new optional element introduced as a companion element to the L'ue. While the L'ue, it deals with the use of land. Urban design element deals with the stuff and between the public realm and is intended to replace the scenic routes element with more contemporary urban design principles that will enhance quality of life in the city and the esthetics of its neighborhoods. Our general plan Land Use Element Update began in 2004 and the Council will recall that on March six, 2018, the City Council voted a public hearing to approve the final general plan land use element, place type and height maps and directed staff to update the program air, which is what brings us back here this evening. Significant changes were made to the place type and height maps, culminating in the approval by council in March 2018. Those changes included reductions in place type intensity and or maximum height allowance compared to previous versions of the maps. These reductions took place at various locations throughout the city, particularly in East Long Beach, near the traffic circle, middle shore, Wrigley and North Long Beach. On the east side, a majority of place type changes went to more community commercial, which are commercial only, and move away from the mixed use place types in the plan. So the revised programing and updated plan text before you reflect those final maps you approved last year. And the plan text had to be updated in order to show the changes that were made to the maps, as well as issues raised in the environmental review process. What's before you also reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation in October for the project before you today? A reminder that the EU in the EU plan goals, which are listed here on the side, generally aim for Long Beach to have a more sustainable future, to improve mobility choices, expand transit access, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and accommodate growth projections in accordance with state law. The proposed L'union Udeh accommodates the city's population and employment projections through the horizon the year 2040, while also advancing general plan goals for open space, active living, improved urban design, sustainability and overall quality of life. The plan includes supportive policies and implement ACT implementation actions to meet those goals as well as monitoring and report back requirements built into the plan. The proposed Alawi introduces the concept of place types to replace our current approach of segregating property within the city through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications. Place types divide the city into distinct neighborhoods, allowing for greater flexibility and mix of compatible land uses within these areas to create more complete neighborhoods and sustainable development patterns. The urban design element helps ensure that the physical aspects again have more appropriate scale and massing that improve urban fabric and public places. The map change was approved by council last year. We're considered significant new information under the California Environmental Quality Act or sequel. As a result, we were required to recirculate the air, which was done this past year, and as part of the process, staff had to make technical changes to both plan text to align and ensure consistency with the MAP changes and the revised environmental analysis. Those changes are all detailed in the attachment j of your packet. Similar to the 2016 air, the revised E.R. analysis found that all impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, with adherence to standard conditions and prescribed mitigation measures, with the exception of impacts in four areas air quality, global climate change, noise and transportation. Though map intensities were reduced, environmental impacts remained similar. The only new impact found to be significant and unavoidable relates to noise. The 2016 air did not find noise impacts to be significant, but given the timing and extent of future construction, related noise is unknown. The revised air finds us to be significant and unavoidable. But this is simply a more conservative analysis. Pursuant to secure all required environmental impacts have been considered and mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible. There are various requirements related to general plan consistency. This plan is designed to work for the two elements to work together and upon adoption will be consistent not only with each other, but all other elements of the general plan and with all required state regulations as shown on the slide. A much more detailed consistency analysis is provided in attachment eight of each of your packet. The recirculated draft air was circulated for public review for an extended period of 60 days between June and August 2019, including not only all legally required notification, but significant additional notification to all previous interested parties on this project. We received 17 comments on the air during the comment period. No significant changes nor new information was required in response to those comments that would have required recirculation. Leading up to the meeting tonight, we received two additional comments from the public, which were included with the city clerk and as well as a handful of inquiries and questions for clarification. Adoption of value in the EU sets a broad policy framework, but much needs to be done to implement this plan. Value contains 110 city wide implementation measures and various neighborhood strategies. The another 27 implementation strategy. Is updates to the zoning code will be a primary means of implementation, including development of new zones to implement the place types. This will be phased in geographically with deep and various types of community engagement, as we have been doing with the plan process in North Palm Beach as well as the cap. In addition to developing new zones, other updates to development standards and procedures will be made to the code. And the cap is actually a mitigation measure of the QE as well. And it will help us with many of the sustainability related policies and implementation actions included in the Louis the Council recall. We're pretty far along on the cap in drafting our framework of how to create a more sustainable and resilient city. Given that 95% of our emissions come from transportation and building sectors and Long Beach land use regulations are critical to our ability to achieve our city's climate goals, such as through creation of complete communities, to allow people to drive less, create more efficient housing and buildings, and preserve open space. But that here again is the recommendation to.
Speaker 7: Certify the revised program.
Speaker 6: Iir adapt the updated land use element to the general plan replacing the 1989 land use element. Adopt the new urban design element, repealing the scenic roots element and adopt a resolution for us to submit amendments to the general plan to the California Coastal Commission. With that. I thank you. And staff stands ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm going to public comment for the making of the motion. So we have Mr. Goodhew and control carelessly. Janet And whether there's ten speakers. Larry Goodhue and Control cordless lead, Janet West and Lynnette Firenze. Sorry about that. They'll pick these line up at the podium in that order. Mr. Goodhue, your first. You're not speaking. Okay, so Ms.. Cantrell was first. Nope. Mostly.
Speaker 11: What?
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Mr. Europe.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, first, I want to acknowledge the moment, because this is a huge body of work. And thousands of hours of staff time and public time were involved in that. And here we are at the point of adopting it. I will say that in terms of what was learned in this, what did we learn? We learned that people care about zoning, that they want outreach, they want to be included, and that they care about the major life investment, which is their home and their neighborhood. A lot of the work that went on was focusing on the police type maps. Not everyone was satisfied with the maps as they were approved. I know District two and District six still had issues with them, but the negotiations did occur and the product is better because of it. Personally, I learned some new vocabulary. I found out in this that I am a NIMBY and a NIMBY is not in my backyard. But in fact, I was just trying to protect the students at Milliken from increased density. The things that remain, that are still a problem. Program ideas. Negative declarations. Substituting for real year. Where we identify the potential consequences and have solutions. Things that matter. The traffic and the parking. The hazmat. Thank you. State intervention is still a problem. Thank you very much. The problem and the mobility element was control. Good evening. I have some questions about this. As I understand it, the transportation. Element of this is to build along transit lines both present and future. And I'm concerned that any place you put a bus line will allow you to build 5 to 10 story buildings . I feel this destroys the neighborhood. I still remember the cracker boxes, and I think this. Relates to what we did back in the nineties with. Over building and density and crime. I also am not sure I thought that Cecil. Area was exempt from this, but I was told today that it's been included again. Could somebody on staff. Answer the question as to whether c support is included in this l eui. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And it was, please come forward.
Speaker 6: First, it's unconscionable that you're giving us 90 seconds to speak on a plan that's going to change this city forever. The transit oriented development says that it is for metro line stations, as well as existing and future bus shuttle and other mass transit routes and stations. That is not reflected on the map. According to state law, the maps and the text have to be consistent. So you're this plan. This whole plan is not following state law. And those of you who vote for it are going to be violating state law. People still talk about the cracker box fiasco. This will be ten times worse. But people don't know who the council members were who voted for it. I'm proposing a wall of shame for everybody who votes for it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, Lynnette frenzy. And if we can, please have Lee Lee for coffee. Neil Rotunda man Eichner. Coleen MacDonald, please all line up in that order, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I have four changes that I hope you approve in Council District six. One is change the height from 3 to 2 stories at the northwest and northeast corners of spring and Pacific Avenue in the CC place type. This request does not need a place to change, only a height map change from 3 to 2 stories. This will allow the CC zone and Wrigley to be treated the same as other zones throughout the city, especially in Council District four and five. Number two, change the height on the east side of Pacific Avenue from 28th to Spring Street from 5 to 3 stories. This request is also not need a place to change, only a change of the height map from 5 to 3 stories. This change will be consistent with the Midtown specific plan that you approved in 2016 that allows three stories in 36 feet in the corridor district. Number three, change a height from 10 to 5 stories on the north side of PCH between Lucas and Pacific Avenue. In the toddler place type, this change will also allow consistency with a midtown specific plan. This area was two stories in 2007. Five in 2015. Not ten was proposed. Please maintain the five story height in this two block area and not allow an eight story increase in ten years. In last change, the height from 7 to 5 stories on both sides of Pacific Avenue from PCH to 19th. And change the place type on the east side of Cedar AV from PCH to 19th, from top to end. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council. I'm here to support Lynette Frances. Her proposal to reduce the heights in some areas of Wrigley. This is a compromise that still allows growth. She wants what we all want that future growth. Be responsible. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews and your staff are listening to our concerns. On a separate note, I'm hoping that you all, as council members, when you discuss this behind the rail, that there be some way to safeguard and assess new developments. That the progress we make can be evaluated in any problems be addressed so that we are maintaining the quality of life for our residents. I believe it was Councilwoman Pryce that brought it up at the last meeting, and I hope you all as a body can discuss this further. How to address problems quicker than what happened in the past, particularly in regards to was mentioned before Cracker Box Apartments. From what.
Speaker 6: I've read in the past news articles.
Speaker 0: It took that city council way too long to stop those badly planned developments from continuing. I'm hoping that this council finds a way to address these kinds of unforeseen problems. Thank you all for your time and consideration and thank you. No good time to. Yes. My name is Neil Tag. I'm a retired law professor and I'm here in support of the Wigley group that has been working very, very diligently, patiently and persistently with the city about detailed changes in the Wrigley area. I'm also channeling Linette Ferrante. She didn't get to finish number four, so I'm going to read that. Number four, change the height from 7 to 5 stories on both sides, the Pacific Avenue from PCH to 19th Street, and change the place type on the east side of Cedar Avenue from PCH, 19th Street, from transit oriented development to in founding and contemporary neighborhoods, except the first four lots north of PCH that shall remain within toddle with a 2 to 5 story limit on those matters. Now, these have been submitted in writing. They are for specific, very modest suggestions. And again, as a result.
Speaker 11: Of.
Speaker 9: A significant.
Speaker 0: Participation effort over years, I think I actually came here and gave a comment two years, two or three years ago, and I don't recognize half the members of the city council. But my point is, this is a long, concerted effort, an effort by members of the Wrigley neighborhood to improve the quality of life. Working very patiently and diligently with the city. I would encourage you to consider this to take into account that persistence in your consider in your detailed considerations. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I don't.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Honorable mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. I'm gonna ignore. I'm a sixth district resident as Neal was saying is one that was seeing as we were saying, we've been doing this for a long time. We've been very, very diligent through these years. And I've learned a lot. And I've got a lot of I've spent a lot of time with the vice mayor and staff. I've talked to you guys a lot, and thank you all for all the help in answering all my questions. I understand that Playscape changes require new art. New e r e i ars. We are asking for a one place per type change and that's the reduction on Cedar Avenue from which was once the founding and contemporary neighborhood, the very first air that was done. And then it was changed to the seven story. And we'd like to put back because it is a single family neighborhood put back to founding and contemporary neighborhoods. And we've always been told through all the years that you can lower heights and it's a lessening of impact. So therefore it does not require a new air. And plus, we had already done an air of that the first round of the year. So please hear us as one last time and consider our requests. It's our last stand. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: I'm calling McDonald.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Garcia Good evening. Council Members Well, I would just be regurgitating what Lee, Leonard, Mona and Neil have just said. We're asking for three height, three changes on the height map. Very small areas of Wrigley. And then the one place type change to recognize the actual nature of Cedar Avenue. So those are I'm not going to read what I brought. I just hope that that it can be achieved tonight. So thank you very much. And. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. That concludes public comment. I had. I said, you can't.
Speaker 10: I want to thank men. I want to thank staff for the great report and all of the hard work. This has been a laborious process, but also one that was mentioned here by in public comment, one that is also, I think shall be the passion from for many of our residents throughout the city who were involved in this process. I think there was a lot of compromise. This isn't a perfect document. I don't think the land use element before in 1980 was was perfect. I'd be interested to know what percentage. Or how much was actually realized in that land use element today from staff. Do you have any idea in terms of the planning that was was laid out in the element and how much of that was actually realized or done? So, Councilmember, I can't give you a number. I can tell you there's concepts on that plan, including the rebuilding and renaissance in downtown, that the crafters of that 1989 plan got spot on and completely came true. There's other items in that plan talking about growth in other parts of the city, sort of outside of downtown, that they completely missed the mark because they felt that there would be growth in housing and goods and services, but that that would be in these one and two story buildings that the world evolved and that didn't come to be. So it's a plan that both was very successful and what it had to say about downtown and also really missed the mark on the rest of our city. And while downtown is very important, it's 2% of a very large, diverse city with a lot of important neighborhoods and shopping districts . So we think that this this plan is more comprehensive and will achieve our goals throughout the whole city. But I think the more important difference is in this council's action last year you had specific direction. So this plan will be monitored yearly by the Planning Commission and we'll be coming back every other year to provide updates to this Council. So it will be a living document. And as we need to make adjustments, we'll make adjustments so that every community achieves their goals. Thank you. And what I think I heard is that this is an imperfect science. There's a lot of guesswork here and there are a lot of variables that that need to fall in place for for this to actually come to fruition. I'm hopeful, because I know we need to build more housing. We need to be smarter with how we we build our housing. Transit corridors are very, very important. And if we don't get it done in our general plan, Sacramento may get it done for us. And so I'd like to have as much local control as possible, and I encourage my colleagues to support this document tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews.
Speaker 9: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I would like to thank the staff who work with me and my constituents here in the sixth District. You know, the land use element. You know, I know that we are not necessarily making drastic changes to the map tonight, but I want to share my comments and provide instructions to the staff about how they implement the plans and the zoning in the sixth District. Based on my review and all of the information and the valuable feedback from a residents like Annette Manley and Mrs. Colleen. I have comments on four areas, but I do not want to submit this and I do want to submit this into record. When the development of oppose this is number one when a development is proposed is considered when northeast, the northwest northeast corner of Spring and Pacific Avenue. I would like the staff to apply a zoning height of two stories instead of three. This height would be approximately next to nearby residents and two stores is typical the retail commercial use number two. Similarly, when a development proposal is considered along Pacific Avenue from 28th Street to Pine Street, apply the three storey height of the five story. This stretch is adjacent to the veterans park and this approach is consistent with how small lodged and treated in the Midtown Special Plan. Number three, also along PCH, from Locust Avenue to Pacific Avenue. Let's keep a five story. Let's keep it five story height established in the mid-term special plan. Rather than the ten story, you know, content that this is provided in an important high transmission to the nearby residents, including a single family housing. And number four, lastly, when the development proposal is considered for the area north, the Pacific Coast Highway, that does not include properties with frontage on PCH on east sides of Cedar Avenue and both sides of Pacific Avenue and south of 19th Street. Apply a five story approach instead of the seven story to reflect recent community discussion and a better consistency with the surrounding Midtown Special Midtown Special Plan on Cedar. I'd rather I really want to use to be cautious and to preserve the single family type look that exists. These approaches to implement the plan will provide important esthetic benefits from the community but but will not change the map on his environmental analysis application that these comments will still bring housing we need but will do so with a good design. Staff can follow up tonight the actions and letters to my office. I will share with the community and the document of this approach. And thank you very much.
Speaker 2: It comes from Virunga.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. Just one question that you had on Slide 11. Bullet three, you have steps in project implementation. You have a phased update to the zoning code as the primary means for implementation. There were many there were some questions asked during the QE process about equestrian zones. In terms of leaseholder zones, how is that going to be is going to be addressed here or how is that going to be incorporated into this plan?
Speaker 10: Circle Council Member Thank you for the question. And we do have some equestrian property in the city and they've been involved in this process. So in the general plan, which is general in nature, because there's a citywide plan, we have this category, founding and contemporary neighborhood that has our single family areas, our duplex areas, our lowest density housing, and it provides some citywide discussion and framework and standards for those. But then in any given neighborhood, you have very specific issues or challenges or opportunities. And equestrian is one of those. And those are those issues are addressed in the more detailed zoning code. So there's existing rules for equestrian lots that exist today. And we'd be glad to work with your constituent on mapping those and making those those clearer. And then if at some point the city council, as a as the Hall of the body, wanted to revisit those or make adjustments to those, we could go through a process to do that. But that's all going to be in that implementation stage and not in this larger.
Speaker 0: Citywide document that we're talking about tonight. Thank you for the clarification, RuPaul.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And just as a clarification from staff, so Vice Chair Andrews is our our staff direction, but it does not actually change the maps within the QE, to be clear.
Speaker 0: Mr. MODICA.
Speaker 12: That's correct. So the maps would stay the way they are. We fully understand kind of the content and the intent and we worked with the council members on this, on this and met with the community. So we understand the goal.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilor Pearce.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I wanted to take a moment just to think. Staff I know that this has been many, many years of work. I know that we've had many community meetings with 300 plus people. And I think it's a sign of what great work we've done. Of the turnout tonight. And I respect everybody's opinion. Obviously, in the second district, we tried to increase density where we could. I know that our skog numbers are kind of terrifying sometimes to think about. And so seeing us increase density wherever we can, I think is really important. And just want to appreciate your guys efforts. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And Councilwoman Mungo.
Speaker 13: I want to echo those same comments. The three of you at the back table took a beating. There was a lot of misinformation out in the community, and you calmly and professionally worked hand in hand with the communities. A lot of them just getting to know you for the first time. And I think that we've come a long way as a city, and I think that that process has opened the eyes of city staff on how we can be more transparent and the better ways to hand-hold the community through a process to make sure that they're involved every step of the way. So thank you for working with us as councilmembers and being a part of that. And you guys did excellent work. I cannot tell you how impressed I was at multiple meetings when your stuff came out. Linda Multiple meetings, just so professional and so knowledgeable. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 6: Last. Council members.
Speaker 1: Motion carries.
Speaker 2: Action hearing, which is hearing next 21, I.
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing; 

Adopt resolution certifying the revised Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-16) based on the final set of maps approved by the Council on March 6, 2018, together with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC);