Speaker 2: Motion carries.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With that, we will have we had the first hearing.
Speaker 2: Hearing number one report from Public Works recommendation or receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt the resolution ordering the vacation of Pasadena Avenue between 33rd Street and Interstate four or five San Diego Freeway District seven.
Speaker 0: Mr. WEST.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 4: The staff report will be given by Shaun Crumby, our deputy director of Public Works. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council Item. Each one seeks to move forward a vacation of Pasadena Avenue between 33rd Street and the four or five freeway. The street, or right away, currently serves as a dead end that butts up to the freeway and is approximately 140 feet long. On April 17th, the City Council adopted Resolution 18 Dash 0057, which declared the intent to vacate that that public right away. Tonight's action is to conduct a public hearing and find out the areas not needed for public use. With that, I'm available for any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there any public comment on the hearing? Nope. Okay. There it is. Please come forward.
Speaker 1: The Mayor and council. It appears as if you're selling public property for either $1 per square foot or $2 per square foot. The only vacant property for sale that I found in Long Beach right now is selling for approximately $18.50 per square foot. Undeniably, if this vacation is approved, it will make the other two properties owned by as a properties much more valuable by making it a contagious property. You also made it more valuable by rezoning it and allowing mixed use. So I believe if S.A. Properties is going to be making a lot of money off of this vacation, then it should be shared with the citizens of Long Beach. This was enabled by two city council. If you approve it, it will be enabled by two city council actions plus SB 35. And I understand that there's at the Planning Commission that there was no environmental done because there were some restrictions placed on how they could develop the property. I would ask that the city attorney would address that, because with SB 35, you can no longer have those kind of requirements on a property. And I would also ask that a new planning commission approval be and be because it was approved in 2017 before the new land use element was approved and before SB 35 was approved. So in essence, it was approved on things that are no longer viable. And you need to have a discussion of conditions as they now exist with feedback from the citizens of Long Beach. And we should also review the the California Environmental Quality Act review. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. And Cantrell and Janet West alerted me to this item. And upon reading it. And I hope you will also. Read it and pay attention to some of that to the issues that she has brought up. The Planning Commission said that this was in conformance with the city's general plan. And since this was done last year, the general plan is being changed with the UAE. And as Janet pointed out, with SB 35, things have changed. I'm wondering. About. This cul de sac and how it's used now. I understand there's apartment houses in this area, and I'm wondering if this cul de sac is being used for parking and if the developer takes away this cul de sac, will there be parking for the neighbors that are there now and for whoever moves in in the new development? They are allowed, as I understand, under the leeway to put in a five storey mixed use on this property. And I think that will require. A sequel. Which was not done last year because it was planned for a different thing. So I just hope you'll take a good look. And also, I am astounded about how cheaply the city is letting this land go. It looks like they're getting $10,000 a fee. And this is, as Janet said, either they're getting 10,000 or 20,000. We couldn't figure out from the staff report whether they're going to get another 10,000 in addition to what they've already put up. But this would mean that you're selling public land for either one or $2 per square foot, which is much less the market price. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Any further public comment on the hearing? I see. One more.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Adam. I am actually a representative for Harbor Freight Tools. We are going to.
Speaker 1: Be leasing the.
Speaker 4: Property that this cul de sac is being vacated from. We have plans for a 15,000 square foot commercial retail space single story. That is the only planned use for harbor freight for the whole site. The parking will be for Harbor Freight itself. We have received planning approval and are in the process of developing the construction drawings. A little background on Harbor Freight in case you may not know about us. We are a family owned and operated and nationwide retailer started in 1977. We have over 800 locations in 47 states across the country. Harbor Freight is very excited to move into Long Beach and open a new store.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your testimony. And we love Harbor Freight. Okay. So we're going to close the public comment and take it back behind the rail councilmember the.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mayor, can we address the question about the the cost per square foot? To clarify what's going on here.
Speaker 4: Sure I'd be happy to address some of the comments that came forward. Tonight is the final step within the vacation process. That process has multiple steps. When that the vacation went to the planning commission, their role is to find that it's consistent with the general plan. And the planning commission did that the fees that the underlying property is owned by the property owners that are already present. It is not owned by the city. What the action tonight does is relinquish the city's rights, the city's easement rights to be on the property. Once that those rights are relinquished, the underlying ownership reverts back to the original owners. So it was never a situation where the city is selling anything. We never owned the property in terms of the fees within the city's fee schedule. There are adopted fees that cover the city's cost of processing the vacations and the total fees. The $10,000 is the second half of fees, so the total is approximately $20,000 to do that. And that's what's being covered tonight also.
Speaker 8: Can you please explain? So in other words, this is a private business to a private business type of transaction, correct?
Speaker 4: So what's happening tonight is the city is making a finding that the property is not needed for public benefit. So there is no circulation need or any other public benefit type of a need. So we're relinquishing our right to use the property and it goes back to the underlying owner who already owns the properties, which are the surrounding property owners.
Speaker 8: Okay. Now, in regard to the issue about the value. From what I recall, the value in that area was not included in there because it was a vacated lot. Is that correct? Linda Tatum We answer that question.
Speaker 3: Councilman Turanga.
Speaker 1: The glue that the city adopted.
Speaker 3: Some time ago is.
Speaker 1: Still in.
Speaker 3: Place. The action that the city council took in March was to approve the map for the updated land use element. And the as you may know, the sequel for that updated map is in process. And that new map has not yet been.
Speaker 1: Adopted by the City Council as a part of the full land use element. The action that Planning Commission took was to determine the conformance of this alley abandonment with.
Speaker 3: The current land use element that is still.
Speaker 1: In effect.
Speaker 8: So the the property owners who are here basically have already stated that they're not going to go into more than one story. It's going to be a one story flat type of a building so that it's not within the scope of the alley.
Speaker 1: But the the action that's before you.
Speaker 3: Is an abandonment of a of underlying the city's right of way.
Speaker 1: To the alley. And it.
Speaker 3: Is not to consider the development of that.
Speaker 1: Property. However, the property that or the project that's proposed for that site is a one story harbor freight project. It's a retail.
Speaker 3: They sell tools and other supplies. It is a one story.
Speaker 1: Project, however, that's unrelated to the action.
Speaker 3: That's before the council tonight.
Speaker 8: You. Having made some clarifications, it appears that this would be a vacation only that will be used as a parking lot. That correct for your step? Okay.
Speaker 1: I hope that is correct. The area that's.
Speaker 3: Being vacated on the site.
Speaker 1: Plan that was approved for the Harbor Freight Project. It is being used as parking.
Speaker 8: Okay. So I go ahead and make my motion to approve.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Okay. Thank you. It's been moving a second. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Did you want to vote? Motion carries.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So now we'll move on to public comment. We have two speakers. We have Larry Goodhue and Sherry Broussard. Larry, you were up first.
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use; and, adopt resolution ordering the vacation of Pasadena Avenue between 33rd Street and Interstate 405 San Diego Freeway.  (District 7)