[00:00:03] ON AUGUST 21ST. SO LET'S START OUT WITH LET'S START UP WITH [A. CALL TO ORDER] RECEIVE A CALL TO ORDER, ACTUALLY. SO SHOULD WE DO A ROLL CALL? OH. I'M SORRY. ROLL CALL FIRST. YEAH. ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER LIGHT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. HERE. COMMISSIONER CONROY. HERE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. HERE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. OH, HERE. AND NEXT, I'D LIKE TO SALUTE THE FLAG, AND WILL, JULIE, BE HAPPY TO BE SO KIND AS TO LEAD US IN THIS. YES SIR. PLEASE STAND. COMMISSIONER YOUNG, I'M SORRY. PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART. READY? BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. AND NEXT, WE'RE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA. [D. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA] CAN I GET A MOTION TO. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT BLUE FOLDER ITEMS. [E. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS] WE HAVE SOME BLUE FOLDER ITEMS THAT WERE ADDED TO OUR PACKAGE TONIGHT. MOTION TO RECEIVE BLUE FOLDER ITEMS. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT, WE HAVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. [F. CONSENT CALENDAR] AND THESE ARE BUSINESS ITEMS, EXCEPT THOSE FORMERLY NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING OR THOSE POLLED FOR DISCUSSION OR ARE ASSIGNED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. COMMISSION MEMBERS MAY REQUEST THAT ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS BE REMOVED, DISCUSSED, AND ACTED UPON SEPARATELY. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE TAKEN UP UNDER THE EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR SECTION BELOW. THOSE ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION. THE CHAIR WILL CALL ON ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PULLED BY THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE, AND COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES. ON OUR CONSENT CALENDAR WE HAVE OUR AFFIDAVIT FOR POSTING. THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT. ANYTHING THAT'S EXCLUDED ITEMS FROM OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXCLUDED ITEMS. CORRECT. NEXT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. [H. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS] THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION. THIS SECTION IS LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE. WRITTEN REQUEST, IF ANY, WILL BE CONSIDERED FIRST UNDER THIS SECTION, AND I HAVE ONE CARD FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS FROM DOCTOR HOLLY MITCHELL, HOLLY OSBORNE. HOLLY OSBORNE I'M SORRY I PROMOTED YOU TO LA COUNTY SUPERVISOR. I PROMOTED HER. I LIKE THAT. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, HOLLY OSBORNE, DISTRICT 5. THIS WEEK I LISTENED TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING LIVE, BUT REMOTELY ON TUESDAY. AND TODAY I LISTENED TO A REPLAY OF YOUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. I HAVE TWO COMMENTS FROM THOSE TWO MEETINGS. BOTH TOPICS ARE ONES YOU DEAL WITH. TOPIC ONE BICYCLE LANE. ON TUESDAY, THE COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING A PROPOSED BIKE PATH THAT WOULD START IN SOUTH REDONDO, HAVE A STRETCH ON 190TH AND HOPEFULLY PASS THROUGH THE GALLERIA AND GO ON TO EL CAMINO COLLEGE VIA REDONDO BEACH BOULEVARD. A LOT OF WORK HAD BEEN DONE ON THIS, AND THERE HAD TO BE COORDINATION WITH LAWNDALE AND TORRANCE. IT TURNS OUT THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE TO THE BICYCLE LANE WAS TORRANCE. THEY WERE AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE SOME STREET PARKING ON 190TH IN FRONT OF AN APARTMENT. OUR MAYOR, MR. LIGHT, SAID, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING IN THE COMPLEX ITSELF. LET ME REPEAT THAT. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING IN THE COMPLEX ITSELF. OKAY. TOPIC TWO IS ARTESIA BOULEVARD. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS DISCUSSING ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND PRESENTED SOME DRAWINGS THAT WOULD SHOW HOW A FAR OF 1.5 COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON VARIOUS SIZE LOTS AND WHAT THE PARKING WOULD LOOK LIKE. I TOOK THE DRAWINGS LITERALLY AND COMMENTED THAT THE DRAWINGS WERE CRAZY, AND THEN AN IDIOT MUST HAVE DRAWN THEM BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY PEOPLE WERE GOING TO DRIVE TO A STORE ON ARTESIA IN TANDEM PARK, AND, ETC.. IT TURNS OUT THE DRAWINGS WERE MEANT TO SHOW THE CURRENT PARK REQUIREMENTS ARE RIDICULOUS, WITH A FAR OF 1.5. I'M SLOW, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION PRESENTED WAS? [00:05:04] NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL. WHY DID YOU NOT COME UP WITH SOME LOGICAL DRAWINGS WITH THE REDUCED FAR GREATER THAN THE CURRENT FAR OF 0.6, BUT LESS THAN 1.5, AND SHOW WHAT KIND OF PARKING COULD BE ACCOMMODATED AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENT COULD BE COULD VARY WITH THE LOT SIZE. IT WAS SAID IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT YOU TOOK A SURVEY OF 27 BUSINESS OWNERS, I BELIEVE, AND MOST OF THEM MENTIONED, I THINK IT WAS 27. MOST OF THEM MENTIONED PARKING WAS A PROBLEM. WHAT WAS THEIR SOLUTION? I DO NOT THINK IT WAS NO PARKING AT ALL, AND HAVE A GIANT FREE FOR ALL TO GET THE CURB PARKING, WHICH BY THE WAY, MOST PEOPLE I KNOW DON'T LIKE PARALLEL PARKING. AS AN ASIDE, I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE VILLAS ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD, AND ONE WAS A RELATIVELY NEW ONE CALLED THE REDONDO COLLECTION. AND IT LOOKED LIKE WHAT I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY YOU WANTED LARGER MERGE LOT PARKING IN THE BACK. NICE FRONT APPEARANCE ON THE STREET. I DON'T KNOW WHAT STORES ARE THERE BECAUSE I DON'T LIVE THERE, BUT I SAW ON GOOGLE MAPS THAT IT WAS CLOSED AND I'D BE REALLY CURIOUS WHY SOMETHING THAT LOOKS SO PERFECT DIDN'T WORK. BUT ANYWAY, IN SUMMARY, PLEASE PLAN FOR SOMETHING LOGICAL REQUIRING FAR AND PARKING. AND DON'T DRIVE PURPOSELY DRIVE SMALL BUSINESSES AWAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HOLLY. JAMAAL, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS OR ANYONE ONLINE THAT WANT TO COMMENT? WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT AT THIS TIME. OKAY, GREAT. NEXT, LET'S RECEIVE AND FILE ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS ON NOT ALREADY. GOT THAT? YEAH. NOTHING ON THERE. EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION. [I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION] THIS SESSION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE OFFICIALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVEAL ANY DISCLOSURE OR ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. ANYONE HAVE ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION THEY WANT? NOTHING TO REPORT. MR. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL, HOW FAR BACK DOES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THIS GO? I THINK SINCE IT WAS AGENDIZED. FRIDAY. YEAH. AGENDA IT HASN'T BEEN AN AGENDIZED ITEM. SO NO ONE, MR. YOUNG? NO. NO ONE, MR. GADDIS. YEAH, I COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF. MAYOR LIGHT. COUNCILMAN OBAGI. COUNCILMAN BEHRENDT. CHAIRMAN CRAIG. AND THE PUBLIC? VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER CONROY. I HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. YEAH. CAN I DOUBLE CHECK IT SINCE IT WAS AGENDIZED LAST WEEK? ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAD ON THE MATTER. SO IT'S NOT JUST FROM THE POINT OF THE AGENDA BEING PUBLISHED. SO IT'S BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME. OKAY. SO. WELL, THIS MATTER, THIS PROJECT IS BEFORE YOU. SO THE PHASE TWO PROJECT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PHASE ONE THAT OCCURRED IN 2019. OKAY. SO THE EARLIEST WE COULD HAVE SEEN THE PHASE TWO PROJECT WAS WHEN LAST YEAR WAS WHEN THE PACKAGE WAS PUT TOGETHER. NOT NECESSARILY. IN THIS FORMAT. BUT IF YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SOMEONE REGARDING THE PHASE TWO PROJECT THAT WAS GOING TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY AT A CERTAIN POINT, AND THAT WAS BEFORE IT WAS AGENDIZED, THEN THAT'S DISCLOSABLE. SO SIGHT UNSEEN, THE FACT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IN A CONVERSATION COUNCIL. YES. SO THIS IS ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE DISCLOSED OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING THAT RELATES TO THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. OKAY. SO I HAVE HAD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, A CONVERSATION WITH MAYOR JIM LIGHT. COUNCILPERSON OBAGI I MET WITH THE DEVELOPER LAST YEAR AT SOME TIME TO SEE THE MODEL AND THE PUBLIC. CHAIR CRAIG. AND THAT'S IT? THAT'S IT. I'LL NEED TO REDO MINE. OH, YOU WANT TO AMEND YOURS, PLEASE? IT'S NOT SINCE LAST FRIDAY I HAVE, I GUESS THE FIRST THAT I HEARD OF THERE BEING SOMETHING CALLED PHASE TWO IS WHEN I WENT TO, WAS INVITED TO VISIT THE GALLERIA AND SEE THE MODEL AND THE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN PHASE TWO WERE SHOWN TO ME IN THE MODEL AND DISCUSSED. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SPOKEN TO ANYONE ABOUT IT. VERY GOOD. AND THAT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. OKAY. AS FOR MYSELF, I'VE SPOKEN TO COMMISSIONER GADDIS, COMMISSIONER'S HAZELTINE, MAYOR LIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND OVERBURDENED ARE BEING OVERLY [00:10:10] CAUTIOUS. IN THE APPENDIX THAT WAS GIVEN TO US ON PAGE 247 THERE'S ACTUALLY A LIST OF A BUNCH OF MEETINGS THAT WERE HOSTED BY THE DEVELOPER. AND ON PAGE 247, AND APPENDIX ONE FOR THE RECORD THERE'S ONE NOTE IN THERE THAT SAID, ON FEBRUARY 27TH 24, IT MENTIONED A MEETING WITH MAYOR LIGHT COUNCIL MEMBERS NEHRENHEIM AND STAFF. I WAS ALSO THERE, BUT IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THAT APPENDIX. SO I WAS AT THAT SAME MEETING. I JUST HEARD A PRESENTATION, LOOKED AT THE MODEL. I DIDN'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO YOU'RE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING. SO SHOULD I READ THAT FIRST OR NOT? READ THIS SECTION HERE. SURE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN OUR PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. [J. PUBLIC HEARINGS] IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH BAY GALLERY, A MIXED USE PROJECT. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 201510-1009, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER CC-1901-004 ON JANUARY 15, 2019. A SUBDIVISION VESTING. SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 84931 A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTING PERIOD OF TRACT MAP 74481, AND WAIVERS OF SOME DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS PURSUANT TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE TWO OF THE SOUTH BAY SOCIAL DISTRICT, FIRMLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA. MIXED USE PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT STORY MIXED USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 15 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES, APARTMENTS, APARTMENTS, OR CONDOS, AND 335 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, INCLUSIVE OF A 10% VERY LOW INCOME OR 20% LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH 843 PARKING SPACES WITHIN A GARAGE. BELOW AND ABOVE GRADE, 8351FT² OF COMMERCIAL AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES ON TWO PARCELS. LOT SEVEN AND LOT 15 OF TRACT MAP 74481, TOTALING 3.26 ACRES WITHIN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CR ZONE LOCATED AT 1815 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, KINGSDALE AND 177TH STREET. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. SEEING NO OBJECTION. WE SHALL CONTINUE. AND I BELIEVE WE STARTED OUT WITH A STAFF REPORT. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION BEFORE WE BEGIN ALL OF THAT, AND THIS IS MORE I MADE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE. WITH THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS, OBVIOUSLY, ABOUT THIS PROJECT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT A LOT OF MISINFORMATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADMIT, I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE INACCURATE STATEMENTS BEING REPEATEDLY BY FREQUENTLY BY A SMALL GROUP OF RESIDENTS. AND TO BE CLEAR, THE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN DELAYED IN ANYTHING BY THE CITY OR BY ANY GROUPS ADVOCATING GROWTH IN THE CITY AT ALL. THE BACKGROUND IS IN 2019, THE FIRST VERSION OF THE SOUTH BAY SOCIAL DISTRICT PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN A SINGLE MEETING DESPITE BEING ONE OF THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN REDONDO BEACH HISTORY. DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIMITED PROJECT REVIEW, A RESIDENT FILED AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT APPEAL LED TO A SIGNIFICANT TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN A MUCH BETTER PROJECT. FOLLOWING THIS, MAYOR BRAND MAYOR BILL BRAND CHANGED THE COMPOSITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT A MORE THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL REVIEW PROCESS WAS DONE IN THE FUTURE FOR ANY SUCH PROJECTS. SINCE THEN, THE DEVELOPERS SOUGHT FINANCIAL BACKING TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJECT HAS CHANGED HANDS A COUPLE OF TIMES WITH OWNERSHIP. WHETHER THE IMPACTS OF COVID AND HAS REQUIRED ANNUAL EXTENSIONS TO THE ORIGINAL, TO ITS ORIGINAL APPROVAL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. AND IN CASE YOU GUYS ARE WONDERING WHAT THE PERSON THAT FILED THAT CITIZEN APPEAL IS SITTING TWO PLACES OVER TO ME, THAT WAS COMMISSIONER DOUG BOSWELL. SO ANYWAY, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SEAN SCULLY PLANNING MANAGER. CAN I GET MY PRESENTATION UP ON THIS STATION? YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, YOU KNOW, THE ITEM FOR YOU TONIGHT IS PHASE TWO. SOUTH BAY GALLERY, A MIXED USE PROJECT. THIS IS ONE OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT SITES IN THE SIX CYCLE. 2021 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT. AND SINCE THIS IS A LARGER PROJECT, THERE'S A BIT OF INFORMATION I WANT TO WALK EVERYBODY THROUGH. SO THIS SLIDE JUST BASICALLY IS IS AN OUTLINE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TONIGHT WITH THIS BASIC PROJECT SUMMARY IDENTIFICATION OF THE REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT AND THEN SOME BACKGROUND THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, PHASE ONE, ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, JUST A FEW SLIDES ON THAT AND THEN THE PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY IS [00:15:04] TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL BACKGROUND, THE VARIOUS STATE HOUSING LAWS THAT COME INTO PLAY WITH THIS PROJECT. SO SB 330, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND THEN AGAIN, THE, YOU KNOW, JUST IDENTIFYING CLEARLY IN THE THAT THIS SITE IS WITHIN THE CITY'S SIX CYCLE 2021 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT AS ONE OF OUR SITES INVENTORY. AND THEN A HANDFUL OF SLIDES SLIDES THAT ARE A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. THE ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKAGE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SET THAT DETAILS THE PROJECT ITSELF, AND THEN INTO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT. I'LL RUN THROUGH THOSE AND THEN OUR RECOMMENDATION. AND BEFORE I GET TOO FAR, I DO WANT A COUPLE OF INTRODUCTIONS. WE'VE GOT OUR CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE, CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL PARK, AND THEN A CONTRACT CONSULTING ATTORNEY IS ON ZOOM TONIGHT WHO'S A HOUSING SPECIALIST EXPERT DIANA VERRETT. AND THEN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT AS WELL WITH THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT TEAM. AND THEY ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION TONIGHT THAT THEY'LL BE ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SHOW TO THEM. SO REAL PROJECT SUMMARY. HIGH LEVEL. THIS IS PHASE TWO. IT'S A THREE STORY TO EIGHT STORY MIXED USE BUILDING. 15 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES. 335 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO IS THE BLUE FOLDER ITEM. THERE HAS BEEN A A COMMITMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO SOLELY DEVELOP THE 35 VERY LOW INCOME AND NOT HAVE THE OPTION. SO I WASN'T ABLE TO AMEND THIS, THIS PRESENTATION IN TIME FOR THAT. BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE RESOLUTION AND THE RECOMMENDATION, WE HAVE A TRACK CHANGES VERSION. WE'LL BE ABLE TO WALK THE PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH THAT, THAT AMENDMENT. THERE'S UP TO 845 PARKING SPACES, 350, WHICH ARE DEDICATED TO THE 350 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THERE'S 8300FT² OF COMMERCIAL ON ON GRADE THAT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS THE MALL ITSELF. AND THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED AMENITIES OUTDOOR PLAZA, PERIMETER PARKWAYS, 33,000FT² OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PATIOS, BALCONIES, ROOFTOP TERRACES AND COURTYARDS THAT EQUAL 71,000FT² OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. AND THE REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT IS ARE THE FOLLOWING. AND THEY'RE OUTLINED ON THIS SLIDE. THERE'S THE ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY BACK IN JANUARY OF 2019. THE AMENDMENT AND THIS TONIGHT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL EXCUSE ME, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN ORIGINALLY WITH THE PROJECT IN 2019. THERE'S ALSO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 84391. WE'LL WALK THROUGH THAT. IT'S A VERY MINOR CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF THE PARCELS AT THE PROJECT SITE. THERE'S ALSO A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTING PERIOD FOR THE RECORDED FINAL VESTING TRACT MAP NUMBER 74481. AND I'VE GOT A SLIDE THAT KIND OF TELLS US WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT. AND THEN THERE ARE WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. AND THOSE ARE OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION AS WELL AS I'VE GOT A SLIDE FOR THAT. SO REAL QUICK, THE BACKGROUND SOUTH BAY GALLERIA MIXED USE PROJECT. AS CHAIR CRAIG NOTED, IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN IN APRIL OF 2018. IT WAS THEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE APPEAL AND APPROVED THE RESOLUTION NUMBER CC1901004, AND INCORPORATED WITHIN THAT RESOLUTION WERE THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. THE MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW. THERE WAS A VARIANCE AT THAT TIME. THE WAIVERS STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW PROVISIONS WEREN'T. IT WAS KIND OF A BELT AND SUSPENDERS. SO THERE WAS ALSO A VARIANCE APPLIED TO THAT PROJECT. THE DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THERE WERE SOME WAIVERS ON THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. [00:20:06] AND THEN TRACT MAP 74481, WHICH LIMITED THE SITE TO 19 PARCELS, NO MORE THAN 19 PARCELS THAT WAS APPROVED. AND ALONG WITH THAT 300 DWELLING UNITS INCLUSIVE OF 10% AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, OR 20% AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND A TOTAL OF OVER 1 MILLION. NEARLY, LET'S SAY, 1,300,000FT² OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THEN IT THERE WAS A SERIES. A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2019 IN THE MALL SPACE AND COMMERCIAL IN GENERAL. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED A WHICH SERVED TO DELAY THE PROJECT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED A THREE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA, A MIXED USE PROJECT WHICH PRESERVED ALL THOSE APPROVALS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH. AND IT WAS REQUESTED TO ALLOW TIME TO FINALIZE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ALSO FOR FINANCIAL REASONS. APRIL 26TH, 2022 THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE APPROVED PLANS PURSUANT TO THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS IN THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL THAT GRANTS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE CHANGES, PROVIDED THEY CAN MAKE A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. AND THAT HAS OCCURRED. AND THAT WAS BACK IN 2022. AND THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT, THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT FOR BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND WHICH THEY HAVE DONE FOR PHASE ONE A, WHICH WAS THE MALL RENOVATION, AND PHASE ONE B, WHICH IS THE WHICH ARE THE 300 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND THAT IS COMPLETED THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS AND READY TO ISSUE. AND THIS IS JUST A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS, YOU KNOW, PHASE ONE VERSUS THE PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE PHASE ONE IS ON THE LEFT. AND THAT WAS APPROVED. AND THEN THE THIS IS JUST A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS ANALYZED FOR THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA. SO THIS IS A MUCH SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER PROJECT THAN WHAT WAS ANALYZED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND THEN THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA, A MIXED USE PROJECT PHASE TWO. THE RESOLUTION IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AGAIN, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT PRIOR APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW. SO THE RESOLUTION FROM 2019 REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW AND THE VARIANCE. THE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES AND WAIVERS PARTICULARLY, AND THEN THE TRACT MAP AND THE GALLERIA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TOTALING A GRAND TOTAL OF ONE POINT ABOUT 1.593 MILLION SQUARE FEET. SO WHERE THERE'S A CONFLICT IN THE RESOLUTION FOR PHASE TWO AND THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FOR PHASE TWO WITH RESPECT TO PHASE TWO THE CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT WILL SUPERSEDE THOSE. WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY. WE DESIGNED IT TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT. AND DRAFTED IN THAT WAY. BUT IF ONE WERE TO BE INTERPRETED IN THAT MANNER, IT'S THE PHASE TWO RESOLUTION THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. LET ME JUMP BACK. SO MOVING INTO THE LEGAL BACKGROUND WITH RESPECT TO [00:25:02] THE APPLICABLE, YOU KNOW HOUSING LAWS THAT THAT ARE KIND OF THE GUIDEPOST FOR THIS PROJECT CERTAINLY. THE FIRST ONE IS SB 330. AND THIS IS WE WENT THROUGH THIS NOT TOO LONG AGO WITH THE PROJECT ON PCH. 122 NORTH PCH. SO SB 330, THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT THAT RESTRICTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO DENY OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. SO THIS JUST OUTLINES THOSE SAME PARAMETERS. YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IS PRETTY CLEAR IN THIS LANGUAGE AND DEFINING THE LIMITS THAT WE HAVE WE CAN'T DENY OR REDUCE THE DENSITY BASED ON ANY SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS VERY LIMITED GROUNDS FOR DENIAL. THERE ESSENTIALLY HAS TO BE A FINDING OF AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THEN LIMITATION ON ADDING CONDITIONS, BASICALLY THE SAME LIMITATION. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY THAT REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF THAT CONDITION. AND THEN ON TO THE NEXT ONE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. YOU KNOW, STATE LAW. IT'S REALLY AN INCENTIVE TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AS LONG AS THE PROJECT PROVIDES SOME PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR AN INCREASE IN DENSITY AND IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR CONCESSIONS, INCENTIVES, AND IN THIS CASE, WAIVERS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THERE'S ANOTHER RESTRICTION ON HOW THE CITY YOU KNOW, CANNOT APPLY ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PHYSICALLY PRECLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. AND THEN JUST A, YOU KNOW, THIS SLIDE IS AGAIN THERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE. BUT IT'S AN IDENTIFIED HOUSING SITE IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. SO. AND THEN THESE SLIDES SAY THE SAME THING. THOSE WERE, YOU KNOW, THE TABLES FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THE CONTEXT THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH IN THE STATE HOUSING LAWS. AND THEN THE FACT THAT IT'S IDENTIFIED IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AS A HOUSING SITE. SO THIS NOW JUST JUMPING INTO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION, THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, PHASE TWO. THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS THE ZONING OF THE OVERALL GALLERIA SITE. AND THEN A BLOW UP OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT OF THE GALLERIA SITE, AND IT SHOWS THE PHASE TWO SITE AERIAL. AND THEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE OVERALL SITE PLAN ON THE LEFT AND YOU'LL SEE THE THE PHASE TWO IDENTIFIED UP IN THE UPPER LEFT THERE OF THE PLAN. AND THEN THESE ARE THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE PROJECT. THE LOT SIZE THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX. JUST A NOTE ON THAT. THE MAJORITY OF THE UNITS BEING DEVELOPED ARE OUR STUDIOS AND ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH. SO IT'S THESE ARE SMALLER UNITS. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GEARED TOWARDS FAMILY, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS. IT'S A REALLY HEAVY ON THE SMALLER SIZE UNITS. AND THEN A COUPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE OUTLINED HERE. THE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT, CURRENT ZONING CODE ON THAT LOCATION, 60FT. THEY'RE PROPOSING 89FT SIX INCHES IS THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR THAT? SAME WITH THE STORIES. IT'S A FOUR STORY LIMIT, BUT IT'S PROPOSED 3 TO 8 STORIES AND THEN SETBACKS IT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE SETBACKS FAR. IT COMPLIES WITH THE FAR REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THE PARKING BREAKDOWN IS HERE AS WELL. THERE'S EXISTING 495 STALLS ON THAT OPEN SURFACE PARKING LOT. AND THEN THERE'S PROPOSING 350 FOR THE 350 UNITS, AND THEN UP TO 495 REPLACEMENT PARKING SPACES. THE REQUIRED IF WE RAN THIS AND THERE WAS NO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OR ANY WAIVERS, YOU KNOW, THE MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD REQUIRE UP TO 850 PARKING SPACES. [00:30:01] STATE LAW BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. THERE IS. WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO REQUIRE ANY PARKING. COURSE THEY ARE PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, UP TO, 845 SPACES. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE PARKING. AND THEN JUST SOME OF THE EXHIBITS THAT I'M JUST GOING TO FLASH THROUGH, THEY WERE ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKAGE. YOU KNOW, THIS SHOWS THIS LEVEL FOUR, THAT'S THE LEVEL WHERE THE LARGE OUTDOOR COURTYARDS ARE OR TERRACED RECREATIONAL AREAS. THE EXHIBIT ON THE UPPER RIGHT IS THE LEVEL ONE PLAN. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT AT GRADE LEVEL, THE DEVELOPMENT, PARKING AND THEN SURROUNDING IT RESIDENTIAL WITH THE COMMERCIAL AND THE LEASING LOBBY ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEN JUST THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SECTION, WHICH KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THIS IS. YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT LAYERS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW, SOME MORE OF THE DETAILS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND THIS REALLY I MEAN, IT'S A VERY INNOVATIVE. THERE'S A DESIGN, THERE'S A LOT OF VARIETY. THERE'S SIGNIFICANTLY VARIED WALL PLANES AND SETBACKS A LOT OF LANDSCAPING, THE USE OF MURALS AS WELL. AND THEN IT'S THESE EXHIBITS, THEY REALLY THEY REALLY SHOW YOU HOW THIS IS DESIGNED AND STEPPED DOWN WITH THE HIGHEST PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING BEING ADJACENT TO THE MALL. AND THEN AS YOU TRANSITION WEST ALONG THE PROJECT TOWARDS KINGSDALE AVENUE AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE STREET, IT STEPS DOWN TO THE THREE STORIES AND 35FT ON KINGSDALE. HERE'S JUST A. RENDERING OF THE THAT PROMENADE, THAT OPEN PLAZA THAT WILL BE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND THE EXISTING MALL. AND THEN JUST MOVING INTO LANDSCAPING. SO THE LANDSCAPING PREDOMINANTLY FOCUSES IS FOCUSED AROUND THE PERIMETER AT GRADE. AND IN THAT OPEN SPACE AREA BETWEEN THE PHASE TWO DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING MALL AND THEN ON ALL THE TERRACES, THERE'S AS YOU STEP AS THIS PROJECT STEPS BACK, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING. THERE'S 39 EXISTING TREES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ALL OF WHICH ARE TO BE REMOVED AND THEN REPLACED WITH UP TO 169 NEW TREES. ALL THE THERE'S ALSO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS OF 39 OR, EXCUSE ME, 33,191FT², AND PUBLIC OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE AREAS THAT WILL INCLUDE A COMBINATION OF HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AS DESIGNED. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND THIS TABLE JUST IDENTIFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF 172,989FT² AND WHAT'S PROVIDED. TOTAL PROVIDED IS 176,662FT² OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. SO THE OVERALL REQUIREMENT OF THE PROJECT IS ACTUALLY MET IF YOU INCLUDE THE THE COURTYARDS, THE PUBLIC NOT PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE, BUT FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS TO TO UTILIZE AND THE INTERNAL RECREATION AREA. THEY ACTUALLY THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 350 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE FOR 70,000FT² OF OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. THE PROJECT WITH THE BONUSES IS PROVIDING 86,475FT². HOWEVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF UNITS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. THEY DON'T HAVE A BALCONY. SO WITH THAT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO ADDRESS THE 110 UNITS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE OR OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. AND THEN THE MOVING ON TO NOW THE, YOU KNOW, THE FINDINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO MAKE FOR ALL THE VARIED ENTITLEMENTS. THIS THESE SLIDES WILL JUST KIND OF TICK THROUGH THOSE. THEY'RE DETAILED IN THE RESOLUTION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT. BUT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THIS CASE AN AMENDMENT HAS TO BE THE PLAN HAS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, [00:35:10] OR IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF MIXED USE TRANSIT CENTER AND THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT. THE SITE HAS ADEQUATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC STREETS, AND THE PROPOSED USE SHALL HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON ABUTTING PROPERTIES. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AGAIN WITHIN THAT ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AND THE MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE RETAINED. SO THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT KIND OF MAKES THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, UNIFORMLY DEVELOPED AND, IT'LL BE GOVERNED BY ALL THOSE, YOU KNOW, OTHER PROJECT WIDE OR GALLERY WIDE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS WELL. PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW. NOW, THAT'S MORE OF THE AESTHETIC REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE. AND THERE'S CONSIDERATION OF MASSING, YOU KNOW, AS THIS THING STEPS DOWN, IT'S REALLY REFLECTIVE OF WHAT'S ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THE CONSIDERABLE OPEN SPACE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION. PARKING AND ACCESS IS PROVIDED. YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTURE AS WE'VE WENT THROUGH THE LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IS SIGNIFICANT WITH THIS PROJECT. SO THE FINDINGS ARE MADE IN THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW. MOVING ON TO THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. AND THIS ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO PLANS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE, THE EXISTING TRACT MAP, 74481 AND HOW THE TWO LOTS ARE CONFIGURED IS ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE PROPOSED TRACT MAP 84931 IS ON THE RIGHT. AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST REORIENTING THE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THIS SITE TO CREATE A LOT THAT WHERE THE TOWNHOMES ARE GOING TO BE, AND THEN A LOT THAT COVERS THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTING OF THE FINAL VESTING TRACT MAP 74481 IS ALSO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. YOU KNOW, THIS SLIDE JUST DETAILS OUT THE WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED ALL THE EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS PER THAT MAP AND THEN WHEN IT WAS FINALIZED AND RECORDED AND IT RECORDED FINAL MAP MUST BE EXECUTED, MEANING BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED AGAINST IT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY IT. SO TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THIS OF THESE ENTITLEMENTS, THE THERE'S A REQUEST FOR THIS ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE THE VESTING RIGHTS FOR VESTING TRACT MAP NUMBER 74481. AND THEN THESE ARE THE THIS SLIDE JUST IDENTIFIES THE ACTUAL WAIVERS BEING SOUGHT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION IS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE. THE HEIGHT OF 89 POINT. EXCUSE ME 89FT SIX INCHES IS PROPOSED. THEY NEED A WAIVER THE STANDARD OF 60FT. SAME WITH NUMBER OF STORIES THEY'RE PROPOSING EIGHT UP TO EIGHT FOUR STORIES IS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING. AND THEN THERE'S THAT OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE WAIVER THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER. AND THERE'S ALSO A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE. AS THESE UNITS ARE SO SMALL OUR PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE JUST HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR BLANK. YOU KNOW, FOR A DWELLING UNIT. YOU KNOW, WITH A STUDIO, YOU WOULD ALMOST NEED TO TAKE A THIRD OF IT JUST TO SATISFY THE PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY HAS. SO THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF THAT STANDARD. AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IS THE ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND THE JANUARY 15TH, THAT'S WHEN THE 2019, THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ANALYZED, AS I SHOWED ON ONE OF THOSE EARLY SLIDES, A PROJECT SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE PROJECT THAT ULTIMATELY GOT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAD TO GO THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PROPOSED PHASE TWO TRIGGERED A SUPPLEMENTAL OR A [00:40:04] SUBSEQUENT EIR. AND SO THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED. AND THIS SLIDE GIVES A DETERMINATION OF WHAT THOSE RESULTS WERE. SO THE PHASE TWO DEVELOPMENT QUALIFIES FOR THE USE OF AN ADDENDUM. IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND WOULD NOT INTRODUCE NEW MITIGATION MEASURES. AND THIS SLIDE ON OR THIS TABLE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS YOU THE TWO BOXES IN RED. WHAT WAS ANALYZED IN THE EIR. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGES. NUMBER OF UNITS, ETC.. IT IT COVERS WHAT PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO DEVELOPMENT. THEY APPROVED PHASE ONE PLUS THIS PROPOSED PHASE TWO WHAT THAT'S PROPOSING. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OTHER THAN OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD BE I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH. YEAH. YES WE DID. ACCEPT ALL TESTIMONY FROM STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND PUBLIC AND DELIBERATE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION. AND THERE ARE, AS I MENTIONED, AND WITH THE BLUE FOLDER ITEM, THERE ARE SOME A FEW CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE THAT WE CAN WALK THE PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH WHEN YOU'RE READY TO, TO DELIBERATE AND MOVE TOWARDS AN ACTION ON THIS ITEM. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SCULLY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR MR. SCULLY? AND WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE. YEAH. AND LOOKING AT THE MAPS, WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRIES INTO THE PHASE TWO DEVELOPMENT ON KINGSDALE? NOT DIRECTLY. SO THE ENTRANCES TO THE PROJECT ARE FROM THAT EXTENSION OF GRANT, IF YOU WILL, THAT DRIVEWAY THAT EXTENDS INTO THE GALLERIA SITE. SO YOU ENTER THE PROJECT SITE FROM THERE OR FROM 177TH, WHICH IS THAT QUASI STREET WHERE THE EDISON IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT. NOTHING DIRECTLY ON KINGSDALE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, STOP RIGHT NOW. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF IT BECAUSE GRANT AND KINGSDALE INTERSECT RIGHT THERE. SO ARE YOU SAYING THERE WILL BE NO RIGHT OR LEFT TURN ONTO GRANT OR THE ENTRANCE INTO THE COMPLEX? GRANT? NO, NONE OF THOSE. THE CURRENT GRANT-KINGSDALE INTERSECTION WILL NOT BE CHANGED. OKAY. SO IT'LL STAY EXACTLY HOW IT IS. SO IT FEELS TO ME THAT, LIKE, THERE IS ENTRANCE FROM KINGSDALE. BECAUSE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT ON TO GRANT OR INTO. OH, YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF SECONDARY, I GUESS. YEAH. YOU'LL, YOU CAN'T DRIVE DIRECTLY INTO THE GARAGE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM KINGSDALE. YOU HAVE TO DO IT FROM THAT EXTENSION OF GRANT AND I CAN SHOW IT ON A. WOULD YOU ENTER THE PROPERTY FROM KINGSDALE, RIGHT? YEAH. ON THE STREET. THAT IS THE EXTENSION OF GRANT. I GUESS SO, YES. IS THE PARKING, IT'S NOT REALLY THE STREET. IT'S ALREADY. IT'S YOUR ACCESSING THIS FROM EXISTING, FROM 177TH WHICH IS SOUTH OR THAT EXTENSION OF GRANT INTO THE HERE. AND I'LL PULL UP A. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL SOUTH FROM ARTESIA OR NORTH FROM 177TH ALONG KINGSDALE TO GET TO THAT ENTRYWAY WE WERE GRANTED EXTENDED. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT? YES. I MEAN, YOU COULD WELL, YOU COULD GET IT FROM 177TH, LIKE IF YOU COULD ENTER OFF HAWTHORNE AND DRIVE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GALLERIA AND GET INTO THE PROJECT. RIGHT. IS THERE TO USE. YOU GOT TO COME IN THERE. SO WOULDN'T THAT ADD A LOT OF TRAFFIC ALONG KINGSDALE THEN, TO GET IF YOU'RE COMING FROM ARTESIA AT 177TH? IT WOULD ADD TRAFFIC WHICH HAS BEEN ANALYZED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND THERE ARE SOME AND THERE WAS WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, IT ANALYZED EVEN A LARGER NUMBER OF OF TRIPS FROM THE SITE. [00:45:03] THAT'S NOT A METRIC ANYMORE ENVIRONMENTALLY, BUT IT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND SOME MITIGATION WAS REQUIRED AND THAT STILL APPLIES. AND IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WOULD NOT CREATE AN ADVERSE CONDITION FOR THE RESIDENTS ON KINGSDALE? IT, THERE, IT WAS, I BELIEVE IT WAS PART OF, THERE WAS PARTIAL MITIGATION OF ALL THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS. BUT SOME WERE UNMITIGATABLE IF YOU WILL. AND THERE WAS A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE CITY ADOPTED. OKAY. AND THE BULK OF THE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH OF GRANT, PARDON, YEAH, SOUTH OF GRANT, RIGHT? CORRECT. RIGHT. I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE STORAGE, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WE HAVE IS ABOUT 400FT². YEAH, IT'S, I THINK IT'S CUBIC FEET. YEAH. YEAH, THAT SEEMS KIND OF HIGH. YEAH. I KNOW THERE'S ABOUT 95, I THINK THAT APPLIED MAINLY TO THE STUDIO UNITS. IF I WAS TAKING ABOUT 95 OF THEM. WHAT, IF THEY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT, HOW MUCH STORAGE DO THOSE UNITS ACTUALLY HAVE THEN? HERE WE CAN, WITHIN, I MIGHT HAVE TO PULL UP THE PLAN SET AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY, AND WE HAVE THE ARCHITECT HERE, THEY MIGHT BE BETTER TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THEY CAN GO THROUGH AND DETAIL ANY DESIGN ASPECTS OF FLOOR PLANS, ETC. OKAY, YEAH THAT'S FINE. I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON A SPOT ON THAT. JUST YOU MENTIONED IT. WAS THAT INTERESTING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE ELSE HAS AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. WELL, OKAY. SO. HOW DID WE GET HERE? HOW DID WE GET HERE? PHASE TWO. DURING THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION OF THIS PROJECT, ALL THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, THERE WASN'T A MENTION OF THERE BEING MORE TO COME LATER. IT WAS PRESENTED AS A PROJECT. IT WAS NEVER EVEN CALLED PHASE ONE UNTIL PHASE TWO SHOWED UP. IN THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION THE COMMUNITY WAS UP IN ARMS OVER THE SIZE OF THIS THING, THE 650 HOUSING UNITS. AND WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TIME JUST LET IT SAIL THROUGH WITH ABSOLUTELY VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION AND NO CHANGES AN APPEAL WAS MADE. THE APPEAL WAS TO ELIMINATE THE HOUSING COMPONENT THAT WAS THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. BUT IN READING THROUGH ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION, ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF CAME TO LIGHT, LIKE HOW DISINGENUOUS THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS. AND I SEE THEY'RE STILL USING IT, BUT NOT MENTIONING HOW IT WAS PROVEN TO BE APPROXIMATELY 50% OFF AS FAR AS WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRAFFIC NOW AND TRAFFIC UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THEY PICKED A PERIOD, SOME DECADE OLD TRAFFIC STUDY THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE TRAFFIC NOW FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THE NEW PEOPLE LIVING HERE AND ALL THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. THIS IS A COMMON THING, BUT HOW DID WE GET TO THIS PHASE TWO, WHICH SEEMS TO BE CLAWING BACK THE DEAL THEY MADE TO GET THE ORIGINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. THEY GAVE UP THESE 350 UNITS TO GET THE PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED. THE 300 UNITS, WHICH WAS A COMPROMISE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WANTED NO MORE HOUSING THERE BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THE GRIDLOCK ON THAT INTERSECTION AND THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T GET ANYWHERE ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS USING CUT THROUGH STREETS TO AVOID THE TRAFFIC. IT'S JAMMED UP EVERYWHERE. SO HERE WE ARE YEARS LATER. NOTHING'S BEEN DONE. IT'S CHANGED HANDS A FEW TIMES AND NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK, CALLING IT PHASE TWO. AND IT SEEMS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN RENEGING ON THE ORIGINAL DEAL. SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? HOW IS THIS? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THIS KIND OF THING SET FOR ALL OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE HAD TO GIVE UP HOUSING? WHAT DOES IT SAY TO DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN AT SOME FUTURE DATE AND SAY, WELL WE'LL NEGOTIATE WHATEVER WE HAVE TO GET THE ENTITLEMENTS AND COME BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER AND GET BACK EVERYTHING WE GAVE UP THAT WILL BECOME THE NEW PLAN ON HOW TO CONVERT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH INTO MY NEW YACHT. ALL RIGHT. SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? HOW IS THIS EVEN ALLOWED? HOW WOULD WE EVEN ALLOW THIS TO GET THIS FAR WHEN THEY ALREADY MADE A DEAL. THEY SAID THEY WERE HAPPY WITH IT. THE THE THE EXECUTIVE VP OF DEVELOPMENT STOOD THERE WITH ME IN THE LOBBY, SHOOK MY HAND AND SAID, THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN. IT'S A BETTER PROJECT ALL AROUND. AND WE WERE ALL HAPPY WITH IT. [00:50:03] AND NOW THEY WANT WHAT THEY GAVE BACK. SO HOW DOES THIS WORK? WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT CAN WE. CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WHAT SLEIGHT OF HAND HAS BEEN MANIPULATED HERE TO GET THIS BACK? MISS HAZELTINE, YOU WANTED TO? YES. I'D LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. BUT I'M ASKING STAFF BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO DID IT. BUT. WELL. TAKE YOUR SHOT. THE MOST OBVIOUS THING IS THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING ELEMENT, COMMISSIONER. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE CITY HAS COMMITTED TO PUTTING SO MANY HOUSES IN VARIOUS PLACES THROUGHOUT REDONDO BEACH, AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THOSE HOUSES, SO IT'S IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. ALLOWING THAT HOUSING TO BE BUILT. IT'S IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. YES. AND THEY COMMITTED TO ALLOWING THAT HOUSING TO BE BUILT. HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPERS GAVE UP THAT OPTION WHEN THEY NEGOTIATED THE ORIGINAL DEAL. BUT IT NEVER. THEY GAVE UP 350 UNITS. THEY NEVER CAME OUT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, IT'S IN THERE. IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU PUT THOSE HOUSES ALL OVER REDONDO BEACH, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM. WE HAVE A LARGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES UP BY THE FREEWAY OFF INGLEWOOD THAT ARE PERFECT FOR THIS KIND OF THING, BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT ON MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ARTERIES. IT'S, THEY'RE RIGHT NEAR BIG HOTELS OR RIGHT NEAR ALL KINDS OF RESIDENTIAL. THEY'RE RIGHT NEAR ALL KINDS OF JOB CENTERS. THAT'S IDEAL. TO PUT IT UP THERE. TO PUT IT DOWN HERE DOES NOTHING MORE THAN CREATE MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE CONGESTION. AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT ALL OF THOSE HOMES ON KINGSDALE AND THE OLD VERIZON FACILITY ON 182ND ARE ALL SLATED TO BE HIGH RISE, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF PLACES TO PUT WHAT WE NEED FOR THE HOUSING. BESIDES, IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO FOSTER TO PARTICULAR DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO CLAW BACK WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ALREADY GAVE UP. IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD THEM TO THEIR COMMITMENT AND THE PROMISE THEY MADE, THE DEAL THEY MADE, AND NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO WIGGLE OUT OF IT. AND IF WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO SO. THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN UP SOMETHING IN RETURN. AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD. WHAT WOULD MAKE UP FOR THE KIND OF QUALITY OF LIFE DAMAGE THAT ANOTHER NOT JUST 300 HOUSING UNITS, BUT 650 HOUSING UNITS ON AN ALREADY COMPLETELY GRIDLOCKED, BLOCKED, F RATED INTERSECTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT HAS, IN THEIR OWN APPRAISAL HAS UNMITIGATED TRAFFIC ISSUES AS FAR AWAY AS THE 405 AND ARTESIA FREEWAY ON RAMPS AND OFF RAMPS. ALL THE INTERSECTIONS AROUND THERE ARE ALREADY A MESS. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER IN ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. AND YET, I DID NOTICE IN THERE THAT THEY SAY NO ADDITIONAL HARM TO THE COMMUNITY, WHATEVER THEY PRESENTED IT. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THE BOXES ARE CHECKED, IT SAYS EXTREME AND UNMITIGATABLE, OKAY. THIS MAKES IT EVEN MORE EXTREME AND MORE UNMITIGATABLE. THIS IS A BAD PROJECT FOR THAT SITE. THOSE HOMES COULD EASILY GO IN A LOT OF OTHER PLACES, AND FRANKLY, A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO GO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO GO ON 182SN STREET, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP IN THE, UP WHERE THE VONS IS UP BY THE FREEWAY. THEY'RE GOING TO GO ALL OVER THERE. WE DON'T NEED THESE 350 TO BE RIGHT THERE. THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING 300. THEY GAVE UP THE 350, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE CAME HERE AND STOOD UP AND SAID THAT THEY DON'T WANT ANY HOMES THERE, SO THEY GOT MORE THAN WHAT THE PUBLIC WAS WILLING TO ALLOW THEM. AND MORE THAN ANYBODY THAT SHOWED UP HERE WITH A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY HAD A POSITION. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOW PROBABLY SITTING AT HOME HAVING NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON, BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT'S NOT A PACKED AUDIENCE LIKE IT WAS BEFORE. AND IT WILL BE. AND MAYBE IT WILL BE, RIGHT. AND MAYBE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TONIGHT IF WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS A LOT SOONER. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. FACT IS, THERE'S A, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING FORCED ON US BY SACRAMENTO, AND WE HAVE LOTS OF OTHER SPACE IN THIS CITY TO DO IT. WE NEED TO SPREAD IT OUT SO THAT IT DOESN'T GET ALL CLUMPED INTO ONE PLACE. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL EVERYBODY AGREES WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING UP HERE. THANK YOU. WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT THIS ISN'T A MEETING ABOUT THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE 350 SHOULD GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. [00:55:01] THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIME FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENTS. PLEASE HOLD YOUR COMMENTS UNTIL YOU COME UP. WITH THIS PROJECT. SO I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT TOPIC. AND MAYBE WE CAN ASK STAFF ON THAT. AND I WASN'T BRINGING IT UP AS A MATTER OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. THAT WAS YOU. SO WHAT I'M BRINGING UP IS THE FACT THAT THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE TONIGHT. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN HERE. THE FIRST TIME THEY CAME UP TO THE CITY AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE GOT AN IDEA TO HELP YOU LOOK GOOD IN SACRAMENTO. HELP US OUT ON THIS. AND HERE WE ARE. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE, AND WE'VE GOT CITY STAFF, AND WE'VE GOT PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE BY SACRAMENTO. IF THEY DON'T PRODUCE THE HOUSING THAT SACRAMENTO WANTS UNDER THERE, THEY'RE COMPLETELY FALSE REASONING THAT DISREGARDS TRUE ECONOMICS. IF THEY DON'T DO IT, THEN THE SACRAMENTO COMES AFTER US. THEY START DENYING US STUFF. THEY START PLAYING TIT FOR TAT. THEY START BEING CHILDREN. I'VE, I FEEL FOR THEM. BUT IT'S NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHETHER SOMEBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO GO HOME CRYING. IT'S BASED ON THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, THE PEOPLE WHO'VE MADE THEIR LIVES HERE. THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE QUALITY OF LIFE BEING ERODED AWAY BY THE KIND OF OVERDEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS IN SACRAMENTO. THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR, BECAUSE WE CAN'T STOP IT UNTIL WE GET THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. WE CAN'T STOP IT, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST DENY ABUSES, AND WE CAN AT LEAST DEMAND THAT THE HOUSING BE SPREAD OUT ALL OVER THE ENTIRE CITY. OKAY, THIS IS NOT WHERE IT BELONGS. AND THIS PROJECT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CHEAP ATTEMPT TO CLAW BACK AND RENEGE ON AN ORIGINAL DEAL. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN JUST START OVER. COME BACK TO US WITH A NEW EIR. COME BACK TO US WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THIS TIME DO IT RIGHT AND STOP TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH, SO THAT YOU CAN PUT A FEW MORE BUCKS IN YOUR POCKET. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR FUN. OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, WE'RE BRINGING WE'RE SIDETRACKED IN A DISCUSSION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND HOW IT GOT HERE. AND AS YOU CORRECTLY ASSESSED, SACRAMENTO'S AND A LOT OF CONTROL ON THAT. THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAWS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF SACRAMENTO. AND THE CITY IS ALREADY COMMITTED TO PUTTING HOUSING AT THE SITE, IN ADDITION TO THE ONES YOU MENTIONED NORTH OF THE FREEWAY. THOSE ARE IN AN OVERLAY OF SECTION TWO, WHICH ARE ALSO PART OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. AND IF WE RENEGED ON THAT, WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE LOOKING AT SACRAMENTO TAKING TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR CITY. SO WE ARE NOT REALLY. IN LINE. YEAH I MEAN THEY LOOK AT IT. SO UNTIL WE CAN GET SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE LIKE A OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES ISSUE THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ZONING TO BE WRITTEN AT A MUNICIPAL LEVEL. AT ANY RATE. PLEASE GO AHEAD. SO, GIVEN WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR WOULD THIS BE, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH A RESOLUTION HERE, WHICH IS PACKED WITH THINGS, SOME THINGS WHICH ARE MINISTERIAL, I GATHER CORRECTLY. DO I GATHER SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE MINISTERIAL BECAUSE OF STATE LAW? NO THEY'RE NOT. THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY ENTITLEMENT, BUT THERE ARE VERY, THERE'S SEVERE OR SIGNIFICANT LIMITS ON THE PURVIEW OF CONDITIONING IT ADDITIONALLY OR DENYING THE PROPERTY. RIGHT, OKAY. SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN THIS THAT ARE FAIT ACCOMPLI REALLY. AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PURELY DISCRETIONARY AND NOT. THERE ARE ITEMS IN THIS PLAN AND IN THIS RESOLUTION WHICH ARE NOT MANDATED BY STATE LAW. AND I WOULD LIKE THOSE THINGS TO BE PARSED OUT FOR US. AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE COUNSEL ON THE LINE JUST FAMILIAR WITH THE RESOLUTION. WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, ALSO FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE STATE LAWS, WHICH ARE CONTINUOUSLY, AND LITERALLY THERE'S A PROTEST ON SATURDAY, A MASSIVE ONE ACROSS THE STATE ABOUT ONE OF THE NEW LAWS THAT'S PROPOSED. SO THIS IS RAPIDLY CHANGING. SO NONE OF US UP HERE CAN BE EXPECTED. NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM REALLY CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETELY UP TO DATE ON ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THESE LAWS ARE DOING. [01:00:01] GIVEN WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR AND THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE UNDER UP HERE, IS THIS A GOOD TIME TO HAVE IT ENUMERATED? WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS RESOLUTION AND PLAN AND WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW IN THIS PLAN? SO COMMISSIONER GADDIS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF CAN LOOK THROUGH DURING THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. I WILL SAY THAT PER STATE LAW, WITH THE CITY IS FAIRLY LIMITED IN THE AREAS WE CAN APPLY DISCRETION TO THE PROJECT. FOR EXAMPLE, IT USED TO BE THAT THE CITY COULD DICTATE DESIGN BASED ON NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND OTHER SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. ONLY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECT, SO WE'RE NOT REALLY ABLE TO DICTATE THE ARCHITECTURE THE OVERALL DESIGN, UNLESS IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH SETBACKS OR SOME OTHER OBJECTIVE STANDARD. ALSO, THE CITY'S LIMITED AND ITS ABILITY TO MODIFY THE PROJECT TO REDUCE DENSITY. ANY ACTION THAT WOULD REDUCE DENSITY, AND IF THE CITY DID REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT, THAT THAT THE APPLICANT RAISES AN ISSUE MAY IMPACT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT. REALLY, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE CITY TO DEMONSTRATE WHY THE CHANGE NEEDED TO BE MADE AND WHY IT'S AN ADVERSE IMPACT. IT WOULD NOT BE ON THE APPLICANT, SO. WELL, I BELIEVE. THERE ARE LIMITS. NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU. BUT IF THEY WERE PROPOSED THAT THEY IT WOULD ONLY BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED, IF THEY WERE TO PUT A NUCLEAR TESTING SITE INTO THE CENTER OF IT, IT WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD BE ON THE CITY TO PROVE THAT THAT NUCLEAR TESTING FACILITY DOES NOT, IN FACT, MAKE IT MORE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. WELL, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF AN EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL. IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THAT USE ISN'T THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT ANY USE THERE BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS HOUSING. IT'S WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AND IN THE DESIGN OF THAT. SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S JUST THE STATE OF THINGS RIGHT NOW IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE THE THE STATE HAS REALLY TAKEN OVER ZONING CONTROL. PLANNING HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS FIELD AND SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. IT USED TO BE THAT STAFF WOULD FOLLOW LOCAL ZONING CODES AND THERE WAS DISCRETION WITH THESE PROJECTS. NOW, WITH THESE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS, WE'RE REALLY REVIEWING THEM AGAINST THE STATE CODES. IN THE CITY IS PRETTY LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN IMPOSE ON THE PROJECT. I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS IN THE RESOLUTION REGARDING LANDSCAPING TREES, AND THE APPLICANT MAY BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON A FEW MORE MINOR CONCESSIONS. BUT THE FACT IS DUE TO SACRAMENTO, DUE TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THERE'S REALLY NOT A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR APPLYING DISCRETION TO THIS. AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THERE ARE THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PAST HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT. AND I WASN'T HERE AT THAT TIME. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THOSE HEARINGS OCCURRED. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR HOUSING HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE THEN. EVEN OVER THE PAST 3 TO 4 YEARS. AND AND THAT'S PROBABLY A, YOU KNOW, A DRIVER BEHIND THE AT LEAST ONE REASON WHY THE APPLICANT IS BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LAWFUL RIGHT TO APPLY FOR THIS. AND IF THE CITY WERE TO TAKE ANY ACTION, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, THEN YOU KNOW, WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE OVERRIDDEN BY THE COURT AND EVENTUALLY COMPELLED TO ENTITLE THE PROJECTS. SO THAT'S KIND OF A BROAD OVERVIEW. AND I KNOW WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS A FEW TIMES IN THE COMMISSION. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT'S THE THE STATE OF THINGS RIGHT NOW. AND BUT WHAT WE CAN DO DURING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION IS GO THROUGH THE LIST AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT IS DISCRETIONARY IN THERE. IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS TO THE PROJECT. AND THEN ALSO THE APPLICANT MAY BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON A FEW OF THE FEATURES OF IT AS WELL. WELL, OKAY. SO THESE ARE BROAD GENERAL STROKES REGARDING REGARDING STATE LAW AND WHAT'S MANDATED, WHAT ISN'T. I THINK, PART OF MY PURPOSE IN ASKING FOR THIS IS, IS TO SHINE A LIGHT ON ALL THESE LAWS THAT ARE BEING DONE IN SACRAMENTO TO LIMIT WHAT WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF PLANNING WITHIN THE CITY AND HOW THEY APPLY TO THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK COMING FROM OUR, OUR COUNSEL DEDICATED TO THESE [01:05:09] ISSUES, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROPOSING THESE, THESE HEIGHTS YOU ARE LIMITED. AS A COUNCIL, AS A COMMISSION FROM RESTRICTING THOSE HEIGHTS BECAUSE OF THIS, THEY'RE LIMITING, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST EACH ONE OF THESE CHANGES THAT'S COMING UP INSTEAD OF BROAD STROKES. JUST. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW JUST HOW LIMITED WE ARE IN BEING ABLE TO MAKE THIS PROJECT A MORE ACCEPTABLE ONE FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE CITY, AND AND WHY WHAT LAWS ARE APPLIED TO THIS AND THAT, THAT WE CANNOT MAKE THESE CHANGES BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT JUST SEEMS LIKE STAFF IS BEING STUBBORN. THE COMMISSION'S BEING WEAK, AND THIS THING'S GOING THROUGH SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE AT ALL. AND I THINK THEY NEED TO REALIZE THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO CHANGE THE STATE CONSTITUTION. AND I AM VERY ACTIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES, ACTUALLY TREASURER OF THE 501C4 AND I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND WHAT'S BEING DONE TO US AND WHAT LAWS ARE MAKING THIS HAPPEN RIGHT NOW, AND THE FACT THAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. YEAH, AND I THINK YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT. THESE STATE LAWS, THEY'VE PUT PLANNING COMMISSIONS, CITY COUNCILS IN REALLY CHALLENGING POSITIONS WITH THEIR COMMUNITY. THEY PUT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CHALLENGING POSITIONS OF ESSENTIALLY BEING THE MESSENGER AND TAKING THE HEAT FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS. SO I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION AND THE NEED TO DAYLIGHT IT AND, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THIS MEETING. OKAY. SO WOULD THIS BE A GOOD TIME TO TO ASK THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO SORT OF JUST WALK THROUGH THESE CHANGES AND WHAT, WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT MANDATORY HERE. SO LET ME JUST START OFF BY SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE OUR HOUSING LEGAL EXPERT ON THE LINE. I DO NOT. THAT WAS NOT WHAT SHE WAS TASKED TO DO. WHAT I ASKED FOUR DAYS AGO IN WRITING, WAS THAT NOT CONVEYED TO HER? SO I DON'T THINK SHE'S PREPARED TO GO THROUGH EVERY SECTION OF THE RESOLUTION AND TELL YOU HOW MUCH DISCRETION YOU HAVE. I THINK SEAN DID A GOOD JOB WITH HIS PRESENTATION TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THINGS YOU DO HAVE DISCRETION ON AND WHAT THINGS YOU DON'T HAVE DISCRETION ON. IF THERE'S SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON, THEN I THINK WE CAN JUMP IN AND ASK HER TO JUMP IN AND PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON THOSE ISSUES. BUT I MEAN TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE THE SECTIONS IN THE IN THE RESOLUTION. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF LIKE FOR FOR DENSITY BONUS. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DENSITY BONUS BECAUSE THEY'RE PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND SO IN THOSE INSTANCES THEY CAN GET INCREASED DENSITY, WHICH IN THIS CASE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR, BUT THEY ALSO CAN GET WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND SEAN DID A GOOD JOB LISTING OUT THOSE WAIVERS THAT THEY ASKING FOR. IT WAS HEIGHT, IT WAS STORY AND SO FORTH. THERE'S FOUR, RIGHT. THERE'S FOUR WAIVERS THEY GOT ASKED FOR, AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THOSE FOUR WAIVERS, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THEY CAN ASK FOR BASICALLY ANYTHING THEY WANT UNDER THOSE FOUR WAIVER CONDITIONS. WELL THEY CAN'T ASK FOR. IT COULD BE 100 STORIES HIGH. THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY CAN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING THEY WANT. BUT THEY WITHIN THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROJECT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING AS A CITY TO IMPEDE THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT. IF THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, WE HAVE TO MEASURE ALL THE REQUESTS AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, WHICH WE WE DID DO AS A CITY. WE ADOPTED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SO THAT WE COULD COME FORTH WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING PROJECTS AND MEASURE THOSE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS OR PROJECT PROPOSALS, WITH THOSE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS. [01:10:02] YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION TO DENY PROJECTS. YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN ORDER TO DO THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, STAFF'S FRUSTRATION. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL SIDE OF IT, IT IS A VERY COMPLEX AREA. NOW, THERE ARE SO MANY RULES, AND THERE ARE SO MANY CHANGES THAT ARE CONSTANTLY OCCURRING. AND I KNOW YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE VERY ON TOP OF IT, SO I'M SURE YOU KNOW AS WELL. SO WE'RE ALL TRYING TO NAVIGATE THIS. WE'RE NOT, AS A CITY AND AS STAFF WE'RE JUST AS FRUSTRATED AS EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE BEING USURPED OUR POWER TO HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR LAND AND OVER THE USES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN ONLY MAKE DECISIONS AND PROVIDE ADVICE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW AS IT STANDS, AND THAT'S THE ADVICE THAT WE GIVE YOU. BUT YOU DO HAVE OPTIONS. YOU COULD DENY THIS PROJECT. YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS. AND THOSE FINDINGS WOULD BE? SO YOU HAVE TO, AND FOR EACH SECTION, THERE ARE DIFFERENT FINDINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE. IF YOUR REQUEST IS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, WE HAVEN'T DONE IT RECENTLY, BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND BY PAST, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE MAYBE TEN YEARS AGO WHEN A PROJECT USED TO COME FORTH, WE WOULD HAVE TWO ALTERNATE RESOLUTIONS, ONE FOR APPROVING THE PROJECT AND ANOTHER ONE FOR DENYING THE PROJECT. NOW, STAFF CAN'T GENERATE THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T PRESUME WHAT THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO DECIDE. BUT WE CAN GIVE YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, WHAT TYPES OF FINDING, WHAT THE RULE IS FOR YOU TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, THEN THAT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME FOR US TO DO. AND I'M NOT REQUESTING THAT. WHAT I'M REQUESTING IS A DESCRIPTION FOR THE PUBLIC. IS THERE A LOT OF VERY CONCERNED PEOPLE, SOME IN THE ROOM, SOME ONLINE, SOME WHO WILL VIEW THIS TWO WEEKS FROM NOW WHEN SOMEBODY BREAKS THE NEWS TO THEM THAT THIS THING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. AND THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE UNAWARE OF IT. YOU KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS. AND THEY'LL SAY, WELL, WHAT THE, HOW THE HECK CAN WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN? AND I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT TO BE SORT OF LAID OUT FOR THEM IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC LAWS BEING APPLIED HERE THAT WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH. WE, AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY SUPPORT, AND WE MIGHT IN FACT, BE WORKING DIRECTLY AGAINST THEM VERY ACTIVELY. BUT WE CAN'T GET AROUND THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE STATE LAWS. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT SORT OF LAID OUT FOR THEM. AND THERE ARE THINGS IN HERE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE STATE LAW WOULD APPLY TO SOMETHING LIKE TAKING THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL, OR THAT THOSE TWO PARCELS OR AND CHANGING THE DIVISION OF THOSE TWO PARCELS SO THAT ONE PARCEL CAN BE SOLD OFF. THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE. IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE FROM THE INITIAL APPROVAL, WHICH STATED THAT THIS WAS INTENDED AND AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THIS WOULD BE TREATED AS ONE PROJECT, NOT PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING BROKEN OFF AND SOLD OFF TO PEOPLE WITH WHOM WE HAVE NO, WE'VE WE HAVE HAD NO DISCUSSION. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. SO WHATEVER WE AGREED TO WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE TO THEM. SO AND, SO THE QUESTION ARISES, DOES STATE LAW SAY THAT WE CAN'T DENY THAT? SO THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO. SUBDIVISION ONE IN PARTICULAR IS ADDRESSED IN THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. I WOULD SAY THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB FOR YOUR FINDING ON THE PROJECT MAKING DECISIONS IS DOES IT CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SO THAT'S THE STANDARD. AND THAT, FOR DENSITY BONUS, YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT LIMITS ARE THERE ON WHAT THEY CAN REQUEST IN TERMS OF WAIVERS. THE STATE DOESN'T SET SPECIFIC LIMITS. IT USES THAT SAME ADVERSE IMPACT STANDARD AS THE GUIDE. SO IF THEY WANT TO DO 100 STORY BUILDING AT THAT LOCATION OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY CROSSED MY MIND AND I'VE LOOKED INTO IT. [01:15:07] NOBODY'S PROPOSED THAT ANYTHING THAT RADICAL THROUGH DENSITY BONUS. BUT THE CITY PROBABLY COULD MAKE FINDINGS, COULD DO STUDIES THAT WOULD SHOW THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA IT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT DUE TO EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC AND OTHER FACTORS. SO IT'S A BIT OF A SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA. IT'S NOT LIKE QUANTIFIED IN TERMS OF HOW YOU MAKE THAT, BUT THE STANDARD IS HIGH IN TERMS OF MAKING THAT BINDING. AND WE DO HAVE AN EIR THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT THAT WOULD SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A CONTRARY OPINION TO THAT. YEAH. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN DESCRIBE BACK TO YOU WHAT I BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID. WHICH IS KIND OF A MAJOR THING IN HERE, IS THAT FOR US TO DENY THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF QUANTIFIED, PROVEN, ADVERSE HEALTH CONDITIONS THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE PROJECT IS CREATING THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THAT'S CORRECT, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S JUST ANY IMPACT. AND IF THIS WERE TO GO TO COURT, THE COURT WOULD WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND IT WOULD WEIGH THE STUDIES AND THE EIR WAS PREPARED. VERSUS PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION. SO. SO AND SO THIS IS A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION WHO'S AN EXPERT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESEARCH? SO WE'RE EFFECTIVELY LAYPEOPLE. WE'RE JUST RESIDENTS. AND YET FOR US TO LOOK AT A PROJECT WHICH HAS THINGS IN IT THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE A REAL PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORS, FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THESE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT ARE GOING TO HAVE ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS. YES, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. OTHERWISE WHAT HAPPENS? I MEAN, WE DENY IT, BUT WE CAN'T PROVE IT. WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT OCCURS AFTER THAT? SO, I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. I MEAN, THIS SEEMS MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, A DISCUSSION, DELIBERATION. AND THAT USUALLY OCCURS AFTER WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME AND MAKE A PRESENTATION AND ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. SO IF YOU WANT TO MOVE TOWARDS THAT AND THEN THIS DISCUSSION WE CAN REVISIT AND I CAN, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN GET FROM OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. SO I NEVER DID GET AN ANSWER FROM STAFF. WHAT IS THE DEAL, NOT A DEAL? AND IT LOOKS LIKE ROB HAS ADDED A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT BECAUSE PART OF THAT DEAL WAS THEY HAD TO REDUCE THEIR REQUEST TO CHANGE A FOUR PARCEL, 30 ACRE PROPERTY FROM WHAT, 70 PARCELS DOWN TO 19. AND THAT THE WHOLE THING COULD NOT BE BROKEN UP AND SOLD OFF. IT HAD TO BE SOLD IN ITS ENTIRETY OR NOT AT ALL. THEY AGREED TO THAT. I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I THINK THE SUGGESTION MADE BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY PARK MAKES MORE SENSE. I MEAN, THIS IS MORE OF A DISCUSSION I THINK WOULD HAVE TO COME UP LATER ON WHEN WE'RE DELIBERATING. AND I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE REALLY IN THE IN THE PORTION WHERE WE'RE HEARING A PROJECT PARAMETERS. BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE, WE SHOULDN'T BE HEARING ABOUT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN THIS FAR. I THINK THAT'S A, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO PROCEED IN THAT MANNER. WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THAT LATER. BUT RIGHT NOW WE HEARD A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF. I THINK IT'S NOW APPROPRIATE TO HEAR THE. SPECIFIC ABOUT YOUR ANSWER. HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM THE PROPONENT. I THINK AND THEN WE COULD WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT AS WE DELIBERATE LATER. OKAY. WE CAN SPEND MORE TIME ON IT LATER THEN. OKAY? OKAY. SO LIKE THIS. AT THIS POINT DOES THE PROPONENT IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. YES. OH SORRY. AND PRIOR TO SPEAKING, DO YOU PLEASE STAND AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK, ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF TONIGHT. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP. [01:20:01] DO YOU ALL AGREE TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION. YES. WONDERFUL. JUST BEFORE WE DO START, I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE CHAIRPERSON CRAIG, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE START OF THE HEARING ARE BEING EITHER ADVERSARIAL OR NOT SUPPORTIVE, AND SAYING THAT THE CITY STAFF. IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD. AT THIS STAGE, WE WERE HOPING TO BE AT A RIBBON CUTTING, NOT STANDING BEFORE YOU RESPECTFULLY AGAIN, BUT I THINK WE'VE HAD A LONG HISTORY OF WORKING COLLABORATIVELY AND TRYING TO BE AS OPEN AND COMMUNICATIVE AS POSSIBLE. SO WE'VE ENJOYED THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU ALL. THE, I JUST SORT OF HIT ON OWNERSHIP AND BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PROJECT, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT ON THAT. SO PERHAPS WE JUST GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THERE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY A GROUP CALLED KENNEDY WILSON. THEY ARE AN LA BASED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOUSE. THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, SINCE THE START OF 2021 WHEN THEY PROVIDED FINANCE FOR THE PROJECT. AND VERY SUPPORTIVE OF US PROGRESSING THE PHASE ONE PLAN AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PHASE TWO PLAN, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND. BEFORE I DO THAT, THE PROJECT TEAM IS BEHIND ME. I INTRODUCE MYSELF. I'M THE PRINCIPAL PROJECT EXECUTIVE OF THE PROJECT. WE ALSO HAVE THE OUR ARCHITECT TEAM FROM STUDIO 111, MARCUS, SARAH AND KIRK BEHIND ME. TRAFFIC ENGINEER SPENCER REED FROM FEHR & PEERS. JOSH GOTTHEIM FROM CANZONERI GOTTHEIM, AND JEFF MAILMAN, OUR OUTREACH CONSULTANT. MOST OF US HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT FOR THE BEST PART OF THE DECADE. MAYBE JUST MOVE TO THE THIRD SLIDE THERE. YEAH. THE THIRD SLIDE IS, THE NEXT ONE. JUST BACKING UP A BIT ON THE APPROVALS WE RECEIVED GRATEFULLY IN 2019 AND WITHOUT LABORING IT. BUT IT CLEARLY 2020 WITH COVID FORCED A COMPLETE KIND OF SHUTDOWN OF ANYTHING COMMERCIAL. AND STRAIGHT AFTER COVID, WE HAD THE OTHER MACROECONOMIC HEADWINDS OF SEVEN INTEREST RATE RISES OVER A PRETTY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THROUGH TO JULY 2023, RAISING OVER 500 BASIS POINTS, WHICH REALLY DID ICE THE MARKETS THAT MIGHT HAVE FINANCED PROJECTS. AT THAT STAGE, HOWEVER, WE WEREN'T SITTING BACK WAITING TO RECEIVE ANOTHER 350 ENTITLEMENTS. WE WERE VERY BUSY SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY GETTING PERMIT READY. SO DURING THAT PERIOD WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON DESIGN, ON THE REMODEL OF THE EXISTING MALL, ON THE 300 APARTMENTS, THE PUBLIC REALM, THEY ARE NOW ALL IN A POSITION OF BEING PERMIT READY. SO IF WE SECURE FINANCING. WE COULD BE IN THE CROWD. WE RECORDED THE FINAL MAP. WE SPENT MILLIONS CONSTRUCTING A LEASING SUITE AND A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ROOM. SO WE HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF. WE'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HOSTING YOU THERE. WE'VE APPOINTED A PROJECT TEAM, AND I PERSONALLY HAVE HELD OVER WELL OVER 100 LEASING TOURS. FOR THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING TO HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE GALLERIA. HOWEVER, GIVEN THOSE SITUATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT OF OUR CONTROL, WE STILL NEED MORE TIME. HENCE THE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR. THANKS, SEAN. PHASE TWO. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL IS RIGHT. THERE WASN'T A PHASE TWO. THERE WAS A PHASE ONE. WE WERE ONLY INTERESTED IN PHASE ONE AT THE TIME. AND THE PHASE ONE PROJECT, WE BELIEVE COMING OUT OF THE EIR AND COMING OUT OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS WAS A BETTER PROJECT. SO AGAIN CHAIR CRAIG, I CONCUR WITH YOUR COMMENTS. HOWEVER, TIMES HAVE MOVED, AND IN 2022, THE CITY ASKED US WHETHER WE WOULD BE WILLING TO OBLIGE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING. WE WERE HAPPY TO MEET THAT COMMITMENT. SO WHEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS ADOPTED WE COMMENCED DESIGN FOR THESE ADDITIONAL 350 APARTMENTS ON A SITE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL EIR IN 2017, WAS EARMARKED FOR 434 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS. [01:25:08] SO, AGAIN, I THINK HERE WE'VE COME UP WITH A BETTER DESIGN BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND THE PROCESS WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TOGETHER. THAN THE ORIGINAL 2017 EIR PROPOSAL. APPLICATION WAS LODGED IN FEBRUARY OF 2024. AND OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS WE'VE HELD. COMMUNITY OUTREACH. OBVIOUSLY, THE CEQA ADDENDUM WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR. WE'VE SUBMITTED SECOND AND THIRD SUBMITTALS. AND WE THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A TRANSIT ORIENTED MIXED USE PROJECT. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO DELIVERING THAT IN PHASES. WHICH IS THE NEXT SLIDE, SEAN. WE THINK IT IS ADDITIONAL HOUSING IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SITE LIKE THIS. IT IS WITHIN TRANSPORT NETWORK. IT IS WALKABLE. WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE LIVING, WORKING AND PLAYING ON SITE. AGAIN, I THINK THE REDESIGN CONNECTING THIS TO ARTESIA BOULEVARD. WE THINK, YOU KNOW, LEANS INTO THE CITY'S ACTIVATION OF THE ARTESIA AVIATION CORRIDOR. IT BOOKENDS THAT. SO IT SORT OF BRINGS ARTESIA BOULEVARD, IF YOU LIKE, BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE LISTENED AND RESPONDED TO THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE BULK ON KINGSDALE AVENUE. THERE WAS ONCE AGAIN IN THE ORIGINAL EIR. IT WAS EIGHT STORIES AND IT WAS RIGHT ON KINGSDALE AVENUE. WE'VE NOW STEPPED THAT BUILDING BACK, SO IT'S A TOWNHOME SCALE. STEPPING BACK, THE BUILDING STEPS BACK AND IS STILL UNDERNEATH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING AMC BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. WE'RE COMMITTING TO 10% VERY LOW AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS, WHICH IS DOUBLE THE MINIMUM OF THE 5%. THERE IS OVER AN ACRE OF RESIDENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH WITHIN THIS 350 UNIT COMPLEX. AND THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC REALM THAT IS CREATED BY CREATING THE MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT. SO WE'VE SEEN SOME IMAGES TO SEE AGAIN THAT WE CAN CREATE SOME DIFFERENT PASSIVE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CURRENT STREETS, IF YOU LIKE, THROUGH THE PROJECT CAN BECOME PASSIVE, PASSIVE, OPEN SPACE AND OBVIOUSLY CALIFORNIA NATIVE AND DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING, REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TREES AND QUITE AN ADDITIONAL SOME MORE WHICH THE TEAM CAN ELABORATE ON. THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A VIEW EFFECTIVELY FROM 1827. THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF 1827. AN EXAMPLE OF US MEETING THE SCALE OF KINGSDALE AND THEN STEPPING BACK SO THAT THE DOMINANCE OF THAT BUILDING IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE PUBLIC REALM OR THE OR THE HUMAN SCALE OF KINGSDALE. THE NEXT SLIDE AGAIN, JUST SHOWS HOW THAT TEA IS BACK. IT SHOWS THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT AND AROUND THE PROJECT. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST A LITTLE LESS THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE AMC STRUCTURE. THE, JUST BACK ONE, SORRY. AND WE CAN TALK TO TRAFFIC. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE POINT MR. SCULLY WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL CROSSOVERS ALONG THIS FRONTAGE OF KINGSDALE TO ACCESS THE PROJECT. ON THE LEFT IS AT THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF GRANT, AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT 177TH AT THE TARGET PROPERTY THERE TO STOP SCREEN TO THE RIGHT THERE. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW TRAFFIC CIRCULATES AROUND IN AND OUT OF THE PROJECT. THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS INTO THE PROJECT ON THE FRONTAGE ALONG KINGSDALE. I THINK THE LAST SLIDE NOW IS JUST PICKING UP ON THAT POINT THAT THE PROJECT WITH ITS MIXED USE ELEMENT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL, IF YOU LIKE, PUBLIC ACTIVATION. THIS IS CURRENTLY A SORT OF INTERNAL ROAD THAT CONNECTS YOU TO THE SOUTH WEST ENTRY OF THE GALLERIA. WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT ALLOWS FOR, AGAIN, MORE PUBLIC SPACE AND MORE AREAS FOR RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY TO CONGREGATE. SO WITH THAT WE WOULD BE PLEASED TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WHO IN THE CITY CAME TO YOU TO ASK FOR THAT ADDITIONAL 350 HOUSES? [01:30:08] I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT, I MEAN, WE KEPT IT. SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? WE KEPT IT. YEAH. INTERESTING. IN THE, IF YOU LIKE, THE HOUSING ELEMENT. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TO THAT OBVIOUSLY KEPT A DIALOG WITH HOW WE'RE PROGRESSING WITH OUR WITH OUR PROJECT. YEAH. MR. BOSWELL. HELLO, STUART. GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU FOR ASKING, ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT I'D BEEN TRYING TO GET OUT OF STAFF AS TO HOW DID WE GET HERE? IT WASN'T YOU TRYING TO PULL ONE OVER ON THE CITY. IT WAS THE CITY THROWING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE UNDER THE BUS. WELL, THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP, BECAUSE WHAT YOU SAID WAS UNDER OATH, ALTHOUGH IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU TOLD ME A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN YOU INVITED ME DOWN TO SEE THE MODEL OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU WERE SHOWING. YOU WERE TELLING ME ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES GETTING FINANCING AND THAT ALL THE BANKS DIDN'T WANT TO FIND FINANCE, MALLS AND RETAIL. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A RISKY BUSINESS. IT'S ABOUT AS RISKY AS YOU GET. ALTHOUGH I SEE YOU'RE WANTING TO ADD OVER 8000FT² MORE OF RETAIL. RISKY. STILL, IT'S, AS IT WAS EXPLAINED AT THE TIME, IT WAS SOLELY BECAUSE BANKS WOULD FINANCE HOUSING. AND WHEN THEY WOULDN'T FINANCE THEM ALL. THE OPTION IS TO ADD MORE HOUSING TO GET THE FINANCING FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. NOW WE'RE FINDING THAT THAT'S NOT QUITE HOW IT HAPPENED. SO HAD THEY COME TO YOU BEFORE THAT, THAT DATE IN EARLY 2024 WITH THIS, OR HAD YOU ALREADY STARTED TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK AROUND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH PLAN B? THERE'S NO WORKING AROUND THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. WE'RE COMMITTED TO STILL DELIVERING WHAT'S ENTITLED AND WHAT WE NOW HAVE PERMIT READY, AND WE CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THAT. AS WE DISCUSSED BACK THEN, AND IT'S NO DIFFERENT NOW. THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT. THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN RETAILERS WANT TO COME TO THIS PROJECT, BUT THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT A MORE MIXED USE AND HAVING MORE RESIDENTS LIVING, WORKING AND PLAYING AND COMMUTING FROM THIS SITE BECAME AN OBVIOUS SOLUTION FOR US TO EXPLORE THIS. AND YET, IN REDONDO BEACH, ACCORDING TO OUR MAYOR MIXED USE HAS BEEN A MIXED BLESSING. THE RESIDENTIAL PART DOES REAL WELL, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO LEASE THE RETAIL PART, AND A LOT OF THAT STUFF GOES VACANT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE DEVELOPERS ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP THAT GROUND FLOOR TO GET THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THEY ACTUALLY WANT. ADDING MORE RETAIL. WHEN, I MEAN, WHO EVEN GOES TO STORES ANYMORE? LOOK AT THE DEL ALMO MALL, THE BIG REDEVELOPMENT THEY DID. I REMEMBER WHEN ALL THE MALLS WERE JUST JAMMED. YOU COULDN'T EVEN WALK THROUGH. YOU COULDN'T FIND A PARKING SPACE. IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE BUY ONLINE. IT'S, IT JUST SEEMS THAT THAT THE RETAIL ASPECT OF THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE A LOT SMALLER AND PERHAPS A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT ISN'T REALLY NECESSARY. AND PERHAPS PEOPLE NEED TO THINK MORE ABOUT WHAT WILL BRING PEOPLE INTO A PROPERTY OF THAT SIZE, LIKE A MAJOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE OR SPORTING VENUE. FOR THE CITY'S PURPOSES, THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND WOULD BE A GIANT CAR LOT, BECAUSE THE SALES TAX WE WOULD GET FROM THAT WOULD PUT US ON THE MAP LIKE TORRANCE HAS DONE. YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE TORRANCE IS, IT'S JUST CAR DEALER ROW. HOW MANY DO WE HAVE ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET? SO THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF OPTIONS THAT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE CITY. THE RESIDENTIAL OPTION IS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE THING YOU COULD DO ON THAT CORNER. AND YES, THERE ARE POLITICIANS SHILLING FOR DONATIONS FROM DEVELOPERS THAT ARE NOW FORCING ALL KINDS OF THINGS UNDER TRUMP UP FALSE ECONOMIC THEORY, AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TRY TO MAKE THEM HAPPY. BUT WE HAVE OTHER PLACES WHERE THIS COULD GO. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO ON THAT LOT IN THAT CORNER. AND WHEN YOU THINK OF NOT JUST 300 APARTMENTS, THE RESIDENTS OF 300, BUT THE RESIDENTS OF 650 APARTMENTS, ALL LEAVING FOR WORK AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING. AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S ARMAGEDDON. IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO THAT TO THIS COMMUNITY. [01:35:02] AND THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT WAS WAS PRESENTED BACK AT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. AND NOW HERE WE ARE AGAIN. IT HASN'T CHANGED. IT'S GOTTEN WORSE. THAT'S HOW IT'S CHANGED. IT HASN'T GOTTEN BETTER. IT'S GOTTEN WORSE BECAUSE IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF APARTMENTS AND CONDOS AND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS THAT HAVE GONE UP ALL OVER NORTH REDONDO. THERE ARE A LOT MORE PEOPLE DRIVING AROUND ON THE STREET. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE OF SACRAMENTO. WE'VE HAD TO CANNIBALIZE OUR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL SPACE TO MAKE MORE ROOM FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND NOW 93% OF REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS THAT WORK HAVE TO LEAVE THE CITY FOR THE JOB THAT THEY GO TO BECAUSE IT ISN'T HERE ANYMORE. THAT'S WHY WE WANTED A FOUR, ORIGINALLY A 400,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON THAT SITE. WHAT WE WOUND UP WITH WAS JUST, WHAT, 175 OR 170, WHATEVER SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF THE MALL. THAT WASN'T WHAT WE AGREED. UNFORTUNATELY. WHAT WAS? MR. BOSWELL, I TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT IS THERE A QUESTION? THE QUESTION IS WHY CAN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THAT, WITH THAT PROPERTY TO MAKE IT, TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE? BECAUSE AS I'VE EXPLAINED, IT'S NOT ONLY NOT NECESSARY, IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO PUT IT THERE. WE THINK THE PROJECT THAT IS ENTITLED AND THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SITE AND. HOW SO? AND. HOW SO? IT'S CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT. IT'S CLOSE TO THE 405. THE IDEA IS THIS BECOMES ANOTHER ECONOMIC OR IT BECOMES THE ECONOMIC ENGINE IT ONCE WAS FOR THE CITY. SO THERE WILL BE PEOPLE LIVING ON THIS PROJECT WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. SO PERHAPS WE WON'T NEED THE CAR DEALERSHIPS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RETAIL THAT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS ENVIRONMENT WILL BE PAYING THE SALES TAX. WHAT CRYSTAL BALL DO YOU HAVE THAT'S TELLING YOU RETAIL IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL? I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN RETAIL. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN COMMUNITY. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN RETAIL AS A WAY OF PEOPLE CONGREGATE. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE BEHIND YOU. SO YES, ONLINE DEFINITELY DID MAKE AN IMPACT. BUT WHAT IT DID WAS FORCE RETAIL INVESTORS AND OWNERS TO REINVENT AND BECOME A REAL THIRD PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO HANG OUT. YOU KNOW, AND A MEASURE OF SUCCESS WOULD BE SOMEONE COMING HERE AND NOT BUYING ANYTHING. JUST COME WITH YOUR FAMILY. COME WITH YOUR GRANDCHILD, WITH YOUR DAUGHTER, AND RIDE THE SKATE PARK. LEAVE. DON'T SPEND ANYTHING THAT DAY. COME BACK THE NEXT DAY AND MAYBE SPEND SOME MONEY. AS A PLACE TO HANG OUT, THAT IMPROVES SALES FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE, AS WOULD PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE, BUT HOPEFULLY ALSO SHOP THERE. YEAH. AND GO TO THE RESTAURANTS THERE AND ALL THAT. BUT IF YOU'RE EXPECTING A 30 ACRE MALL PROJECT, MALL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE, I THINK THAT'S REACHING. BUT IF YOU'RE EXPECTING TO DO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO THE COMMUNITY AND EXPECT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE TO SHOP THERE, YOU'RE KIDDING. THEY'RE GOING TO HATE THAT THING. EVERY TIME THEY HAVE TO SPEND THREE STOPLIGHTS GETTING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION OF ARTESIA AND HAWTHORNE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT MALL AND GOING, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE AND LATE FOR WORK. SO AGAIN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY OF INTEREST BECAUSE HOUSING IS WAY PROFITABLE. THAT'S YOUR SURE BET THE MONEY YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE ON THAT HOUSING AND ON THOSE RENTS OVER THE LONG TERM IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLE. BUT WHAT'S THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN? THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN IS THE COST THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS TO BEAR FOR YOU TO MAKE MONEY. AND WHERE DOES THAT MONEY GO? IS THAT GOING TO STAY IN REDONDO BEACH? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. KENNY WILSON ISN'T BASED HERE. OKAY. ANYWAY. ANYWAY. SO IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, GREAT. IF YOU CAN'T, THEN WE CAN. WE CAN HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE ASK YOU MORE QUESTIONS. I WAS KIND OF LOST ON WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. THE QUESTION IS, WHY DON'T YOU JUST DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T HARM THE COMMUNITY? I, OTHER THAN, WELL, THIS MAKES US A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY. BUT HOW ABOUT IF WE JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE TO HOUSING ON THAT CORNER, ON THAT BACK PART OF THE CORNER. WOULD IT BE ENTERTAINMENT VENUE? WOULD IT BE A CAR DEALERSHIP? [01:40:06] WOULD IT BE? WHO KNOWS WHAT. WOULD IT BE A SPORTS FACILITY? NOT AS PROFITABLE AS HOUSING, BUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NOT A LIABILITY. AND THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN SUCKER PUNCHED FOR 50 YEARS. YOU DO KNOW WE USED TO HAVE A DOWNTOWN, RIGHT? BUT IT'S CONDOS NOW. WILL YOU STILL HAVE ALL KINDS OF STUFF? OKAY, WELL, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION, BUT JUST TO PUT A QUESTION SO WE COULD MOVE ON. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LINE OF INQUIRY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FORESEEABLE OPTIONS THAT YOU SEE THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK OUT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU PRESENTED? NO, WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT, WE HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONVICTION THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT'S AN APPROPRIATE AND APPROPRIATE SCALE. MIXED USE PROJECT FOR THE FOR THE SITE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER GADDIS, YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION? YES. SO BY STATE LAW, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES. NOW, I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY THE AFFORDABILITY. PROXIMITY TO. SO AND YOU YOU. OKAY, SO IT SAYS HERE YOU'VE ELECTED TO INCORPORATE A MINIMUM OF 350 PARKING SPACES, ONE SPACE PER UNIT INTO THE PHASE TWO TO SERVE THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER 495 ONSITE SPACES IN THE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL AND ABOVE GROUND PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE BUILDING. AND IT'S REFERRED TO IN OTHER PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT AS PROPOSED PARKING. RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS, ONE IS THE 350 SPACES. AGAIN, IT WAS REFERRED TO AS AN ELECTION ON PAGE 30 OF OUR PACKET, WHICH IS PAGE 19 OF THE DOCUMENT. AND THEN ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE IT SAYS PROPOSING 350 RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES AND UP TO 495 REPLACEMENT COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES. SO ARE THEY GOING TO HAPPEN OR NOT? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? AND SOME OF THEM HAPPENING WITH MORE CERTAINTY THAN THE OTHERS. AND THE 495 ARE CONTINGENT UPON SOMETHING, OR ARE ALL OF THEM CONTINGENT UPON SOMETHING OR. HELP ME OUT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE PARKING THERE OR NOT. THE MINIMUM, THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM IS THE 350, SO THAT'S ONE. SO YOU COMMITTED TO 350 OR 1 SPACE PER UNIT, DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW. OKAY. CORRECT, CORRECT. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PHASE ONE B, THE 300 APARTMENTS. THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL PARKING. THERE IS 495 STALLS THERE AT THE MOMENT. THE ANALYSIS WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO IN THIS NEXT PHASE IS HOW MUCH OF THAT IS REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL. SO HOW MUCH IS AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. OKAY. SO. SO THAT'S DRIVEN BY THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE. AND THAT WOULD BE OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT IS DRIVING THAT NUMBER. YOU REFER TO IT AS APPROPRIATE. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE. THERE'S 495 STALLS ON THAT. YES. AT THE MOMENT. CURRENTLY. YEAH. AND SO THERE IS, I GUESS, AN ANALYSIS OR A DECISION TO BE MADE OR SOMETHING ABOUT WHETHER THOSE SPACES WILL BE REPLACED. CORRECT. HOW MANY OF THOSE SPACES WILL BE. HOW MANY OF THOSE SPACES. SO WHAT WHAT ARE THE CONTINGENCIES INVOLVED IN IT? I MEAN, THIS THIS HAS BEEN ANALYZED AND PLANNED NOW FOR YEARS, AS YOU SAY. SO BUT THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME ELEMENTS OF THIS THAT ARE MAKING THAT NUMBER, NOT A CERTAIN NUMBER, OR IF AT ALL, THAT ANY OF THOSE ARE REPLACED. WELL, PEOPLE ARE ARRIVING AT MALLS DIFFERENTLY. SO RIDESHARE, BIKES, PUBLIC TRANSPORT. SO WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR HOW PEOPLE ARRIVE TO THE PROJECT. [01:45:05] SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE MAIN WAY OF ENSURING THAT WE'VE GOT AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF PARKING. WITHOUT OVER PARKING THE PROJECT OR UNDER PARKING THE PROJECT. RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY, SO THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO THE 350, BUT NOT A COMMITMENT TO THE 495? NO, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE 495 IS PURELY DISCRETIONARY. OR IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR ZONING WHICH DRIVES SUCH. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL, RIGHT? WELL, WE DO HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT APPLICABLE. THEY'RE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT AT ALL. NO. OKAY. BECAUSE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. THAT'S CRAZY. BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO COME BY BUS TO THIS. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. BECAUSE PEOPLE HERE DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. THEY DON'T DRIVE CARS HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE NOTICED. HAS NEVER BEEN THE CASE. IN ANY DEVELOPMENT, ANY TRANSIT. IT'S GREAT. IT IS. IT'S GREAT. WE WALK EVERYWHERE. WE TAKE THE BUS. IT'S ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE FINE. WE RIDE BIKES OR WE RUN. SO. OKAY. SO. OKAY, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH HOW MUCH PARKING IS GOING TO BE THERE. WHAT IS. OH, I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE ASK A QUESTION. I CAN LEAVE THIS QUESTION FOR LATER. SURE, HAZELTINE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. IN ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION, HAS THERE EVER BEEN JUST LIKE GETTING RID OF THE MALL ALTOGETHER? LIKE JUST I MEAN, REALLY, DO YOU REALLY ANTICIPATE PEOPLE TO SHOP IN THAT MALL? I MEAN, I CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO ADD RETAIL UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL AND STUFF, BUT REALLY, I MEAN, HAS THAT EVER BEEN DISCUSSED? SURE. BUT WE HAVE TENANTS THERE IN PLACE, LOYAL TENANTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, AND RETAILERS HAVE VERY LONG LEASES. IT BRINGS ME SO MANY QUESTIONS. SO THAT'S THAT THAT PROVIDES US CHALLENGES. BUT. AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, I'VE TOURED A LOT OF, TOURED A LOT OF RETAILERS, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE A BUSINESS IN THIS PART OF REDONDO BEACH. YEAH, I JUST THINK OF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE POINT. EVERYBODY GOES AND THEY, THEY MAYBE SHOP THERE BECAUSE THEY CAN GO SIT OUTSIDE ON A BENCH AND IT'S OPEN AND IT'S YOU GET TO EACH ONE OF THOSE SHOPS FROM THE INSIDE OF THAT COURTYARD. AND THEN WE HAVE MANHATTAN MALL, WHICH IS COMPLETELY CHANGED. AND THEIR ACTUAL INDOOR MALL PART ISN'T. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT ALL THOSE OUTSIDE SHOPS YOU CAN NOW GO TO, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVING HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY LEASED OUT THIS PLACE, NOT THIS PARTICULAR PLACE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IT'S DEAD. I MEAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT ANY COMMUNITY IS DOING ANYMORE, SO IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF STRANGE THAT THIS MALL WOULD BE GIVEN SO MUCH IMPORTANCE. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY IF IT WORKED, BUT REALLY, I MEAN, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. AND WHEN I ASKED THIS PERSON WHO'S AN EXPERT, OKAY, TOTAL EXPERT, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? HE SAID WHAT HE WOULD DO. AND THIS IS THIS IS NOT BILL BRAND TALKING, OKAY, BECAUSE BILL WOULD WANT TO PUT A PARK EVERYWHERE. HE SAID A BIG PARK SHOULD GO THERE. AND WHAT SHOULD SURROUND THIS IS PLACES THAT PEOPLE WILL COME TO SIT, HAVE DINNER, WHATEVER, ENTERTAIN THEMSELVES AND ALSO ENJOY THIS PARK, RIGHT. THAT THE MALL IS JUST NEVER, EVER GOING TO WORK ANYMORE BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN A SNOW COMMUNITY WHERE WE'RE GOING THERE TO EXERCISE. IT JUST ISN'T THE CASE. SO THAT, YOU GUYS HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT? NO, IT'S CERTAINLY. AND WE, WE THOSE, WE DID MANY STUDIES ABOUT SHOULD WE TAKE THE ROOF OFF AND BECAUSE THE WEATHER'S GREAT AND THE COST OF DOING THAT IS, WAS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE IT STILL DOES RAIN AND THEN YOU HAVE TO KIND OF PLUMMET AND WATERPROOF IT. BUT THE WHOLE PREMISE WITHOUT SHARING THE PLANS. I DON'T HAVE THE NOTE ABOUT THE THE MALL IS IT'S ADAPTIVE REUSE AND IT'S NOT FILLING THAT EXPERIENCE BACK WITH 100 APPAREL STORES THAT WE TRY AND HAVE A MIX OF USES FROM EARLY EVENING TO LATE IN THE DAY, [01:50:01] AND WE'VE TRIED TO EXTERNALIZE THE FABRIC OF THE BUILDING. SO TAKING THE EXTERIOR WALLS OFF, CONNECTING IT BACK TO ARTESIA BOULEVARD SO THAT IT HAS AN ARTESIA BOULEVARD ADDRESS, IT'S NOT BURIED IN THE CENTER OF A LARGE ENCLOSED MALL. YEAH, BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN YOU TALK. IN TEXAS, YEAH. THE OUTDOOR SPACE, WE COMPLETELY AGREE IT'S, BUT OUR OUTDOOR PARK THAT I SHOWED IN THE ORIGINAL SLIDE IS ABOUT THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF THE POINT. SO WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE, BUT WE WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO SORT OF WALK THROUGH THE EXISTING GALLERY AND NOT AS A RELIC, BUT IN ITS ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE THIRD LEVEL. THE PART BETWEEN PHASE ONE AND THE MALL, IS BIGGER THAN WHAT THE POINT HAS. YEAH. OKAY. AND, BUT YET, WHAT WE HAVE. SO FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN THIS CAME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A LOT OF THAT OUTDOOR SPACE WAS REMOVED. SO IT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT IS A DIFFERENT PROJECT OVER THESE FIVE OR HOW MANY EVER YEARS. AND AS WE KNOW, THERE'S A LOT LESS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINING SPACE. I JUST WAS CURIOUS IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU TALKED ABOUT BLOWING IT UP, BUT. OKAY. SURE. WE'VE DEFINITELY TALKED ABOUT BLOWING UP. BUT, AND THERE WASN'T, THE OUTDOOR SPACE WASN'T REDUCED. IT WAS RE, IT WAS. REPOSITIONED. REPOSITIONED. SO, YOU KNOW, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE PLANS STUDIED IN THE EIR AND THE PRE-COVID PLAN THAT WE'VE ENDED UP TODAY. THROUGH EVERYONE'S CONTRIBUTION AND THE COMMUNITY'S CONTRIBUTION IS A BETTER PLAN. AND THAT INCLUDED EXTERNALIZING THE BUILDING. ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS THERE NOW, WE COULD KNOCK DOWN THE BUILDING. BUT FIRST OF ALL, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S IN A WAY TO, FROM A SUSTAINABILITY POINT OF VIEW, ADAPTIVELY REUSE THE CONCRETE THAT IS THERE. YEAH. THAT'S A HUGE THIRD LEVEL OF THE MALL, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AMC IS A VERY GOOD PERFORMING THEATER. WE HAD DONE LEASING TO INCLUDE OFFICE TO COMMISSIONER BOSWELL POINT, AND WE'VE DONE A, WE HAD AN OFFICE WE SECURED, FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT ETC. THAT WAS, THAT IS NOT TRADITIONAL RETAIL, BUT WAS HAPPY TO BE COMMITTED INTO A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE AND OF THIS MIXED USE NATURE. OKAY. MR. CONROY, AND A FEW NUTS AND BOLTS QUESTIONS FOR YOU FIRST. FIRST, RELATED TO THE PARKING I. OKAY, SO IT'S ONE PARKING SPACE ASSIGNED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT. WOULD THAT PARKING BE UNBUNDLED FROM THE RENT? NO. NO, SO IF THERE'S PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE IN A STUDIO AND THEY HAVE NO USE FOR A VEHICLE, THEY WILL HAVE A PARKING SPACE THAT THEY WON'T BE MAKING USE THERE. SORRY, COMMISSIONER. NO, WE, THE PARKING, THE PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED, ACTIVELY MANAGED, AND PARKING COULD BE FREED UP. SO IT'S NOT ONE PER STALL. SO IF SOMEONE'S IN A STUDIO WHO DOESN'T HAVE A VEHICLE, DOESN'T WANT A VEHICLE, DOES ENJOY PUBLIC TRANSPORT, DOES ENJOY CYCLING, OR WORKS ON THE PREMISE, THAT WOULD FREE UP A STALL THAT MIGHT BE ENJOYED BY SOMEONE IN THE TOWNHOME, FOR EXAMPLE. FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RENT. NO, NO, NO. NO, SO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH THE SAME FLOOR PLAN. ONE PERSON COULD HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE AND THE OTHER ONE COULD HAVE THREE, AND THEY'D BE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT EVERY MONTH? YEAH, IT WOULDN'T BE 1 IN 3, BUT IT WOULD BE FLUID, YEP. BUT WE WOULD WE PARTICULARLY WE SEE A LOT OF THOSE STUDIOS NOT REQUIRING PARKING, AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE WALKABLE, MIXED USE NATURE OF THE PROJECT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A HIGH VALUE FOR THE PARKING, ESPECIALLY ADDITIONAL SPOTS. BUT OKAY, SO I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT BE, THAT IT WOULD BE UNBUNDLED FROM THE RENT OF THE UNIT. IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PART OF THE. IT WOULD BE AN AMENITY IN A SENSE. AM I UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY? YEAH. I MEAN. OKAY. HOW MANY EV CAPABLE AND EV CHARGING STATION STALLS WOULD BE DELIVERED AT OPENING? THERE'S, THERE'S OVER 100 EV STALLS. YEAH. SO ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE PARKING SPACE WOULD BE EV CAPABLE. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH. EV NUMBERED IT. 40%. [01:55:01] 40%? OKAY, I LIKE THAT NUMBER. OKAY. I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT YOU WENT WITH THE VERY AFFORDABLE OPTION. QUESTION, AS IT RELATES TO THE OPEN SPACE, SOME UNITS DON'T HAVE IT. HOW WILL YOU ENSURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY OR DO NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY HAVE THE NO OPEN SPACE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BUT THE COMMITMENT, WE HAVEN'T LOCATED THOSE APARTMENTS YET. BUT THOSE APARTMENTS WILL BE DISPERSED THROUGH THE TOWER, DIFFERENT LEVELS. AND WE, THERE WILL BE, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT ALL THOSE AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS, SOME OF THOSE AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS WILL HAVE OPEN SPACE. OKAY. SO THE RATIO WILL BE CONSIDERED. THE RATIO WILL BE AS CONSISTENT AS WE CAN WITH THE AMOUNT OF UNITS. OTHER UNITS. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY, HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. BUT I'LL MENTION THERE'S VERY LITTLE STORAGE. WELL THERE. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE DESIGN LAYOUT FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE OR BIKE STORAGE WHERE PEOPLE CAN RENT THAT? YES. WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED BIKE STORAGE ON THE PLAN, BUT THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. AS FOR STORAGE ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE APARTMENTS DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM OF 400 CUBIC FEET. EACH APARTMENT HAS STORAGE. BUT THIS IS A VERY, VERY LITTLE. RIGHT? VERY LITTLE. SO THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL STORAGE IN THE DESIGN PLANS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, SO WE COULD LOOK AT THE RENT IF THEY WANT IT. WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. IS IT CURRENTLY ISN'T IN THE DESIGN PLAN OR NOT? FOR ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL STORAGE? YES. NOT OUTSIDE THE APARTMENTS, EACH APARTMENT. OKAY. I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE A VERY LARGE DEMAND FOR THAT. LAST QUESTION. AND THIS IS KIND OF FOR STAFF AND FOR YOU. CAN WE GO BACK ONE PAGE ON THIS PRESENTATION? OKAY. SO THAT'S KINGSDALE LOOKING EAST, RIGHT. AND WE'VE GOT GRANT ON THE LEFT SIDE? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, I'M NOT SURE WHO'S THE RIGHT PERSON ASKED THIS QUESTION TO. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE KINGSLEY? KINGSDALE. EXCUSE ME. KINGSDALE. I'M SORRY. KINGSDALE, DEAD END ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT, BEING THE SOUTH SIDE OF GRANT. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION? I WOULD THINK THAT IF IT WAS A DEAD END, THAT IT WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON THIS SMALL RESIDENTIAL STREET. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? IF YOU SAY YOU'RE COMING FROM THE SOUTH. YEAH. RIGHT, THIS CORNER HERE, THE LEFT CORNER. YEAH. RIGHT HERE, WHAT IF THIS DEAD ENDED RIGHT HERE? YEAH. SO THAT WOULD, SO THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THIS. AND SINCE WE'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS GREAT, GRANT JUST ROLLS RIGHT IN HERE, THEN YOU DON'T NEED THIS, RIGHT? YOU DON'T NEED PEOPLE COMING DOWN KINGSDALE TO HANG IT RIGHT IN THERE, RIGHT. SO THEN THAT MAKES THAT MAKES IT WHERE PEOPLE CAN STILL RIDE THEIR BIKES ON THE STREET. WALK IN STREET, YEAH. YEAH. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? YOU KNOW. 2ND STREET. THEY ONLY PAY FOR 177TH. SO CITY. SO IF I COUNT 177TH DOWN THERE. RIGHT. THE 180 ALL THE WAY TO 182ND. YEAH. YEAH. WE'RE AT 206. BUT IF IT OPENED FROM 177TH TO 182ND WHERE THERE'S NO HOUSING. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE OPEN. YEAH. SO JUST PUT A BARRIER ACROSS THE STREET? IT'S A FIVE. I MEAN IF I LIVED HERE I MEAN IF I LIVE HERE OR NOT, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, IF THIS IS NOT A THOROUGH, IF THIS DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND IT'S RATHER A DEAD END, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE FOR A LOT LESS TRAFFIC, I WOULD IMAGINE SO. IS THAT SOMETHING? GET IT OUT FROM ARTESIA. NO, THAT'S GRANT. GRANT? THAT'S GRANT. IF THIS IS KINGSDALE. GRANT-KINGSDALE. GRANT-KINGSDALE. KINGSDALE DEAD ENDS HERE AT GRANT. OKAY. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I DO TOO. BUT. SO YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE TRAFFIC FROM BEING IN FRONT OF THESE HOUSES. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT GETS WHAT THEY REALLY WANT. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, WHICH IS GRANT GOING STRAIGHT IN. AND NORTH OF GRANT ON KINGSDALE IS PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL. IS IT MAYBE 1 OR 2 RESIDENTIAL HOUSES RIGHT THERE? AND THERE'S FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC THERE, 4 TO 6 LANES OF TRAFFIC, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. THAT WOULD BE A NICE ADDITION FOR THOSE PEOPLE IN KINGSDALE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN UP BY THE COUNCIL, WOULD HAVE TO BE STUDIED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER. IT. OKAY. YEAH. IT WOULDN'T BE A CONDITION THAT THIS BODY COULD APPLY TO. [02:00:05] IT SEEMS LIKE THE SALESMEN DID. SOMETHING GIVING THEM SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OVER THERE? OKAY, OKAY. IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION COULD REQUEST THAT STAFF COULD LOOK INTO AND THEN FURTHER, TAKE TO THE, YOU KNOW, TO THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THE ONE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, I THINK, WOULD HAVE PURVIEW OVER SOME OF THE THEY HAVE PURVIEW OVER CITY RIGHTS OF WAY. AS FAR AS AN ADVISORY BODY. YOU KNOW, WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE IT? ALL THESE NEW RESIDENTS. YEAH. THERE'S HOUSES HERE. YEAH, LIKE FOUR HOUSES ON KINGSDALE. AND ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S AN APARTMENT BUILDING RIGHT THERE TOO. YOU'RE LIKE RIGHT THERE. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO IT'S FOUR HOUSES AND APARTMENT BUILDING, RIGHT. MISS YOUNG, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO. I HAD A QUESTION. WHAT IS THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF THE THEATER ON THE PROPERTY? 90FT. OKAY. ROUGHLY 90. OKAY. AND IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS ASKED EARLIER, I WANT ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION, AS SOMEONE WHO WAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS. WHEN YOU HAVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, ARE THERE GOING, IS, ARE YOU GOING BY NUMBER OF UNITS. SO THEY'LL BE 35, RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S THE NUMBER I SAW 35 UNITS. ARE THERE IS THERE GOING TO BE A THREE BEDROOM UNIT. THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO FALL INTO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. WHICH CONFIGURATION WILL APPLY. YEAH. YEAH. NO THERE WILL BE IN THE IN IF YOU LIKE IN THE TOWER. THERE WON'T BE AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT IN THE TOWNHOMES OR THE TOWNHOMES OR THE THREE BEDROOM. SO THERE'LL BE AFFORDABLE STUDIOS AND ONE BEDROOMS, STUDIOS ONES AND TWOS. I WANTED TO OKAY. AND. I HAVE ONE MORE, BUT I LOST IT. LET ME. COULD YOU SHARE WHY YOU CHANGED FROM THE 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE 10% VERY LOW? IT WASN'T A CHANGE. WELL, BECAUSE I HAVE THIS DOCUMENT HERE THAT SAYS. THIS IS ONE. YEAH. ONE OR THE OTHER. THE OPTION FOR 20% LOW INCOME HAS BEEN REMOVED. SO IT WAS ORIGINALLY AS PER THE ORIGINAL ENTITLEMENT FOR THE FIRST 300. THE OPTION TO PROVIDE EITHER 10% VERY LOW OR 20% LOWER. OKAY. THAT WAS AN ORIGINAL CONDITION FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL THAT WAS CARRIED OVER HERE. OKAY. OKAY, THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE HERE? I HAVE QUESTIONS. MR. GADDIS. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE THE 350 SPACES AND POTENTIALLY THE 495. FIRST OF ALL, IF THE 494. WELL, WHATEVER REPLACEMENT PARKING IS DONE, YOU HAVE THE 350 SPACES, AND THOSE ARE EXCLUSIVELY AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF IT. WILL THE ADDITIONAL, THE SPACES ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, WILL THOSE ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE RESIDENTS TO PARK IN? ONCE THE 350 ARE FULL? LIKE AN OVERFLOW. BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THEM, IT'S EITHER SHOPPERS OR RESIDENTS. THAT'S RIGHT, WE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE SOME. CERTAINLY SOME ABILITY FOR VISITOR PARKING, THE RESIDENTIAL LEASING, THE 8000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. SO WE WOULD SEE THAT ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THE. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROHIBITION ON THE, ON RESIDENTS WHO ONCE THE 350 ARE FULL A PROHIBITION ON RESIDENTS PARKING IN THAT ADDITIONAL OR ANY OF THE PARKING AROUND THE GALLERIA? THAT COULD BE OVERFLOW PARKING. OKAY. THAT'S OUR CONCERN. OKAY. AND YOU'RE COMMITTING TO THAT? YEAH. FOR THE. WHERE THERE WILL BE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS. [02:05:04] THERE WILL BE ABILITY WITHIN THAT. PHASE TWO BUILDING WITH THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WE PROVIDE. OKAY, SO RESIDENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO PARK IN. NOT EXCLUSIVELY. NOT EXCLUSIVELY. RIGHT. BUT THEY WOULD, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO PARK IN THE PARKING THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY ASSIGNED TO THE RESIDENTS? SURE. IN A SHARED PARKING ENVIRONMENT. SO PERHAPS OVERNIGHT CAN. YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. I THINK THAT'LL BE IMPORTANT. JUST SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE OVERFLOW ALL OVER THE PLACE. I PRESUME THAT, YOU KNOW, I SUPPOSE DURING THE HOLIDAYS, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT ALL THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY IT WILL, BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE SHOPPING THERE. RIGHT? SO. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW I MEAN, IT'S REASONABLE, BUT I MEAN, THE IDEA IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CARS PARKING OVERFLOWING INTO THE CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORHOODS. I HAVE I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. OH, HERE'S THE OTHER ONE. ARE THE SPACES, JUST TO CLARIFY THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER CONROY HAD. ARE THOSE 350, THEY'RE NOT ASSIGNED SPACES, OR ARE THEY ASSIGNED? HOW DOES THAT WORK? THE 350. THEY'RE NOT ASSIGNED AT THE MOMENT. THEY WILL BE THEY WILL BE OBVIOUSLY NUMBERED AS FAR AS THE MANAGEMENT. OKAY. PLAN. OKAY. AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE'S, IF THERE'S A, WE DEEM THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE STUDIOS FROM A MARKET POINT OF VIEW DON'T HAVE PARKING ATTACHED, THEY WOULD BE REASSIGNED. OKAY. SO A NEW TENANT COMES IN AND AND THEY SAY, WELL, I WANT A STUDIO WITH A PARKING SPACE. AND IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE NO PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR UNIT. OR IF SOMEBODY MOVES OUT. WELL, I GUESS. IT'S BETTER IF THEY'RE NOT. WELL, NO, I GET IT. BUT I GUESS I'M WONDERING, IS A TENANT COMING BACK TO THE SAME SPACE EVERY NIGHT WHEN THEY'RE COMING BACK FROM WORK? OKAY, THAT KIND OF. SO THEY ARE ASSIGNED. OKAY. SO THAT THAT'S A YES. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. THESE ARE MORE STRANGE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE FOR YOU, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT WITH THIS. MACY'S OWNS THEIR BUILDING, RIGHT? NO. NO, MACY'S DOES NOT OWN THEIR BUILDING. OKAY. BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO RECALL THAT ONE REASON THAT THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN COULDN'T BE DONE WAS BECAUSE MACY'S WOULDN'T MOVE OUT OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE IN. IS THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE, LIKE, A REALLY LONG LEASE ON THE THING AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO GET THEM OUT? SO. THEY HAVE EXCLUSIVE ENTRY ALSO. OKAY. NOW DO THEY HAVE ALSO, DO THEY JUST, IS ALL THE PARKING USABLE BY ALL? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT IS USABLE, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE. IS THERE A GUARANTEE TO A TENANT, COULD BE MACY'S, COULD BE KOHL'S, COULD BE ANYBODY, THAT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES. I WOULDN'T SAY EXCLUSIVE TO THEM, BUT I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY COMMITMENTS ABOUT PARKING SPACES TO THE RETAIL TENANTS. SURE. ARE THERE ANY? YES. OH, OKAY. HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO THEY HAVE EITHER A MINIMUM NUMBER, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF STALLS OR A PARKING RATIO IS NOT ATYPICAL. SOMETIMES IT'S A HATCHED AREA ON A PLAN THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, CONSENT IS REQUIRED. OH, AND I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS CONCEPTUALLY, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT COMMITMENTS YOU HAVE TO VARIOUS TENANTS IN THAT PLACE. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICS, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MACY'S IS GUARANTEED TO HAVE 300 SPACES AVAILABLE TO THEM OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. THOSE COMMITMENTS DO EXIST. YES. OKAY. OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. DO ANY OF YOUR TENANTS. I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL THEM TENANTS. DO ANY OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE GALLERIA OWN THEIR OWN THEIR LOCATIONS, OR IT'S ALL OWNED BY? OKAY YOU. OKAY. NOW, THIS IS AN EVEN STRANGER QUESTION. AND IT IT'S NO HARM IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I SUPPOSE YOU'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, MARKET RESEARCH. THAT MAY HAVE COME UP WITH THIS ANSWER. WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE RETAIL VACANCY RATE AT THE AMERICANA AT BRAND [02:10:03] IN GLENDALE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. ZERO. IT'S, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. I WOULD GUESS IT'S 2%. 2% VACANCY. IF ANY VACANCY. REALLY? OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE ASK QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I'LL GIVE OTHER PEOPLE A CHANCE TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. BOSWELL. I BETTER NOT. OKAY. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. YOU KNOW, I USED TO HAVE ONE OF MY OFFICES ON BRAND BOULEVARD IN GLENDALE, AND IT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF WHERE ALL OF THOSE, ALL OF THAT DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED. THEY USED TO HAVE THESE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, AND WE WOULD HAVE CLIENTS IN OUR OFFICE FOR THE WHOLE DAY, WE'D SAY, WELL, YOU GOT 30 RESTAURANTS TO CHOOSE FROM THAT YOU CAN WALK TO FROM HERE. AND THAT WAS BEFORE THAT MALL WAS EVEN BUILT. THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL THERE IS WHAT WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE ON THE GALLERIA SITE GOING DOWN ARTESIA. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT. COMPLETELY ON IT. IT JUST ISN'T HAPPENING. WELL BUT. BUT. TO. BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN. YOU AND I WILL JUST ANOTHER THING AND I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO FAWNING, BUT YOU AND JEFF ARE SCRAPPERS AND I. AND IN THE TIME THAT I'VE KNOWN YOU GUYS AND THAT YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK AND PUT THIS THING TOGETHER, I HAVE A TON OF RESPECT FOR YOUR ABILITIES AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY, AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO MAKE THINGS WORK. IF THIS GOES THROUGH, YOU HAVE GOT TO MAKE IT WORK. WE FEEL THAT, I'VE SAID THIS TO YOU BEFORE, COMMISSIONER. WE FEEL WE FEEL THE RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK, I THINK THE AMERICANO AT BRAND IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN HERE. BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE A START AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. BRAND IS AMAZING. DOESN'T NEED THE TROLLEY TRAIN, BUT. YEAH, LOVE ONE OF THOSE AS WELL, RIGHT? THEY COULD GO DOWN ARTESIA. BUT I MEAN, IT'S, RETAIL USED TO BE A PLACE TO COME TOGETHER. IT USED TO BE WHERE WE WE HUNG OUT IN THE 80S. AND THE ONLY PLACES REALLY THAT HAVE THAT, I THINK THAT REALLY HAVE THAT SENSE OF COMMUNITY STILL ARE. IS THE AMERICANA BRAND, LIKE THE GROVE. IT IS WELL MANICURED, IS WELL CURATED. IT IS GREAT FOR FAMILIES. IT HAS RESIDENTIAL AND IT HAS A BRAND BOULEVARD. NOW WE WANT ARTESIA BOULEVARD TO THAT. SO TO BE THAT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE A START. IT'S BEEN. IT'S BEEN WAY TOO LONG. WE FEEL THE RESPONSIBILITY. THE COMMUNITY HAS WAITED A LONG TIME. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT AND DELIVERING THE PROJECT. YEAH. ANOTHER QUOTE, MR. CONWAY. KIND OF ALONG THAT LINE. WE DON'T NEED MORE CHICKEN STRIP RESTAURANTS AND NAIL SALONS. RIGHT. THOSE ARE COVERED, SO. MORE DOG GROOMING. RIGHT. IT'S LIKELY TOO EARLY ON, BUT I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH DIFFERENT TENANTS. WHAT KIND OF ANCHORS OR WHAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, RETAIL WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE AT THIS PROJECT? SO WE HAVE WE HAVE SOME AGREEMENTS IN PLACE. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THOSE, SO I'LL SPEAK MORE TO THE CATEGORIES. WE MENTIONED OFFICE. AND THE FIRST OFFICE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IS A MORE OF A COWORKER FACILITY UP ON LEVEL THREE, A LARGE FORMAT FITNESS OPERATION, BUT NOT SO MUCH, YOU KNOW DUMBBELLS AND WEIGHTS, BUT MORE HOLISTIC ROOMS OF MENTAL WELLNESS AS WELL AS PHYSICAL WELLNESS. WELLNESS IN GENERAL IS A HUGE CATEGORY. WE HAVE HAD SECURED OR HAVE SECURED SOME GREAT RESTAURANTS THAT ARE NOT CHAIN RESTAURANTS FROM DOWNTOWN AND, BLESS YOU, AND A FEW OTHER LOCATIONS. WE HAVE A VERY COOL RETRO BOWLING ALLEY THAT'S NOT A LUCKY STRIPE OR IT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 12 LANES. IT'S THOSE SORTS OF LIFESTYLE ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON. WE DO SEE APPAREL AND WE DO SEE ASPIRATIONAL APPAREL. FOOD AND BEVERAGE. FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, ETC.. [02:15:01] OKAY. VERY GOOD. I THINK YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. YEAH. WHAT IS THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND PURPOSE OF BREAKING THAT PARCEL? REDIVIDING THOSE TWO PARCELS SUCH THAT, THERE'S A PARCEL OF, I BELIEVE IT'S 15 TOWNHOMES WITH THE PROPOSED OPTION OF SELLING THAT PARCEL. HOW, WHAT'S THE PROCESS AND PURPOSE OF DOING THAT? THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, ONE OF OUR GOALS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO KEEP THIS AS ONE PROJECT. SO, WE CAN AGREE WITH THE OWNERS, YOU KNOW, WHAT GOES THERE AND MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND YOU KNOW, OUR NIGHTMARE IS THIS THING BEING SPLIT UP INTO MULTIPLE, UNDER MULTIPLE DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS WITH THEIR ENTITLEMENTS ALL SUING THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING. WHAT IS SORT OF THE GOAL THERE? WELL, THE ENTIRE SITE HAS A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHICH CONTROLS, THAT GIVES THE CITY CONTROL. THERE IS 19 LOTS. SO THERE IS THERE IS NO. PROHIBITION ON SELLING PARTS OF THE PROJECT WITH APPROPRIATE OWNERS, ETC., SO THAT THERE'S COHESION IN THE DEVELOPMENT. THE OPTIONALITY AT THE MOMENT OF THE OF THE 15 TOWNHOMES TO BE EITHER FOR SALE OR FOR RENT IS JUST ABOUT PRO FORMA OPTIONALITY. AND TO GET THE PROJECT TO PENCIL AND GET IT FINANCED. NOW IT'S NOT A FOREVER OPTION OR OPPORTUNITY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE EXPLORING AT THE MOMENT SO THAT BY THE TIME WE GO INTO SUBMIT PLANS FOR PERMIT, WE WOULD BE CHOOSING WHETHER WE'RE KEEPING IT IN ONE LOT OR POTENTIALLY CONDO IN THE TOWNHOMES. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO HAVING THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REVISITED AT THE TIME THAT YOU DETERMINED THAT THE, THAT THIS IS THE, THAT BREAKING THAT OFF WOULD BE THE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE THAN NOT BREAKING IT OFF, RATHER THAN JUST HAVE IT DANGLING OUT THERE AS MAYBE IT WILL BE, MAYBE IT WON'T BE. I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING. IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A FAVOR. SO WHEN WE WHEN WE TAKE THE PLANS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THAT POINT, IT'S AT THAT POINT THAT A DECISION WILL BE FINALIZED. RIGHT. BUT AS PART OF THIS, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, AS PART OF THIS. THIS HANDOVER. YEAH. THIS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE WOULD BE THE DIVISION OF THOSE, THE RE DIVISION OF THOSE PARCELS, AM I CORRECT? YEAH. THE RECONFIGURATION OF THOSE AND TO BE CLEAR, IT IS, THE MAP ON LOT TWO, THE CONDOMINIUM MAP IS PART OF THE APPROVAL AS WELL. RIGHT. NOW, WHAT GIVES THEM THE OPTIONALITY AS IF WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO FINAL THAT CONDOMINIUM MAP AND IF NOT IT, THEN JUST IT WOULD JUST BE A SINGLE LOT WITH APARTMENTS, TOWNHOMES. BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED RIGHT NOW TO, TO TO GRANT THAT TO BREAK THE THING. WELL, I GUESS, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO RECONFIGURE THE LOTS THAT ALL BOTH LOTS WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2019 AND THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT. AND CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT PREVENTS ONCE THIS PARCEL IS CREATED THAT THE 15 TOWNHOMES IS ON, WHAT PREVENTS THAT FROM BEING SOLD OFF TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER WHO THEN DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THAT? THAT'S A PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN PLACE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW SALES OF SOME OF THESE LOTS. [02:20:04] I KNOW THAT THE INTENTION IS TO ALWAYS KEEP THIS AS ONE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT IS ONE DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. BUT UNDERLYING OWNERSHIP IS NOT SOMETHING INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY'S CONTROL THROUGH THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE OWNERSHIP, IT'S THE OWNERSHIP AND USE. SEE, WE CAN, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE OVERALL PROPERTY AND ENVISIONING IT, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE VISION RIGHT NOW. NOW ONCE THAT THAT ROW OF TOWNHOUSES RIGHT THERE IS BROKEN OFF AND SOLD TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO THIS VISION. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY. TO A DEGREE, THEY MAY HAVE TO AMEND THE ENTITLEMENT. WELL, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO 30 UNITS, 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, IS THAT CORRECT? BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF ANY BONUSES. RIGHT. IN THEORY, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE. YEAH, THEY WOULD HAVE THE UNDERLYING RIGHTS OF STATE LAW AND THE ZONING. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO ESSENTIALLY THAT COULD BE BROKEN OFF. I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING, IF YOU, AND I REMEMBER WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS IN 2019 AND THAT WAS WE MAY HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, THE HOTEL. WE MAY HAVE A HOTEL CHAIN THAT COMES IN WHO YOU KNOW, IT'S THE FOUR SEASONS, THEY WANT TO PUT UP A HOTEL, THIS WOULD BE GREAT. THEY'RE BRINGING IN MONEY. IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL. BUT THEY INSIST UPON OWNING THE PARCEL THAT THE HOTEL SITS ON. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT. AND THE COUNCIL FELT THAT THAT FLEXIBILITY WAS WARRANTED. THIS IS DIFFERENT. AND SO WE, ONCE THAT PARCEL IF IT WERE BROKEN OFF, IT, WELL IT WILL BE BROKE, BUT IF IT WERE SOLD AND IT'S, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY. BUT WHOEVER BUYS THAT THEN IS FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH IT. THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO ANYTHING YOU'RE COMMITTING TO NOW OR SHOWING US, RIGHT? ACCORDING TO STATE LAW BECAUSE THE DEAL IS WITH THE CURRENT OWNER AND NOT WITH SOMEBODY WHO BREAKS OFF A PIECE OF IT AND BUYS IT. BUT ISN'T THE AGREEMENT THAT PUT TOWNHOMES THERE? BUT THAT AGREEMENT IS NOT WITH THE NEW OWNER. IT'S NOT TRANSFERABLE? IT'S WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. I'D HAVE A GREAT DEAL MORE COMFORT IF, IN FACT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS, THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, RIGHT? I MEAN YOU, ONCE YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU SELL IT, THEN THE, I MEAN, SUBJECT TO ZONING AND THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT I COULD OFFER THE FOUNDRY THAT WAS, THAT WAS ENTITLED AND THEN SOLD TO A HOUSING DEVELOPER, AND THEY CAME IN AND CONSTRUCTED WHAT WAS ENTITLED. THAT'S PRETTY THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, USUALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT THE VALUE, YOU KNOW, TO GO BACK THROUGH AND DO SOMETHING ELSE IS SOMEWHAT, YOU KNOW, A STEP BACK WHEN YOU CAN COME IN WITH A PROJECT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, READY TO BUILD. AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD BE THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED, THE DIRECT PATH FORWARD TO REALIZE THAT DEVELOPMENT, IF IT WAS SOLD OFF, WOULD BE TO JUST BUILD THAT. AND THAT'S NORMALLY WHAT WE SEE. WE GET QUITE A FEW CONDOS THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED, AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN AND BUYS IT AND BUILDS IT. WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WHAT COMMISSIONER GADDIS IS SAYING IS, THAT THIS IS A SHOVEL READY PROJECT, SO SOMEONE COME IN THEY COULD DO IT. BUT IF IT'S SOLD TO SOME OTHER ENTITY, KNOWING THE CLIMATE WE HAVE IN SACRAMENTO, COULD CONCEIVABLY A NEW OWNER SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T LIKE THAT ENTITLEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW THOSE VESTINGS AND I WANT TO PUT 30 UNITS THERE. IS THAT POSSIBLE? AND I THINK IT'S. MORE. OR MORE. OR MORE. YEAH. OR THEY SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE THINK A TEN STORY HIGH RISE THERE IS APPROPRIATE. THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED BY ANYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, ARE THEY? THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND OBTAIN A NEW ENTITLEMENT FOR THAT PROPERTY. THERE ARE. AND THEY WOULD BE TIED JUST AS THEY ARE NOW, RIGHT? WELL, THESE WOULD BE SMALLER LOTS. SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE DENSITY. DENSITY BONUSES ISN'T UNLIMITED. SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE DENSITY PER LOT. [02:25:03] FURTHERMORE, FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, FUTURE OWNERSHIP COULD COME IN AND AMEND IT. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY PUT MORE UNITS THERE. I THINK THE STAFF REPORT NOTES THAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALLOWS 895 TOTAL IF YOU FACTOR IN MAX DENSITY BONUS WHAT THE SITE COULD BE AT, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 1350 UNITS TOTAL IF IT WERE MAXIMIZED UNDER CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS AND DENSITY BONUS. YEAH, BUT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS PARCEL? [LAUGHTER]. I'M JUST MAKING THE POINT THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL ON THAT SITE TO DEVELOP MORE HOUSING AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE BY SUBDIVIDING IT. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE IS THE OWNERSHIP. BUT EVEN IF THEY DECIDED TO VEER AWAY FROM THE TOWNHOME CONCEPT, BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUAL LOTS ARE SMALL, THEY'D BE LIMITED IN ANY ALTERNATIVE THAT THEY COULD PROPOSE THERE. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS BASED ON LOT SIZE AND BASE DENSITY FOR THESE PROPERTIES. SO THEY COULDN'T RECONFIGURE THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE ON THIS PARCEL? NO, NOT THAT'S LOT 2 WITH THE TOWNHOMES, THAT COULDN'T BE RECONFIGURED. NO, NO ARE YOU USING THE PARCEL AS THE LOT? CORRECT. OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EACH TOWNHOME BEING A LOT THAT HAS ALL THE TOWNHOMES. THAT'S ONE LOT. THAT'S ONE LOT, IT'S NOT A PARCEL? I'M USING THAT INTERCHANGEABLY. OKAY YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT PARCEL WE'RE GOING TO THAT THAT REALLY THERE'S NO WAY SOMEBODY COULD DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN HAVING THESE 15 TOWNHOMES ON THAT PARCEL? WITHOUT AMENDING THIS ENTITLEMENT, THAT'S CORRECT. WITHOUT AMENDING THE OVERALL. THE PHASE TWO APPROVED PROJECT I WOULD SAY THE POTENTIAL, BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IN MY RESPONSE. THE POTENTIAL DOES EXIST. IT IS LIMITED, BUT THAT POTENTIAL ALREADY EXISTS ON THE SITE AS A WHOLE IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT MORE HOUSING. SURE. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING THAN JUST THIS PARCEL. I GUESS, I'M FOCUSED ON THIS PARCEL BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT IS BEING, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT BREAKS THIS PARCEL OFF WITH THE POSSIBLE, THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT'S SOLD. NOW, I GUESS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS [LAUGHTER], WHAT IS THE INTENT OF BREAKING OFF THIS PARCEL? AND IS IT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REVISITED ONCE. BECAUSE AS YOU DESCRIBE IT TO ME, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER BREAKING IT OFF OR AS SALE TOWNHOMES. RIGHT? AND THAT'S THE INTENTION, RIGHT? YOU BREAK IT OFF AND THEN YOU SELL IT AND THEN EACH TOWNHOME OWNER OWNS. YOU KNOW. IT'S A CONDO AS OPPOSED TO RENTAL UNITS. AND AT SOME POINT, THE DECISION HASN'T BEEN MADE NOW. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY? RIGHT, DECISIONS CAN BE MADE THAT ONE IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO MAKE A CONDO OR TO KEEP IT AS RENTAL. AND WHAT I'M WONDERING IS WHETHER THAT RECONFIGURATION CAN OCCUR AFTER YOU'VE MADE THAT DECISION AS OPPOSED TO BEFORE. THE RECONFIGURATION FROM ITS CURRENT ALIGNMENT TO THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT? YEAH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT OF THAT. WELL, THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS THAT THAT BEING BROKEN OFF UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP IS, IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE APPROVING NOW. AND THAT IS THE PROJECT AS ENVISIONED. AND THAT THAT ROW OF, OF TOWNHOMES BECOMES IT COULD HAPPEN. IT COULD MAYBE NOT HAPPEN IF, IF IT'S UNDER DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEALING WITH NOT YOU, SOMEONE ELSE IN TERMS OF THAT HAPPENING. RIGHT? [02:30:01] NOW, IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THOSE AND THEN SELL IT [LAUGHTER]. YOU KNOW, THEN IT'S A THEN IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE AND THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF DEMOLISHING THOSE 15 COMPLETED TOWNHOMES AND THEN PUTTING SOMETHING ELSE ON THERE, YOU KNOW, IN SINGAPORE THEY WOULD DO THAT, BUT NOT HERE. IT JUST ISN'T ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. SO WHAT I'M PUTTING FORWARD AS AN IDEA IS THAT ONCE YOU'VE DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE THIS IS GOING TO BE BROKEN OFF AND SOLD AS A CONDO AS A, AS A CONDO, BASICALLY, AS OPPOSED TO THESE BEING DONE AS RENTAL UNITS. ONCE YOU MADE THAT DECISION, THEN COME BACK AND WE'LL RECONFIGURE THOSE PARCELS. OR NOT DESIGN OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING. NO IT DOES. AND AND WE WILL MAKE THAT DECISION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE CONDO AT THE TIME, WE LODGE THE PLANS. YEAH AND AT THAT TIME, AT THAT POINT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, THE IDEA THAT YOU THEN COME BACK TO TO REQUEST THAT. TO REQUEST THAT RE PARCELIZATION IS IF I CAN USE THAT TERM WELL, YEAH IT'S ALREADY SPLIT THEY'RE JUST MOVING THE SPLIT. YEAH PLEASE DO, GO AHEAD DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? ARE THEY SELLING IT OR NOT? YES THANK YOU JOSHUA GOTTHEIM, LAND USE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONER GADDIS' QUESTION OR ADD SOME ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON IT. RIGHT NOW THE UNDER THE FINAL MAP THAT WAS RECORDED. THERE ARE TWO LOTS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST THAT THE DIVIDING LINE IS CURRENTLY I GUESS IT'S EAST WEST OR PROPOSING THAT IT MOVED TO BECOME A NORTH SOUTH LINE AT THE TOWNHOMES. SO THE POTENTIAL FOR SELLING OFF PART OF THE LOT STILL EXISTS WHERE SOMEONE COULD BE SOLD OUT. SOLD THEORETICALLY AS STAFF POINTED OUT. THEY COULD COME BACK WITH ANY NEW ENTITLEMENT PROPOSAL FOR A 10 STORY, 100 STORY. WE DON'T EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN BUT UNLESS THERE'S A STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR SOME RECORDED COVENANT, ANY PROPERTY OWNER IN THE CITY CAN COME IN WITH ANY NEW PROPOSAL. BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE RECONFIGURATION, WHICH, BY THE WAY, COULD BE DONE MINISTERIALLY STAFF CAN CONFIRM. BUT THE RECONFIGURATION OF THAT LOT LINE TO TURN IT FROM EAST WEST TO NORTH SOUTH, THAT COULD BE DONE MINISTERIAL THROUGH A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NOW OF THOSE TWO LOTS, AND THE REASON IT'S BEING DONE NOW IS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AND THE FINANCING. THOSE TOWNHOMES ARE THE MOST VALUABLE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO SELL THEM OFF AS CONDOS OR TO SELL THE PARCEL AS A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS AND APPROVALS. SAME DESIGN, SAME CONDITIONS THAT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND THAT COULD BE SOLD OFF AS AN IMPORTANT PART OF PAYING OFF PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT LOAN FOR THE PROJECT. SO IT'S REALLY A FINANCING MECHANISM TO HAVE THOSE TOWNHOMES SEPARATELY SALEABLE. EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER'S INTENT NECESSARILY. BUT TO HAVE THAT OPTION MAKES THE PROJECT FINANCEABLE. WITHOUT THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A MINISTERIAL LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING IN TWO STEPS RATHER THAN ACCOMPLISH IT TONIGHT. AND ONE LAST QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE COHESIVE NATURE. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS COHESIVE NATURE OF THE PROJECT. IT'S A VERY UNDERSTANDABLE AND LEGITIMATE CONCERN FOR THE COMMISSION. I WOULD JUST CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO CONDITION 44 FROM THE ORIGINAL 2019 APPROVAL RESOLUTION. AND IN THERE THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY COUNCIL. SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS CONDITION 44, WHICH REMAINS [02:35:05] APPLICABLE, REQUIRES THAT THE ENTIRE 30 ACRE GALLERIA REMAIN IN A COHESIVE PLANNING, HAVE COHESIVE SIGNAGE, PLANNING, IDENTITY IN TERMS OF BRANDING, THE GALLERIA AND SO ON. ALL THAT HAS TO BE COHESIVE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS IN THERE ABOUT COORDINATED ARCHITECTURAL STYLES COMPATIBLE AND SO ON. SO I REFER YOU TO THAT SECTION AS WELL THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. IS IT POSSIBLE THEN TO CONDITION THAT THAT THAT WILL STAY TOWNHOMES? SO IT WILL STAY TOWNHOMES UNLESS SOMEONE IN THE FUTURE IF A NEW TYPE OF HOUSING IS DEVELOPED TEN YEARS FROM NOW OR INNERVATED BY THE ARCHITECTS AND WOULD COME IN WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION, BUT IF THERE'S NO NEW APPLICATION, THEN IT WILL STAY TOWNHOMES YES. SO WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING TONIGHT UNLESS UNTIL THERE'S A NEW APPLICATION THOSE WILL BE TOWNHOMES. PER YOUR FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION? CORRECT YES. YEAH WHICH ISN'T THIS IS ALL? ARE YOU FINISHED? SHE FINISHED? I'M DONE. OKAY. SO THIS IS ALL WELL AND GOOD UNTIL PHASE 3 COMES OUT OF THE WOODWORK AND YOU DECIDE TO MAKE THEM ALL TOWNHOMES. YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THE WORD INTENT SO FAR HAS MEANT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO UNTIL YOU SAY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. INTENT MEANS NOTHING TO US BECAUSE YOU'VE USED THAT WORD TO WEASEL OUT OF STUFF. THE DEAL WAS IT STAYS ONE PROPERTY CAN'T BE SOLD OFF IN PIECES. BUT NOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE FINANCING. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS AND THAT. AND WE HAVE INTENT. AND OH, IF SOME NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES ALONG, THEN YES, NO. IF YOU SELL IT, THEN NEW OWNER IS GOING TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH IT. RIGHT. OKAY? AND THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF MAKING THAT PART OF THE DEAL. YOU HAD TO KEEP THE PROPERTY AS ONE OWNER, ONE PROPERTY, ALL 30 ACRES. YOU CAN'T SELL IT OFF IN PIECES. THAT WAS WHAT CAME OUT OF THE THE INSANE NUMBER OF PARCELS THEY WANTED TO BREAK IT UP INTO IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE 31 ONE ACRE PARCELS THAT COULD EASILY BE SOLD OFF TO 30 DIFFERENT OWNERS AND WHAT A NIGHTMARE THAT WOULD BE FOR THE CITY. SO IT'S NICE THAT YOU'VE KIND OF PUT SOME CLARITY ON THIS, BUT IN THE OTHER HAND YOU'VE COVERED YOURSELF FOR. YEAH, YEAH, WE SAY THIS NOW. BUT WAIT TILL PHASE THREE COMES OUT. AND THEN PHASE FOUR. AND THEN PHASE FIVE. WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE UNTIL IT'S WAY TOO LATE. SO WE NEED WE NEED SOME, SOME CONCRETE ASSURANCES THAT INFORMATION WE'RE ASKING FOR IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO ACT ON OR JUST ADMIT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. AND FRANKLY, THIS LOOKS GOOD NOW. BUT WE MAY CHANGE OUR MIND LATER, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS IS WHAT WE PLAN NOW, BUT WE CAN CHANGE OUR MIND WHENEVER WE WANT, AND A NEW OWNER CAN DO IT EVEN MORE SO. RIGHT? YES I THINK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU I THINK MR. MILLER EXPRESSED HIS PERSONAL FRUSTRATION IN NOT BEING ABLE TO DELIVER THE PROJECT YET. BUT IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES, I MEAN, THE WHAT IS PROMISED TO BE DELIVERED IS STILL WHAT WAS PROMISED IN 2019, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADDITION OF THE PHASE TWO. AND AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, THE ADDITION OF THE PHASE TWO WAS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WHERE THE CITY WAS SEARCHING AROUND WHERE CAN WE PUT THE HOUSING THAT HAS BEEN. REQUIRED. DICTATED FROM ABOVE, FROM SACRAMENTO? WE'VE GOT SO MANY THOUSAND UNITS WE HAVE TO DELIVER OVER THE OVER THE PLANNING PERIOD. WHERE IS THAT GOING TO GO? YOU DIDN'T SAY, BUT WE MADE A DEAL ALREADY. SO WHY ARE YOU COMING TO US? WELL, WHY AREN'T YOU? WHY AREN'T YOU GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH YOUR? CHAIR? YEAH. SORRY. GO AHEAD. PLEASE. PLEASE CONTINUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIMITATIONS ON TIME. I DON'T MEAN TO MONOPOLIZE. PLENTY OF TIME. YEAH. THANK YOU. THE THE STATE DICTATED YOU HAVE TO FIND A PLACE FOR SO MANY THOUSAND UNITS ACROSS THE CITY. AND IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE. THERE WAS THE CITY HAD EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF MEETINGS, COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE PLAN REDONDO GROUP AND SO ON THAT MET HUNDREDS OF TIMES, I BELIEVE. AND THE, THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, INCLUDING THIS COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY CAME UP WITH A CONSENSUS. MAYBE THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. MAYBE THIS WAS THE LEAST WORST OPTION, AS COMMISSIONER GADDIS IS, IS IMPLYING THERE MAY BE EFFORTS BY THE COMMISSIONERS TO OPPOSE WHAT'S GOING ON IN SACRAMENTO. [02:40:06] THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DAY. BUT IT WAS DECIDED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ITS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS THAT THE GALLERIA WOULD BE A SITE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 350. IF YOU VIEW THAT AS GOING AGAINST A DEAL THAT WAS MADE IN 2019, I'M SORRY. THERE THERE IS A TYPE OF ZONING CONTRACT, CONTRACTUAL ZONING THAT IN RARE PLACES IS DONE THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY COMMITS TO DO SOMETHING BY A CERTAIN DEADLINE. BUT MOST ZONING IN THE CITY IS HOPEFULLY THAT THE CITY SETS THE RULES IN THIS CASE, THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE ZONING, AND SO ON. AND THEN THE DEVELOPER IS ENTITLED TO COME IN AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE RULES, INCLUDING THE RULES AS OVER SEEN BY SACRAMENTO, THEN WITHIN THE LIMITED DISCRETION ALLOWED TO THE CITY THEY'RE ENTITLED TO BUILD. SO WE DON'T VIEW THIS AS RENEGING ON AN OPPORTUNITY. ON AN AGREEMENT. WE VIEW THIS AS DELIVERING ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT WE UNDERSTAND WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE ON THAT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS. EXCUSE ME. NO, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T NEED TO BERATE PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE COMING TALKING. I MEAN. AFTER THAT SHOW? WELL, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY TIME, BUT THE BEST TIME AT THIS POINT TO EARLIER WE MADE A OPTION TO PERHAPS SPEAK WITH OUR LEGAL EXPERT WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S MANDATED, WHAT'S NOT. IS THAT A GOOD TIME TO MAYBE GO INTO THAT? PUBLIC COMMENT I'M WONDERING IF THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS BEFORE I THINK THEIR COMMENTS WOULD BE, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, BETTER INFORMED, AND I THINK OUR DECISION WILL BE BETTER INFORMED AS WELL AFTER WE HEAR THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE UNDER. AND AGAIN, I JUST I WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE THAT IT'S NOT STAFF BEING INTRANSIGENT. IT'S NOT US BEING A BUNCH OF FOOLS UP HERE. IT'S NOT THE COUNCIL ROLLING OVER. YOU KNOW, TO A DEVELOPER COMING THROUGH, TRYING TO DO THIS, THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS CONSTRAINTS BY LAW FROM THE STATE, AND A BUNCH OF THINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THAT. AND, AND SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT CLEAR. THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF BREAKING OFF A PARCEL AND SELLING IT TO A DIFFERENT PARTY. THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK I THINK IT'D BE BETTER IF THOSE WERE EXPLAINED FIRST. AND THEN AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARS THAT, THEN WE GET THEIR COMMENTS, IF THAT'S OKAY. IF I COULD PROPOSE THAT. IS THERE A MOTION TO DO THAT OR? MOTION TO DO THAT [LAUGHTER]. I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANYONE AGAINST? OKAY GREAT. OKAY. WE HAVE DIANA VERRETT, AND SHE'S FROM OUR OUTSIDE LEGAL FIRM, RICHARDS, WATSON&GERSHON. AND SHE'S A LAND USE ATTORNEY. AND I'VE ASKED HER TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC WITH JUST AN OVERVIEW OF ALL THE VERY RESTRICTIVE HOUSING LAWS THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER. AND SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO HER, AND I THINK JAMAAL WILL UNMUTE HER. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, JUST TO NARROW DOWN, BECAUSE IT IS A WIDE ARRAY OF THINGS, A LOT OF WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. AND WHAT I'M INTERESTED, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN CONVEYING IS WHAT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. THAT WILL THANK YOU CHERYL, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DIANA VERRETT AND I PRACTICE AS AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THIS CITY ON HOUSING AND LAND USE RELATED ISSUES. AS CHERYL MENTIONED, AND AS I THINK THE STAFF HAS SUMMARIZED IN BOTH THE STAFF REPORT AND THEIR PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT IS LIMITED BY A FEW DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW. THE FIRST I'LL MENTION VERY BRIEFLY IS THE PARKING PROVISION. AS YOU KNOW, AB 2097 WAS ADOPTED A FEW YEARS AGO AND PREVENTS LOCAL AGENCIES FROM IMPOSING ANY MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN HALF A MILE OF MAJOR TRANSIT STOPS. SO THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, APPLIES HERE AND IS THE REASON FOR THE CITY'S INABILITY TO IMPOSE ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROJECT. WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING RELATED ISSUES. [02:45:05] THIS PROJECT IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AGREEING TO RESERVE 35 UNITS, WHICH IS 10% OF THE TOTAL UNITS OF THE PROJECT, TO BE RESERVED AS AFFORDABLE FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE REQUIRED PERIOD. UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW THE APPLICANT, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT OF THIS AGREEMENT, RECEIVES A NUMBER OF BENEFITS OR ADVANTAGES. THE FIRST IS AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO PRODUCE DENSITY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BY THE LOCAL CODES. THE SECOND IS IN THIS INSTANCE TO CONCESSIONS OR INCENTIVES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY DEVIATIONS FROM REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. THE THIRD IS RELIEF FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF AB 2097, AND THE FOURTH IS WAIVERS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MIGHT PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE THE PROJECT AT THE DENSITIES AND WITH THE CONCESSIONS PERMITTED BY STATE LAW. SO HERE, BECAUSE THEY ARE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT IS WITHIN THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE DENSITY FOR THE SITE THEY ARE SEEKING FOUR WAIVERS. AND THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT THE APPLICATION OF THOSE FOUR WAIVERS PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE THE PROJECT AT THE DENSITY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. THERE HAS BEEN CASE LAW IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT PUTS THE BURDEN ONTO THE CITY IF IT CHOOSES TO DENY A REQUESTED CONCESSION INCENTIVE OR ANY WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE STANDARDS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF WAIVERS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, ESSENTIALLY THE QUESTION IS CAN THE CITY MAKE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT FINDING ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY? AND THAT TERM IS ACTUALLY A DEFINED TERM WHICH IS MORE STRINGENT THAN EVEN IT SOUNDS, AND ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THAT AN AGENCY FIND THAT THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT, QUANTIFIABLE, DIRECT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVE, IDENTIFIED, WRITTEN PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARDS THAT WERE IN PLACE BEFORE THE PROJECT APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. SO THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF FINDING THAT WE CAN MAKE UNDER GENERAL WELFARE. IT REALLY HAS TO BE BASED ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN PLACE. THE ONLY OTHER TWO REASONS FOR DENIAL FOR A WAIVER ARE IF THE REQUEST WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON A STATE LISTED HISTORIC PROPERTY, OR IF IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. SO THE CITY WOULD NEED TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF ONE OF THOSE THREE THINGS IN ORDER TO DENY THE REQUESTED WAIVERS UNDER DENSITY BONUS LAW. GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO CONSTRUCT THE 10% VERY LOW INCOME UNITS, MAKING THEM ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF DENSITY BONUS LAW. ONCE THEY HAVE OFFERED TO ESSENTIALLY DO THIS, AND ONCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND LOOKED AT THE PROJECT AS COMPARED TO THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ANOTHER PROVISION OF STATE LAW KICKS IN. AND THAT IS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN THAT SECTION, ESSENTIALLY, AS APPLICABLE HERE, IF THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT. AGAIN, THE CITY CAN ONLY DENY IT IF IT MAKES THAT SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT FINDING, AND THE BURDEN IS EXPLICITLY ON THE CITY IN SUPPORTING THAT FINDING. SO, YOU KNOW, IN ADOPTING THESE LAWS AND MAKING THEM MORE PRO HOUSING AND MORE RESTRICTIVE OF LOCAL DISCRETION IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT HAVE COME DOWN HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE INTENT IS TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AND SPECIFICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION OF HOUSING. AND SO THOSE ARE SORT OF THE PARAMETERS IN WHICH THE CITY COMMISSION IS REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS EVENING, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT ANY OTHER SPECIFIC ISSUES. IF THEY'RE THINGS THAT I CAN SPEAK TO. SO I'LL STOP THERE ON THE PRIMER PART [LAUGHTER]. CHERYL, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO JUMP IN ON, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GADDIS. [02:50:03] YEAH SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUCH THINGS AS THE HEIGHT OF 89FT EIGHT STORIES RATHER THAN OUR, YOU KNOW, LIMIT, WHERE 89FT, AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, THE NORMAL WORLD WHERE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, 60FT WAS OUR LIMIT AND EIGHT STORIES PROPOSED WHERE FOUR STORIES WERE, YOU KNOW, IN NORMAL TIMES, OUR LIMIT, THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE, THE LACK OF STORAGE SPACE, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THOSE ARE ALL THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO UNDER LAW? YES THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS YOU JUST DESCRIBED LIKELY FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IN STATE LAW, WHICH REFERS TO SITE OR CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. AND THE CITY CAN'T DENY IT? UNLESS IT MAKES ONE OF THE THREE FINDINGS I DESCRIBED, YES. RIGHT, RIGHT. SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. ISSUES THAT ARE IDENTIFIABLE, PROVABLE OR ANYWAY AND ALSO ISSUE OF SPLITTING OF CREATING A, CREATING A PARCEL WITH THE INTENT THAT IT WOULD BE SOLD OFF AND ALL THAT. THEY JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT? BECAUSE THEY'VE SAID IT MAKES THE PROJECT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, AND IF WE CAN'T DO IT, THEN THE PROJECT ISN'T FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE. OR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE [LAUGHTER] TO PROVE? BUT JUST THE FACT THAT THEY STATE THAT ENTITLES THEM TO DO THIS, RIGHT? I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THE SUBDIVISION ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IN THINKING ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THERE ARE CASES THAT CERTAINLY ADDRESS THE ENTITLEMENTS AND THE SUBDIVISION TOGETHER AS PART OF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK IF THE CITY WERE TO DENY THAT AND IT WOULD MAKE THE PROJECT INFEASIBLE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PUT THE CITY IN A IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFICULT POSITION. WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD AND AGAIN, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING I'VE LOOKED INTO, BUT WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY WAS THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, WOULD EITHER DO THE TENTATIVE TRACK AMENDMENT NOW AS THEY'VE REQUESTED OR COME IN FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MINISTERIALLY SEPARATELY. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH DISCRETION HERE EITHER WAY. BUT THAT'S AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF CHERYL OR STAFF HAS LOOKED INTO THAT FURTHER. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN UP THE MEETING TO PUBLIC COMMENT. SECOND. AYE. AYE. THERE YOU GO VERY GOODBROICH. FIRST SPEAKER IS JENNIFER DODGE. GOOD EVENING. DO I HAVE 1 MINUTE OR 3 MINUTES? 3 MINUTES. 3 OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HELPFUL INFORMATION. I LIVE ON RUXTON LANE, WHICH IS PARALLEL TO KINGSDALE, BUT FURTHER BACK. I'VE BEEN EXCITED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GALLERIA IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND IN FACT I DID ASSIST MR. BOSWELL IN DRAFTING THE APPEAL IN 2019, THAT DID GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO REDONDO BEACH. IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DONE THEN, I WILL SAY THAT JUST WITHIN THE PAST TWO WEEKS, I THINK I HEARD THAT THE GALLERIA SITE HAD BEEN SOLD FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER, AND THIS WAS KENNEDY WILSON WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD THAT THAT WAS THE NEW OWNER, AND JUST WITHIN THE PAST WEEK, HAD I SEEN ANY RENDERINGS OF THIS NEW PROPOSAL. AND WHAT CAUSES ME CONCERN IS THE ADDITIONAL 350 UNITS. I'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE PARAMETERS THAT WERE OUTLINED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL. I'M AN ATTORNEY AS WELL, BUT I DON'T SPECIALIZE IN LAND USE. [02:55:03] BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND TO ME. IT SOUNDS TO ME AS IF THE 350 UNITS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE APPROVED. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT KENNEDY WILSON IS ASKING FOR, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE THE 300 UNITS. THERE WAS GOING TO BE OFFICE SPACE, THERE WAS GOING TO BE A HOTEL THE MIXED USE RETAIL. AND IN TERMS OF THIS PHASE TWO, I'M WONDERING, WAS THERE A SEPARATE EIR THAT WAS DONE FOR PHASE TWO FOR THESE ADDITIONAL 350 UNITS. I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE. AND I WOULD ALSO PREFER TO SAY THAT MOST OF THE MOST OF THE COMMUNITY REDONDO BEACH DOES NOT KNOW THIS IS HAPPENING. PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE THAT THIS PROPOSAL OR THAT THIS THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS BEING INCREASED OR BEING PROPOSED TO BE INCREASED FROM 300 TO 650 UNITS. THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME. AND I THINK I SAW SOMETHING ABOUT COMMUNITY OUTREACH, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. AND I TRY TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS THE THE DENSITY AND THE BEING CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE METRO, THE BUS TERMINAL THAT WAS BUILT AND AS I WAS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GALLERIA WAS IN FAVOR OF HAVING METRO GO DOWN THE MIDDLE OF HAWTHORNE AND HAVE THE STOP THERE. SO IS THAT THE HALF MILE PROXIMITY OR IS IT THE BUS TERMINAL? IT'S ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT MY CONCERN IS REALLY THE THREE EXTRA 350 UNITS. AND I'LL JUST END WITH SAYING THAT I DID LOOK UP AMERICANA. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT THE AMERICANA HAS 242 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOTAL. AND THIS IS THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR 650 WHICH IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE. SO I WOULD JUST URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A SEPARATE EIR FOR THESE ADDITIONAL 350 UNITS, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT ONE I'LL GET IT CORRECTLY, HOLLY OSBORNE, THANK YOU. OKAY YEAH HOLLY OSBORNE, DISTRICT 5 GOOD EVENING AGAIN. I'M GOING TO BE ADJUSTING MY COMMENTS BECAUSE, WELL, FIRST I WANTED TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO PUT OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IN JEOPARDY, BECAUSE I GO TO A LOT OF MEETINGS AND SOMETIMES GROUPS ATTACK CITIES THAT ALREADY HAVE AN APPROVED HOUSING ELEMENT JUST SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN GET MORE HOUSING. THEY THEY GO TO HCD AND THEY SAY TAKE THEIR HOUSING APPROVAL AWAY. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT PUT OURS IN JEOPARDY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD TO WORK REALLY HARD TO GET IT. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT YOUR EXPERT PLANNING ADVICE THAT YOU HAD THEN GAVE THE WRONG ADVICE AND YOU WANT GUYS ENDED UP WASTING A WHOLE LOT OF TIME BASED ON WRONG ADVICE. SO ANYWAY HOUSING ELEMENT IS THE WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR APPROVAL. OKAY, NOW, REGARDING THE GALLERIA, I HAD HEARD REPEATEDLY THAT THE OWNERS WERE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING FINANCING AND THEY WANTED TO SELL IT. AND I GUESS APPARENTLY FUNDING IS EASIER TO GET IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED MIXED USE RETAIL, AND SO THEIR SOLUTION IS TO GET MORE RESIDENTIAL. EVEN THOUGH OUR APPROVAL WAS FOR 300. SO I HAD AN OUT OF THE BOX IDEA, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS SO OUT OF THE BOX ANYMORE. INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL, HOW ABOUT DECREASING THE COMMERCIAL? IF THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT MORE FINANCIAL, IS TO HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL HIGHER THAN THE COMMERCIAL, THEN DECREASE THE COMMERCIAL. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S AS CRAZY AS IT SEEMS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL SITUATION HAS CHANGED. FOR INSTANCE, MACY'S, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE TEARING MACY'S DOWN ANYMORE AND RECONFIGURING IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO KEEP MACY'S THE WAY IT IS. FROM MACY'S TOP MANAGEMENT. THERE ARE NO NO ADJUSTMENTS WERE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF COVID AND STUFF. SO ANYWAY, CAN YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY? IF YOU IF THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST A GAME TO GET YOU UNTIL YOU CAN FINANCE IT, THEN DECREASE THE COMMERCIAL. OTHERWISE, I'M BEGINNING TO FEEL DECEIVED THAT THIS IS ALL JUST TO GET MORE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH YOU SEE EVERYBODY ELSE DOING AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I GOT TO DEAL WITH METRO. I'M TIRED OF DECEPTION. I'M JUST TIRED OF PEOPLE MISLEADING, ESPECIALLY DEVELOPERS. [03:00:06] BUT THANK YOU AND I AM GLAD YOU GOT YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED THANK YOU THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, SUSIE ROYDS. HI EVERYONE MY NAME IS SUSIE ROYDS AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4 AND I AM A KINGSDALE RESIDENT FOR 67 YEARS, ALMOST 67, SO I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGE. THE IN 2019, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THEY WERE INTENDING ON PUTTING 600 APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE. THAT CLEARLY WOULD BE A HUGE IMPACT ON MY QUALITY OF LIFE. IN ADDITION TO THE TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET, I THEREFORE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED A PETITION AND I WAS GIVEN SOME DIRECTION BY STEVEN SAMMARCO AT THE TIME. I RAISED AWARENESS IN DISTRICT 4. I STARTED THOSE GROUPS AND THOSE PEOPLE, WHEN THEY FOUND OUT, RAISED HELL, HONESTLY, BECAUSE 600 MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THE GALLERIA AT THAT TIME, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD BECAUSE THE EGRESS COULD COME AND GO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY MAPS, KINGSDALE AVENUE IS NOT LISTED AS AN AVENUE. TELL ME WHY IT'S A COLLECTOR. IT'S LISTED AS A COLLECTOR ON THE MAPS. SO THAT STREET, PRIMARILY THE AVERAGE RATE OF SPEED DOWN IT IS 40 TO 50 MILES AN HOUR, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GOING TO HIT THAT TARGET LIGHT. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY USE KINGSDALE AVENUE AS A CUT THROUGH TO AVOID HAWTHORNE ARTESIA. THEY ALSO USE IT COMING DOWN GRANT TO AVOID ARTESIA. IT'S NICE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE ARTESIA BOULEVARD A FOCAL POINT. HOWEVER, IN ALL THE TALK ABOUT ARTESIA BLENDING IN WITH THE GALLERIA, THERE'S NO ACCESS TO THE GALLERIA FROM ARTESIA. THERE'S ONLY ACCESS FROM GRANT AVENUE AND KINGSDALE AVENUE. I LOVE THE IDEA OF MAKING IT A DEAD END STREET. HOWEVER, SINCE I PROTESTED TARGET, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE TARGET TRAFFIC. THEY. THEY USE KINGSDALE TO GET TO TARGET. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT FROM 182ND. SO THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE PROBLEM. AND I'M BACK HERE TO SAY THAT IF YOU DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL IMPACT TRAFFIC, SAFETY CONCERNS, ADDING 650 OR 700 RESIDENCES AT THE GALLERIA AT HAWTHORNE ARTESIA, GRANT KINGSDALE MOTION TO EXTEND. YES. CONTINUE YES THERE'S FOUR LANES FROM GRANT TO ARTESIA, BUT I WILL SAY YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. DECADES AGO THE CITY BY EMINENT DOMAIN TOOK 15FT OF MY PROPERTY OFF THE FRONT YARD. SO I'M SAYING, WHY NOT TAKE SOME PROPERTY OFF THE FRONT OF THE GALLERIA? YOU COULD MAKE A BETTER OFFSET FOR ME. THE TRAFFIC OF THE BUSSES HAS TO GET TO ARTESIA. I WISH WE COULD HAVE THE DEAD END STREET LIKE FIRMONA AROUND THE CORNER. BUT IT'S NOT JUST ME. IT'S KINGSDALE, FIRMONA AND CONDON. AND I WAS THERE WHEN THEY BROKE THROUGH UNDER THE RAILROAD TRACKS FOR GRANTS. SO THIS IS MY COMMUNITY. I HAVE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE FOR MY PARENTS WHO BOUGHT IT FROM THEIR GRANDPARENTS, AND IT'S IN A TRUST FOR MY SON. SO I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE THOUGHT TIME. ON THIS AND I'M HERE TO HELP IN ANY WAY FOR SOLUTIONS THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS TOM ROYDS. FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU GUYS I SYMPATHIZE FOR YOU. I REALLY DO, BECAUSE THIS IS A TOUGH, TOUGH THING, AND THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME FROM WHAT I HEAR TONIGHT AND WHAT I'VE SEEN IS EVERYBODY KIND OF WANTS TO BULLY YOU. [03:05:04] EVERYBODY KIND OF WANTS TO PUSH YOU GUYS INTO A CERTAIN DIRECTION. I HEAR GUYS BEHIND ME MAKING VEILED THREATS. I HEAR PEOPLE ON THIS SIDE USING WORDS LIKE REPURPOSE. WHAT DOES REPURPOSE MEANS? MR. BOSWELL, I COULD CALL YOU MS. HAZELTINE. BUT TOMORROW YOU'RE MS. HAZELTINE AND YOU'RE MR. BOSWELL. AND THEY CAN CALL THIS PHASE TWO. BUT IT'S NOT PHASE TWO. IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW PROJECT. OKAY? THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE IMPACT SURVEY THAT THEY DID WHEN I TOOK THE TIME TO READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THING TODAY, I TOOK TWO HOURS TO READ THROUGH THAT ENTIRE THING. IT'S ABOUT AS MADE UP AND COCKED UP AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET. HOW CAN WE HAVE SO MANY F INTERSECTIONS THAT ON THEIR IMPACT SURVEY ARE ALL A INTERSECTIONS AND ALL B INTERSECTIONS? AND I WANT TO SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU. I LIVE ON KINGSDALE AVENUE, AND YOU GUYS PUT THAT BUS TERMINAL DOWN AT THE END. THAT TRAFFIC BACKED UP SEVERELY BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE EXTRA LIGHTS ON THAT STREET NOW. TARGET LIGHT BACKS UP ON THE WEEKENDS. GRANT IS BACKED UP. NOBODY CAN MAKE A TURN OFF OF GRANT. YOU HAVE TO WAIT THREE LIGHTS TO GET THROUGH TO GO THROUGH TARGET BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP SO SERIOUSLY. WHEN I LOOK OVER AT THAT MALL, IT'S DEAD. THERE'S NO ONE THERE. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S NO CARS THERE. DO YOU KNOW WHO THEIR BIGGEST PARKER IS? AUTO DEALERSHIPS. AUTO DEALERSHIPS PARKING CARS THERE. ON THE THIRD FLOOR, THE SECOND FLOOR, ON THE PARKING LOT. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ALL DO? THEY ALL PUT ARMED GUARDS OUT THERE. THEY ALL PUT SECURITY GUARDS OUT THERE TO PROTECT THAT STUFF. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO DO WHEN YOU BRING IN 650 UNITS, 350 OF WHICH ONLY HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT, AND THEY'RE PARKING OUTSIDE. HOW MUCH CRIME DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE TO THAT AREA? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU WANT COMING IN THERE AND BUSTING WINDOWS? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU WANT GETTING HIT UP ON THE STREET AND ROB BECAUSE THAT'S ALL GOING TO FALL RIGHT BACK HERE ON THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S ALL GOING TO FALL BACK ON THE PEOPLE THAT CALLED THESE GUYS UP AND TOLD THESE GUYS THEY COULD ADD ANOTHER 350 UNITS IF THEY WANT. YOU WERE SPOT ON, MR. BOSWELL. WHO CALLED YOU? WHO TOLD YOU TO GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT IN? WE'VE GOT BACKED UP STREETS. WE'VE GOT CRIME, WE'VE GOT DENSITY. THE GRANT ACCESS IS TERRIBLE GOING THROUGH TO THAT THING. FOR YOU TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T ACCESS FROM GRANT AVENUE? THAT WAS JUST INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT MAP AND SAY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE COMING INTO THAT MALL OFF OF GRANT AND KINGSDALE. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT YOU CAN SAY THAT. ANOTHER FACT IS, WHEN YOU SHOW THAT PICTURE, DO YOU MIND PULLING THAT PICTURE UP FOR THE PICTURE OF GRANT? YOU PULLED IT UP FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. CAN YOU PULL IT UP FOR ME? I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PICTURE ON GRANT LOOKING FROM 1827. CAN YOU DO THAT? BECAUSE THAT'S LOOKING LIKE YOU GOT A FIVE LANE STREET. SHOW THE PICTURE. MOTION TO EXTEND. SECOND. CONTINUE. YOU CAN GO BACK ONE IF YOU WANT. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE. BECAUSE I LOOK AT THIS THING LIKE WE ALL RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU. WE ALL CAME OUT AS A GROUP. WE ALL CAME OUT AS A CITY. AND WE ALL DISCUSSED THIS. WE ALL TOOK THIS THING THROUGH THE FIRE AND CAME UP WITH A PROJECT THAT WE COULD ALL AGREE ON. AND JUST BECAUSE THESE GUYS CAN'T GET FINANCING JUST BECAUSE THEIR DREAM DIED. DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET TO DUMP ALL THAT ON THE CITY AND ON THE COMMUNITY. LOOK AT THIS PICTURE. THIS PICTURE SHOWS LIKE A FIVE LANE ROAD. THAT'S INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. THAT'S A THREE LANE STREET. SO IF THEY'RE LYING ON THIS PHOTO, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO LIE TO YOU ABOUT? ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO SELL THIS PROPERTY OFF? ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO PARCEL THIS OUT OR ARE THEY GOING TO SELL IT OFF? IT JUST FEELS TO ME LIKE YOU'VE GOT A MAGIC SHOW GOING ON. MY DADDY USED TO SAY IT WALKS LIKE A DOG AND IT TALKS LIKE A DOG IT'S A DOG. AND IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THESE GUYS ARE DOING SOMETHING WITH THIS HAND, AND WE'RE NOT SEEING WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THIS HAND. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS ALL FEEL IT, AND I KNOW YOU'RE ALL STRAPPED SPEAKERS] YOU'RE. MOTION TO EXTEND BULLY YOU GUYS INTO MAKING ANY DECISIONS THAT AREN'T BEST FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND THE CRIME IS GOING TO GO UP. THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GO UP. ALL OF THE SECURITY FACILITIES THAT ARE GOING FOR ALL THE AMBULANCES THAT ARE DOWN THE STREET. I SIT HERE AND WATCH THOSE THINGS CAN'T EVEN GET DOWN THE STREET ON THE WEEKEND. SO PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING GUYS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT, AT LEAST PUSH IT TO WHERE THESE GUYS HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THERE'S ANY MORE SPEAKER CARDS MR. JAMAAL? WE HAVE ONE E-ATTENDEE ONLINE. OKAY. SOFIA. PLEASE GO AHEAD ONLINE SPEAKER. HELLO? YEAH PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU COULD SPEAK. MY NAME IS SOPHIA PASTA AND I WILL TELL YOU NOTHING BUT [INAUDIBLE] AS NRBBA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBER, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THEIR PROJECT CAN BE SUCCESSFUL. [03:10:05] IT WILL ONLY HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY BY GENERATING NEW TAX REVENUE AND CREATING A NEW DESTINATION IN NORTH REDONDO. ALSO, A SUCCESSFUL GALLERIA PROJECT WILL SPUR MORE NEW INVESTMENT ALONG THE ARTESIA CORRIDOR AND IMPROVE ECONOMIC VITALITY FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. I'M ALSO THE OWNER OF MULTIPLE BUSINESSES IN THE GALLERIA MALL. MY HUGE CONCERN IS THE RECENT NEWS ABOUT THE MALL'S FORECLOSURE. IT'S HAVING A DIRECT IMPACT ON OUR BUSINESSES, PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE MALL'S FUTURE, AND DRIVING DOWN FOOT TRAFFIC AND CUSTOMER CONFIDENCE. WE GET QUESTIONS EVERY DAY. WHICH IS HURTING SALES AND OVERALL STABILITY. LIKE MANY SMALL BUSINESSES IN REDONDO BEACH, WE WERE ALREADY FEELING THE EFFECTS OF CERTAIN ECONOMY AND EVERY BIT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT AS MORE THAN YOU KNOW. THANK YOU FOR STANDING WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES. I AGREE THAT ONLINE SALES HAS AFFECTED A LOT, BUT THERE ARE STILL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO HANG OUT IN THE MALL, COME FOR THE MOVIES OR LAST MINUTE GIFT SHOPPING. WE AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT CITY HAS BEEN PUTTING IN AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND BRINGING POSITIVE CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE MALLS. YOUR VISION IS GIVING LOCAL BUSINESSES RENEWED HOPE FOR A HEALTHIER ECONOMY AND A CHANCE TO THRIVE ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE? THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS ONLINE. ECOMMENTS. ARE THEY ECOMMENTS? DO YOU HAVE A SUMMARY OF OR? WE HAVE 7 ECOMMENTS. 6 ARE IN SUPPORT AND ONE IS NEUTRAL. OKAY VERY GOOD I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, FOR I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PARK. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER GADDIS. THE QUESTION OF THIS FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ISSUE WITH THE PARCEL. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SORT OF ILLUMINATE WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINABLE BY THE CITY? I MEAN, DO. IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ASSUME? IF THEY SAY IT JEOPARDIZES THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT, WE SIMPLY ACCEPT THAT? OR HOW DOES THIS WORK? OUR EXPERT HADN'T BRUSHED UP ON IT, APPARENTLY. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. THEY'RE SAYING THEY NEED TO RE DRAW THE PARCELS AND POSSIBLY SELL OFF THE TOWNHOME PARCEL. AND THEY SAY TO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT OR FOR THEM NOT TO NOT TO BE APPROVED TO DO THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THEIR PROJECT. WELL, THEY HAVE THAT OPTION THEY'RE NOT SAYING THEY WANT TO SELL IT YET RIGHT? SO. AND SO THE QUESTION IS? THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE SIMPLY HAVE TO ACCEPT OR DO WE HAVE TO LIKE DO A FULL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AGAINST THE CURRENT LENDING MARKET, THE CAPITAL MARKETS FOR FUNDING OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND SAY, WELL, ACTUALLY THIS IS A TRIVIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY COMPARED. YOU KNOW, COMPARED, I MEAN, $30 MILLION VERSUS A $900 MILLION PROJECT PROBABLY APPROACHES TRIVIAL. BUT I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IN ORDER FOR THAT NOT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW? SO GOING BACK TO WHAT DIANA VERRETT WAS TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION. YES. AS GROUNDS TO DENY THIS PROJECT. NOT DENY THE PROJECT, JUST TAKE THAT PIECE OUT OF THE RESOLUTION. WHICH PIECE? THAT IT WOULD BE DIVIDED? YEAH. AND YOU'RE ASKING IF WE NEED TO VERIFY THE STATEMENT [03:15:02] BY THE APPLICANT? SO, SO WE ARE PROHIBITED AS A CITY FROM DENYING A PROJECT. IF AN ASPECT WE'VE CHANGED IN THE PROJECT OR ARE NOT ALLOWING THE PROJECT JEOPARDIZES ITS FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S. I THINK THAT IS PART YEAH, I THINK SHE DID SAY THAT, BUT SHE JUST YEAH APPLIES TO THIS. SAYING, WELL, THIS HAS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T LET IT HAPPEN, IT'LL JEOPARDIZE OUR FINANCIAL THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT. AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. I THINK THEY WERE SAYING, LIKE IF WE WERE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING CONDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE PROJECT ITSELF, BECAUSE DOING SO MIGHT MAKE IT UNFEASIBLE, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR US TO DO THAT. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THOUGH UNFEASIBLE. DOES THAT APPLY IN THE SAME CATEGORY TO WHERE WE'RE VIOLATING THE LAW BY PUTTING A CONTAINER? NO THAT'S OKAY OKAY. YEAH. SO DENSITY BONUS LAW SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. AND IT PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM REQUIRING A PRO FORMA IN ANALYZING THAT. SO REALLY, IT'S BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING US. AND WE'RE ACCEPTING THEIR STATEMENTS AS IT PERTAINS TO THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, LIKE THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS REGULATED TO SOME EXTENT BY THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT REFERENCES FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, BUT IT DOES PLACE LIMITATIONS ON THE ABILITY TO MODIFY THE PROJECT AND THE ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENTS, AND IT DOES REFERENCE SUBDIVISION AS ONE OF THE ENTITLEMENTS. I DON'T. YEAH I MEAN. WHERE IF THERE'S A FINANCIAL COMPONENT TO THAT STATUTE, HOWEVER IF THE APPLICANT IS MAKING A CLAIM THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE VIABLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDESIGN IT BASED ON THAT DECISION. THAT THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR MY READ ON IT. YEAH I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. TOUCHING ON FINANCIAL ISSUES. IT BASICALLY LIMITS OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO DENY, MAKE INFEASIBLE OR REDUCE THE DENSITY OF HOUSING TO MAKE INFEASIBLE AND. CORRECT THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP. AND THAT IS WE FEEL AS IF NOT HAVING THAT OPTION WILL MAKE THIS PROJECT INFEASIBLE. I THINK IN TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUESTS AND WE SHOULD ALSO EVALUATE WHETHER IT MEETS THE STANDARDS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD TYPICALLY THE FINDINGS NOT BASED ON THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING ELSE BEING DONE ON THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE TYPICAL PROCESS WOULD BE IF SOMEBODY APPLIES FOR A SUBDIVISION, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MET, AND MAYBE SEAN CAN PUT THOSE ON THE OVERHEAD. AND WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT YES THE FINDINGS, AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN MET. THERE ARE VERY FEW. IT'S MINIMUM LOT SIZE. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. PURSUANT TO THE ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT LOT. SO, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S THOSE HAVE BEEN MET. OKAY THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, IS THE MINISTERIAL PART OF IT, THAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THIS LATER ANYWAY. AND I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHY [LAUGHTER] WHY APPROVE IT NOW IF IT CAN BE JUST DONE LATER? ANYWAY, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION AND I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER OR EVEN WHO TO ASK THAT QUESTION. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INCORRECT. FOR MOST CITIES, IT IS A MINISTERIAL PROCESS. MY UNDERSTANDING IN REDONDO BEACH IT'S A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS. [03:20:06] UNLESS THE ATTORNEY IS REFERRING TO A STATUTE. CHAIR, COULD I JUST ADDRESS FOR 20 SECONDS? PLEASE GO AHEAD THE UNDER THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND GENERALLY THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS MINISTERIAL. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CITY'S. IT'S HERE IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND REDONDO BEACH IT'S NOT MINISTERIAL IT'S VERY IT'S THAT'S VERY UNUSUAL, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A DISCRETIONARY ACTION. YOU CAN HAVE A MINISTERIAL TWO AND THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. NOW I DON'T WANT TO BRING THIS UP, BUT UP TO 15 UNITS A CONDOMINIUM. RIGHT. SUBJECT WILL BE MINISTERIAL. BUT A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, WHICH DOESN'T CREATE ANY NEW PARCELS, IS ACTUALLY STILL A DISCRETIONARY ENTITLEMENT HERE IN REDONDO. THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE, JUST TO WRAP UP THE SUBDIVISION MAP, ALSO IS WHAT CREATES THE OPTIONALITY FOR THE CONDOS, THE FOR SALE PRODUCT. AND THAT IN ITSELF IS NECESSARY FOR THE FEASIBILITY OF THE FINANCING, BECAUSE THE ABILITY TO MARKET AND SELL THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. WHEREAS ON A RENTAL PRODUCT, THE DEVELOPER MAKES BACK THEIR MONEY SLOWLY OVER TIME WITH THE FOR SALE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPER RECOUPS THE MONEY WITHIN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, YOU'RE ABLE TO PAY DOWN YOUR CONSTRUCTION LOAN USING THOSE FOR SALE TOWNHOMES. IT REALLY DOES AFFECT THE FINANCE ABILITY. RIGHT BUT THE NEXT QUESTION IS IF IT'S BROKEN OFF AND SOLD PRIOR TO THE TOWNHOMES BEING BUILT. WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE THERE ACTUALLY BE TOWNHOMES THERE. IS THE ISSUE THAT I'M BRINGING UP. OVER AND OVER WELL, THAT'S WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT WOULD BE FOR THIS PROJECT. SO IF THEY IF THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE OR WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND THAT WOULD BE THE CASE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF THIS PROJECT. OKAY SO THE NEW OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK. WELL, OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. BUT YEAH PROJECT IS GOING TO BE BUILT AS IS. WE CAN'T PLACE A REQUIREMENT IN PERPETUITY THAT PRECLUDES MODIFICATIONS WELL, THAT'S THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] IS THAT THE PROBLEM IS LISTEN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY THREAT THAT HAVING, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE BE CONDOS AND THAT THEY BE OWNED BY INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THE DANGER IS BREAKING OFF A PIECE AND THEN SELLING IT OFF, AND THEN SUDDENLY IT'S IN DIFFERENT HANDS AND IT'S NOT PART OF THE PROJECT ANYMORE. AND THEN IT HAS TO GO BACK FOR APPROVAL. BUT THEN OUR HANDS ARE STILL TIED ON WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THAT. JUST RAISING THE CONCERN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. YEAH BASICALLY, IT COULD COME BACK AS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. YEAH, I DO SAY IT MAKES IT MORE VALUABLE AND EASIER TO SELL AND QUICKER TO RECOUP. BUT I SEE YOUR PROBLEM. OKAY, WHAT IF THEY SERVE FOUR OF THOSE TOWNHOMES TO ONE PERSON WHO THEN MADE A FOUR STORY, FIVE STORY, EIGHT STORY BUILDING SO IT'S COMMENSURATE WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS? WHAT STOPS IT? AND THAT ASSUMES THE TOWNHOMES. AND THEY CAN MAKE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OF THEM AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. WELL, YEAH AND THAT THAT ASSUMES THAT THOSE TOWNHOMES HOMES ARE BUILT AND I KNOW OF A SITUATION IN SINGAPORE WHERE, WHERE THERE WAS A TOWNHOME PROJECT AND EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY IN THEIR TOWNHOMES AND, AND THE WHOLE THING WAS THEN SOLD AND ALL THE TOWNHOMES DEMOLISHED. NOW, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR HERE. THAT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SHOW AS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, IF YOU KNOW, ONCE THIS THING IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEES THAT THE TOWNHOMES ARE BUILT BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE TOWNHOMES. WE DON'T CARE. I THINK I ASSUME WHETHER THEY'RE RENTAL OR IF THEY'RE CONDOS, REALLY. BUT THE QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THIS SUDDENLY BECOME UNHINGED FROM THE REST OF THE PROJECT? WHERE THERE SOME IDEAS? YEAH NO, I JUST WANTED TO ADD JUST LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE COMMISSIONS BENEFIT. THE PARCEL IN QUESTION A LOT TO THAT THAT'S UP ALONG KINGSDALE IS ONLY 22,000FT², SO IT'S HALF AN ACRE ESSENTIALLY, AND THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING WOULD YIELD 15 UNITS. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A DENSITY BONUS COULD OCCUR, ETC. [03:25:03] BUT IT'S GOT A PRETTY LOW DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY POTENTIAL AND THE DENSITY BONUS WOULD ONLY BE AT MAX HALF OF WHAT THE BASE DENSITY ALLOWS. SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE 21 UNITS IF YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU'RE TALKING BETWEEN 15 AND 21, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM 15 TO 50, WHICH THERE ARE DESPITE THE STATE LAWS THERE ARE SOME LIMITS RIGHT NOW THAT THROUGH OUR ZONING CODE, I WILL SAY IF THE CONCERN ABOUT THE HOUSING ELEMENT BECOMING DECERTIFIED AND WE'RE NOT IN THAT POSITION CURRENTLY IS THEN THE CITY IS SUBJECT TO BUILDER'S REMEDY, AND IN THAT CASE, AN APPLICANT COULD APPLY AND JUST COMPLETELY FOR A PROJECT AND COMPLETELY OVERRIDE ZONING AND BASE DENSITY IN THOSE THINGS. SO THAT'S I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE LARGEST CONCERN OF THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND SOMETHING WE'VE TRIED TO AVOID. AND I GUESS THIS IS THE LEAST WORST OPTION [LAUGHTER] IN TERMS OF THE HOUSING REGULATIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? SO I'M NOT CLEAR HOW THAT TURNED OUT. CAN WE OR CAN WE NOT DENY THE ABILITY TO SELL OFF THAT ONE LITTLE PIECE? KIND OF A YES OR NO AT THIS POINT? YEAH. BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD ALL OF THE WE'VE HEARD THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HERE. SO IS IT A YES OR A NO ON THAT? CAN WE OR CAN WE NOT DO THAT. WELL, THE COMMISSION CAN'T LIMIT THE ABILITY TO SELL IT. THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST IS BEFORE YOU. AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO WE HAVE STATE HOUSING LAWS AFFECTING DECISIONS ON THAT. WE ALSO HAVE THE STANDARD FINDINGS, THE CRITERIA WHEN MAKING A DECISION ON IT, WHICH ARE PRETTY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THE COMMISSION HOW TO VOTE [LAUGHTER], BUT I'M JUST INDICATING THE DIRECTION IT'S POINTING. SO IS THAT A YES OR NO? [LAUGHTER] I DON'T I'M HEARING MY RECOMMENDATION I HEAR A LOT OF TALK APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION REQUESTS. BUT DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY NO? YOU DO. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ANY WAY YOU CHOOSE ON THE PROJECT. JUST STILL DANCING AROUND THAT AREN'T YOU? I THINK THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT FINDING THOSE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BECAUSE IT'S INTEGRAL TO. JUST NEARLY CLAIMING THIS IS VITAL FOR THE PROJECT IS ALL, WE HAVE TO JUST ACCEPT THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROBABLY NOT. WELL, YOU DON'T UNLESS YOU COULD MAKE THAT ADVERSE IMPACT FINDING. BUT THEN THE CITY HAS TO LIKE COME UP WITH EVIDENCE AND REPRESENT IT. SO IT'S, A RUNAROUND METHOD OF SAYING, YEAH, YOU CAN BUT YOU CAN'T. DOUG, DOUG I THINK WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF BEATEN THIS IDEA THAT I THINK I STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. CAN I SAY ONE THING ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE VITAL FOR THE PROJECT THAT WHAT I HEAR IS THAT WHATEVER THEY'RE SAYING, IF WE WANT TO SAY NO, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A REASON BURDEN'S ON US. WE HAVE TO PROVE IT, THAT IT'S AN ADVERSE HEALTH, SAFETY TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, THAT'S UNHEALTHY. WE'D HAVE TO HAVE AN AGENCY COME OUT AND SAY A STUDY THAT THIS WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT. HAVE TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO AS WE'VE DECIDED. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I'M HEARING SO FAR THAT WE COULD TALK ALL NIGHT HERE AND NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN SO. YEAH. IS THERE A WAY TO DO THIS? YES. FORWARD I HAVE SOME IDEAS. LET'S HEAR YOU. LET'S HEAR THEM. OKAY NUMBER 15 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE RESOLUTION. AND OF COURSE, WE'RE ON MY FAVORITE TOPIC IS THAT CONDITION 16? I'M SORRY. 15 IN THE RESOLUTION. COULD I GET THIS CUED UP AND I CAN. I'VE GOT A WORD VERSION ON THE. THERE WE GO THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE CANOPY HERE UP HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK WE EVEN HAD A WHOLE TOPIC OR A WHOLE DISCUSSION JUST ON THE CITY OF CANOPY. CAN WE TAKE OUT THAT WHERE FEASIBLE? THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE A HUGE LOOPHOLE RIGHT THERE [LAUGHTER]. WE NEED TO MAXIMIZE WHICH WHICH CONDITION IS IT? THE LAST OH 15. THE NEW RESOLUTION. NO I'M NOT. OKAY PAGE 86. [03:30:06] WHICH WHICH NUMBER ON THE. IS THIS IT? YEAH YOU'RE SHOWING IT THERE. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. LAST SENTENCE 15 WHERE IT SAYS WHERE FEASIBLE. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO MAXIMIZE CANOPY COVERAGE AND SHADING PROVIDED BY PLANTS AND TREES WHERE FEASIBLE SOUNDS LIKE A HUGE HOLE [LAUGHTER]. SO CAN WE TAKE THAT WHERE FEASIBLE OUT? HERE'S THE WORD INTENT [LAUGHTER] YEAH SORRY. I WAS LOOKING FOR PRETTY WELL YEAH. ARE THERE SOME STANDARDS OF CANOPY THAT? WHAT DID WE DECIDE ON? WE HAD A TREE CANOPY, BUT. SO WE COULD SAY THAT. WHAT WAS THE TREE CANOPY? WHO REMEMBERS THE PERCENTAGE? OH FROM THE PAST WE BASED ON THE PASADENA MODEL WELL, IT WAS 20 OR 25 I DON'T KNOW THIS IS A HUGE PIECE OF PROPERTY. RIGHT? AND IT'S GOING IT'S A PARKING LOT. SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, THIS ISN'T GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ECONOMICALLY WHETHER THIS COMPANY CAN DO THIS. THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN. THESE ARE ALL SMALL CHANGES. BUT THEY'RE REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY, THIS COMMISSION AND IMPORTANT TO THIS CITY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT TREE CANOPY. AND WE DID COME UP WITH A PERCENTAGE AND DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S MEASURED ON THAT. I THINK WE'RE AT 30% I THINK OKAY, I'M GETTING A HEAD SHAKE. YEAH. SO IN THAT PARAGRAPH CAN WE PUT INSTEAD OF WHERE FEASIBLE, WE'LL PUT A 30% TREE CANOPY. SO THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO ACHIEVE A 30% SPEAKERS] A MINIMUM OF 30%? WE SHOULD PROBABLY STATE MATURE TREE CANOPY BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO. YEAH. OH, YEAH GOOD POINT. OKAY NUMBER 17. SO AGAIN, IMPORTANT TO THIS CITY OR THIS COMMISSION IS THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS BE DISPERSED OUT, THAT THEY LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. SO THE OTHER THING THAT WAS MENTIONED UP HERE WAS THAT THE OUTDOOR SPACES. THAT THEY GET SOME OF THOSE BALCONIES OR WHATEVER THEY ARE. SO IS THERE A WAY TO WRITE IN THERE THAT LET'S SAY THAT THEIR THE PERCENTAGE OF BALCONIES IS 30% AT 100. SO IT'S 66% OF THE PLACES HAVE BALCONIES, 100 AND SOME DON'T SO PROPORTIONAL. THAT WOULD BE PROPORTIONAL OUT TO THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. SHALL NOT DIFFER IN SIZE AND AMENITIES FROM OTHER UNITS AND DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDE A PROPORTIONAL AND INCLUDE. YEAH SO THAT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE NO BALCONIES NUMBER OF UNITS WITH PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. DEVELOPMENT. DO YOU SEE THAT? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR MORE? OH, I'VE GOT ANOTHER I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE DONE. OKAY I'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE FOR YOU. SO LANDSCAPING IS TO INCLUDE NATURAL CALIFORNIA NATIVE. SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO WRITE INTO THIS GUARANTEE THAT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE LEGADO [LAUGHTER]. THEY HAVE PUT IN DESERT SCAPE AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF ANY OF THIS. SO WHEN WE SAY NATIVE CALIFORNIAN, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T END UP DESERT SCAPE LIKE THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN TO LEGADO LATELY. WE'VE MADE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CHANGES THERE, BASED ON A MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS BY MYSELF AND OKAY I HAVEN'T SEEN IT ABOUT MAYBE THREE WEEKS A MONTH. THEY HAD A LOT OF SAND AND A LOT OF SUCCULENTS. YEAH YOU KNOW, ALMOST ALL THE CACTUS ARE OUT OF THERE. [03:35:03] THERE'S. AND ALL THE AGAVE ARE OUT OF THERE. YEAH WE REALLY. OKAY, SO THAT'S WE KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN CORRECT WE HAVE AND THEY HAVE THEIR PLANT PALATE DOESN'T INCLUDE A LOT OF YOU KNOW OR ANY DOES IT CACTUS. I YEAH, IT WAS [LAUGHTER] SHOCKING. IT WAS YEAH. YOU GUYS DO SOME REALLY GREAT RENDERINGS, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND YOU'RE GOING. YEAH, YOU'RE THESE PEOPLE COMING DOWN THE ESCALATOR. THEY'RE ALL HAPPY AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING. AND THEN I'M LIKE, WHAT HAPPENED? [LAUGHTER] IT WAS PRETTY SPARSE. YEAH OKAY, SO NOW I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP WITH THIS ONE. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BERMS AND THE SWALE AND THE CAPTURING OF WATER. IS THIS A NEW ONE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO CREATE OR IS THIS? WELL, NO THEY HAVE SO THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO LANDSCAPE WITH BERMS AND SWALES RIGHT? SO THAT'LL BE CAPTURING SOME WATER. OKAY SO HOW DID I, I PUT THIS. HOLD ON I GOTTA FIGURE OUT WHERE I PUT THIS THE USE OF REAL INTELLIGENT ARTIFICIAL 88 AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE DRAINAGE THAT WATER GOING INTO THE DRAIN SYSTEM DURING STORMWATER. HOW HOW DO WE CAPTURE ALL OF THE WATER? SO I GUESS THAT'S UNDER NUMBER 25, MAYBE WHERE WE START TALKING ABOUT WATER CAPTURING. THIS IS LIKE ABOVE MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT I MEAN, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN OUR. IN NEW PROJECTS IN CITIES ALL [LAUGHTER] AROUND THE STATE CAPTURING ALL WATER ON THAT PROPERTY. AND THEN SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STUFF GOING INTO WATER, GOING INTO STORM DRAINS, THAT SEEMS LIKE A MIXED MESSAGE HERE SO. SO YEAH THAT'S OKAY YEAH, IT'S PRETTY TECHNICAL. IT'S THE SO THERE WOULD BE ONLY ON SITE RETENTION FOR WHATEVER WHATEVER RAINFALL HITS THE SITE ABOVE A 25 YEAR STORM. AND THEN THAT IS THAT IS RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY. SO 25 STORM DESIGN SYSTEM AND UNDER IS JUST OFF TO THE STORM DRAIN. OKAY SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF WATER GOING OUT TO THE GUTTER? WELL WE WE'D HAVE YOUR YOU WOULD HAVE THE EVERYTHING BELOW A 25 YEAR STORM EVENT IN TERMS OF THE FLOW GENERATED FROM THE SITE WOULD JUST GO OFF THE SITE. IT WOULDN'T BE RETAINED THE OVERFLOW WOULD GO INTO THE STORM DRAIN. IF THE VOLUMES OF WATER BECOME EXCESSIVE DURING A MAJOR STORM IN THE PROPERTY? YES. OKAY. OKAY [LAUGHTER] I WISH I WAS A WATER ENGINEER BECAUSE IT'S COMPLICATED AND I'M TRYING TO GET THE ON SITE CAPTURE HERE. OKAY. OKAY UP TO 169 TREES. I THAT COULD BE 25 [LAUGHTER]. OKAY? WHERE'S THAT ONE? WHERE IT IS. IN THE LANDSCAPE. OH SHOOT THAT ONE I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN THE NUMBER IT'S WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT IN THE RESOLUTION ABOUT HAVING THE LANDSCAPE UP TO 169 113 SMALLER TREES OR PLANTS AROUND OH 169 REPLACEMENT TREES? YEAH. THERE LET ME. YEAH. SO UP TO I MEAN, IT COULD BE FIVE, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, THAT NEEDS TO BE WORDED DIFFERENTLY. DO YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE THAT IS IN THE RESOLUTION? YEAH 169 YEAH IT'S NOT COMING UP. LET'S SEE YEAH. HOW ABOUT TREES? YEAH, I'M SEARCHING ON TREES. LOTS OF IN THE NEW RESOLUTION, IT'S IN 15 AND THEN 169 IS GOING UP, AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT IT. 15. 15 IS WHERE IT IS. YEAH, THERE IT IS. OKAY. CONDITION 15. ARE YOU IN THE NEW RESOLUTION? OH, IT'S 130 SMALL [03:40:02] 21 OF THE NEW RESOLUTION. I CAN'T I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP AND THEN I'LL GET YEAH, IT'S ON THE PAPER. THE PAPER, THE PAPER ONE PAGE 21. SO IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE IT SO IT'S NOT UP TO YOU KNOW, THAT THAT LITERALLY SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE MUCH LESS THAN THAT. SO WE JUST YEAH JUST START WITH 130. WELL, JUST 169 NOT UP. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY I'M LOOKING AT I'M LOOKING AT CONDITION 15 WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? YEAH IT'S 15 YEAH, I JUST FOUND THE RIGHT NUMBER. SO LET'S SEE. HERE WE GO. OKAY HERE. THERE WE GO. OKAY YEAH. THAT'S 21 OKAY. I KNOW I THINK I SAID 169. YEAH, I SAW THAT ON THE PLAN THE PLAN SAY 169. RIGHT? 169 TOTAL, 39 ARE REQUIRED TO BE SWAPPED OUT FOR THE EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED OH, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY, SO THAT'S A 39 PLUS 130 OKAY YES YEAH AND THEN UP TO. OH, RIGHT. SO 39 REPLACEMENT TREES ARE LARGER AND THEN UP TO, YOU KNOW TO GET TO THE 169 WE'RE DOING 130 MORE SMALLER TREES. YEAH MAYBE JUST STAY AT A MINIMUM OF 130. YEAH SMALLER TREES. YEAH. AT MINIMUM MINIMUM OF 130 SMALLER TREES. [LAUGHTER] MINI TREES. I THINK THEY CALL IT GRASS BONSAI YOU KNOW, LIKE. OKAY THE LAST THING, BUT SO WHEREVER THERE WOULD BE A HARD SURFACES THAT THEY'D BE PERMEABLE HARD SURFACES WE'VE GOT BRICKS INSTEAD OF CEMENT OR ASPHALT OR WHATEVER, SO THAT THE WATER THEN GOES BETWEEN THE BRICKS SO IS THERE A WAY TO PUT THAT IN THERE? I IT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TERRACES AND ROOFTOPS. GARAGES, UNDERGROUND GARAGES. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE IN THE COURTYARD. SO WE TALKED ABOUT HARDSCAPE. THE COURTYARD IS ACTUALLY ON TOP OF THE PARKING GARAGE. YES WE CAN'T DO THAT. OKAY THAT WILL BE WHERE WE PUT WHERE FEASIBLE. I'M SURE IT'S BEEN DONE. THAT'S ACTUALLY I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YEAH, WELL, IF IT'S PERMEABLE YEAH WHERE IS? THE WATER ON THE GROUND FROM THE WATER THAT'S RIGHT OH, YOU DID DIDN'T YOU GINSBURG BUILDING LET'S SEE AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING UNDER IT. YEAH YEAH WHERE FEASIBLE [LAUGHTER]. WELL, FEASIBLE IF THAT WORKS. YEAH, MAYBE. CONDITION 33, THE LAST SENTENCE. IT'S TALKING ABOUT TREES AND LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND IT SAYS IMPERVIOUS ALTHOUGH BUT WE COULD PROBABLY ADD THAT TO THE LANDSCAPING CONDITION. THAT'S GOOD. WHERE FEASIBLE [LAUGHTER] ANY PART ADJACENT SHOULD BE PERMEABLE. YEAH. SO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SHALL BE MINIMIZED TO REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF. WE CAN JUST USE THE SAME LANGUAGE. YEAH, I DO SEE ADDING WHERE FEASIBLE THERE IT MAKES SENSE. [03:45:04] OKAY YEAH, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. NO YOU'RE RIGHT. WHERE GOT TO BALANCE OUT THE YEAH. WHERE FEASIBLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SHOULD BE MINIMIZED TO REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN YOU. BY LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS, YOU GUYS REALLY SEEM TO HAVE GREEN ROOFS WITHOUT ACTUALLY GREEN ROOFS. SO LOTS OF PLANTINGS, PLANTING ON THE BALCONIES AND THE ROOFTOPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND? OKAY. AND IS THAT IN THE RESOLUTION SOMEWHERE? [LAUGHTER] IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET. I MEAN, I HATE TO BE LIKE THIS, BUT DRAWINGS LOOK GORGEOUS. AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE DONE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOK LIKE THAT [LAUGHTER]. AND I THINK IF WE CAN GET IT IN WRITING, THEN WE'RE WE'RE AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE IT'S GOING TO. SO THE DECKS, THE, YOU KNOW, THE ROOFTOPS WHERE WE ARE SEEING TREES, HOW DO WE GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE TREES THERE? YOU'RE APPROVING THOSE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLANS THAT SHOW THAT. OKAY. SO THAT'S PART OF THE APPROVAL TONIGHT. OKAY, OKAY. AND THEN WE FOLLOW UP AND LEGADO WENT ASTRAY. [LAUGHTER] BUT WE WE DID NOT ALLOW THEM TO DEVIATE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING AN ASSESSMENT THAT IT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMED. AND WE WE HAD THEM CHANGED. OKAY GOOD. OVER 100 PLANTS OUT. EXCELLENT. SO I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT I OR IS I HAVE SOMETHING SOMEWHAT RELATED YES, COMMISSIONER, HAZELTINE SAID BUT PRIOR TO AGAIN, ON THE SAME FRONT, PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE FOR THE UPPER FLOORS FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE ELEVATION, THE UNITS OF TOWNHOMES ON KINGSDALE. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS ISSUANCE FOR THE UPPER FLOORS THERE, THE. FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT FINAL PLANS MAINTAIN THE KINGSDALE SETBACKS, HEIGHT TRANSITIONS, SCREENING AND PRIVACY MEASURES? MEASURES SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS? THAT'S REQUIRED ALREADY. I MEAN, IT'S IT HAS TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THESE WITH THESE PLANS IN TERMS OF HEIGHT SETBACKS. WE HAVE VERY LITTLE ATTITUDE TO DEVIATE FROM THAT. FROM WHAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS, IS THE PLANS THAT ILLUSTRATES. OKAY BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT IT'S CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, RIGHT? SO LIKE WE SAID, IT LOOKS GREAT IN THE IN THE DRAWING. YEAH. BUT A LOT CAN HAPPEN NOT JUST IN THE LANDSCAPING BUT ALSO THE ARCHITECTURE. AND SO WE WANT TO KEEP THE PROMISE THAT WE'RE MAKING TO THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSDALE THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, IF IT GOES BEYOND SOMETHING THAT AND AND WE WOULD BE BRINGING IT BACK TO THIS BODY. IF SO, IT'S GOT TO BE THE THRESHOLD WE OR THE TERM WILL USE AS LIKE OR BETTER IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THAT, THEN IT'D BE COMING BACK HERE TO GO BEFORE THIS BODY AGAIN. OKAY. ANY OTHER? PROBLEM WITH THIS IT SAYS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO HAVE CERTAINTY IN THE PRECISE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, THE DESIGN REVIEW GRANTED HEREIN IS FOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL ONLY. THE FINAL BUILDING SHALL DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. VARIATIONS FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY BE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITHOUT FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, PROVIDED THAT THE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN IS EQUAL TO OR SUPERIOR TO WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THE CONCEPTUAL PACKAGE. [03:50:02] SO THAT'S CONDITION NUMBER 43. I FORGOT I WROTE THAT [LAUGHTER]. YEAH. CHAIR, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION YEAH CAN WE GO BACK TO NUMBER 17, PLEASE? AND CAN YOU PULL UP FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT ARE ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS? THAT'S ON PAGE LET'S SEE NO. THAT WAS IT OH, THERE IT IS OKAY. OKAY USING THE WORD PROPORTIONAL. CAN WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ALSO INCLUDE THAT THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT ARE STUDIOS, ONE BED AND TWO BED ARE PROPORTIONALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS? STUDIO ONE LET'S SEE, LET'S SEE SO THAT THEY WANT THERE TO ALL BE ONE BEDROOMS ARE YOU THINKING FOR THE RECORD, I LIVE IN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT HOME THAT WE PURCHASED. AND WHILE THIS LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN IS HOW OUR BUILDER BUILT, THE THREE UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE 30% SMALLER AND SHOVED IN THE BACK CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND NOT A THING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. WHAT YEAR WAS IT? THE WE BOUGHT IN 2009. YEAH WHEN WERE THEY BUILT? CONDITION 17. 17? OKAY. SO, YEAH, IT SEEMS THE CONDITION 17 ADDRESSES THAT DOESN'T GO AS FAR TO SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OR EQUITY IN BEDROOMS, BUT IT DOES STATE SIZE. BUT I COULD SEE THAT THEY DO ONE TWO BEDROOM AND TWO ONE BEDROOMS AND MORE AND WAY MORE STUDIOS. WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE INTENT OF HOW IT'S WRITTEN, BUT IT'S HOW I HAVE SEEN IT PLAYED OUT. I THOUGHT THEY SAID THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE STUDIO OR ONE BEDROOM. ALL 35. MUST BE A ONE YEAH, OKAY. IT'S PROPORTIONATELY OKAY TO DISTRIBUTE THE 35 PROPORTIONALLY AMONG THE THREE TYPES BASED ON HOW MANY? 33% SO PROPORTIONALLY THERE ARE WAY MORE STUDIOS THAT ARE IN THE IN THE BUILD IN THE CONSTRUCTION. SO PROPORTIONALLY THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE STUDIOS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE UNITS. BUT I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE LIKE 80% OR 90% STUDIOS AND THEN THE REST LIKE A COUPLE ONE BEDROOMS AND A AND A TWO BEDROOM. ARE YOU OKAY? TEN STUDIOS, TEN ONE BEDROOMS, TEN TWO BEDROOMS. THEN TAKING THEN DIVIDING EACH 10% BEDROOMS AND MULTIPLY THAT BY THE. SO RIGHT. YEAH CORRECT. THE SAME THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS RIGHT I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU FIGHTING BETWEEN AND THAT'S ONE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDROOMS IN THE SAME RATIO AS THE NON-AFFORDABLE YOU'VE GOT IT? OKAY. YES. SO YOU'RE YEAH ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE TO IS GOING TO BE AROUND OKAY BUT BASICALLY YOU WOULD HAVE A PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT OF STUDIOS, ONE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDROOMS THAT COMPARE TO THE RATIOS OF NON AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. [03:55:02] AND THAT'S WHAT SEAN'S GOING TO WRITE SO THE AVERAGE FAMILY I DON'T KNOW BUT WE'RE GOING TO. YEAH THEY USUALLY ROUND DOWN BUT THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO WRITE IT. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE ROUNDING DOWN FOR THE LARGER UNITS I CAN BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO HAVE THEY JUST ADD ANOTHER STUDIO INSTEAD RIGHT. BUT I WOULD SPECIFY STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'RE INCLUDING TOWNHOMES IN THERE NO THEY'RE NOT INCLUDING I KNOW THE TOWNHOMES ARE ANOTHER WAY TO SAY THAT WOULD BE THE UNIT MIX OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD MATCH THE UNIT MIX OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. I LIKE THAT. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S BETTER. IT'S RESTRICTED TO THOSE BUT IT'S ONLY YEAH. THE RENTAL UNITS WILL BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE OVERALL MIX OF UNITS IN THE PROJECT EXCEPT THE TOWNHOMES OF THE UNITS WELL, I MEAN, AS WRITTEN. THE TOWNHOMES COULD BE RENTED, CORRECT? IT'S JUST IT'S VERY CLEAR. OKAY. UNIT MAKES AND THEN YEAH. WHERE'S OUR NO CACTUS RULES? CAN WE APPLY THAT? CAN YOU DRIVE BY THAT I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I WAS AT THE STOPLIGHT, I WENT, OH, I THINK SOMETHING WITH NO CHARACTERS IN HERE. SO THAT WORK DIRECTORY HAS A LOT OF DIRECT TRAFFIC. PLANNING MANAGER SO DOES THIS LITTLE GARDEN. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE, YOU KNOW. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE SAME? YEAH. YEAH. ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. IT'S TRUE. THOSE LITTLE ELSE KIND OF BLUES. LIKE BLUEBERRIES. THE SAME RATIO MARC, CAN YOU HELP? SHE'S THREATENING I KNOW THE TEAM IS BACK TOGETHER. OH, YEAH. I SET THE STAGE. I SAID, GUESS WHO'S HERE TO BE THE SAME OVERALL? I KNOW ALL THREE OF US ARE HERE FOR THE 500 PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP TO SUPPORT IT. HOW DOES THAT WORK CHERYL? SITTING AT HOME IN THE UNIT MIX OF THE AFFORDABLE MIX 1.50. THIS IS MORE THAN 500FT. I KNOW, YOU KNOW, 500FT IN MY HOUSE. WE CHECKED IN UNIT TYPE CLOSE, [LAUGHTER] BUT IT'S A GROUP. CHECKED. YEAH. BUT THIS WILL BE MY BEDROOM WINDOW VIEW [LAUGHTER]. OKAY. RIGHT, RIGHT. 350. RIGHT? SO WE HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL OF SIX STORY OR EIGHT STORY ROW OF BUILDINGS WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SUNLIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF KINGSDALE UNTIL NOON RIGHT. AND IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THAT WAY, THE MAJORITY OF THEM. WHY IS IT DOING THAT? I WANTED TO DO YOU HAVE A NEED? BUT IT'S PER HOUSING UNIT. GET RID OF THAT PER. IT'S PER DAY I LIVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF INGLEWOOD [LAUGHTER]. YOU KNOW, THE TRACKS MAKE I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT, BUT IT'S THE WRONG SIDE OF NUMBER 115 OF THIS YEAR THIS CALENDAR YEAR WHEN WE GOT ALL OUR HOUSING ELEMENT IS THE LOOKING AT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO FIT I THINK IT WAS THIS LITTLE EMPLACEMENT OR WHATEVER BUT THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS SO IT INTERFERES WITH THIS HAIR FOLLICLES [04:00:07] YOU HAVE TO PUT IN SO MANY UNITS RIGHT YEAH SO SO THIS IS FROM THEIR REPORT FOR AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WORK AUDIBILITY VERY LOW RATE OF MODERATE YEAH OKAY. THEY SHOULD JUST REPLACE THIS WITH HOUSING TYPING STUFF UP. AND WE'RE PARTNERING WITH NON AFFORDABLE AIRLINES OVER HERE NO 192 OR NO YEAH SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOING TO BE THE RATIO THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE THAT HOUSING ELEMENT SO THEN RIGHT OKAY BUT THEN YOU COULD WRITE TOTAL OR TOTAL NON AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL NO NO TOTAL YEAH TOTAL NON OKAY SO IT DOESN'T GO ALL MIXED UP TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS GREAT YEAH NO I GOT I SEE ALL THAT BUT THEN ONE STUDIOS, ONE BEDROOM PROJECT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT WORKS ALL OVER THE PLACE PIE SHOP. I GOT YEAH IT'S SATISFYING OUR HOUSE OVER THE HOUSING ELEMENT KEEPS US FROM BUILDING A REMEDY OKAY THANK YOU. WELL, HEY, WE'RE DONE NOW I THINK WE'RE BACK ON TRACK I THINK WE ARE. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE CAUGHT UP NOW SPEAKERS] OKAY. IT READS THE UNIT MIX OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS STUDIOS, ONE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDROOMS WILL BE THE SAME RATIO AS THE OVERALL MIX OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPES STUDIOS, ONE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDROOMS IN THE PROJECT. WONDERFUL OKAY NO? OKAY [LAUGHTER]. I THINK WE HAVE. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED JOSHUA TREES? [LAUGHTER] RUMOR HAS IT ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY. SO WE DO NOW CUT UP UNDER COVER WHILE WE'RE AT IT, ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YOU KNOW? WE NEVER CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT. YEAH, WE NEVER DID. NO, WE HAVEN'T CLOSED. OKAY, SO THE MOTION TO. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFORDABILITY MIX, THAT NEW PROVISION THAT WE JUST INCLUDED. THE APPLICANT WAS AGREEABLE TO THAT. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. OKAY THANK CAN I CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT OR? PUBLIC HEARING. MAY A MOTION TO A AYE. MOTION CARRIES IT'S CLOSED YEAH IF ANY MORE DELIBERATION, I THINK WE DELIBERATED [LAUGHTER]. I FEEL DELIBERATED. I DID DELIBERATE, INDEED OKAY, I HAVE TO TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY, THOUGH [LAUGHTER]. HAS ANYBODY WATCHED HACKS ON HBO? OKAY. THE WHOLE TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, I'M IMAGINING BECAUSE SHE MOVES INTO A MALL. IT'S SO FUNNY. THAT'S THE MAIN ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTER MOVES INTO THE MALL BECAUSE THERE'S HOUSING UNITS IN THE MALL. SO OF COURSE SHE'S SHOPPING, SHE'S GETTING HER HAIRCUT. SHE'S IT'S KIND OF CUTE THAT'S ALL WE'VE DONE [LAUGHTER]. GIVE ME AN IDEA WATCH HACKS IT'S REALLY GOOD. I HAVEN'T SEEN SEASON FOUR I TAKE IT THAT SINCE SEASON FOUR. IT'S REALLY GOOD. OKAY. YEAH. SHOULD WE ADD ANYTHING TO THE RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE UNBUNDLING OF THE PARKING SPACES OR ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT THEY MENTIONED ROUGHLY 40% OF THE SPACES HAVE EV CAPABILITY. IS THAT ALREADY IN THE RESOLUTION? SHOULD IT BE? I THINK THAT'S A BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FOR THE NUMBER OF EV. THAT'S A CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT. THE OTHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT OVERFLOW? THE UNBUNDLING WHERE THE PARKING LOT OR THE PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIT. I ONLY BRING IT UP BECAUSE IF NOT UNBUNDLED, THERE COULD BE SCENARIOS. [04:05:06] THERE COULD BE SCENARIOS WHERE SOMEBODY HAS A SPACE, THEY HAVE A PARKING SPOT, A SIGN THEY DON'T HAVE A VEHICLE. AND ANOTHER RESIDENT HAS A UNIT. THEY'RE ASSIGNED ONE SPACE AND THEY HAVE TWO VEHICLES. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT MORE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET WHILE THERE'S EMPTY PARKING SPACES IN THE DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT. RESONANCE OF THE I DID CRAFT A CONDITION THAT DEALT WITH THE DISCUSSION WHEN IT WAS A CONCERN FOR OFFSITE PARKING. COULD THE RESIDENTS PARK IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA? AND IT READS, RESIDENTS OF THE PHASE TWO PROJECT WILL BE ALLOWED TO PARK IN FUTURE COMMERCIAL REPLACEMENT PARKING SPACES. WHICH IS THAT BUT. IT'S NOT IN THERE BUT I JUST HAD WRITTEN IT DOWN WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT. OKAY. AND I THINK IT WOULD. YOU THINK IT WOULD COVER THE CONCERN? IT COULD BE A STANDALONE CONDITION. THAT WOULD MESS WITH THINGS, WOULDN'T IT? OKAY, WE'RE A TEAM SO IT COULD JUST BE CONDITION 51. YEP. IS THERE? RESIDENTS OF THE FUTURE PHASE TWO PARK? PHASE TWO PROJECT? ONLY THE REPLACEMENT PARKING SPACES? I WOULD TAKE OUT FUTURE AND REPLACEMENT. PARKING THE COMMERCIAL PARKING OKAY YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. YEAH COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES YOU CAN TAKE YOUR REPLACEMENT OUT. YEAH THAT IS REPLACEMENT HOW'S THAT? DOES IT STILL COVER IT, THOUGH? BECAUSE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES AT THE FINISHED DEVELOPMENT. IT'S A MALL [LAUGHTER]. NO, THERE IS ACTUALLY FOR THE MALL. FOR THE COMMERCIAL. OH, YEAH I THOUGHT, WITH THE HOUSING PORTION OF IT THAT COMMERCIAL PARKING COULD THEORETICALLY BE AT ZERO, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. WELL, IF IT IS, THEN IT REALLY [LAUGHTER]. YEAH. OH, IT'S [LAUGHTER] THREE OUT OF MY CONTROL. WHO NEEDS PARKING? EVERYONE'S TAKING THE TRANSIT. I LIKE IT YOU DON'T NEED A CAR YEAH, THAT'S ALL RIGHT SO THEY'RE SAYING WITHIN PHASE TWO COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES PHASE TWO? ARE NOT IN COMMERCIAL SPACE, SO IT'S LIMITING THEM THE ISSUE THAT I'M TRYING TO RESOLVE IS THAT WE'RE NOT ADDING ANOTHER 200 CARS OR, YOU KNOW, 100 CARS, 100, 200 CARS TO THE SURROUNDING STREETS. AND SO IF THIS WILL MEET THAT NEED AND THEN I'M FINE. YEAH OH, THEY CAN'T GO IN THE COMMERCIAL. THEY'VE GOT TO GO OFF SITE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO. YOU KNOW CONDITION NUMBER 2 TALKS ABOUT ALL THE PARKING. OH DOES IT? WHICH ONE? CONDITION 2 TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING. SO MAYBE WE COULD ADD IT TO THAT? OH, YEAH. [04:10:05] WELL, YEAH. I MEAN, IT TALKS ABOUT SORRY, SEAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PHASE TWO COMMERCIAL PHASE TWO. I THINK IT'S BASICALLY EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESIDENTS. IT'S THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE IN THAT BUILDING. YEAH, THEY'RE COMMITMENT TO THE 495 THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO THAT NUMBER COULD BE ZERO. RIGHT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING. YEAH RIGHT, RIGHT. I THINK I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS OPEN TO THE IDEA OF NOT OF NOT TYING UNITS TO BUT CONTAINED WITHIN THIS BUILDING YEAH. MAYBE. MAYBE STANDALONE. YEAH. BUT THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO BUILDING THOSE ADDITIONAL 450 CORRECT? IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BUILD ANY EXACTLY. BUT THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS IS THAT IF THERE'S. CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND SPEAK? THAT WAY OTHERS WATCHING IT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY. I THINK ALSO THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE IS THAT IF ALTHOUGH WE'LL HAVE A SIGNED PARKING, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE A VEHICLE, THAT THAT SPACE DOESN'T GO UNUTILIZED. EXACTLY. SO IF SOMEONE HAS TWO CARS IN AND THEN THEY. COULD GET THAT. ABSOLUTELY USE THAT SO I'M NOT SURE WE'VE CAPTURED THAT. BUT IF THERE'S OVERFLOW OR THERE'S VISITOR PARKING THAT WOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROJECT WITHIN THE PHASE TWO PROJECT. I THINK YOU BUILD IT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST DON'T SEE A MECHANISM FOR THAT IN HERE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO ADD BY SAYING THAT THE PARKING IS NOT BUNDLED OR, YOU KNOW, WITH THE UNIT. YEAH AND THAT'S WHY I SAID YOU SEEM OPEN THAT THE PARKING WOULD NOT BE BUNDLED WITH THE UNIT. YEAH. IT'D BE SOMETHING LIKE IF A STORE WAS, IF A STORE ATTACHED TO A UNIT IS NOT BEING USED BY THAT OCCUPANT, IT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO OTHER OCCUPANTS WITHIN THE BUILDING. COULD BE. YEAH [LAUGHTER]. COULD BE. WOULD BE. HERE'S A SITUATION OKAY WOULD BE. HERE IS ANOTHER SITUATION. GUY GETS UP. PUTS HIS CAR IN THERE YEAR LATER, HE SAYS, I DON'T WANT A CAR HE SELLS HIS CAR. YEAH. NOW THAT SPACE IS EMPTY. YEAH. BUT HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE IT UP BECAUSE VISITORS COULD PARK THERE NOW. WOULD YOU LET HIM KEEP THE PARKING SPACE? BECAUSE PEOPLE THAT COME TO VISIT THEM HAVE A CAR AND A PLACE THAT HE WANTS TO KEEP THAT SPACE THAT HE'D BEEN ASSIGNED, EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT PARKING A CAR IN IT. IF HE'S RENTING THE SPACE, HE CAN USE IT FOR HIMSELF, USE IT SO THERE'S NO EXTRA RENT FOR THE SPACE BUT HE'S BEEN ASSIGNED TO SPACE WHEN HE MOVED IN, HE USED IT FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME OR MAYBE NOT, BUT NOW IT'S AN EMPTY SPACE. BUT HE WANTS TO MAINTAIN USE OF IT BECAUSE, WELL, MAYBE I'LL BUY A CAR AGAIN IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS YEAH. MAYBE MY FRIENDS WANT TO COME AND VISIT, AND I CAN TELL THEM TO PARK IN MY SPACE. WOULD YOU ALLOW SOMEONE TO KEEP A SPACE THAT IS BECAUSE IF THEY'VE GOT A VISITOR OR IF THEY'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO IS A FRIEND OF THEIRS THAT WORKS IN THE MALL, AND THEY'RE NOT USING THAT SPACE OR IF THEY WANTED TO BE IN THAT SPACE. SO JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CAR TO PARK THERE ANYMORE, IT WOULDN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO GIVE UP THE SPACE. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED IF ONE WANTS TO SELL YOU THEM, THEY CAN GET THAT KIND OF THING I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. COULD HE OFFER IT TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS AN EXTRA CAR IN THE BUILDING FOR A NOMINAL SERVICE CHARGE? SO LONG AS WE GET A NOMINAL MANAGEMENT FEE [LAUGHTER]. AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE? ALL OF IT. OKAY RIGHT? THAT'S OKAY. I THINK HE'S GOT THAT ON 51 UP THERE. UNBUNDLED THAT'S RIGHT THERE OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? RESIDENTS IS CAPITALIZED. THE RESIDENTIAL FROM THE RESIDENCY [04:15:08] OH THIS REPETITIVE YEAH. BECAUSE PARKING CAN BE UNBUNDLED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. I LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE OF THE RESIDENCE OWNERS THE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL. ABOUT THE NECESSARY YEAH, SURE OKAY I LIKE IT OKAY TELL ME YOU LIKE IT SO THAT WE CAN GET MOVING ALONG WITH YOU IS THIS 51 CONSISTENT WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING? NO PROBLEM. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. IT WORKS. MOVING ON. SO LET HIM FINISH THAT. OKAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE IT? [LAUGHTER] OKAY. I THINK SHE'S GOT. OF THE 350 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS PROPOSED. HOWEVER, PARKING CAN BE UNBUNDLED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS NECESSARY. ADDITIONALLY, RESIDENTS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO PARK IN THE PHASE TWO COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES, AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THAT. OKAY VERY GOOD THANK YOU THE UNIT SHOULD BE PLURAL THOUGH. YES, I SAID THAT UNITS. THAT'S GOOD. ON THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS GOT IT OH, YEAH, YEAH. I'M GONNA PUT IT OFF OKAY TOO POTENTIALLY. I DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY PROPOSED CHANGES? ANY OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES? SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE. OKAY, I GUESS I CAN TAKE THAT AS A NO OH, SHE'S GOT HER PAPER OUT [LAUGHTER]. WE NEED A MOTION OKAY MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NUMBER 202507PCR07 WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ADDED TONIGHT. CAN I GET A SECOND? I DON'T NEED TO READ THIS RIGHT? NO? OKAY. WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT. SECOND. CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE? COMMISSIONER LIGHT. AYE. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. I WISH I KNEW WHAT I WAS VOTING ON [LAUGHTER]. THAT THING. ONE PARAGRAPH. NO. NO. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. AYE. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. AYE. COMMISSIONER CONROY. AYE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE. AYE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. AYE. SO THE MOTION CARRIES WELL CONGRATULATIONS YOU GUYS [LAUGHTER] YOUR TORTURE. OKAY SO MOVING ALONG, ITEMS CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS. YEAH, WE DID. WE DID. WE DID? YEAH. OKAY. SO ARE THERE ANY ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS? NO? DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION? AND NEXT ITEMS FROM STAFF. [M. ITEMS FROM STAFF] ANY ITEMS FROM STAFF? PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT TACTICAL CACTUSES [LAUGHTER]. [04:20:02] YEAH THANKS, JOHN. OKAY, WELL, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO BURDEN YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. I KNOW IT'S THIS IS A VOLUNTEER JOB, AND IT'S OUT OF CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND THANKS FOR PUTTING IN SO MUCH THOUGHT AND EFFORT INTO ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT COME BEFORE YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO PUT A THANKFUL THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR BEING AVAILABLE, FOR PUTTING UP WITH OUR QUESTIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND OBVIOUSLY THE MEETING HELPING OUT BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE VOLUNTEERS AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE AND HAS A BIG RAMIFICATIONS. AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. OKAY. AND SO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S SEE ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.