GOOD TO GO. [1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:02] WELCOME, EVERYBODY. I WILL CALL THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 19 AT 6:31 P.M., MR. DAVIS. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND REPEAT WITH ME. AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. MY PLEASURE. ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, PRESENT, COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY, HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, PRESENT, MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS PRESENT. MAYOR HEPBURN PRESENT. WE WILL MOVE TO PRESENTATIONS. WE HAVE, MR. MAYDECK PRESIDENT AND THE CEO OF THE HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS, [4. PRESENTATIONS] MR. RUSSI AND ALSO REPRESENTING DAVID AND MARGARET. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVITY GOING ON IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. IT'S BEEN SHARED WITH COUNCIL ABOUT THE MERGER BETWEEN LEROY HAYNES AND DAVID AND MARGARET AND DAN MAYDECK, WHO'S WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WITH HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LEROY'S, IS GOING TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ABOUT THAT. DAN, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GOOD EVENING MR. MAYDECK. WONDERFUL. WONDERFUL. WELL, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR HEPBURN, AND THANK YOU FOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND OF COURSE, BOB, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO JOIN YOU TONIGHT. VERY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE DAVID AND MARGARET ORGANIZATION WITH RESPECT TO HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS. AS YOU KNOW, MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 75 YEARS. THE HAYNES PROGRAM HAS AND WE OFFER, OF COURSE, A NUMBER OF SERVICES DEALING WITH FOSTER YOUTH, SPECIAL ED, MENTAL HEALTH AND SO FORTH. WE ACTUALLY SERVE KIDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE. OUR ORGANIZATION DOES. WE HAVE A HEAVY EMPHASIS IN THIS AREA. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, AN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF FOR HAYNES. AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR DAVID AND MARGARET, HOME TO EXPLORE THE CONSIDER AND EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR ORGANIZATIONS TO COME TOGETHER, TO COME TOGETHER IN A SENSE THAT WE CAN MAYBE JOIN RESOURCES. AND, YOU KNOW, OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM IS EXTREMELY STRONG. WE ALSO HAD HERE AT HAYNES A STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND GOAL TO PROVIDE A CONTINUUM OF CARE FOR THE FOSTER YOUTH WE SERVE, PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THE WONDERFUL SERVICES THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. AT THE SAME TIME, FIND WAYS TO MAYBE GAIN SOME SYNERGIES FROM SOME SAVINGS OF COMBINING THE ORGANIZATION THAT WE HAYNES LEASES SPACE IN ABOUT THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IN ADDITION, IN ADDITION TO OUR LOCATION ON BASE LINE AND WE'RE ABLE TO BRING OUR STAFF BACK INTO A SINGLE CAMPUS. ULTIMATELY, THAT'S THE PLAN, THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF SURPRISES. I WON'T GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT IT. BUT DAVID AND MARGARET FOUND ITSELF SOME HAD SOME CHALLENGES. THEY LOST A COUPLE OF PROGRAMS AT THE SAME TIME, LEADERSHIP RETIRED OR TRANSITIONED. AND WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF THAT AS THE CEO OF HAYNES, I CONTACTED THEIR CURRENT CHAIR OR THEIR PAST CHAIR, BOB DALTON, AND EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO COME TOGETHER. A LONG STORY SHORT TOOK ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, BUT WE, AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THEIR BOARD, HAVE DECIDED TO COME TOGETHER AS ORGANIZATIONS. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT OUR BOARD BASICALLY TOOK OVER IN TERMS OF LEADERSHIP ROLE, ADDING SOME OF THEIR BOARD TO OUR BOARD OF THAT ORGANIZATION WITH THE INTENT TO ULTIMATELY MERGE THE CORPORATIONS. SOME OF YOU MAY BE AWARE OR MAYBE ALL OF YOU ARE, THAT A MERGER IS NOT SOMETHING YOU DO OVERNIGHT. AND IN OUR WORLD, WE CONTRACT WITH THE FEDS, WE CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, WE CONTRACT WITH MANY OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SO FORTH. SO TO MERGE CORPORATIONS, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE IMPACT OF THOSE CONTRACTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO US AT HAYNES WAS THAT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WE PROVIDE A CONTINUUM CARE. SO WE SERVE FOSTER YOUTH. WE HAVE JUST SO YOU GET THE WHOLE PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING MORE OF, WE SERVE A NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN OUR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM HERE IN ON THE HAYNES CAMPUS, YOUNG BOYS, SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM. I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE HEARD OF THOSE THINGS. AND IT USED TO BE GROUP HOMES. THEY USED TO BE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY'VE BECOME TODAY. BUT WE HAVE A SMALL PROGRAM. WE HAVE ABOUT TWENTY FOUR KIDS IN OUR PROGRAM RIGHT NOW. WE MAY GO TO THREE COTTAGES, BUT THOSE KIDS COME IN, THEY'RE FOSTER YOUTH AND [00:05:01] THEY COME IN AND THEY NEED TO TRANSITION INTO THE NEXT LEVEL OF CARE. WE LOOK AT WHEN THEY COME INTO OUR PROGRAM AS BEING A PLACE TO LIVE WITH A LOT OF INTERVENTION, WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO HOPEFULLY ULTIMATELY A LOWER LEVEL OF CARE THAN INDEPENDENCE. THAT IS THE GOAL IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, NOT ALWAYS THE OUTCOME, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE MANY OF THE YOUTH THAT ARE SENT OUR DIRECTION ARE VERY ACUTE HAVE MANY CHALLENGES. AND WE CAN TALK ALL DAY LONG ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN GOING. ON IN OUR SOCIETY IN TERMS OF LACK OF, WELL, A LOT A LOT OF KIDS WE GET AREN'T THE SAME KIDS WE ONCE GOT. SO WE'RE VERY SELECTIVE IN OUR ORGANIZATION. AND I WANTED TO SHARE THAT A BIT WITH YOU, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT DAVID AND MARGARET HISTORICALLY HAVE HAD MANY CHALLENGES, AT LEAST IN THE LAST THREE YEARS WITH THEIR SGRTP PROGRAM, THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMING, IN THEIR EMERGENCY SHELTER CARE PROGRAMING. NOT A WHOLE LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THEIR TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAMS OR THEIR MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OR THEIR UNACCOMPANIED MINOR PROGRAMS. WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. ANY CASE WE DON'T INTEND AT ALL TO BRING THOSE PROGRAMS BACK TO DELIVER ON CAMPUS HENCE DAVID AND MARGARET, WE AS AN ORGANIZATION VIEW THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH GOING ON WITH OUR SGRTP PROGRAM. WE WANT TO FOCUS ON LOWER ACUTE POPULATION. THEY HAVE A FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY AND ADOPTION AGENCY, WANT TO FOCUS ON COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES THERE AND ALSO TRANSITIONAL LIVING FOR YOUTH. THOSE YOUTH THAT QUALIFIED TO BE MORE INDEPENDENT, MORE RESPONSIBLE FOSTER YOUTH CAN TRANSITION INTO SOMETHING MORE INDEPENDENT. SO THOSE ARE GOING TO BE OUR FOCUS'S GOING FORWARD. WE ARE WE'RE EXTREMELY THRILLED ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LA VERNE, THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, AND, OF COURSE, ALL OF L.A. COUNTY. WE HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME HAYNES HAS BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE COMMUNITY AND WILL CONTINUE THAT APPROACH. OF COURSE, WITH DAVID AND MARGARET, MY LEADERSHIP TEAM HAS BASICALLY TAKEN OVER. SO WHETHER IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT GOING ON THERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE COVID SITUATION HAS IMPACTED A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. THERE IS A PROGRAM THERE THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THE NEWS REGARDING THE UNACCOMPANIED MINORS PROGRAM. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BRING THAT TO THE SURFACE A LITTLE BIT. A FEW YEARS AGO, QUITE A FEW YEARS AGO NOW, DAVID AND MARGARET WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN A CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THOSE YOUTH COMING ACROSS THE BORDER, YOUNG CHILDREN, YOUTH COMING ACROSS THE BORDER WITH THE INTENT OF PROVIDING A LEVEL OF CARE AND INTERVENTION ON A VERY SHORT TERM AND REPLACEMENT. THE FEDS ARE EXTREMELY INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE RUNNING AMOK. THESE ARE KIDS, THOUGH, THAT ARE NOT AS ACUTE OR CHALLENGING AS THE FOSTER YOUTH, THE FOSTER YOUTH WE GET OR WE'RE GETTING DEFINITELY ON THAT CAMPUS, USUALLY OLDER KIDS THAT HAVE BEEN POPPED AROUND THE SYSTEM FOR SOME TIME, SOME OF WHICH AND I GOT TO WATCH HOW I SAY THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE IN A MORE RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT THAN AN SGRTP. BUT WITH THE CHANGE OF CHILD CARE REFORM AND THINGS, WE SEEM TO FIND OURSELVES STUCK WITH SOME OF THOSE YOUTH THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE IN OUR PROGRAMS. I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE KIDS ARE COMING. THE UNACCOMPANIED MINOR PROGRAM ARE JUST LIKE THEY'RE SO APPRECIATIVE TO BE HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE POLITICS OF IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF VARIED OPINIONS ABOUT THAT PART OF IT. BUT I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT THEY'VE BEEN, DAVID AND MARGARET, BEEN SERVING THAT POPULATION FOR SOME TIME AND THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB. THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN CHALLENGING TO LA VERNE. IT WAS THE OTHER POPULATION THAT HASN'T BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME NOW. AND LOOKING AHEAD TO THE FUTURE, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW PROGRAMS. WE WANT TO BE, OF COURSE, WONDERFUL STEWARDS OF THOSE WE SERVE AND GREAT PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY. WE BEFORE COVID THE HAYNES ORGANIZATION HAD UPWARDS OF FIVE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES. I THINK DAVID AND MARGARET HAD UPWARDS OF THREE OR FOUR BEFORE THEY CLOSED A COUPLE OF PROGRAMS. THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY BACK UP TO ABOUT TWO HUNDRED EMPLOYEES IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AS WE WORK TO GROW AND EXPAND AND HIRE PEOPLE. SO WE HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE COMMUNITY AND WE'VE ALWAYS VALUED BEING GOOD PARTNERS IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MAYOR HEPBURN, OF COURSE, AND ALSO BOB RUSSI AND THEN ALSO CHIEF PAZ, BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME TO BE VERY UP FRONT ABOUT EVERYTHING AND BE EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT. AND THAT'S THE POSITION I TAKE ON EVERYTHING. AND WE'RE EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE. WE'RE TRANSPARENT. I INVITE ANY AND EVERYBODY WHO IS INTERESTED AND HAS A QUESTION TO ASK IT TO COME TO EITHER ORGANIZATION WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHY WE'RE DOING IT, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE VIEWED AS A GOOD PARTNER IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S OF EXTREME VALUE TO ME, EXTREME VALUE TO OUR BOARD [00:10:01] AND OF COURSE, TO OUR ORGANIZATION AND TO DAVID AND MARGARET ORGANIZATION. ALSO, ULTIMATELY, THEY WILL BE REFERRED TO WHEN THE MERGER OCCURS AS A AFFILIATE OF HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO CALL THAT DAVID MARGARET CAMPUS. DAVID AND MARGARET HAS A LONG HISTORY IN LA VERNE. WE DON'T WANT TO DILUTE THAT. WE WANT TO PRESERVE THAT, PROTECT THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO THINGS THE WAY WE NEED TO GET THEM DONE. SO THAT'S OUR FOCUS. THAT'S OUR DESIRE. THAT'S OUR GOAL. HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ANYBODY MAY HAVE. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAYDECK? I HAVE ONE OVER THE MANY, MANY YEARS YOU'VE BEEN HERE HAS BEEN WONDERFUL. AND I'M SO GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE BEHIND THIS PROGRAM. AND YOU SUPPORT IT. QUESTION FOR YOU, THOUGH, DURING COVID. HOW WERE THE KIDS THAT LIVE ON CAMPUS? HOW WERE THEY TREATED? DO THEY STILL GET TO STAY ON CAMPUS BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO? CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT, PLEASE? YEAH, BOY, SO FROM WAY BACK IN MARCH, TILL TODAY, WE'VE BEEN OPEN EVERY DAY, AND YOU IF YOU DRIVE DOWN BASELINE, YOU SEE A LOT OF CARS HERE AND YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT PLACE WHEN HAPPENED WITH THIS COVID THING. SO, YES, OUR FOSTER CARE PROGRAM HAS BEEN OPERATING CONSTANTLY. THESE KIDS LIVE ON OUR CAMPUS. WE COULDN'T CONSTANTLY GET KIDS REFERRED TO US. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE OUTBREAKS OF COVID IN DIFFERENT POCKETS OF OUR ORGANIZATION, BUT WE'VE BEEN VERY SENSITIVE TO HOW WE MANAGE THAT AND HOW WE SEPARATE PEOPLE AND KEEP THOSE THINGS THAT ADDRESSED. IT HAS BEEN A MAJOR CHALLENGE AND ORGANIZATION, BUT WE JUST MET IT. WE HAD OUR CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ALL OUR KIDS. WE SERVE ONE BUT TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY, TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SPECIAL ED KIDS. SO WE DID A LOT OF DISTANCE LEARNING AND SO FORTH. WE BROUGHT SOME KIDS BACK TO CAMPUSES IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO, BUT VERY LIMITED BASIS FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE OBVIOUS REASONS, VERY CHALLENGING. AND YEAH, WE'VE HAD A LOT GOING ON, BUT WE HAD TO HIT THAT FACE ON. THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES WE HAVE HAD IS REALLY IN OUR IN-HOME SERVICES ACROSS THE STATE AND OUR MENTAL HEALTH. WE HAVE A HUGE MENTAL HEALTH PRESENCE IN L.A. COUNTY, BUT A LOT OF FAMILIES UNDERSTANDABLY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE COMING INTO THEIR HOME AND NOT EVERYBODY RESPOND WELL TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, VIA ZOOM, OR SOME OTHER METHOD. SO THAT'S BEEN A REAL CHALLENGE. WE ANTICIPATE A GREATER NEED IN OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE WE'RE READY TO MEET THAT NEED WITH OUR PARTNERS. WE DO A LOT OF THAT IN THE COMMUNITIES AND WE ANTICIPATE DOING A LOT MORE OF THAT FOR SURE. THAT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING CHALLENGE, ROBIN, BUT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MEET IT AND OUR NUMBERS HAVE BEEN UP AND DOWN, BUT THEY TYPICALLY GO UP AND DOWN BECAUSE KIDS COME AND GO. ONE OF THE THINGS I SHOULD SHARE WITH YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON JUST IN THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CLOSURES OF ON ANTICIPATED CLOSURES OF CAMPS FOR PROBATION AND COUNTY CAMP FOR KIDS THAT NEED TO BE IN A MORE RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT. HOSPITALS HAVE CLOSED YEARS AGO WHERE KIDS HAVE BEEN PUT OUT IN THE SYSTEM. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK AND ONE CHILD CARE REFORM OCCURRED AT THE STATE. THEY ANTICIPATED OR EXPECTED AGENCIES LIKE OURS TO TAKE ALL THESE KIDS UNDER OUR SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SYSTEM. AND WE'VE TAKEN THE POSITION AND I'M WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE REPERCUSSIONS THAT WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO WHO WE BRING INTO OUR SYSTEM OR INTO OUR ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE TO GANG AFFILIATIONS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT GANGS. WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE TO JUST A NUMBER OF ISSUES. AND WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN EXACT, OR BEEN PERFECT BECAUSE NOT ALL TIMES THE INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO US THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. BUT I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, WE PICK, I PICK AND I OFFER LEADERSHIP PICKS, SAFETY OVER ANYTHING. IT'S NOT ABOUT NUMBERS FOR US. YES, WE NEED NUMBERS TO PAY FOR THINGS. BUT WE'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH DIVERSITY OF PROGRAMING, TOO, WHICH HAS REALLY HELPED OUR ORGANIZATION BECAUSE ANY ONE IMPACT OR ONE REDUCTION DOESN'T KILL US. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE AROUND THE CORNER THAT TENDS TO HELP US A LITTLE BIT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE FOCUS ON AND HOW WE HANDLE THINGS. SO ANYWAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAYDECK. MR. MAYOR, I JUST DRAW YOUR ATTENTION, SOMEBODY IS RAISING THEIR HAND, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE ANTICIPATING A LATER ITEM OR IF THEY WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. I CAN'T SEE THAT. IS THAT I CAN BRING THE PERSON INTO THE ROOM IF YOU'D LIKE. YES. [00:15:10] MR. HALE, YOU HAVE YOUR MUTE ON[INAUDIBLE] THERE YOU GO. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, SIR. YEAH. YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK [INAUDIBLE] PRESENTATION OF MINE BACK IN 1975 [INAUDIBLE] IS THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE USED TO BE REFERRED TO AS LIBERAL BOYS HOME AND IF IT IS, YES, WE WERE FORMED AS LEROYS BOYS HOME IN 1946, LATER BECAME LEROY HAYNES CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. AND I THINK IT WAS ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WE REBRANDED TO HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS. LEROY . IT WAS LEROY HAYNES THAT FOUNDED OUR ORGANIZATION THAT WE RETAINED A LAST NAME. AND THE REASON WE DID THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOW ACROSS THE STATE AND WE NEEDED TO REPRESENT A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE. I THINK WE'VE LOST MR. HALE BUT THAT WAS THE QUESTION, I THINK YOU FULLY ANSWERED THAT. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE LOST MS. HALE. SO THAT WAS THE QUESTION. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. AND I THINK I'M SHOWING THIS AS BEING CONNECTED LIVE ON CUSTOM LIVE STREAMING SERVICE. ACTUALLY, I USE ZOOM, I'M TALKING TO YOU FROM AN IPHONE 2020 IPHONE SE HAS GENERALLY WORKED VERY RELIABLE FOR ZOOM MEETINGS. AND I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE AND HEAR ME. AND IF NOT, THEN I GUESS WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT IN DUE COURSE. NO WE CAN HEAR YOU, SIR. AND WE GOT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED. I HOPE SO. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IS THAT ALL YOU HAD FOR QUESTIONS, SIR? THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE THE FIRST QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I WAS NOT MISUNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION HAVING LIVED HERE, BUT AGAIN LAST CENTURY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAYDECK? I JUST WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE TWO ENTITIES, THAT THESE ARE WONDERFUL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO CONTINUE. AND I REALLY A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS INTO THESE ORGANIZATIONS. AND THEY DO SUCH A GREAT JOB, EVEN WITH THE EVER CHANGING TIMES WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW THE CITY APPRECIATES IT, TO TAKE CARE OF THE YOUTH THAT CAN BE PRODUCERS IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK IT'S GREAT AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT COMBINING OF FORCES WITH DAVID AND MARGARET, EVEN WITH THEIR ISSUES. THEY HAD, I THINK, PUT THAT BEHIND AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THEM. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEAL IS ALMOST DONE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. SO THEY HAVE TO WORK TO DO. THANK YOU, MAYOR HEPBURN, AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THANK YOU, BOB. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ALL THE BEST. EVERYBODY, THANK YOU. BYE. [5. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF UPCOMING COMMUNITY EVENTS] DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OF UPCOMING COMMUNITY EVENTS? I DO HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT. IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ALLOW ME JUST REAL QUICK, WANTED TO DO AN INTRODUCTION OF SHAWN IGOE, THERE, SHAWN. HI. WELCOME, SHAWN. WORKS DIRECTOR. SO I WANTED TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET COUNCIL VIRTUALLY MEET HIM AND THEN HOPEFULLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY OVER THE COMING WEEKS TO COME IN AND SIT WITH SHAWN PERSONALLY TO GET TO KNOW HIM A LITTLE BETTER. SHAWN COMES TO US FROM MANHATTAN BEACH, AND BEFORE THAT HE WORKED FOR MONROVIA. REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SHAWN BEING A PART OF ITS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM. HE LIVES RELATIVELY LOCALLY RIGHT HERE IN GLENDORA. SO I'M SURE WE'LL SEE HIM AROUND REGULARLY. HE'S CERTAINLY TRYING TO GET HIS FEET UNDER HIM. HE SPENT MOST OF TODAY GETTING TO KNOW HIS TEAM AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOING OVER AND MEETING WITH THE CREW AT THE YARD AS WELL AS HIS MANAGER. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE COUNCIL A CHANCE TO SAY HELLO AND WELCOME TO SHAWN. WELCOME ABOARD SHAWN, WELCOME, NICE TO SEE YOU. WE'LL BE SEEING IN CITY HALL EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, SO THANK YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO LA VERNE. [INAUDIBLE] I LOST EVERYBODY FOR A MINUTE. THERE WE GO. NOTHING ELSE, MR. ROSSI, FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR ANYTHING? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. WE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING, I ASSUME. [6. CONSENT CALENDAR] AND WE WILL MOVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, HAS ANYBODY CALLED ANY OF THE ITEMS OFF THE [00:20:01] CONSENT CALENDAR. MR. RUSSI, NO SIR. THEN ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR OTHERWISE. WE'LL TAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SECOND, I'LL SECOND. [INAUDIBLE] GOING TO ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. YEAH, AYE COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS. AYE MAYOR HEPBURN. YES. AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIRE CODE OF THE LOS ANGELES [7a. Public Hearing for Adoption of the Fire Code of the Los Angeles County Code Incorporating by Reference] COUNTY CODE INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE. MR. ROSSI. YES, MR. MAYOR. YOU REMEMBER THAT LAST MEETING. YOU DID RECEIVE A REPORT FROM DOMINIC MILANO ABOUT THIS AND SET TODAY FOR THE DAY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ITEM. I HAVE CODY AND DOMINICK PREPARED TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW, AS WELL AS HAVE COUNCIL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE. DOMINIC CODY, YOU'RE ON. BASICALLY, THIS ORDINANCE ADOPTS THE L.A. COUNTY FIRE CODE WITH AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE. MOST OF THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE THAT BASICALLY [INAUDIBLE] FIRE MARSHAL VERSUS THE COUNTY'S FIRE MARSHAL. WE TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE FORESTRY STUFF THAT THE COUNTY SENDS TO THE FORESTRY. SO IT'S VERY ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A LARGE AGENDA THIS EVENING. SO IT IS VERY SIMPLE AND JUST ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. SO WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS THEN WE WILL. GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING DO WE HAVE ANY PEOPLE THAT ARE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MR. MAYOR, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAILS TO REQUEST, AND I DO NOT SEE ANY HANDS RAISED OUT OF THE ATTENDEES. WE'LL WAIT 15 SECONDS OR SO, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE UP. MR. MAYOR, WE DO HAVE SOME HANDS RAISED. I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST BRING IN THEM ONE BY ONE. THANK YOU. MR. CALLOWAY, GOOD EVENING. YOU'RE MUTED MR. CALLOWAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YOU'RE STILL GOT YOUR MUTE SIGN UP. [INAUDIBLE] HERE WE GO, WE CAN SEE YOU. KIND OF KIND OF HERE, AND THERE, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S OK, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE KIND OF SPOTTY AS FAR AS TALKING. BUT GO AHEAD, PLEASE. OK, SO I'M CALLING IN REGARDS. I LIVE HERE OVER ON AMHERST. I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO THE CALLOWAY, WE'RE NOT ON THAT ITEM YET. THAT'LL BE THE THE NEXT ITEM I'M SORRY. LIKE I SAID, I'M THE FEED IS NOT COMING THROUGH REAL CLEAR ON MY END. SO NO PROBLEM. NO PROBLEM. THAT'LL BE THAT'LL BE THE NEXT ITEM UP. SO THANK THANK YOU. J.R. YES, SIR. BRINGING IN THE OTHER PERSON TO HAVE THEIR HAND RAISED. THAT ROBERT HALE. MR. HALE, YOU'RE MUTED MR. HALE, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE FIRE CODE ADOPTION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR CODE. TIM HE'S MUTED STILL, YOU'RE STILL MUTED, MR. HALE. [INAUDIBLE]. OK. THANK YOU. J.R.. AND ALL WE HAD, SIR. OK, BEING THAT SAID, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ROOM, MOVE BACK TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DOMINICK OR ANYONE? QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NO, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 1101. YES AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, AYE COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. DID WE LOSE HIM? WHO? [00:25:01] I THINK WE LOST HIM. ARE WE HAVING SOME SUN FLARES TONIGHT OR SOMETHING [LAUGHTER] YES [INAUDIBLE] MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS, WE HAVE THERE'S RICK RAISING HIS HAND. MAYOR HEPBURN. YES, OK. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY THE ANSWER IS YES. I GOT MOVED INTO THE OTHER ROOM SOMEHOW. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET UP AND KEEP MOVING WHILE THE MUSIC'S PLAYING WE TRIED THAT FOR YEARS RICK AND YOU JUST KEEP COMING BACK, MAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEAL IS. I COULD I COULD HEAR ALL THE COMMENTS. SO YES. [7b. Amherst Housing Development, 2820 Amherst Street - Request to Construct 42 Detached Single-Family Homes] THAT MOTION CARRIES WE ADOPT. ITEM B, AMHERST'S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. 2820 AMHERST STREET REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 42 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. MR. RUSSI. YES, MR. MAYOR, AS YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION BEEN THROUGH D.R.C. IT IS NOW BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. YOU HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC INPUT ON VARIOUS FRONTS. CANDACE. PRINCIPAL PLANNER CANDICE BOWCOCK HAS BEEN THE LEAD ON THIS PROJECT, SO SHE'LL BE DOING THE STAFF PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THEN YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE CONSULTANTS AND THEN FROM THE DEVELOPER AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO CANDICE TO INTRO THE ITEM. GOOD EVENING, MS. BOWCOCK. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I AM GOING TO ATTEMPT TO SHARE MY SCREEN. [VIDEO] VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, CAN WE ALL SEE IT? YES, YES, YES, YES. SO, LIKE I SAID, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE AMHERST'S PROJECT. THE APPLICANT, MATT WAKEN WITH MJ W INVESTMENTS, IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP 42 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT 2820 AMHERST STREET AND A PORTION OF THE ADJACENT PARCEL, BOTH PARCELS OWNED BY THE CITY. IN THE BEGINNING OF 2018, THE CITY COUNCIL CONDUCTED A FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY STUDY. TO ADDRESS SOME INCREASING COSTS THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE COUNCIL AGREED TO SELL A PORTION OF THE LAND THAT THE CITY OWNS FOR THE AMHERST'S WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, SPECIFICALLY THE PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEASED BY THE COMMERCIAL NURSERY . IN OCTOBER OF 2018 THE CITY CONDUCTED AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY AND PRESENTED THE APPRAISAL TO THE COUNCIL TWO MONTHS LATER. IN MARCH OF 2019, THE CITY RELEASED AN RFP TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS, WITH THE CITY RECEIVING FIVE PROPOSALS. AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSALS, THE COUNCIL ELECTED TO PROCEED WITH MJ W INVESTMENT GROUP ON ENTERING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE FIVE POINT SIX ACRES OF LAND. THIS SLIDE WAS ADDED TO ADDRESS SOME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED DURING WHETHER REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE PROJECT AND IF STAFF WAS FOLLOWING THE CEQA RULES AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. SO I'LL TOUCH ON SOME OF THE PROCESS NOW, AND I MAY MENTION THEM IN MORE DETAIL LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. BUT THIS SHOWS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT HAPPENED SINCE THE PROJECT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON FEBRUARY 24TH OF 2020. THE LEFT SIDE OF THE COLUMN SHOWS THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN AND THE RIGHT SIDE LISTS WHAT IS REQUIRED. A LETTER WAS MAILED OUT MARCH 3RD OF 2020 TO RESIDENTS UP TO EIGHT HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE, INVITING THEM TO ATTEND A PUBLIC WORKSHOP. THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE ON MARCH 18, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE STATE AND COUNTY ORDER PROHIBITING GATHERINGS, ANOTHER LETTER WAS SENT ON MARCH 12 CANCELING THIS WORKSHOP. STAFF WAITED ANOTHER SIX MONTHS, HOPING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HOST A PUBLIC WORKSHOP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE ORDER DID NOT CHANGE AND IS STILL IN EFFECT. THEREFORE, WITHOUT SELLING THE PROJECT ANY LONGER. THE WEBSITE WAS LAUNCHED FOR THE PROJECT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE WITH A DETAILED VIDEO PREPARED BY THE DEVELOPER AND A FULL SET OF PLANS AND OTHER FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DETAILS ON OCTOBER 1ST OF 2020. ON THE NEXT DAY, A NOTICE WAS DISTRIBUTED ADVERTISING THE PREPARATION OF THE EIF AND SOLICITING PUBLIC COMMENT. A MONTH LATER, STAFF SUMMARIZED THE COMMENTS THEY RECEIVED ON THE PROJECT AND PROVIDED ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS ON THE WEBSITE. THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WAS PROVIDED FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT [00:30:01] INCLUDED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT AND ALSO POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. THE PROJECT HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED ON DIFFERENT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, REACHING AT LEAST THIRTY FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE. THIS SLIDE IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT NOTICING HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 24TH, THERE WAS A VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP, THE CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 17, AND OTHER NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING. AND NOW HERE WE ARE AT CITY COUNCIL. I WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LATER ON. BUT THIS OUTLINE SHOWS WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR AND SHOWS ALL OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ABOVE, BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS JUST THE AREA THAT SHOWS THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY HERE ON AMHERST'S AND WILLIAMS AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE WHERE THE WEST COVINA WHOLESALE NURSERY IS LOCATED TODAY. THE YELLOW OUTLINE SHOWS THE FIVE POINT SIX ACRES THAT WILL BE PART OF THIS PROJECT FOR THE PROPOSAL. AND. THERE ARE SIX DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROPOSAL, INCLUDING A PRECISE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SITE PLAN, A TREE REMOVAL FOR THE PROTECTED DEODAR CEDAR ON THE SITE, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGING THE SITE FROM LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY, A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE A ZONING FROM PR3D TO SPECIFIC PLAN. A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ADOPT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE INDIVIDUAL LOCKS AND THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE NEXT SLIDES. WE'LL TALK ABOUT EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION IN MORE DETAIL. THIS IS A SLIDE OF A PROPOSED SIGHT PLAN SHOWING THE FORTY TWO HOMES ON THE FIVE POINT SIX ACRES, NINETEEN PLANNED ONES AND TWENTY THREE PLANNED TWO'S MIXED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A BETTER VISUAL OF WHAT IT WILL ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE IN COLOR. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A CIRCULAR INTERIOR, PRIVATE STREET WITH TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. ALL OF THE HOMES WILL HAVE PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES, TWO CAR GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS ON STREET PARKING WITH NO OVERNIGHT PARKING. JUST LIKE THE PUBLIC STREETS ARE IN THE CITY AND OPEN SPACE. THE HOMES RANGE IN SIZE FROM ABOUT TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET TO TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE WITH THEIR TWO CAR GARAGES. A PLAN ONE IS A THREE BEDROOM WITH A TWO AND A HALF BATHS, AND THE PLAN TWO IS FOUR BEDROOM WITH THREE BATHS. THERE WILL ALSO BE A FOURTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT PARK PROVIDED AT THE NORTH END OF THE PROJECT ON AMHERST, MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BUT ACCESSIBLE BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. FOR THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE GUEST PARKING. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT DESIGN ALLOWS FOR AT LEAST FOUR OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER HOUSE, TWO, IN THE 20 FOOT LONG DRIVEWAY AND TWO IN THE 20 BY 20 FOOT CAR GARAGE. AND THE PRIVATE STREETS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ARE DESIGNED TO THE STANDARDS OF A TYPICAL PUBLIC CITY STREET, WHICH IS 36 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, PROVIDING ABOUT 40 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS TWICE AS MUCH AS WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF GUEST PARKING WAS REQUIRED, SUCH AS IF THIS WAS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE TWO ELEVATION OPTIONS, THE SANTA BARBARA OR CRAFTSMAN STYLE ARCHITECTURE, THE SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS FEATURE, LIGHT SAND STUCCO, GABLE AND [INAUDIBLE] WINDOWSILLS AND CORBELS AND THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOME FEATURES A LIGHT SAND, STUCCO, VERTICAL BOARDS AND THAT TEMPERED COLUMNS WITH A MASONRY BASE AND COMPOSITE HORIZONTAL SLIDING. THE DRC HAS APPROVED THE SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION'S CONTINGENT ON OTHER APPLICATION APPROVALS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE PROJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED UNPLANNED RESIDENTIAL, THREE DETACHED UNITS PER ACRE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THAT THE SITE BE REZONED FOR A NEW SPECIFIC PLAN CALLED THE AMHERST'S SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH WOULD PERMIT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT 8 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTED WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT USES. THIS CHART THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT [00:35:04] STANDARDS, MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FEET, TWO STORY MAX HEIGHT, 20 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO ENSURE EACH HOUSE HAS A USABLE DRIVEWAY TO PARK THEIR CARS, 15 FOOT REAR STEP BACK, 10 FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION AND 50 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE. THE GENERAL PLAN CURRENTLY DESIGNATES THE SITE AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS ZERO TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO RE DESIGNATE THE SITE AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT ZERO TO 10 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE POLICY THREE POINT FIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, AS THESE POLICIES AND MEASURES ENCOURAGE CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDE SELF-CONTAINED NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF GOODS AND SERVICES. THE CHANGE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, WHICH ALSO HAVE A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WOULD ALLOW FOR THE FIVE POINT SIX ACRE PARCELS OF LAND TO CONSTRUCT THAT FORTY TWO HOMES TO BE SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS, ALONG WITH THE COMMON LOTS, THE STREETS, THE PARK AREA TO BE OWNED BY THE HOA. EACH LOT RANGES IN SIZE BETWEEN THIRTY FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET TO ABOUT SEVEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PREPARED FOR THE AMHERST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 16 OF THE LIBERTY MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, WHICH REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND, USES THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND SOUTH, IS DONE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL SERVE AS A TRANSITION FROM THE MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE TO THE [INAUDIBLE] ZONE. THERE ARE ALSO REAR SETBACKS OF AT LEAST 15 FEET, AS WELL AS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS FOR THE PERIMETER HOMES, MAKING THE IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT HOMES MINIMAL. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS FORTY TWO UNITS ON FIVE POINT SIX ACRES AND ABOUT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS FIVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED AND BUILT SINCE TWO THOUSAND ONE AND HOW THEY COMPARE TO THE PROPOSED AMHERST PROJECT. HARTSHORN RANCH IS THREE POINT THREE UNITS PER ACRE. EMERALD WALK, LORDSBURG COURT AND OAK GROVE WALK ARE ALL ABOUT NINE UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE EMERALD COLLECTION PROJECT WAS SIX UNITS PER ACRE. IN ADDITION TO THESE PROJECTS, THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE LA VERNE AREA WERE IN THE HILLSIDES ABOVE BASELINE ROAD AND THOSE WERE ABOUT THREE UNITS PER ACRE. SINCE THE DRAFT EIO WAS CREATED, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMPLETED THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE SIXTH CYCLE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. THE ARENA NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO LA VERNE FOR THE 2021-2029 PERIOD ARE SHOWN HERE TOTALING ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX UNITS. THIS IS A SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FOUR UNIT INCREASE TO THE PREVIOUS [INAUDIBLE] NUMBER, AND AS LA VERNE CONTINUES TO DEVELOP THE SITES ON WHICH HOUSING CAN BE BUILT BECOME FEWER. THIS PROJECT WILL SATISFY ALMOST 10 PERCENT OF THE ABOVE MODERATE ALLOCATION, IF THE DENSITY WERE TO BE REDUCED, THE CITY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FIND SITES ELSEWHERE TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE. THE CITY RELEASED AN RFP FOR AN INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, ACCORDING TO CEQA. FOUR PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED AND RINCóN CONSULTANTS WERE SELECTED BY THE CITY, RINCóN COMPLETED AN INITIAL STUDY THAT IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR AN EIR. E-NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF THE EIR WAS RELEASED SOLICITING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL. AND THE DRAFT EIR WAS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT DUE ON FEBRUARY 1ST, 2021 STAFF THAT WAS CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES. THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS RELATED TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH WE WILL REFER TO AS VMT. MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED TRIBAL MONITORING, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOISE CONTROL, ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. CEQA REQUIRES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DESCRIBE A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD FEASIBLY AVOID OR LESSEN ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHILE SUBSTANTIALLY ATTAINING THE BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT. AN EIR MUST EVALUATE AND COMPARE THOSE ALTERNATIVES THROUGH THIS COMPARISON, THE [00:40:01] RELATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE ARE WEIGHED AND ANALYZED. AS YOU CAN SEE, AS PART OF THE EIR, THERE WERE THREE ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED FOR THE FULL REVIEW. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE ATTACHED DRAFT EIR. BUT FOR A QUICK SUMMARY, THE THREE ALTERNATIVES WERE NO PROJECT, THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY PROJECT AND THE REDUCED INTENSITY, THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATES THE EXISTING SITE AND OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES. NO. TWO ANALYZES THE ALTERNATIVE OF DEVELOPING THE SITE UNDER THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH WOULD BE TWENTY NINE HOMES, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE NUMBER THREE ANALYZES OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF TWENTY TWO HOMES AT FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS RELATED TO VMT, WHICH WOULD HOPEFULLY GENERATE LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TEN TRIPS PER DAY, WHICH ALSO FAILS TO ACHIEVE THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS. THE CITY ADOPTED THE VMT THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PROJECT SCREENING, WHICH CAN BE USED TO SCREEN OUT PROJECTS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO GENERATE LOW VMT OUT FROM FURTHER TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS. BASED ON THE STUDIES THRESHOLD'S PROJECTS GENERATING LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TEN TRIPS PER DAY CAN BE SCREENED OUT SINCE THE PROJECT IS PROJECTED TO GENERATE UP TO THREE HUNDRED NEW DAILY TRIPS. IT WOULD NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA. THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A VMT RATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE VMT THRESHOLD, AND THE IMPACTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH VMT. THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, JOHN LEVEILLEE WILL BE PRESENTING A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY A LITTLE BIT LATER ON. SO THE ONLY WAY TO ELIMINATE THE VMT IMPACT WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT TO 22 THE APPLICANT, HAS INDICATED THAT WITH THIS DENSITY AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE HOMES WOULD HAVE TO BE SOLD FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS. EVEN IF THE CITY REDUCED THE SALE PRICE TO THE MINIMUM AMOUNT SET FORTH IN THE RFP, THE HOMES WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE SOLD OVER ONE POINT FIVE MILLION. THIS IS MORE THAN THE MARKET WILL BEAR IN THIS AREA. THIS UNIT REDUCTION WOULD MAKE THE PROJECT INFEASIBLE AT THAT SITE LOCATION, SINCE THE PRICE RANGE ACHIEVABLE WOULD EXCEED THE BUYER PROFILE IN THIS MARKET. ADDITIONALLY, LOWERING THE SALES PRICE WOULD DEFEAT THE CITY'S PURPOSE IN SELLING THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS TO HELP OBTAIN FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH NOT PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, THE CITY HAS RECEIVED SCOPING COMMENTS INDICATING SUPPORT FOR AN OPPOSITION TO THE REOPENING OF BOWDOIN STREET INTERSECTION AT WILLIAMS BASED ON THE DRAFT EIR, THE PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE REOPENING OF THIS INTERSECTION, AND ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE REOPENING WOULD INVOLVE THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL HELD A MEETING ON MARCH 1ST TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER, AND IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION. A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE FOR THIS ITEM TO GO TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS IT. DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 24TH, THE PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF FOR THE FORTY TWO HOMES AT THIS MEETING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO ALLOW STAFF AMPLE TIME TO CONDUCT A NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP. STAFF HELD A VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP ON MARCH 9TH AND MAILED OUT ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE NOTICES TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. ON FEBRUARY 25TH, STAFF RECEIVED TWENTY FOUR REQUESTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP, WITH FIFTEEN OF THE TWENTY FOUR PEOPLE LOGGING ON AND PARTICIPATING IN THE ZOOM MEETING FOUR ADDITIONAL PEOPLE REQUESTED TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. DURING THE THREE AND A HALF HOUR LONG MEETING, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND THE TRAFFIC EXPERT ALL PRESENTED INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROJECT AND THE VARIOUS STUDIES AND ANALYSIS THAT HAD BEEN CONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR. STAFF LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC'S CONCERNS AND ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT HE IS NOT PROPOSING ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT AFTER THE WORKSHOP, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BEING OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AMENITIES IN THE PARK AREA. ANOTHER COMMENT THAT WAS MADE SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP WAS THAT A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS NEEDED. STAFF WANTS THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE AWARE THAT AN ACCURATE AND ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE TRAFFIC COUNT NUMBERS FROM 2011 AND NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS FROM 2020 WERE TAKEN AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AND ADJUSTED TO NON COVID STANDARDS. IN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAY, THE DATA USED IS NOT OUTDATED. THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT AND AGREED THAT IT IS ACCURATE, AND HE WILL ALSO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS IN HIS PRESENTATION. [00:45:03] THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HELD ON MARCH 17, WHERE THEY HEARD FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY VIA ZOOM AND OVER THE PHONE AND THEN HAD FURTHER DISCUSSION ON QUESTIONS WITH STAFF ONCE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WAS CLOSED. AFTER A FAILED MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROJECT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED FOUR ZERO TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED, BUT INDICATED SUPPORT FOR A LOWER DENSITY PROJECT. THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES THAT THE CITY NOTICE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD INTEREST STAFF EXTENDED THE NOTICE UP TO EIGHT HUNDRED FEET FROM THE PROJECT SITE. THERE WERE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS BEYOND THE EIGHT HUNDRED FEET THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT, AND THEY WERE ADDED TO THE MAILING LIST TO BE NOTIFIED. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE CITY WAS PREPARED TO HAVE AN IN-PERSON WORKSHOP WITH THE PUBLIC AND AS A RESULT OF COVID-19, THESE TYPES OF MEETINGS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO OCCUR UNDER THE STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH ORDERS. AS AN ALTERNATIVE STAFF CREATED A DEDICATED WEB PAGE ON THE CITIES OF LA VERNE'S WEBSITE. STAFF RECEIVED COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT DURING THE EIR COMMENT PERIOD WHICH ENDED ON FEBRUARY 1ST, AND THE RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ARE ALSO PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT AS THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW. ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ARE ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMEND FIRST ADOPTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 20-18 FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THEN ADOPTING RESOLUTION 21-16 AND 21-17 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 1099 BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. NOW, THE APPLICANT, MATT WAKEN, IS GOING TO SHARE A SHORT PRESENTATION WITH YOU, AND AFTER ALL OF THE PRESENTERS HAVE CONCLUDED, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE FROM STAFF. SO IF WE CAN BRING IN MATT WAKEN. THANK YOU, MS. BOWCOCK. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU, MATT. OK MAYOR, GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MATT WAKAN WITH MW INVESTMENT GROUP, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE AMHERST PROJECT TO YOU. I WANT TO START OFF BY THANKING STAFF BOB AND ERIC AND KEN DONE AN AMAZING JOB WORKING WITH ME OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS ON THIS PROJECT. AND CANDICE JUST MADE A FANTASTIC PRESENTATION. AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE TO GET TO WORK WITH STAFF AND THE CITY OF LA VERNE, THE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM THAT THEY DISPLAY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE INTO MY PRESENTATION. WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY COMPANY AND I'LL BE BRIEF, MW INVESTMENT GROUP HAS BEEN DEVELOPING PROJECTS PRIMARILY IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS. SINCE 2008, WE'VE DEVELOPED OVER FOUR THOUSAND RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND WE FOCUS ON SUBURBAN INFILL CREATING HOUSING FOR FAMILIES PRIMARILY IN SMALL LOT PROJECTS, TOWNHOME PROJECTS AND MULTIFAMILY. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. AND JUST TO NAME A FEW, AND WE'VE I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN ARCADIA AND I'VE WORKED ON PROJECTS ALONG THE 210 CORRIDOR ALL OF MY CAREER FROM BURBANK, GLENDALE AREA OUT TO CLAREMONT. WE HAVE PROJECTS IN WHITTIER, SAN DIMAS, CLAREMONT, UPLAND, MONROVIA, DOUGHERTY, LA VERNE AND ARCADIA. SO WE ENJOY WORKING THIS AREA. WE UNDERSTAND IT WELL AND AND IT'S WHERE I GREW UP. SO NEXT ON THE SITE PLAN, I KNOW THAT COUNCIL IS REVIEW THIS SITE PLAN IN GREAT DETAIL. JUST BRIEFLY, IT'S ROUGHLY 5.5 ACRES. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPES IN THE FORTY TWO UNITS. PLAN ONE RANGES AT TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND PLAN TWO IS 2400 SQUARE FEET. OUR TARGET DENSITY IS ALMOST EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. TARGET PRICING IS BETWEEN SEVEN TO EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND. THE PROJECT STREETS WERE DESIGNED TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY FIVE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT PROVIDED. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. [00:50:01] A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM TWO DIFFERENT AREAS. FIRST, WE STUDIED THE PR3D AND PR4.5D ZONING. AND IF YOU TAKE THE SUBSET OF HOMES IN THIS MARKET THAT APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN OF THEM. THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE HOMES IS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE SQUARE FEET AND THE HOMES RANGE FROM 700 SQUARE FEET TO OVER 4700 SQUARE FEET OF THOSE 319 HOMES. OUR PROJECT IS DESIGNED AT AN AVERAGE OF 2200 SQUARE FEET AND THEY RANGE FROM 2000 TO TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED. SO THEY ARE VERY COMPATIBLE. AND IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK BELOW, YOU'LL SEE THAT ROUGHLY 85 PERCENT OF THE OF THE HOMES WITHIN THIS AREA ARE UNDER 2500 SQUARE FEET. SO WE TRIED TO DESIGN THIS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT HOMES AND ALSO TO STAY AT A PRICE POINT, WHICH I WOULD GET INTO LATER, BUT WHICH WILL LEND ITSELF TO YOUNG FAMILIES. AND AS FAR AS THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ZONING, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, YOU'VE GOT AS HIGH AS 22, WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO FOOTHILL AND 15 WHEN YOU GO WEST TO THE PR15 A ZONE. BUT WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT THERE'S OVER 40 CONTIGUOUS ACRES TO THIS SITE THAT IS ZONED AT EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PLUS PER ACRE. SO WE FEEL THAT THE ZONING IS COMPATIBLE. IT'S A GOOD TRANSITION ZONE AND WE FEEL THAT WE'VE DESIGNED THE PROJECT RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE ON. AND CANDICE TOUCHED ON THIS, SO I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT WITH IT, BUT WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND AND I THINK I CAN I CAN MAKE A FAIRLY ACCURATE STATEMENT IF I SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYONE ON THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL PROBABLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON A PROJECT SOUTH OF BASELINE. A NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS DESIGNED IT UNDER A DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUBSET OF PROJECTS FROM TWO THOUSAND AND ONE. SO GOING BACK OVER 20 YEARS, YOU'VE GOT THE HARTSHORN RANCH AT THREE POINT THREE. BUT SINCE 2002, THREE OUT OF THE FOUR PROJECTS IN THIS PROJECT AREA WERE AT AN AVERAGE OF NINE UNITS PER ACRE. AND IT'S A COMBINATION OF FACTORS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST FACTORS IS LAND COSTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. IT'S PROHIBITIVE TO DESIGN PROJECTS TODAY WITH LAND COSTS AS THEY ARE. AND THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTHILL AREA. BUT IT'S PROHIBITIVE TO DESIGN PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTHILLS WITH LAND COSTS WHERE THEY ARE AT TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, FIFTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT DENSITIES. AND NOT ONLY THAT, WITH THE STATE MANDATES ON THE HOUSING THAT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND REALLY MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUNG FAMILIES PREFERENCES, TODAY, IT ALL LEADS TO DENSITIES OF SIX PLUS DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A TREND THAT HASN'T JUST IT ISN'T JUST TAKING PLACE TODAY IN 2021. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS IN MY CAREER. AND SO THE PROJECTS THAT I THINK YOU AS THE COUNCIL ARE GOING TO SEE AND COUNCILS ACROSS THE STATE, FOR THAT MATTER, ARE GOING TO BE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE HIGH MARK OF THEM. AND THEN THEY'LL BE MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOME PROJECTS AT 18 TO 22 UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN THEY'LL BE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS BEYOND THAT. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT SLIDE. YOU CAN SKIP THAT SLIDE TOO. OK. AND I DIDN'T KNOW I DID NOT HAVE MY VIDEO AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WHO'S THE BUYER? AND THIS IS. I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING IN A COMMUNITY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHO YOUR TARGET BUYER IS. IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, THE MEDIAN AGE IS FORTY FIVE POINT ONE YEARS OLD, AND THAT'S UP FROM FORTY FOUR POINT FIVE IN 2010. LA VERNE AT FORTY FIVE POINT ONE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN OTHER EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDIAN AGE OF THE COMMUNITIES, WHICH IS THIRTY SIX YEARS OLD. IT'S ALMOST 10 YEARS OLDER. AND THEN PLUS LA VERNE HAS A LOWER SHARE OF MILLENNIALS AT 23 PERCENT VERSUS OTHER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITIES AT TWENTY SEVEN POINT ONE. THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO ATTRACT NEW AND YOUNGER FAMILIES WHO ARE UNDER. [00:55:01] IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, MILLENNIALS TWENTY SEVEN TO THIRTY EIGHT, THEY'RE THE LARGEST BUYER SEGMENT RIGHT NOW. THEIR BUYER [INAUDIBLE] EXCEEDS OTHER GENERATIONAL COHORTS AND TWENTY SIX PERCENT ARE TWENTY NINE OR YOUNGER AND ALMOST 50 PERCENT ARE 30 TO 54. SO THE CITY'S FUTURE IS REALLY WELL SERVED. AND I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH BY APPROVING ATTAINABLE PRICED HOUSING FOR THE CITY. IT'S A REGENERATION OF LA VERNE WITH YOUNGER FAMILIES WHO ARE CURRENTLY PRICED OUT. ON THE NEXT SLIDE. I'LL TALK ABOUT SOME CENSUS BUREAU DATA WHICH TALKS ABOUT WORKERS WITHIN THE CITY AND OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. AND IT FOSTERS GROWTH OF WORKFORCE, OF YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, YOUNGER FAMILIES, TEACHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS. AND OF COURSE, IT INCREASES SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, SPORTS ENROLLMENT, AND IT HELPS YOUR BUSINESSES. SO IT IS CRITICAL TO THE LIFEBLOOD OF A COMMUNITY TO REGENERATE WITH YOUNG FAMILIES. AND, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER BACK WHEN I WAS YOUNG AND I WAS LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE, A LOT OF MY FRIENDS FROM ARCADIA AND PASADENA, THEY MOVED AND SETTLED IN LA VERNE. THEY DID IT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE SCHOOLS, FOR THE SPORTS. AND THEY'VE RAISED FAMILIES THERE FOR TWENTY FIVE THIRTY YEARS. THEIR KIDS HAVE GRADUATE, GONE ON TO COLLEGE, AND SOME ARE GETTING MARRIED AND THEY LOVE BEING A PART OF LA VERNE. AND THEY MOVED TO LA VERNE FROM PASADENA AND ARCADIA BECAUSE THEY HAD A IT WAS A PRICE POINT THAT WAS ACHIEVABLE FOR THEIR FAMILIES. SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THE PRIMARY MARKET, THIS IS THE PRIMARY MARKET DEMANDS. THERE'S TWICE AS MUCH DEMAND IN L.A. COUNTY FOR HOMES PRICED BETWEEN SEVEN TO EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND, THEN HOMES PRICE FROM NINE HUNDRED TO A MILLION. IN LA VERNE, THERE IS ALMOST A 75 PERCENT MORE DEMAND FOR HOMES IN THE 700 RANGE THAN THE NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR RANGE. AND OVER 50 PERCENT OF BUYERS ARE LOOKING FOR HOMES FROM 15 TO 2500 SQUARE FEET, WHILE APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT ARE LOOKING FOR HOMES THAT ARE LARGER. AND THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH PRICING AND A LOT TO DO WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE. PEOPLE AREN'T LOOKING FOR THE LARGER HOMES AND THE LARGER LOTS TODAY AND SO MANY HOMES, LIKELY DUAL INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH CAN QUALIFY FOR THE LOWER PRICE POINT. SO THIS PROJECT'S HOME SIZE AND PRICES ALIGN WITH THE NEEDS AND THE PREFERENCES OF THE THIRTY FIVE TO FORTY FOUR YEAR OLD MARKET. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. OK, AND THIS IS THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT SLIDE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I RESEARCHED WITH MY MARKET STUDY ON THE PROJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DARK GREEN ARROW ON THE LEFT THAT SAYS EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT NINETY ONE, THOSE ARE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE EMPLOYED WITHIN THAT DRIVE INTO THE CITY OF LA VERNE TO WORK. AND THEN THE NUMBER ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS ALMOST 10,000 OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE AND LEAVE THE CITY TO WORK AND THE NUMBER IN THE MIDDLE AT SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX. SO SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX PEOPLE IS A NUMBER APPROXIMATELY THAT LIVE AND WORK WITHIN THE CITY OF LA VERNE. THIS NUMBER IS EXTREMELY LOW BY L.A. COUNTY STANDARDS. AND AGAIN, IT'S MY HOPE THAT THIS PROJECT CAN WORK TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER AND ALLOW MORE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITHIN THE COMMUNITY TO LIVE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IT'S IMPORTANT. AND THIS IS JUST A CANDICE WENT OVER THIS SLIDE. THIS IS A STREET VIEW RENDERING THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SPANISH, SANTA BARBARA, SPANISH STYLE AND CRAFTSMAN. I LOVE THE DESIGN. WE ONLY HAD POSITIVE COMMENTS ON THE DESIGN. IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE DESIGN. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO REALLY FAVOR THE DESIGN. SO WE'RE PROUD OF IT AND WE THINK IT'S A GOOD FIT WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS JUST TALKS ABOUT THE DISTINCTIVE AND VARIED DESIGN STYLES, SO SINGLE STORY ELEMENTS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOMES, QUALITY LANDSCAPING, FRONT AND REAR, SIDE YARDS AND REAR YARD AREAS FOR FAMILIES. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE'RE DESIGNING A SUSTAINABLE PROJECT THROUGHOUT WITH SOLAR PANELS AND EV CHARGING STATIONS, RENEWABLE ENERGY. THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT THE PARK, WE DESIGN THE PARK AS AN AMENITY FOR THE PROJECT AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, THE PLACEMENT OF THE PARK WAS DESIGNED AS SUCH TO ALSO CREATE A BUFFER FROM THE HOMES WITHIN THE PROJECT AND THE STREET OF AMHERST. THERE'S BEEN SOME COMMENTS ON THE PROGRAMING OF THE PARK. AND WE'VE EXPRESSED TO STAFF AND TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WHATEVER CHANGES THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO THE PARK, WE'RE VERY OPEN TO THEM. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF ELIMINATING THE BARBECUE GRILLS. THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE PEOPLE BARBECUING IN THE PARK. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE. BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY ON DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR THE PARK. AND THAT'S JUST A RENDERING OF IT WHEN IT'S COMPLETED. IT'S GOT A SEATING AREA, IT'S GOT A NICE LAWN AREA, REALLY CREATIVE LANDSCAPING [01:00:01] ALL AROUND THE PERIMETER. WE CAN MOVE ON, OK. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECT EVALUATION FROM A TRAFFIC AND ZONING STANDPOINT AND. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS THE THIS IS THE BIG ISSUE THAT'S COME UP, I MEAN, TO A T. THERE'S TWO PRIMARY CONCERNS AND IT'S TRAFFIC AND IT'S DENSITY ZONING. AND, YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED BOTH IN GREAT DETAIL. AND I KNOW THE CITY IS GOING TO GO INTO MUCH FURTHER DETAIL ON THE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WERE CONDUCTED AND THE CONDITIONS OUT THERE. AND I THINK THAT'LL BE GOOD FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO LISTEN TO. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, A NUMBER OF THE PROJECTS THAT YOU SAW EARLIER THAT WERE DESIGNED AT EIGHT TO NINE UNITS PER ACRE, ALMOST TO A T. THEY WERE DESIGNED TO PRIVATE STREET STANDARDS. WE DESIGNED THIS PROJECT TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, SO WE CAN HAVE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. AND WE COULD HAVE A LOT OF OFF HOUSING PARKING, TWO WITHIN THE GARAGE, TWO WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY AND ONE ON THE STREET. SO WE'RE DESIGNED TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS. AND WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IN MY PERSPECTIVE, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 25 YEARS AND THE STANDARD THAT WE'VE USED FOR 25 YEARS WAS LEVEL OF SERVICE. IT'S BEEN THE GOLD STANDARD OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SINCE I STARTED IN THE BUSINESS. VMT IS NEW AND VMT WAS DESIGNED IN AN EFFORT TO ORGANIZE HOUSING AROUND AREAS OF MASS TRANSIT AND MORE IN THE URBAN CORE THAN IN THE SUBURBAN AREAS. SO IT'S PUNITIVE IN NATURE TO PROJECTS LIKE THIS. BUT LOS IS WHAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF THE STREET IS. AND THIS PROJECT IS THIS STREET OF AMHERST. IN THIS PROJECT ADDITION TO THE STREET, OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE A CURRENTLY AND IT OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE A AFTER THE FORTY TWO HOMES ARE DEVELOPED, IT OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE A ON WILLIAMS AND AMHERST AND OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE AND BRADFORD AND AMHERST, AND THAT CONTINUES TO OPERATE A LEVEL OF SERVICE A AFTER IT'S DEVELOPED. IN FACT, WE EVEN STUDIED IF THIS PROJECT WAS TWICE AS LARGE, IF IT WAS EIGHTY FIVE UNITS AND IT WOULD STILL OPERATE A LEVEL OF SERVICE A AND THE BIGGEST THING TO POINT OUT AND I KNOW THAT THE CONCERNS REALLY WHAT AMOUNTS TO EIGHT OR NINE UNITS. AND WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS AND THIS IS PER RINCON, THE TRAFFIC GENERATION FROM NINE UNITS IN THIS PROJECT IS BASICALLY SEVEN AM PEAK TRIPS AND THREE PM PEAK TRIPS. AND I'M SORRY, IN THE WORLD OF DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S THAT'S NOT AS SIGNIFICANT AS FAR AS THE STREET OF AMHERST IS CONCERNED. IT'S IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. SO WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THIS STREET OPERATES AT THE EXACT SAME CONDITION AFTER OUR PROJECT, THAT IT OPERATES AT NOW WE'RE COMFORTABLE THAT TRAFFIC ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ZONING IS CONCERNED, I MEAN, WE ARE WE WE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROJECTS TO THE SOUTH. WE'RE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROJECTS THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS TO US. OUR LOTS ARE LARGER THAN THE PROJECTS TO THE THEN THE PROJECTS TO THE SOUTH IN THE WEST, AND THEY HAVE MORE YARD SPACE. AND IT'S A NICE TRANSITION TO THE PROJECTS TO THE NORTH AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT. YOU SAW YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT, YOU SAW THE RHNA NUMBER ALLOCATION. I MEAN, THE STATE IS MANDATING THAT MORE HOUSING IS PLACED IN THE CITIES WITHIN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND THIS IS NEEDED HOUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND THE LAST POINT I'LL MAKE ON THE SLIDE IS THERE'S REALLY NO I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT DENSITY, YOU LOOK AT ZONING. AND IF PEOPLE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DENSITY, MAYBE IF IT'S A FOUR STORY OR FIVE STORY APARTMENT BUILDING, A DEVELOPER MIGHT BE ASKED TO. IT'S TOO DENSE, IT'S TOO HIGH, THE HEIGHTS TOO HIGH. WE NEED TO REMOVE A LEVEL OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THAT WILL LOWER DENSITY. AND THIS ISN'T THE CASE HERE. IF WE TOOK AWAY NINE UNITS FROM THIS PROJECT ESTHETICALLY, THERE WOULD ALMOST BE NO DIFFERENCE. IT WOULD JUST BE REDISTRIBUTED AND THE LOT SIZES WOULD INCREASE BY APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO ESTHETICALLY THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE. WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE PROJECT, JUST A NIGHT RENDERING. WE BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT FOR YOUNG FAMILIES AND WE THINK THAT THIS ILLUSTRATES THAT. AND THEN I'LL MOVE ON, I THINK, TO MY I ONLY HAVE TWO MORE SLIDES. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SLIDE AND SO IS THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SITE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND THE ST. AMHERST. AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THERE'S WILLIAMS BORDERING [01:05:01] THE RED LINE AND TO THE LEFT YOU'LL SEE BRADFORD. SO THIS IS BASICALLY AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE IN 1966. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARCELS, THE PRIMARY ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL AND THE ZONING IS ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 10 ACRES. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS SHOWS THE EXACT SAME AREA IN 2005, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT ESSENTIALLY TODAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERLAY OF THAT AREA, EVERYTHING THAT WAS ZONED AND DEVELOPED AT ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 10 ACRES IS NOW THE AREA WEST AND NORTH OF ME PRIMARILY, WHICH IS DEVELOPED AT THREE TO FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. EVEN IF YOU USE A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER OF THREE TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE TIME IN WHICH WE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PHOTO TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY, THE ZONING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMHERST. HAS INCREASED 30 TO 40 TIMES WHERE IT WAS IN 1966, 30 TO 40 TIMES. THINK ABOUT THAT NUMBER WHEREBY TODAY I'M LOOKING FOR AN AREA GOING FROM FIVE TO SIX UNITS PER ACRE TO SEVEN TO EIGHT PER ACRE. AND MY REASON FOR BRINGING THAT UP IS BECAUSE CHANGE HAD TO OCCUR. AND I THINK I WOULD BE FAIR IN SAYING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE CALLING IN TONIGHT. PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES, TO BUY A HOME, TO BECOME A PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY LOVE SO MUCH OF LA VERNE HAD ZONING CHANGES AND DECISIONS ON ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT HADN'T OCCURRED. AND MAYBE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE BACK IN 1966 THAT WERE UPSET AS WELL. BUT THAT ALLOWED A LOT OF AMAZING PEOPLE, MANY OF WHICH WILL BE ON THE PHONE TONIGHT WHO ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS OVER THE PROJECT. AND I RESPECT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLING IN TONIGHT FOR THEIR OPINIONS. BUT THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE AT RIGHT NOW WAS ZONED FAR LESS DENSE THAN IT IS NOW, AND HERE THEY ARE AND THEY WERE ABLE TO COME TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT HOW THEY'RE BEING ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND BECOME A PART OF IT FOR THEIR FAMILIES. HOW IMPORTANT THAT WAS. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT WE LET SOME OTHER FAMILIES HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TOO. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CITY. I AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT IT. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I ALSO HAVE MY ARCHITECT, MY ENGINEER, AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN PREPARED WITH ME TONIGHT. SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, WE'RE HERE AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. WAKEN. WE GONNA. CANDICE, WE'LL GO GET BACK TO THE NEXT. NOW WELL GO, WE HAVE TWO MORE PRESENTERS, NOW WE'RE. NOW WE'LL HAVE RINCON. JOHN WILL BE IN THE ROOM. HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OK, GREAT. THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JOHN [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AND PROJECT MANAGER WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS. PLEASED TO HAVE ASSISTED THE CITY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OR CEQA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TONIGHT, I WILL TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO DESCRIBE THE CEQA PROCESS AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE PROJECT MILESTONES SINCE COMMENCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND THE APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT'S CEQA DOCUMENTATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CEQA PRESCRIBES A SPECIFIC PROCESS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA. SO SOME OF YOU MAY BE GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE CEQA PROCESS, BUT IT IS PRESENTED ON THIS SLIDE TO PROVIDE A REFRESHER AND GENERAL OVERVIEW. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR EIR WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. IMPORTANTLY, THE CEQA PROCESS OFFERS THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT DURING THE PREPARATION OF AN EIR. THE FIRST IS DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS, WHERE THE PUBLIC MAY OFFER COMMENTS REGARDING WHICH TOPICS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIR. THE SECOND IS DURING THE FORTY FIVE DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, WHERE THE PUBLIC AND AGENCIES MAY OFFER COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE EIR. AND THE THIRD IS WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE CITY MAY HEAR COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF THE CEQA FINDINGS. NEXT SLIDE. SO NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE CEQA PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO THE [01:10:04] AMHERST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS BEGAN IN MARCH OF 202 JUST OVER ONE YEAR AGO. THE PROJECT'S TRANSPORTATION STUDY WAS COMPLETED IN AUGUST 2020 BY THE GANDDINI GROUP INC. BRIAN CRAWFORD FROM THE GANDDINI GROUP ALSO JOINS US TONIGHT. AND THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER WILL BE DISCUSSING THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY IN GREATER DETAIL. THE CITY PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF THE EIR IN OCTOBER, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE INITIAL STUDY ADDRESSING ALL ITEMS IN THE STATE'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CONTAINED IN APPENDIX G OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. A PROJECT VIDEO WAS PREPARED AND MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE WITH A LINK PROVIDED IN THE NOP. FOLLOWING RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE NOP, THE DRAFT EIR WAS PREPARED AND PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN DECEMBER 2020, WITH THE FORTY FIVE DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD CONCLUDING IN FEBRUARY 2021. A RESPONSE TO ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROJECT FOUND IT WOULD RESULT IN EITHER NO IMPACT, A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR 20 OF THE TWENTY ONE RESOURCE CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN A STATE CEQA CHECKLIST. AS A RESULT, THE EIR FOCUSES ON THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION, AS WELL AS IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. THE EIR INCLUDES A DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION, A DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT AREA AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY, THE EIR INCLUDES AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE THOSE RESULTING FROM THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS. PAST AND PRESENT PROJECTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, WHILE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS CAN BE EVALUATED BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF APPROVED BUT NOT YET BUILT PROJECTS AND OR FORESEEABLE REGIONAL GROWTH BASED ON COMMUNITY OR REGIONAL GROWTH FORECASTS SUCH AS THOSE CONTAINED IN A GENERAL PLAN OR PRODUCED BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SECTION 15 ONE THREE ZERO OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES REQUIRES THE LEAD AGENCY TO DISCUSS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF A PROJECT WHEN THE PROJECT'S INCREMENTAL EFFECT IS CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE, MEANING IT IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH PAST, CURRENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE PROJECTS. THEREFORE, THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS CONSIDERS WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT'S CONTRIBUTION TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IS CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE. IN SHORT, THE DEGREE OF A PROJECT'S CONTRIBUTION TO POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MATTERS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ELEVEN COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR, INCLUDING ONE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR CALTRANS, ONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AND NINE FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS. RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ARE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL EIR. WHERE MULTIPLE COMMENTS RAISED SIMILAR CONCERNS. THEY ARE ADDRESSED AS TOPICAL RESPONSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SECTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THE EIR OR THE CEQA PROCESS MORE GENERALLY. THANK YOU. AND I WILL HAND IT BACK TO THE CITY. THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. ALL RIGHT, OUR LAST PRESENTATION WILL BE JOHN LEVEILLEE WITH [INAUDIBLE]. THEY WILL, JR WILL BRING HIM IN. GOOD EVENING. THERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TRUST EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME. YES. GOOD. FORTUNATELY, I'LL BE THE LAST PRESENTER OF THIS EVENING AND WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS FAIRLY QUICKLY, HOPEFULLY. SO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHANGED THE WAY THEY DO A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AS PART OF THE CEQA PROCESS. THEY WENT TO WHAT'S CALLED A VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. THE CITY, WAS FORCED TO ADOPT THIS AND THEY DID BACK LAST JULY, BUT THEY ALSO KEPT IT FOR THEIR LAND USE APPLICATION OR LAND USE APPROVAL THE LOS STUDY OR CAPACITY [INAUDIBLE]. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, ESSENTIALLY, IT LOOKS AT. THE TRIPS GENERATED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL HOUSE DURING YOUR DAILY ACTIVITY. SO YOU GO TO WORK OR TO THE STORE, GO PICK UP THE KIDS AT SCHOOL, DO WHATEVER, AND THEN COME BACK. THEY LOOK AT THAT AND THEY COMPARE THAT TO THE REGIONAL AVERAGE, OK? [01:15:03] AND THAT GIVES YOU YOUR VEHICLE. MILES TRAVELED FOR THAT AREA IN THE CITY. NOW, THIS WAS DEVELOPED BY THE STATE SO THAT THEY COULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO TRANSIT AS AN EFFORT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS. SO IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT, GIVEN THE SIZE OR ANY SIZE AND YOU ARE CLOSE TO HIGH DENSITY TRANSIT, YOU ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE NO IMPACT. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE NOT CLOSE TO A HIGH DENSITY TRANSIT, SAY LIKE THE GOLD LINE OR BUS ROUTES OR ANY OF THOSE TRANSIT AGENCIES, THEN YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY PENALIZED FOR A PROJECT OF THIS OF THIS MAGNITUDE. SO THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THIS PROJECT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, PRIMARILY LOCATION BASED, SO AS PART, THAT, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT CEQA LOOKS AT. YOU CAN NO LONGER LOOK AT LEVEL OF SERVICE AS AN ANALYSIS FOR CEQA ANALYSIS. HOWEVER, THE CITY, THE CITY STILL MAINTAINS THIS TYPE OF STUDY FOR ITS LAND USE APPLICATIONS. SO THEREFORE, OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO DO BOTH OF A VMT STUDY AND A CAPACITY STUDY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS PART OF THE CAPACITY STUDY, THE DEVELOPER CAME IN AND THEY DID A TRAFFIC SCOPING MEETING IN CONJUNCTION WITH DOMINIC AND MYSELF, THEY LOOKED AT. TRAFFIC COUNTS OF AUGUST OF 2020. WE REALLY KIND OF STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE AND IT'S LIKE, OK, DURING IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC, HOW CAN WE DO THIS? WE PUSHED THIS PROJECT OFF ESSENTIALLY AS LONG AS WE COULD TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD A GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC WAS GOING TO BE OUT THERE. SO WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO WAS GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS AND THEN LET'S ADJUST THEM UP BASED ON PAST STUDIES. SO THEY DID THAT. THEY TOOK THE COUNTS BACK IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, WHICH AT THAT POINT IN TIME, TRAFFIC HAD ACTUALLY STARTED GETTING BACK TO SOME NORMALCY. IT WASN'T QUITE ANYWHERE NEAR IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE A PRE PANDEMIC, BUT IT WAS STARTING TO INCREASE SLIGHTLY. THEN THEY LOOKED AT THOSE NUMBERS. THEY MADE AN ADJUSTMENT BASED UPON THE PROJECTS THAT WERE THAT WERE REVIEWED BACK IN 2011, AND THEY INCREASED THAT BY UP TO FORTY, FORTY SIX PERCENT FOR THE PMP. THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THEY LOOKED AT THOSE NUMBERS AND INCREASED IT FOR BETWEEN 2011, FOR THE GROWTH PERIOD UP TO 2020, SO THEY DID A ESSENTIALLY A DOUBLE ADJUSTMENT ON THAT. AND I FELT THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE ACTUALLY QUITE CONSERVATIVE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE CAPACITY STUDY WAS DONE IN STANDARD PRACTICE WITH THE IT TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY'S GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYZES. THE STUDY FOCUSES ON THE WORST CASE CONDITIONS FOR BOTH THE AM AND THE PEAK OR THE PM PEAK HOURS, WHICH ARE THE TYPICAL COMMUTE TIMES FOR THE PROJECTS IN THOSE AREAS. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO EVALUATE THOSE IMPACTS TO THE INTERSECTIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED. SO GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE APPROACH METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE FOR ANY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS DELAYS AT INTERSECTIONS. WE DON'T LOOK AT SEGMENTS, WE DON'T LOOK AT OTHERS ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES. YOU LOOK AT THE IMPACTS AT INTERSECTIONS. SO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT EACH INTERSECTION IS GIVEN A LETTER GRADE, WHETHER IT'S A, B, C, D, E OR F, AND THE CITY HAS CERTAIN STANDARDS. SO YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE EXISTING PERFORMANCE IS AT THESE INTERSECTIONS. THEN YOU ADD THE PROJECT TRIPS AND YOU LOOK AT OPENING DAY AND AT FUTURE DAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO WORKING WITH CITY STAFF, WE IDENTIFIED SEVEN INTERSECTIONS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE INTERSECTION WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE IMPACTED HERE. YOU LOOK AT THE WHAT WE CALL MAJOR INTERSECTIONS, FRUIT STREET AND AMHERST BEING PROBABLY THE MOST HEAVILY TRAVELED INTERSECTION THERE. AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THEM BASED UPON YOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION, SO GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, CANDICE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE NUMBERS. BUT ESSENTIALLY THREE QUARTERS OF THE TRAFFIC BOTH GOING TO END AND BOTH GOING TO AND FROM THE SITE ARE GOING BETWEEN FRUIT AND AMHERST. AND THIS IS MOST LOGICAL BECAUSE OF THE AM AND PM ANALYZES WHERE WE CONCENTRATE ON COMMUTER TRAFFIC. THAT'S THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE TO INTERSTATE 210. [01:20:02] SO GIVEN THE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND GIVEN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT EACH INTERSECTION, WE, NOT WE. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT DID A NET LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AT EACH ONE OF THESE, IF YOU GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THESE NEXT TWO SIDES ARE A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THE DELAYS AND THE HIGHWAY OR THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY, BOTH WITHOUT THE PROJECT AND WITH THE PROJECT. AND IF YOU FOLLOW ALONG FOR BOTH THE AM AND PM PEAK, YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL THE INTERSECTIONS STAYED AT THE SAME CLASSIFICATION. IN OTHER WORDS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THERE WAS NO IMPACT AT THESE HOWEVER, THE IMPACT AND THE DELAY IMPACTED EACH OF THEM, DID NOT CAUSE THEM TO GO TO A WORSE RATING. GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT. THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WAS WITH THE PROJECT AT OPENING DAY. AND THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE IS FUTURE CONDITIONS AT 2040 WITH THE PROJECT. AND ESSENTIALLY THE INTERSECTIONS CAME OUT TO BE THE SAME. NOW THAT IS THE MOST HEAVILY IMPACTED INTERSECTION, WHICH I WILL SAY I WILL SAY IT IS FRUIT STREET AND AMHERST. AND OF COURSE, THAT INTERSECTION IS CURRENTLY WORKING AT A LEVEL F BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A SIGNAL THERE. SO YOU'RE LEFT TURN DELAYS GOING IN AND OUT OF THERE CAN GET QUITE LENGTHY. THERE IS NO CATEGORY BEYOND F, SO IF AN INTERSECTION IS OPERATING AT LEVEL F AND THERE IS AN IMPACT AT THAT INTERSECTION, THAT IT JUST CONTINUES TO BE AT LEVEL F. SO SOME INFORMATION. NEXT SLIDE. IT WAS OUR OPINION THAT THE EVALUATION WAS CONSERVATIVE IN NATURE, EVEN THOUGH WE DID HAVE NUMBERS TAKEN DURING THE PANDEMIC. I BELIEVE THOSE NUMBERS WERE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON OPENING YEAR OR CUMULATIVE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT. OK, WHEN YOU LOOK STRICTLY AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR EACH INTERSECTION, THERE WAS A SLIGHT INCREASE IN DELAY ON MOST OF THESE, BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE ANY OF THESE INTERSECTIONS TO GO TO A WORSE LEVEL OF SERVICE RATING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING AS PART OF THE REPORT. SO THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO IMPROVEMENTS WARRANTED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AT THESE INTERSECTIONS. SO I WENT THROUGH THAT RATHER QUICKLY, WHEN YOU GUYS HAVE OPENED IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE VMT, WHICH IS A NEW ITEM, IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING FOR EVEN THE BEST OF US. BUT WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES REGARDING THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK, THAT CONCLUDES OUR REPORTS. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF, PLEASE LET OR ANY OF OUR CONSULTANTS, PLEASE LET US KNOW. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, FOR THE CONSULTANTS AT THIS POINT? COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. OK, UNMUTE MYSELF THERE. YES, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND ONE IS FOR MATT. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR MATT. IS HE STILL ON? YEAH, JR JUST HAS TO BRING HIM BACK. OK, MY QUESTION WILL BE FOR MATT AND JOHN. SO IF HE WANTS TO WORK BY PULLING JOHN IN ALSO. MATT, HI, THIS IS ROBIN CARDER. HI ROBIN. HI. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, YOU AND I MET LAST WEEK. I WANTED TO KNOW FROM YOU MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT. I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE GRADE DIFFERENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY GOING FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND YOU WERE GOING TO PUT A SLIDE UP, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT SLIDE. SO COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE GRADE DIFFERENTIAL FOR EVERYONE PLEASE? SURE. THE GRADE DIFFERENTIAL IS ACTUALLY QUITE SIGNIFICANT FROM THE LEVEL OF AMHERST BACK TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THE SITE ACTUALLY DROPS 20 FEET. BUT WE HAVE WORKED TOWARD A GRADING THAT WILL BALANCE THE SITE EFFECTIVELY AND THE SITE THE SITE WILL CONTINUE ITS SLOPE TO THE REAR AS WE DEVELOP IT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANYTHING WHERE WE GRADE THE SITE IN THE SOUTH ANYWHERE TO THE LEVEL OF AMHERST. WE'RE GOING WITH THE CONTOUR OF THE PROPERTY AND WE WILL BE THE HOMES WILL BE SLOPING SOUTH AS WE TRAVEL ALONG WITH THE CONTOUR OF THE SITE. OK, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THE PARK THAT IS BEING BUILT THERE. [01:25:04] NOW, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT? IS THAT GOING TO BE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OR FOR THE RESIDENTS AT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT? NO. THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PARK'S GOING TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOA. OK, SO. BUT IT WILL BE IT'LL BE ABLE TO BE USED BY THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. YES, I JUST I WORRY THAT AS WE KNOW IN ALL PARKS, TRASH IS LEFT AROUND AND AFTER PEOPLE COME AND EAT THERE, THEY JUST LEAVE TRASH. IS THAT GOING TO GET OLD TO THE HOME? I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER THAT. BUT TO THE HOA, IS THAT GOING TO GET OLD THAT THEY HAVE TO KEEP MAINTAINING THAT AND CLEANING IT UP SO IT'S A WELL, I CAN I CAN ANSWER THAT IN THAT IN THAT THEY'LL BE PART OF THE BUDGET OF THE HOA WILL BE THE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THAT PARK. SO IT'S GOING TO BE KEPT IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. IN FACT, IT'S THE GATEWAY TO THE PROJECT. SO I THINK THE HOA'S GOING TO PAY VERY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO KEEPING THAT PARK, EVEN FROM THE LANDSCAPING STANDPOINT, THE CLEANUP STANDPOINT IN PRISTINE CONDITION, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO THEIR HOMES IS GOING TO PASS BY AS THEY ENTER. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY AN IMPORTANT AMENITY TO THEM TO MAINTAIN. OK, GOOD. THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION HERE FOR JOHN. JOHN, YOUR MUTED SO IF YOU WANT TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. YOU TALKED AND I THINK IT WAS YOUR SECOND TO LAST OR LAST SLIDE AND IT CAUGHT MY EYE. THE TRAFFIC REPORT ABOUT AMHERST AND FRUIT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON THE STREET AND THAT'S THE HIGHEST AREA. YOU BROUGHT UP TOO THAT THERE'S NOT A SIGNAL TO A LEFT HAND SIGNAL DOWN AT FOOTHILL AND WILLIAMS. SO A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL, YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THERE THAT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THOSE PEOPLE FROM WILLIAMS, FOOTHILL ALL THE WAY UP THAT THEY'D BE COMING TO AMHERST TO MAKE A LEFT AND HEAD OVER TO FRUIT? ` OK, I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT YOUR WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS, SO. OK, MY QUESTION SIMPLY PUT IS, DID THIS REPORT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE ISN'T A SIGNAL AT FOOTHILL IN WILLIAMS THAT ALL THOSE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA WILL BE CUTTING THROUGH AMHERST TO COME OVER TO FRUIT? WELL, YOU CAN'T REALLY CALCULATE PEOPLE'S SHORT CUTS OR THEIR CUT THROUGHS, WHAT IT DOES LOOK LIKE IS IF YOU LOOK AT WILLIAMS AVENUE IN FOOTHILL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU BUT WITHOUT THE PROJECT. TODAY, THAT INTERSECTION OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE D, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE CUSP OF ALMOST FAILING. WITH THE PROJECT IT STILL MAINTAINS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE D. THE DELAY GOES FROM LIKE AN AVERAGE OF TWENTY FIVE POINT ZERO TO TWENTY FIVE POINT SEVEN, SO IT DOESN'T CAUSE IT TO FALL TO THAT NEXT LEVEL. WHEN YOU'RE DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY, YOU CANNOT PREDICT PEOPLE'S TRAVEL PATTERNS FOR CUT THROUGH SHORTCUTS, ALL YOU CAN DO IS LOOK AT THE INTERSECTIONS AND SEE HOW THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS THOSE INTERSECTIONS. SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE STUDY DID. AND AGAIN, IT DID NOT CAUSE THAT INTERSECTION TO GO TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE E. OK, THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, IF I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SURE, GO AHEAD. JOHN, HOW DO YOU MAKE THE ONE THING I HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS THE F STUDY THAT'S ON FRUIT AND AMHERST. HOW DO YOU MITIGATE AND I KNOW IT DOESN'T CHANGE TO A LOWER SCORE BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOWER SCORE THAN A F STUDY ON THERE. HOW WOULD THAT BE? HOW CAN WE MITIGATE THAT? WHAT WOULD WE DO TO CAUSE IT TO RISE UP? YOU TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIGNAL ON FRUIT AND AMHERST. IF THERE WAS A SIGNAL EVENTUALLY PUT THERE, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE TO THE SCORE OF THAT INTERSECTION? FAR AWAY FROM IT. CORRECT. YOU DO HAVE ONE THERE. AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE SCORE OF AN INTERSECTION IS BASED ON DELAY. OK, THE PRIMARILY THE PRIMARY CAUSE, IN MY OPINION, OF THAT DELAY AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED ACTUALLY AT THE NUMBERS, BUT WOULD BE ANY LEFT TURN MOVEMENT LIKE IT COULD BE A SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT ALONG FRUIT ONTO AMHERST. YOU KNOW, RIGHT TURNS ARE NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANY SIGNIFICANT DELAYS, A LEFT TURN OUT OF AMHERST GOING SOUTH ON FRUIT THAT WOULD CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT DELAY. SO THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU DO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, YOU CAN CONTROL THOSE MOVEMENTS. YOU CAN STOP THE NORTH-SOUTH MOVEMENTS TO ALLOW THOSE LEFT TURNS. [01:30:04] SO THAT IS LITERALLY HOW YOU GET AN INTERSECTION TO PERFORM BETTER. THE ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE PUT A ROUNDABOUT OUT THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON BECAUSE ROUNDABOUTS ACTUALLY DO HAVE A TENDENCY TO OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN ANY OTHER INTERSECTION TREATMENT. HOWEVER, YES, IF YOU PUT A SIGNAL OUT THERE THAT WOULD THAT INTERSECTION WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY GO TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE D OR ABOVE. CANDICE I HAVE A QUESTION ON ONE OF YOUR SLIDES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL IT BACK UP. IT WAS ON YOUR DEIR SLIDE AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY ISSUES IN THE AREA. AND I JUST WONDERED IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE MORE TO. WE WENT A LITTLE FAST ON THAT. LET'S SEE IF I CAN PULL IT UP. IT WAS LABELED DRAFT EIR? YOU HAD DEIR ON THE SLIDE. WAS IT? I KEEP WATCHING THIS, I'M GOING TO GET SICK. IT'S ALL RIGHT. IT WAS SLIDE 18 CANDICE. 18? YEAH. I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS ON HERE, THIS IS IT THIS ONE? GO BACK ONE. THIS ONE? RIGHT? YES, YES, ABOUT THE WHERE YOU SAID THE PROJECT WOULD SATISFY ALMOST 10 PERCENT OF THE ABOVE MODERATE ALLOCATION OF THE MODERATE INCOME OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THREE, BUT THE DENSITY WERE TO BE REDUCED SO YOU WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIND SITES ELSEWHERE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER JUST SO THAT WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO HIT THERE? SO WE GET NUMBERS ALLOCATED EACH YEAR IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND IT WAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY THIS YEAR TO THE ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX UNITS, AND OUT OF THOSE THIRTEEN HUNDRED UNITS, THEY BREAK IT DOWN, VERY LOW INCOME 414, LOW INCOME, MODERATE AND ABOVE MODERATE INCOME. WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT HOUSING IN OUR CITY TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS. SO THIS PROJECT WOULD SATISFY ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF THAT ABOVE MODERATE REQUIREMENT OF THE 470 UNIT. THEREFORE, IT WOULD HELP US MEET OUR GOALS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR RHNA NUMBERS AND IF THE DENSITY WERE REDUCED, IF, AS PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING, IF IT WERE REDUCED, THEN WE JUST HAVE TO FIND OTHER SITES IN THE CITY, WHICH YOU ALL KNOW IS NOT EASY TO DO WITH A WITH OUR CITY. THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF LAND LEFT. WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND OTHER SITES TO MEET THESE NUMBERS. AND I WAS TOLD BECAUSE WE GOT IN OCTOBER OF 19, BUT LAWS CHANGED IN JANUARY 2020 WITH NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS OF MAKING SURE THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING WOULD BE PART OF EVERY PROJECT. IF THIS PROJECT WAS DENIED AND THEN IT CAME BACK AS A NEW PROJECT, WOULD THERE HAVE TO BE? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO LOW INCOME PARCELS IN THIS IN THIS PLOT. WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN IN PLACE? SO I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF LISA [INAUDIBLE] THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION. I THINK UNMUTE YOURSELF. JUST TO CHIME IN REAL QUICK ON THIS, SCAG, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. THEY REDID THEIR NUMBERS AND A LOT OF THE CITIES WERE VERY UNHAPPY, BEING ON THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. [01:35:01] THEY WERE VERY UNHAPPY WITH THE NUMBERS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE UNATTAINABLE. AND SO THEY WENT BACK TO SCAG AND SAYS, NO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH BECAUSE AS MS. BOWCOCK JUST STATED, YOU ONLY HAVE SO MUCH LAND TO DEVELOP AND THEN YOU GO TO MASS DENSITY ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PUSHING FOR, IS MASS DENSITY. SO YOU'RE KIND OF IN A CATCH 22 SITUATION WHERE THEY DON'T LEAVE YOU NO CHANCE TO BUILD DECENT PROJECTS, BUT MASS PROJECTS LIKE IT SEEM LIKE ALL OF US HAVE SEEN ALL THROUGH THE YEARS. SO JUST A LITTLE INFORMATION. IS LISA ON? YOU READY, LISA? SHE COULD TAKE NOTE OF MY QUESTION AND ANSWER IT LATER ON IF WE NEED MOVE FORWARD AS WELL. I THINK SHE'S TRYING TO UNMUTED HERSELF. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION IF SHE CAN. SHE IS UNMUTED, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY WE CAN'T HEAR HER. [INAUDIBLE] RED MICROPHONE TO GO AWAY, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT MEANS IT'S UNMUTED. AS SHE'S AS SHE'S DOING THAT TOO, THE WHAT STUCK OUT TO ME IS THE SIZE OF THE STREET COMPARED TO THE OTHER FIVE OR SIX HOUSING PROJECTS EARLIER, LIKE THE EMERALD WALK, THE LORDSBURG PORT, OAK GROVE WALK, EMERALD COLLECTION THE SIZE OF THE STREETS, ALLOWS STREET PARKING, AND IT'S A 20 FEET EASEMENT FROM THE HOUSE. SO THERE'S PARKING ON THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL. SO THEN EVEN A LARGE TRUCK LIKE MINE COULD PARK ON THE DRIVEWAY. CORRECT? YES. AND THAT, I SEE, IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OF THESE OTHER HOMES WHERE THEY HAVE ALMOST ZERO SPACE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THEN THE STREETS, THAT THEY'RE [INAUDIBLE]. I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. I WAS JUST GOING TO CONCUR WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE I LIVE IN LORDSBURG COURT AND YOU KNOW, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PARKING ENUMERATED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT FAR EXCEEDS WHAT WHAT WE HAVE. SO I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS ABOUT PARKING POTENTIALLY BECOMING AN ISSUE. BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR MYSELF, I'LL TELL YOU, I DON'T HAVE EVEN A DRIVEWAY [INAUDIBLE]. I MEAN, LUCKILY, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, ME SO A TWO CAR GARAGE IS FINE. BUT THIS DEFINITELY ALLEVIATES, I THINK, SOME OF THE CONCERNS SOME OF THE FOLKS HAVE RAISED WITH REGARD TO PEOPLE PARKING OUTSIDE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD ALSO CHIME IN ON THIS ONE ALSO, BECAUSE I DID GO, I COULDN'T QUITE GET INTO COUNCIL MEMBER LAU'S NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY BLOCKED ME OUT, BUT I DID. I'VE BEEN IT BEFORE. SO I WENT TO THE EMERALD BLOCK. I WANT TO LORDSBURG COURT, OAK GROVE WALK AND THE EMERALD COLLECTION. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SO TIGHT THAT THERE'S RED CURBS PAINTED SO YOU CAN'T PARK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES. AND ALSO SOME OF THE HOUSES HAVE NO DRIVEWAY. THERE'S A TWO FOOT DRIVEWAY BASICALLY [INAUDIBLE]. I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER LAU'S NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CENTER OF THEIR TOWN. THE HOMES, DETACHED HOMES ARE LITERALLY IT'S A GREENBELT. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE BACK SIDE. SO THERE'S THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT HAS FULL FLOW DRIVEWAYS, LOW FLOW GARAGE, FULL PARKING IN FRONT AND FULL SIZE STREETS SO. IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT ESPECIALLY ON THE DENSITY, BUT I JUST. IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE ON THESE NINE POINT TWO UNITS PER ACRE AND EIGHT POINT NINE. IT DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. SO [INAUDIBLE] DID WE GET LISA ON? OH, SHE'S ON THE PHONE. WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IT. OK. SHE WAS CALLING ME. CAN WE MOVE TO, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE COULD PROBABLY MOVE BACK TO THIS AFTER. YES, MR. DAVIS. YES. I HAVE A QUESTION OR I MEAN, I'VE GOT PLENTY OF COMMENTS TO MAKE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE RHNA REQUIREMENTS THAT I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY BROUGHT UP THAT. THE QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE, JOHN THIS ONE IS FOR YOU, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS. AND I THINK IT'LL HELP THE RESIDENTS ALSO BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE HAS BEEN AROUND SO LONG. THERE ARE PRESCRIBED MITIGATION. SHOULD YOU CHANGE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE BECAUSE OF A PROJECT THAT THEN REQUIRES YOU TO TAKE MITIGATION TO ACCOMMODATE OR MODIFY THAT THAT CHANGE IN LEVEL OF SERVICE. [01:40:01] THE VMT IS NEW, BUT THE VMT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. RIGHT? YOU EITHER YOU EITHER SCREEN OUT, MEANING THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM. SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO THE PROJECT, OR YOU DON'T SCREEN OUT, WHICH IMPLIES THAT THERE'S SOME BURDEN TO THE PROJECT. AND SO THEREFORE THE REST OF THE PROJECT NEEDS TO OVERCOME THAT BURDEN. IS MY UNDERSTANDING ON THAT CORRECT? YES AND NO. THERE ARE ACTUAL MITIGATION BUILT INTO THE BUILT INTO THE VMT SYSTEM THAT WERE ADOPTED BY THE WHICH WERE ADOPTED BY THE STATE. THEY INCLUDE SUCH THINGS AS EXPANDING THE TRANSIT SERVICE, ADDING BUS STOPS, PROVIDING BICYCLE FACILITIES. SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF MITIGATION FACILITIES THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT. TO GET ONE PARTICULAR PROJECT ADD A BUS SERVICE THAT WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE. SO THAT IS WHY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENTS FOR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY IS LOOKING AT WHAT'S CALLED A MITIGATION BANK, WHERE ALL THE PROJECTS WHICH FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS MITIGATION BANK, WHICH THEN THE POOLED FUNDS COULD BE USED TO EXPAND TRANSIT, BUILD BICYCLE PATHWAYS, THINGS SUCH AS THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, SINCE VMT IS SO NEW, THEY ARE STILL WORKING. THE COG IS STILL WORKING ON DEVELOPING THAT MITIGATION BANK. THANK YOU FOR DESCRIBING THAT MORE, AS IS TYPICAL WITH MANY THINGS. THE ANSWER IS REALLY MORE NUANCED THAN A SIMPLE YES OR NO. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY, THE MITIGATIONS THAT WE SEE THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US IN THIS CASE ARE REALLY AT A SCALE THAT'S MUCH LARGER. SO IT REALLY REQUIRES ECONOMIES OF SCALE OF MANY PROJECTS TO GROUP TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MITIGATED UNDER THE VMT. THAT'S [INAUDIBLE]. CORRECT. OK, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. JOHN JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION REGARDING THE WILLIAMS AND FOOTHILL AND ALSO THE AMHERST AND FOOTHILL. SIGNALIZATION WILL HAVE TO BE THROUGH CALTRANS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH CALTRANS IN ORDER TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY'RE NOT THE EASIEST ENTITIES TO DEAL WITH WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING SIGNALS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. ALL THAT ANY EFFORTS AT THOSE TWO INTERSECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE COORDINATED WITH CALTRANS. THEY'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ALLOW THE CITY TO BUILD AND PAY FOR IT. BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE COORDINATED WITH THAT. THAT'S THAT'S MY VIEW. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT ISSUE BEFORE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. ARE WE DO WE HAVE ARE WE READY TO GO? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEAH. YES, YOU CAN? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU, THIS LISA? FABULOUS. YES, IT IS. THIS IS LISA [INAUDIBLE] ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. GOOD EVENING. SO NOW I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND REMEMBER THE QUESTION, WHICH WAS, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ENTER INTO A NEW AGREEMENT IF THIS PROJECT DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND YOU ENTER INTO A NEW AGREEMENT WITH A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER THAN IF 10 OR MORE UNITS ARE BUILT ON THE PROJECT SITE, THEN 15 PERCENT OF THOSE HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE THIS AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BEFORE THAT LAW WENT INTO EFFECT, IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN I'M SORRY FOR A SECOND PART ON THAT, WHEN YOU ALLOW FOR LOW INCOME THE 15 PERCENT, THEN DOESN'T IT BUMP UP THE DENSITY RATE AS WELL? IF DEPENDING WHAT TYPE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PRESENTED AND DEPENDING WHAT PERCENTAGE IT IS. BUT IT ALL BECOMES VERY INTERLOCKING. TO ANSWER TO MR. CROSBY'S QUESTION LISA THE, IT COULD BE A MUCH MORE DENSE PROJECT. THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING, IS THAT CORRECT? IT COULD BE BECAUSE OF THE NEW STATE LAWS AND THE [INAUDIBLE] RULES. GOES FROM MAYBE 11 PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT, BUT BY 50 PERCENT, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE LIKE 40 PERCENT OF YOUR PROJECT BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN THE CITY COULDN'T SAY NO TO THAT. [INAUDIBLE] WOULD KICK YOU INTO A LOT MORE HOUSING [INAUDIBLE]. BECAUSE A NEW STATE REGULATION, THE CITY COULD NOT SAY NO. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE MANDATED TO DO? CORRECT. IT APPLIES TO ALL CITIES, CHARTER AND GENERAL LAW. [01:45:03] THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. CROSBY? YES, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR MS. [INAUDIBLE], IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT. JR? YES, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT AND WE'LL START ORGANIZING, WE WILL DO THOSE THAT ARE ATTENDEES VIA ZOOM FIRST. SO IF THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE ATTENDEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AND WE WILL GO THROUGH YOU ONE BY ONE. AND THEN FOR THOSE THAT ALSO REQUESTED TO CALL IN, WE WILL DO THOSE SECOND AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CALL EVERYBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK. SO GIVE ME ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE EITHER ON THE LINE OR GOING TO BE ON ZOOM. THAT THEY PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THE THREE MINUTE RULE. ALSO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A DOUBLE COMMENT AS FAR AS THE SAME ISSUE, IF WE COULD PLEASE ORGANIZE THAT, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE. AND IF PEOPLE ARE SAYING THE SAME ITEM, WHETHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT, WHETHER THE UNIT NUMBERS OR WHATEVER, IF WE COULD PLEASE, IF YOU HEAR THE PERSON THAT'S ON THE CALL AND THEY'RE SAYING THE SAME THING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PERSON THAT HAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO SAY. WE COULD PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THAT. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. THANK YOU. AND MR. MAYOR, I'VE LET DENITA BEAUCHAMP IN THE ROOM. GOOD EVENING MS. BEAUCHAMP. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS, THAT THE CITY OF LA VERNE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND OUT FROM OTHER SURROUNDING FOOTHILL CITY. AND DO WE REALLY WANT TO LOOK LIKE THE REST OF THE CITY? CLAREMONT, [INAUDIBLE] HAVE ALREADY SUCCUMBED TO THE DEVELOPER'S BIG DOLLAR OFFERS IN PURCHASING LAND AND BUILDING HIGH DENSITY HOUSING COMPLEXES IN THEIR CITIES. OUR CITY IS CONSIDERED A SUBURB OF LOS ANGELES AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING ZONING AND LANDSCAPE FOR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESERVE OUR CITY, TO MAINTAIN ITS LEVEL OF CHARACTER, INTEGRITY AND SAFETY WITHOUT THOSE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND MANIPULATING THE CITIES AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. CITY OF LA VERNE WILL MEET THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS THE RHNA NUMBERS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN CANDICE'S SLIDE BECAUSE THEY'RE PARTICIPATING IN THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR HOUSING PROJECT AS WELL AS THE SAN GABRIEL HOUSING, REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST. AND SO I FEEL THAT THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE NUMBERS THAT WERE LISTED WITHOUT HAVING TO BACKFILL OR INFILL THIS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I JUST FEEL LIKE. THE CITY COUNCIL DID TAKE THE TIME TO MEET WITH US AND LISTEN TO OUR CONCERNS, WHICH I DO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR THAT TIME. I UNDERSTAND YOUR TIME IS PRECIOUS AS BUSY AS YOU ARE ALL, BUT WE REALLY NEED THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR AND EVERYONE INVOLVED TO HEAR THE VOICES OF THE RESIDENTS, THAT WE'RE NOT OBSTRUCTIONISTS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BLOCK THE PROJECT COMPLETELY, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE PROJECT AT A LOWER RATE. AS THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER DISCUSSED, AMHERST AND FRUIT IS ALREADY AT A LEVEL F TRAFFIC, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 84 CARS TO OUR STREET. IT'S JUST IT IS ALREADY AN UNSAFE STREET, AS MANY OF YOU SAW HOW MANY CARS DROVE DOWN AMHERST WHILE YOU WERE IN THE IN-PERSON MEETING WITH THAT, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. SO PLEASE TAKE THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS AS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. THERE ARE LIFELONG RESIDENTS HERE AND I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THAT ARE TRYING TO BE CHANGED ALL AT ONE TIME. YOU'VE GOT ZONING, YOU'VE GOT A GENERAL PLAN, A SPECIFIC PLAN AND POTENTIALLY TWO HOUSING PROJECTS, NOT JUST AMHERST, BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO DISCUSS I BELIEVE TWENTY EIGHT NINETEEN, WHICH IS THE HOUSING PROJECT OVER ON FRUIT STREET. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CUMULATIVE [01:50:01] IMPACT. AND SO THERE ARE THINGS STATEMENT. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THINGS ARE CONSIDERED PROPERLY ACCORDING TO CEQA AND THE NEW FRUIT STREET PROJECT IS NOT SO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY TOO THAT, PLEASE, IF YOU'VE SPOKEN ONCE THAT SHOULD DO IT. WE'RE GOING TO DO ONE TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE. SO IF YOU HAVE SPOKEN ON THE ITEM PLEASE LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK. NEXT JR. MS. SKINNER, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR HEPBURN, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THE LA VERNE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ADVOCATES FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AMHERST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. WE SUPPORT ALL OF THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THE AMHERST COMMERCE PROJECT PROVIDES THE CITY OF LA VERNE WITH A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY. AND IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES FOR LA VERNE'S WORKFORCE. OUR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS NEED HOUSING OPTIONS THAT ALIGN WITH EARLY CAREER SALARIES. THE 42 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL PROVIDE THAT MUCH NEEDED INVENTORY, PROVIDING NEW, ATTAINABLE HOUSING TO ENSURE THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, TEACHERS AND HEALTH CARE WORKERS WILL HAVE A HOME IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY SERVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MS. SKINNER. AND SORRY, THERE IS A DELAY IN PROMOTING SOMEBODY TO A PANELIST, SO. THIS IS WHERE JEOPARDY COMES IN HANDY. MR. HALE'S IN. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. HALE, YOU ARE MUTED. THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE] AND THANK YOU MAYOR HEPBURN. HEAR ME OK? WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. YES. I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M A RESIDENT OF CLAREMONT AND I HAVE EMAILED MS. BOWCOCK ON SATURDAY. LAST WEEK, I THANK HER FOR HAVING SENT THE LETTER ADVISING ME OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I WANTED TO STATE THAT I'M CONCERNED THAT THE RESIDENTS OF CLAREMONT NOTWITHSTANDING, THAT WE'RE ON THE BOUNDARY LINE. EAST OF WILLIAMS, BASICALLY, WE'RE NOT NOTIFIED BY THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, AND SO THAT'S A ZERO CONCERN OF MINE THAT YOU'LL SEE IN MY EMAIL AND I INVITE YOU ALL TO PLEASE READ IT. I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT, GIVEN THAT COVID-19 HAS BEEN WITH US NOW FOR MORE THAN NINE MORE THAN A YEAR. I HAVE NOT HEARD MUCH SAID ABOUT HOW IT SHOULD OR HAS IMPACTED AN APPROPRIATE REVIEW OF [INAUDIBLE] OF THIS NATURE, ONE THAT WILL BE HERE PERHAPS FOR 50 YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG. AND IT'S MY VIEW THAT IT HAS CAUSED DIFFICULTIES IN COMMUNICATION AND IT HAS ACTUALLY SHORT CIRCUITED WHAT WOULD BE A DILIGENCE IN THE REVIEW OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY THE CLAREMONT NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE PREVAILING WINDS CARRY VIRUSES, INCLUDING COVID-19. ANIMAL STUDIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THIS AND I OUTLINED THAT IN MY EMAIL. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT SHOULD THERE BE A CATASTROPHIC EVENT LIKE A GREAT EARTHQUAKE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS SO DENSE AND SO DIFFICULT TO ACCESS THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO HAVE OTHER MEANS OF HAVING EMERGENCY VEHICLES HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS. AGAIN, THAT'S MENTIONED ALSO IN MY EMAIL. I WOULD FURTHER SAY THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] NURSERY HAS BEEN OPERATING THERE. I WOULD THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE AND MANDATORY THAT A SOILS INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDITION, CHEMICAL CONDITION OF THE SOIL, AS [INAUDIBLE] THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE OVER THE YEARS BY THE NURSERY NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND I DID NOT SEE THAT INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. IF I MISSED THAT, I WOULD WELCOME SOMEONE CORRECTING ME ABOUT MY OVERSIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HALE. GOOD EVENING, MR. HUSKIE, YOUR MUTED. EVENING, EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I JUST WANT TO SAY I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT. [01:55:07] THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSES ARE ATTRACTIVE. THESE AREN'T CONDOS OR TOWNHOMES. THESE ARE FREESTANDING HOUSES, THERE ARE FRONT YARDS, BACKYARDS, SIDE YARDS AND DRIVEWAYS FOR EVERY HOUSE. AND ALSO, I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THERE WILL EVENTUALLY BE 42 NEW HOUSEHOLDS WHO BUY LOCALLY, EAT AT LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND HELP SUPPORT THE CITY'S TAX BASE. AND ALSO, I. I'D LIKE TO PROJECT. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PART THERE THAT'S GOING TO BE OPENED UP FOR THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS BUILD HOUSES WITH SOLAR AND THE ROOFS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS IN THE GARAGES, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR. MS. FISHER, GOOD EVENING, YOU ARE ON MUTE. THERE YOU GO. GOOD EVENING. HI EVERYBODY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU DO FOR OUR CITY. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME [INAUDIBLE]? YEAH, YOU'RE A LITTLE MUFFLED, BUT YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST RAISE IT UP A BIT OR GET CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE. OK. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S BETTER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO. INITIALLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE PETITIONED SIGNED WE SUBMITTED ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN SIGNATURES TO YOU. AND AFTER THE LAST MEETING WAS CANCELED, I ASKED FOR HELP FROM NEIGHBORS ON THE SURROUNDING STREETS. AND I KIND OF ASSIGNED A PERSON PER STREET. AND WITH THOSE PEOPLE, WE GOT AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS WHO ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT, NOT NECESSARILY THE ENTIRE PROJECT, BUT AGAINST THE FORTY TWO HOUSES. EVERYONE THINKS MAXIMUM THIRTY THREE, LESS WOULD BE BETTER. OF THOSE ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE SIGNATURES. THIRTY FIVE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE FROM THE FOOTHILL AREA ON FRUIT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEM GREATLY, TRYING TO EXIT OUT OF THAT INTERSECTION THERE WHERE IT MEETS AMHERST. ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM AND FOR US TO EXIT ONTO FRUIT STREET MAKING LEFT TURNS. BUT IT'S GOING TO ADD AT LEAST ANOTHER HUNDRED CARS COMMUTING FROM THERE. SO THIRTY FIVE OF THOSE SIGNATURES WERE FROM THE FOOTHILL [INAUDIBLE] AND ALSO FROM THE TWIN OAKS PEOPLE. AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] HAD POSTED ON NEXT DOOR AND SHE DIRECTED PHONE CALLS TO ME. AND WE HAD 11 PEOPLE SIGN THAT WERE FROM CLAREMONT, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE AT THE GARY AND WILLIAMS, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEM AS WELL. SO IN TOTAL, WE. A MINUTE TO YOU. THREE HUNDRED AND THREE SIGNATURES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT, WHO LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW I CAN A APPRECIATE LINDA FROM THE CHAMBER, I THINK HER NAME WAS LINDA, I'M NOT SURE [INAUDIBLE] WHO THINKS THAT A SEVEN HUNDRED TO EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR HOUSE IS GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR A NEW TEACHER. AND IT'S JUST NOT. THAT IS NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSE. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE HOUSING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE STARTING OUT. AND ALL OF YOU KNOW THAT THAT MY DAUGHTER AND HER FIANCé, THEY JUST BOUGHT A HOUSE IN SAN DIMAS. IT'S A TOWNHOUSE THAT THEY PAID FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND FOR BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN AFFORD A SEVEN TO EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND HOUSE. SO AS FAR AS THIS PROJECT APPEALING TO THE YOUNGER MILLENNIAL FAMILIES. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING [INAUDIBLE]. WITH LINDA, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS A IT WAS A PLAY OUT OF MATT WAKEN GOING TO THE CHAMBER, WHICH I KNOW HE DID. SO THAT TO ME IT BURNS. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A TIME LIMIT, BUT WE'VE ALL SAT IN HERE FOR OVER TWO HOURS LISTENING TO THE SAME THINGS WE'VE LISTENED TO AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING. SO I'M SORRY, I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO BE REALLY COOL ABOUT WHAT I TOLD YOU, BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO BUT LISTENING TO ALL THE B.S. THAT WAS JUST TALKED ABOUT WHEN THEY TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GOING TO DENISE. YOUR TIME IS UP. I'M SORRY. WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT INDIVIDUAL, IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET ME JUST END REAL QUICK. CAN I PROJECT . WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOU VOTING WITH US AS THE VOTERS IN THIS TOWN THAT YOU ARE [02:00:02] SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT. THANK YOU, GUYS. THANK YOU, MS. FISHER. GOOD EVENING, I'M I THINK EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, WE CAN. OK. [INAUDIBLE] GOOD EVENING. I'M PATTY LATERAL AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT AMHERST. EACH OF US SPEAKING TONIGHT. WE ALL COME FROM A DIFFERENT PLACE IN OUR LIVES, A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT WE LIVE, BACKGROUND, LIVELIHOOD, BUT WE ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS OUR LOVE FOR THIS CITY AND THE SMALL TOWN FEEL AND OUR CONCERN FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. AND WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S NEED TO SELL THIS PROPERTY ON AMHERST. AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO STOP THAT AT ALL. WE WOULD WE WOULD, OF COURSE, LOVE IT TO STAY UNDEVELOPED, BUT THAT'S UNREALISTIC. IT'S GOING TO GET DEVELOPED AND WE GET THAT. THE PROBLEM IS THE FORTY TWO HOMES CRAMMED ONTO A FIVE POINT SIX ACRE PARCEL DOES NOT FIT OUR COMMUNITY, IT IS NOT TRANSITIONAL. TRANSITIONAL FROM EIGHT HOMES, MOBILE HOMES FOR PER UNIT PER ACRE TO OUR THREE UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE CLOSER TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING, WHICH IS THE THIRTY THREE UNITS THERE. THAT WOULD BE MORE TRANSITIONAL IN MY POINT OF VIEW. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE HERE THAT KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT ALL OF THIS THAN I COULD EVER HOPE TO, SO I CAN SPEAK TO WHERE I COME FROM. AND THAT IS 17 YEARS OF SITTING ON THE SCHOOL BOARD. AND FOR 17 YEARS WE DID MADE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW IN OUR HEARTS TO BE BEST FOR THE STUDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. WE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF THAT, MADE SOME REALLY HARD DECISIONS OVER THE YEARS. WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS THAT IS IN YOUR HEART, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT FOUR, THAT THESE FORTY TWO HOMES IS WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE AND THE CITY OF LA VERNE? AND I WANT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE ON OUR LIVES, BUT YET THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COMPROMISE AND AGREE TO THE THIRTY THREE HOMES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRUCK LENGTH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S 20 FEET FROM THE GARAGE DOOR TO THE DRIVEWAY. THE TRUCK WE HAVE. TWENTY TWO FEET TIP TO TOE, WOULD NOT FIT ON THE DRIVEWAY, WON'T FIT IN THE GARAGE. WE WOULD HAVE NO PLACE TO PARK IT. SMALLER, SMALLER, FEWER HOMES ON THESE LOTS WOULD ALLOW FOR LARGER LOTS PER HOME AND SOME LARGER SPACES FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. NOT EVERYONE'S GOING TO HAVE A BIG TRUCK LIKE I DO. I GET THAT. BUT WE DO AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DO, AND IT WOULDN'T FIT. SO SCALING THIS PROJECT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL SCOPE IS A COMPROMISE I THINK WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH. LEADERSHIP IS THE ART OF GIVE AND TAKE. ON PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS YOU GUYS HAVE GONE TOE TO TOE AND SAID WE KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO GET WHAT WE WANT. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO THAT FOR US TONIGHT AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MS. LATERAL. GOOD EVENING, LILY. [INAUDIBLE], OK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY [INAUDIBLE]. I REALLY NEED TO SPEAK UP FOR SOME RESIDENTS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO USE [INAUDIBLE] TECHNOLOGY REALLY DIFFICULT FOR SOME RESIDENTS. SO I APPRECIATE I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO ON THE PROJECT. I'M IN THE SEVEN B OK? [INAUDIBLE] STREET, MY NAME IS LILY [INAUDIBLE]. SO MY PARENTS USED TO LIVE IN THAT AREA. SO I'M KIND OF FAMILIAR. SO ACCORDING TO THE LAST TWO PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON MARCH NINE AND MARCH 17, I HEARD A LOT OF RESIDENTS SPOKE ON THIS PROJECT. THEY NOTICE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITHOUT ENOUGH NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY SO THAT THEY START A PETITION. AS THEIR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IS ENCOURAGED IN CALIFORNIA. SO IS ALSO COMING TO OUR CITY WILL BE NOT LIKE A ONE TIME. IT WILL HAVE A SIMILAR PROJECT COME IN THE FUTURE. SO WHAT I CONCERN IS NOT ONLY THE TRAFFIC, BECAUSE THE MORE NEW RESIDENTS MOVE TO OUR CITY, IT WILL CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE ESPECIALLY THE SCHOOL, POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEY ALL NEED TO GROW TO MEET THE NEEDS. SO THAT'S WHAT I CONCERN A LOT. AND OF COURSE, THE TRAFFIC I NEVER THERE TO TURN LEFT ON [INAUDIBLE] ON FOOTHILL, ON FRUIT STREET BECAUSE VERY DIFFICULT TO TURN LEFT ON WITHOUT SIGNAL. BUT IF WE HAVE MORE OF LIKE A 42 HOUSE COMING, I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO TURN [02:05:02] LEFT ANYWAY. EVEN TURN RIGHT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIT INTO TRAFFIC. SO THE STUDY ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IS MOSTLY BASED ON THE LAST YEAR, PANDEMIC IS NOT REALLY THAT MUCH [INAUDIBLE]. SO THAT'S A VERY BIG CONCERN ABOUT THIS. AND SO I JUST HOPE WE WILL OUR CITY WILL HAVE A MORE TRANSPARENCY TO NOTICE RESIDENTS. SOMETIMES PEOPLE MIX THEM NOW AND HAVE TO REALLY KNOW THIS NEIGHBOR BY NEIGHBOR AND FIND OUT IS COMING BECAUSE NO IN PERSON STUDY SHOP OWNER ON ZOOM IS NOT ENOUGH. I KNOW SOME RESIDENT ONLINE TODAY, THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE ZOOM, HOW TO MAKE A PHONE CALL TO COMMENT, AND MAKE IT PRETTY DIFFICULT FOR THEM. SO THAT'S WHAT I CONCERN. SO I LOVE OUR CITY. OF COURSE, I HOPE WELCOMES SOME NEW RESIDENT COME TO OUR CITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE OLD RESIDENT IS REALLY WE LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT OF LA VERNE STILL. I DON'T KNOW WHY, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO OUR CITY? MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT. RIGHT. SO ACCORDING TO DESIGN, ACTUALLY 42 IS VERY BIG NUMBER, BUT DEFINITELY NOT ENOUGH. I MEAN, THE STATE IS VERY NARROW AND NEED TO TAKE DOWN ALL THOSE. THE HOUSE IN THE CENTER HAVE SOME SPACE FOR KIDS TO PLAY. IF A YOUNG OWNER COME IN, IT'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR THEM AT ALL. LILY, YOU'RE COMING CLOSE TO YOUR TIME. SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE FINISH UP, PLEASE. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. JUST A LOT OF CONCERN, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAYBE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND LOOKS LIKE TERRI MUNOZ IS IN THE ROOM. TERRI, YEAH YOU'RE MUTED, THERE YOU GO. HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GOOD EVENING, MS. MUNOZ. YES. MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I HAVE LIVED IN LA VERNE FOR OVER TWENTY ONE YEARS. MY HUSBAND AND I RAISED OUR TWO KIDS. THEY'RE NOW IN THEIR LATE 20S AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT FOR SOME OF THE OTHER REASONS THAT WERE STATED EARLIER. SO I WON'T GO OVER THOSE AGAIN. BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WILL ATTRACT YOUNGER FAMILIES, WHICH IS MUCH NEEDED IN LA VERNE. AND I AM A PARENT OF A TWENTY EIGHT AND TWENTY NINE YEAR OLD. THEY ARE COLLEGE EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS. THEY'VE BEEN LIVING ON THEIR OWN SINCE THEY GRADUATED COLLEGE. AND WE'RE WITNESSING OUR KIDS AND THEIR FRIENDS HAVING TO GO OUTSIDE THE CITY TO FIND HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES. AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE THEM STAY HERE IN LA VERNE, IF POSSIBLE, AND TO BRING UP SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE. THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO KEEP LARGER LOTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN MORE MONEY. AND THEN IF YOU KEEP IT MORE AFFORDABLE WITH THE FORTY TWO HOMES, I THINK IT'S MORE IT'S MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THE YOUNG FAMILIES TO AFFORD TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. AND THE NEW LAWS THAT MR. CROSBY BROUGHT UP WILL STATE THAT THE BILL MANDATE MORE DENSE, LOWER INCOME HOUSING IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK THIS PROJECT IS MORE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THIS ONE. AND THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. THEY HAVE PARKING FOR EVERYONE. A NEW PARK WILL BE ADDED FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE IN THEIR HOA. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED TO SAY, THAT I'M HOPING THAT THIS PROJECT WILL ATTRACT YOUNGER FAMILIES TO THE CITY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TERRI. DID YOUR SON PLAY SOCCER, THE TWENTY EIGHT YEAR OLD? DOES HE PLAY SOCCER? DID HE PLAY SOCCER? MY SON PLAYED SOCCER AND BASEBALL, AND. I THINK HE PLAYED WITH MY SON. SO YEAH, I'M SURE HE DID. HE DID. I THOUGHT SO. SO LONG TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. REALLY APPRECIATE IT. TELL HIM I SAID HI, PLEASE. SURE. TAKE CARE. BIANCA MUNOZ. YOUR MUTED. HI, YES THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN, AS A RESIDENT AND YOUNG ADULT WHO CURRENTLY RESIDES IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, I KNOW FIRSTHAND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO FIND HOUSING. I MOVED AN HOUR AWAY TO THE CITY OF LA VERNE TO BE CLOSE TO WORK. I'VE SEEN THE PROJECT MIGHT, MATT WAKEN HAS PRESENTED AND I FEEL THIS IS GREATLY GOING TO [02:10:01] HELP THE HOUSING SHORTAGE. WE DO HAVE IN THE CITY. I DRIVE BY THE SITE AS A PERSON IN REAL ESTATE. I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT HOUSING IS AND TO DEVELOP IN THE AREA. AS A YOUNG ADULT WHO CURRENTLY LIVES IN THE CITY, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A NEW HOME WITH THE AMENITIES AND FEATURES I WOULD PERSONALLY LOOK FOR WHEN PURCHASING, SUCH AS THE AMENITIES AS IN SOLAR AND UV CHARGING. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MS. MUNOZ. [INAUDIBLE] WANG, YOU ARE MUTED. HELLO, EVERYONE. GOOD EVENING THIS MORNING. YES, HI, EVERYONE. I'M ACTUALLY CALLING I'M REALLY I SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND I ACTUALLY I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AND AS THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING, WE'RE GOING TO BRING LOTS OF YOUNG FAMILY IN OUR COMMUNITY. I PERSONALLY LIVE IN THE OAK GROVE WALK RIGHT ON THE [INAUDIBLE] STREET AND FOOTHILL. SO IN OUR COMMUNITIES THAT THERE IS A SIDEWALK, BUT IT'S NOT REAL SIDEWALK. AND WHEN I SEE THE PRACTICE, MR. MATT, WHEN HE GAVE US A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE NEW COMMUNITY, GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK, GOING TO BE A PARK, GOING TO BE LIKE DRIVEWAY. SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR LOTS OF YOUNG FAMILIES TO MOVE IN TO RAISE THEIR FAMILY. THEIR KIDS AND I PERSONALLY, I DO HAVE FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN NORTH POMONA AND THEY WANTED TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, BUT THEY CAN'T FIND THE THEY CAN'T FIND THE HOUSE IN THE NORTH OF LA VERNE AND THE SHORTAGE OF THE INVENTORY. SO I THINK THIS WILL BE GREAT OVERALL FOR THE CITY OF LA VERNE. AND EVEN THOUGH FOR SOME OF THE LIKE OUR BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE. SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I'M 100 PERCENT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. MS. BERRY, VERY GOOD EVENING, YOUR MUTED. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. I CAN'T I CAN'T EVEN SEE IF I'M RIGHT IN BY THE CAMERA OR NOT. YOU'RE GOOD YOU ARE. YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. WE JUST WE CAN SEE YOUR NAME. OK, GOOD. HOPEFULLY IT'LL COME ON. LET ME SEE HERE. OK, I GET TURNED ON. THERE WE GO. OK. HELLO. GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. OK, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I AM GRATEFUL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTUAL ZOOM. JUST A HEADS UP. MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE LIVE STREAM ARE REPORTING A BIG ISSUE WITH FREEZING AND LAGGING AND NOT GETTING MANY OF THE COMMENTS. SO. SO THE TECH PEOPLE JUST HEADS UP. THIS IS SEAMLESS. I'VE I HAVEN'T MISSED A THING, SO IT'S BEEN REALLY GOOD TO BE PART OF IT. OK, SO I HAVE A FEW CONCERNS, ONE BEING THE CHANGING OF THE DENSITY PLANS, OR THE PROPOSAL WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS, BECAUSE I KNOW INITIALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE THE LOWER AMOUNT AND THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED ON INCREASING IT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY, EMERGENCY ACCESS, EMERGENCY EVACUATION . IF THERE'S A MARKED INCREASE IN POPULATION. YEAH, MORE PEOPLE DOES MEAN MORE TRAFFIC AND THAT NEEDS MORE PUBLIC SAFETY. AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS, THERE'S THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS WE STILL ONLY HAVE EIGHT FIREFIGHTERS AND WE NEED AT LEAST 17. AND I IMAGINE WITH. PROBABLY A FEW HUNDRED OR MORE PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE. SO I WANTED TO FIND OUT AGAIN WHAT IS THE PLAN AS FAR AS INCREASING OUR SAFETY? I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND I KNOW THAT THE STATE HAS A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS ON US. I JUST I. I ASK THAT YOU WEIGH EVERYTHING VERY CAREFULLY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, MS. BERRY, APPRECIATE IT. NO PICTURES OF THE PUPPIES, COME ON. THEY'RE SLEEPING. OH, THAT'S GOOD. THERE'S TOO MANY OF THEM. THANK YOU. BYE. MR. LONGO. YOU ARE MUTED. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. GOOD, WE CAN HEAR YOU. EVENING EVERYBODY. EVENING. [02:15:01] YEAH, JUST I'M A PROPONENT OF THE PLAN. I'M TWENTY TWO YEAR RESIDENT. WE RAISED OUR THREE DAUGHTERS HERE. THEY WENT THROUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE FOR THIS PLAN, YOU KNOW, SAID WHAT I NEED TO SAY. BUT I WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. OUR KIDS ARE AT THAT AGE. WE HAVE OUR YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BASICALLY THREE IN COLLEGE RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT. THE GIRLS, WE WANT THEM TO GROW UP, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR KIDS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN LA VERNE AND WHAT WE FEEL IS THAT A PROJECTS LIKE THIS ARE GOING TO OPEN UP HOUSING. AND IT'S NOT ONLY CAN THEY AFFORD THEIR FIRST HOME IN THAT COMMUNITY, BUT WHAT I FEEL IS THAT OTHER LA VERNE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE TO THAT COMMUNITY AND OPEN UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR KIDS IN AREAS WHERE THEY COULD AFFORD IT. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER. LOOK WE LOVE LA VERNE, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. BUT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT, YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO BE GREAT REVENUE FOR THE CITY. IT'S GOING TO HELP OUR SCHOOLS, HELP HELP OUR SPORTS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CITY. AND AGAIN. WE. YEAH, IT'S A WELL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I LIKE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IT'S NOT THE CONDOS AND THE TOWNHOUSES. SO THAT'S ABOUT IT. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. LONGO. MS. JOHNSON, YOU ARE MUTED. THERE YOU GO. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM, WE CERTAINLY CAN. AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO I KNOW YOU SAID NOT REPEATING, BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO ECHO THE CONCERNS OF ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS, THIS PROPOSAL. WE ALL PRETTY MUCH AGREE ON IT, WHICH IS HARD IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THINGS. AND I THINK WE WOULD INITIALLY ACTUALLY LIKE IT TO BE BACK TO THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN. BUT AS SOMEONE SAID EARLIER, VERY ELOQUENTLY, TO COMPROMISE IS SOMETHING TOO. BUT I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW THIS IDEA WENT FROM THE EXISTING THREE UNITS PER ACRE TO EIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S A REALLY BIG JUMP. AND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, BACK IN 2019, WHEN THE THEN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO GO INTO ESCROW WITH THE DEVELOPER, EVEN THEN HE WAS TALKING FIVE TO SIX WITH THIS PROPOSAL. AND NOW HERE WE ARE AT EIGHT AND THERE'S JUST THAT'S TO ME JUST, JUST WRONG. THAT IS WAY TOO BIG OF A JUMP. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK THEN ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND OK THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER AND THAT IT WASN'T A CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BUT IT WAS. HE WAS PROPOSING FIVE OR SIX AND THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS THREE. SO JUST FROM FROM THE GET GO, IT IT HAS NEVER REALLY RUNG TRUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BUILT AROUND IT BESIDES MOBILE HOMES. AND IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE MOBILE HOMES TO HOMES ON TEN THOUSAND EIGHT ACRE OR TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT. WE'RE TALKING APPLES AND ORANGES. AND AS FAR AS TRAFFIC, I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT ENOUGH. I MEAN, EVERYBODY DOES IT. NOBODY WANTS TO SAY IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BAD AS IT IS AND IT'S GOING TO GET SO MUCH WORSE. THERE'S APARTMENTS DOWN ON BRADFORD AND FOOTHILL. YOU'VE GOT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT FORTY TWO HOMES IN ON THIS SIDE. ON THE OTHER SIDE, AMHERST AND FRUIT JUST NEAR THAT. THERE'S A A LARGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN BY BRANDYWINE HOMES, I BELIEVE. AND THAT'S A LITTLE OVER TWO ACRES NOW WHERE ALL THOSE CARS GOING TO GO? PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SHOOTING ACROSS AMHERST. AND IT'S IT JUST IT'S GOING TO BE BAD. I THINK THERE'S ALREADY TWO LARGE MOBILE HOME PARKS THERE ON BRADFORD. THAT TIE INTO AMHERST, THERE'S FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY SEVEN MOBILE HOMES THERE. WHY ARE WE ADDING JUST DENSITY UPON DENSITY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. I SEE THE CARD. I JUST I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING LET DOWN BY THE CITY, AND I'M PRETTY DISAPPOINTED IN WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING LISTENED TO AND I APPRECIATE IT IF WE CAN COME TO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A COMPROMISE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. JOHNSON. MR. CALLOWAY, IT'S YOUR TURN NOW. YOU MIGHT WANT TO UNMUTE THOUGH. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL MAKE MINE SHORT, SWEET, BECAUSE I ONLY GOT THREE MINUTES. HOWEVER, I AM THE THIRD GENERATION LA VERNIAN, SO TO SPEAK. [02:20:05] AND IN FACT, LIVING IN THIS SECTION WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE IMPROVEMENT, I WOULD BE. I'D HAVE MY HEAD UP MY BUTT IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED. HOWEVER. AGAIN, LIKE MS. JOHNSON HAD SAID, INCREASING THE DENSITY, I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING THAT THE MOBILE HOME PARK IS WHERE IT'S AT. HOWEVER, THE MOBILE HOME PARK ENTRANCES ARE ON WILLIAMS AND ON BRADFORD. THIS ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE ON AMHERST. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH PUTTING IN HOMES. TRUST ME, I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO DO NOTHING BUT HELP MY PROPERTY VALUE AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ALLOWING MARK TO DO IS RIDICULOUS. WHEN I BUILT MY HOME IN 2000, YOU GUYS STIPULATED AND INSPECT INSISTED THAT I COULD ONLY DO SO MUCH. HOWEVER, THIS GUY HAS GOT THE MONEY. AND NOW THAT HE'S GOT THE MONEY, YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR HIM, BUT YOU WOULDN'T DO IT FOR ME. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S THIS TIT FOR TAT. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR ME. PUT IN FOUR HOMES PER ACRE. FINE. SO BE IT. I'M NOT GOING TO COMPLAIN, BUT YOU GUYS TELL ME THAT I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH FOR MY HOME. BUT YET YOU'RE ALLOWING HIM TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT YOU ALLOWED ME TO DO. AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. AND COME. LOOK, LA VERNE IS A GREAT COMMUNITY. I THINK WE ALL LOVE LA VERNE AND WE'RE ALL HERE FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ALONE. WE BELIEVE THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS SOMETHING SPECIAL. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE HERE IN THIS CITY BECAUSE OF WHAT IT IS. HOWEVER, LET'S BE HONEST, IF THIS GUY IS GOING TO PUT IN 40 SOME ODD HOMES AND SIT THERE AND SAY THAT EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IS SOMEHOW AFFORDABLE TO THE SMALLER COMMUNITY, WE ALL KNOW THAT'S GOING TO TURN INTO A BIDDING WAR AND THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE WAY MORE THAN THAT. HE DOESN'T HAVE LA VERNE'S INTERESTS AT HEART. HE DOESN'T HAVE OUR COMMUNITIES INTERESTS AT HEART. ALL HE'S LOOKING AT IS HIS POCKETBOOK AND HE WANTS TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND HE'S GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THIS COMMUNITY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF LA VERNE, WE NEED TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. I SAW THE CARD, MR. RUSSI. WE'RE ALL GOOD. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY. I'VE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY, IN FACT, RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE. AND THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A HUGE IMPACT IN OUR COMMUNITY AND IN THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE AROUND THIS AREA. THAT'S IT, YOU GUYS. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. I WISH EVERYBODY THE BEST. THANK YOU, MR. CALLOWAY. APPRECIATE IT. SUSAN SHERMAN, MS. SHERMAN, OH YOU'RE MUTE. THERE YOU GO. GOOD EVENING, OK. HI, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND I'M THE PROPERTY MANAGER AND A GENERAL PARTNER OF THE TWIN OAKS MOBILE HOME PARK. AND THE AMHERST PROJECT IS RIGHT NEXT TO TWIN OAKS PARK. SO AND WE WILL CURRENTLY SHARE WALLS. SO THOSE 42 HOMES, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. AND I AGREE THAT THE INFLUX OF YOUNG FAMILIES AND FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS WILL ENHANCE THE BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE BRING IN INCOME. AND IN LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAP, AN ADDITION OF THIS SMALL COMMUNITY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING MIX. ACTUALLY, I THINK IT FITS VERY WELL, IT'S NOT A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AS IT'S ESTHETICALLY PLEASING WILL GENERATE INCOME FOR THE CITY OF LA VERNE, AND WE REALLY NEED TO DO OUR PART IN HELPING OUR STATE OFFER AFFORDABLE AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MUNOZ, YOU ARE MUTED. GOOD EVENING, [INAUDIBLE]. AM I THERE? YOU ARE HERE, SIR. GOOD EVENING. APOLOGIZE, GEN X, THIS IS MY FIRST ZOOM MEETING EVER, SO I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S OK. I REMEMBER OUR FIRST ONE. TEN THOUSAND [INAUDIBLE] AGO. REALLY QUICKLY, A GREAT POINT FROM EVERYBODY. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DO SUPPORT THE FORTY TWO HOME PROJECT, MAINLY BASED ON THE EMPATHY OF WHERE MY WIFE AND I WERE TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO. WE MOVED INTO LA VERNE, THAT THERE WAS NO HOUSES TO BE BOUGHT AT THAT TIME AND WE [02:25:03] LUCKED OUT. WE GOT A LITTLE HOUSE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF A CITY IN THE CITY, BUT IN RESPONSE TO A LADY WHO EARLIER SAID THE CHARACTER OF OUR CITY, I REALLY BELIEVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR CITY IS THE FAMILIES THAT WE ENABLE TO BE PART OF THE CITY. AND READING BETWEEN THE LINES, THE REASON YOU DID A GREAT PRESENTATION FOR WHY I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FORTY TWO VERSUS THIRTY SOMETHING, BUT I REALLY THINK THE STATES COMING DOWN ON US PRETTY QUICK AND HARD, AND THIS IS A GOOD WAY FOR US TO KEEP CONTROL OF WHAT WE BRING INTO OUR CITY BECAUSE MULTIPLE DWELLING FACILITIES ARE COMING. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, YOU SEE THIS OVERCROWDING ON THE ON FOOTHILL AND ROUTE SIXTY SIX. THEY ARE OVERBUILDING BECAUSE OF THE NEED. THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT FOR US TO STILL HAVE CONTROL OF WHAT LOOKS GOOD, IS LAID OUT FOR FAMILIES, FRONT YARD, BACKYARD, DRIVEWAYS. I THINK IT'S A VERY WELL LAID OUT PROJECT AND FOR US TO KEEP CONTROL OF HOW OUR CITY IS GOING TO LOOK. SO I'M IN I'M IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF THIS AND I LOVE THIS CITY AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE OUR KIDS STAY HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MUNOZ. MATTHEW, [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS MATT [INAUDIBLE] I LIVE IN [INAUDIBLE] FOR 38 YEARS, SAME HOUSE, AND I JUST WANT TO DO SOME SIDEBAR NOTATION HERE. YOU CANCELED THE LAST MEETING TWO AND A HALF HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING, AND THAT WAS KIND OF STRANGE DUE TO TECHNICAL ISSUE. AND I HAVE NOTICED THAT ALL THE PRO DEVELOPER PEOPLE ARE CALLING IN, NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING DURING THE PAST MEETINGS ON THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE ALL POPPING UP. AND I'M WONDERING IF THE DEVELOPER WAS BUYING TIME TO RECRUIT A LOT OF HIS PEOPLE. CASE IN POINT, THE MANAGERS OF THE TWIN OAKS WILL NOW ALLOW US TO TALK TO ALL THE RESIDENTS THERE. AND ONE OF THE RESIDENT FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AND HE DID IT BY TALKING TO THE OTHER RESIDENTS AND THEY ARE TOTALLY AGAINST IT. SO WHAT I'M AGAINST IS THE MESSAGE THAT BEING GIVEN TO ALL THIS UNINFORMED CALLERS. WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE OKAY WITH THE ORIGINAL LOI LETTER INTENT OF 33 HOMES. WE SET UP FROM THE BEGINNING. AND WHAT WE'RE AGAINST IS THE 42 UNITS. AND IF YOU TAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, IT'S NINE UNITS AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SAID, OH, THIS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR OUR STORES AND ALL THAT. DO YOU THINK NINE HOMES ARE GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR BUSINESS? YOU THINK NINE HOMES ARE GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT? AND YOU KNOW WHAT? EVERYBODY'S KEEPING TALKING ABOUT. OH, WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO MOVE IN HERE. AND I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPER SLIDE THIRTY SIX. HE SHOWS EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY ONE PEOPLE COMING TO WORK IN LA VERNE AND NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY SIX LEAVING LA VERNE DAILY TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE. DO YOU THINK NINE HOMES, A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORTY TWO AND THIRTY THREE IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND MOST OF THOSE EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY ONE I CHECK ARE LOW TYPE OF WORKERS. ALLOW THOSE NINE THOUSAND TO LEAVE LA VERNE ARE PROFESSORS, THEY TEACH AT APU, THEY TEACH AT CAL POLY OR CLAREMONT AND A LOT OF OUR ENGINEERS WORK IN ORANGE COUNTY. AND THEN HE KEEPS SAYING THAT THE PARK IS THE BUFFER. I THINK THE PARK IS AN INCUBATOR FOR TRANSIENT PEOPLE. THE MINUTE YOU MAKE THAT PUBLIC, IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE IT. AND THEN HE KEEPS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIRTY THREE AND FORTY TWO, THERE'S NO ESTHETIC DIFFERENTIAL. WELL, I KNOW WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS. IT'S IN HIS POCKET. IT'S CALLED PROFIT. SO THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY. LET ME APPEAL TO YOUR CONSCIENCE, OK? LOOK WITHIN YOURSELF AND ASK YOURSELF THE TRUE AND CLEAR CONSCIENCE TO BE YOUR GUIDE. ASK YOURSELF, AM I DOING THIS RIGHT OR WRONG? IT'S NOT ABOUT ME OR THE DEVELOPER, BUT FOR THE GOOD OF AMHERST NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT MUST BE REASONABLE AND SOUND. SO WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU? IS IT YOUR CONSCIENCE CAPTIVE TO ALL THESE DIRECTIVES COMING FROM SACRAMENTO OR YOUR CONSCIENCE IS CAPTIVE TO THE DEVELOPERS HEAVY HANDED MARKETING [INAUDIBLE]. PLEASE FINISH YOUR STATEMENT. ALL RIGHT. OUT OF TIME. WHAT MATTERS MOST ARE PEOPLE AND THE GENERATIONS THAT WILL FOLLOW AND LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT ABOUT MONEY TO TEMPORARILY FILL THE CITY'S TREASURY FUND OR [02:30:04] THE DEVELOPER'S OBJECTIVE OF MAXIMUM PROFIT. SO TAKE THE HIGH ROAD, RECALIBRATE YOUR CONSCIENCE FOR THE GOOD OF LA VERNE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. MS. [INAUDIBLE]. HOW ARE YOU? I AM GOOD, ITS RUTH [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, I TOTALLY BUTCHERED THAT. [INAUDIBLE], THERE YOU GO. GOOD EVENING. [INAUDIBLE] SO, WE'VE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG TIME. AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I WILL, I REALLY DO REITERATE THE SENTIMENTS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT AND THEN EVEN SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE FOR THE PROJECT. SO WE MOVE TO LA VERNE FROM SAN DIMAS. AND IN DOING SO, WE WERE A YOUNG FAMILY AND WE HAD PURCHASED A HOME OUTSIDE OF LA VERNE, SOLD IT, AND THEN WE PURCHASED A HOME IN LA VERNE. SO AS A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER, I DON'T KNOW, WE COULD PROBABLY NOT AFFORD IT AT THAT TIME. SO I THINK OUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME THING. WE'RE ENCOURAGING THEM TO MAKE THEIR MONEY AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIVES, BUY WHATEVER PROPERTY IF THEY NEED TO RENT IT OUT AND THEN SELL IT AND THEN MOVE UP. SO THAT'S USUALLY THE WAY THE LADDER GOES, YOU KNOW, IN PURCHASING HOME PURCHASING POWER. SO IN OUR SURROUNDING AREA, I LOOKED AT A MAP AND WHERE THEY USED TO BE THE LEMON GROVE, THERE ARE 30 HOMES THERE. AND THEN UP NORTH ON THE OTHER STREET JUST SOUTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY, THERE'S TWENTY TWO HOMES THERE AND THAT STREET AND THE LAYOUT IS VERY NICE. SO THIS HOUSING PROJECT IS JUST SOUTH OF ME AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL. I HAVE IT PULLED UP HERE ON MY SCREEN. THE ORIGINAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2019. IT HAS AN AGENDA SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN THE BACKGROUND. AND ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE, IT SAYS, MW INVESTMENTS LLC SUBMITTED THE LEADING PROPOSAL CONSISTING OF FIVE TO SIX UNITS PER ACRE WITH A BID OF FIVE POINT SIX MILLION. SO HOW IT CAME TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE? I THINK A LOT WAS MISSED IN THERE. AND I UNDERSTAND LA VERNE IS WANTING SOME REVENUE FROM PROPERTY VALUES AND FROM ADDED PEOPLE IN THE CITY FOR YOUNG FAMILIES TO ATTEND SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY'LL GET THE REVENUE FROM THE STATE. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. BUT WHY THIS LITTLE FIVE ACRE PROPERTY, I THINK JUST NEEDS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND IT HAS ONLY ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE, TOO. SO AND I KNOW FOR YEARS IT HAD JUST BEEN A LITTLE, THANK YOU. IT HAD JUST BEEN A NURSERY. AND I THINK YOU GUYS WERE LEASING IT OUT FOR, LIKE, YOU KNOW, TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. AND I THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF REVENUE LOST OVER THAT TIME PERIOD. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE BATTLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO WIN ON. THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES NORTH OF LA VERNE, THE GOLF COURSE THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED, I'M SURE, IN THE FUTURE. BUT MAYBE LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY. THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU MS. [INAUDIBLE] APPRECIATE IT. MR. ROBBINS. YOU ARE MUTED. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU, I AM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. MY WIFE AND I ARE RAISING THREE CHILDREN IN LA VERNE AND HAVE BEEN LONGTIME RESIDENTS OF LA VERNE. I FEEL THAT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT GIVES GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO FIRST TIME BUYERS IN LA VERNE AND THE YOUNGER FAMILIES THAT IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO. IT ALSO BACKS THE SMALL BUSINESS OF LA VERNE AND BACKS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LA VERNE AND ALSO THE SPORTS PROGRAMS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN LA VERNE. ONCE AGAIN, I AM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS, MS. [INAUDIBLE]. HOW ARE YOU? YOU'RE MUTED. THERE YOU GO. I THINK WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OK, SUE [INAUDIBLE] 38 YEARS RESIDING ON [INAUDIBLE] COURT. I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT EXCESSIVE DENSITY, NON COMPATIBILITY, [02:35:01] EX CETERA. I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO THE IMPACT ON AMHERST. AMHERST IS NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE MORE TRAFFIC. IT'S ALREADY INUNDATED WITH SHORTCUTERS TO THE FREEWAY. THIRTY TWO MORE UNITS WILL BRING, CONSERVATIVELY SPEAKING, EIGHTY FOUR MORE VEHICLES WITH ONE SMALL ROAD TO ENTER AND EXIT THE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FOOTHILL BOULEVARD OR ROUTE 66, I THINK IT WILL SEVERELY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR SURROUNDING RESIDENTS TRAVELING JUST DAILY LIVES TO AND FRO. ALSO, CONTRARY TO WHAT MANY HAVE SAID, I BELIEVE YOUNG FAMILIES ARE SEEKING FIRST HOMES WITH SPACE AND YARDS IN WHICH CHILDREN CAN PLAY. THOSE I'VE INFORMALLY POLLED ALL OF THEM RESOUNDINGLY, WOULD NOT PAY SEVEN TO EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND FOR A HOME WITH LIMITED OUTDOOR SPACE. AND LASTLY, PROGRESS IS INEVITABLE, BUT PROGRESS THAT MAKES SENSE AND HAS BALANCE, THE DEVELOPER SPOKE ABOUT 1966 AND THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THEN, ALLOWING US OUR HOMES NOW BUT HE NEGLECTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SATURATION POINT. YOU CAN'T DO IT FOREVER. WE CHOSE THIS CITY ABOVE ALL OTHER CITIES IN WHICH TO SETTLE AND RAISE A FAMILY. THE DEVELOPER HAS NO SUCH ATTACHMENT, ONLY PROFIT AT OUR EXPENSE. AND I FEEL THAT YOUR ROLE, WHICH IS HUGE IS TO CARE FOR THIS FINE CITY AND PROTECT ITS RESIDENTS AND ITS GREAT HERITAGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE]. MS. [INAUDIBLE], YOU ARE MUTED. RIGHT HERE. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. I'M TRYING TO DO BULLET POINTS IN ORDER TO GET THROUGH EVERYTHING. FIRST OF ALL, ON THE SCOPING, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE SCOPING FOR THE EIR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. TWENTY FOUR MORE MAILERS COULD HAVE BEEN SENT OUT. AND ALL OF US ON AMHERST COULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED ALL THE WAY BACK IN OCTOBER. AND WE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE HERE TONIGHT ARGUING LIKE THIS. WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE RHNA NUMBERS IS SITE'S [INAUDIBLE] NUMBER IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE VACANT PARCEL LIST FOR THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ALL KNOW THAT, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTED AND LISTED AND INVENTORIED. AND THIS SITE WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN THAT. SOMEHOW IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, THIS SITE HAS SUDDENLY BECOME PART OF THOSE NUMBERS AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THE EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR SALE POINT IS COMPLETELY A JOKE. HERE ARE TWO CURRENT HOUSES THAT JUST SOLD, I'LL GO LIKE THAT. SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND THE SELLING POINT ON THESE, BECAUSE THEY'RE AROUND THE CORNER WAS THE YARDS. I'VE TALKED TO THE NEW YOUNG FAMILIES. THEY WANTED BIG YARDS. THE TRAFFIC. THIS TRAFFIC STUDY HAS SO MANY ISSUES STILL. THE LDS CHURCH WAS NEVER INCLUDED. AND WHAT YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW IS THAT EVERY SINGLE MORNING, VERY EARLY, THEY HAVE SCHOOL. THOSE NUMBERS WERE NEVER, EVER INCLUDED. THE SCHOOL, A LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN IT, THE TWO NEW LOCAL PROJECTS, THE FRUIT STREET NURSERY. AND I'M POINTING BEHIND ME BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT BEHIND ME. THE FRUIT STREET NURSERY IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN IT. AND AS A CUMULATIVE IMPACT, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL KNOWN PROJECTS. TONIGHT IN YOUR CONSENT CALENDAR. YOU GUYS VOTED ON GIVING THAT PROJECT MORE MONEY FOR THEIR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY. YOU NOW KNOW ABOUT THAT PROJECT. YOU VOTED ON IT TONIGHT. YOU CANNOT APPROVE THIS EIR OR TRAFFIC STUDY NOW, BECAUSE NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S A PROJECT WHICH IS MISSING FROM IT. THAT AND THE BIG PROJECT ON BENITA AND OR GARY AND GARY AND BENITA, THE SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY UNITS THAT WAS NEVER, EVER INCLUDED IN THIS TRAFFIC STUDIES. LASTLY, ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND I WISH I HAD CAUGHT THIS TWO MONTHS AGO, THIS STREET, AMHERST, IS ACTUALLY NOTED AS A COLLECTOR STREET. WE ARE NOT A COLLECTOR STREET. WE ARE A LOCAL STREET. OUR THRESHOLD IS FIFTEEN HUNDRED CARS PER DAY, NOT THE SEVENTY FIVE HUNDRED CARS WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT IN THE PRESENTATION TO TRAFFIC STUDY. THAT IS A BIG ERROR. WE ARE A LOCAL STREET. FIFTEEN HUNDRED VEHICLES, MAX. AND I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MISSED THAT I EVEN EMAILED YOU GUYS TODAY AND I PUT THAT MAP IN THE I ACTUALLY ATTACHED THE MAP FROM OUR [02:40:04] GENERAL PLAN WITH THAT. THE COST OF THE DEVELOPERS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE EIR. AND THAT IS ONE THAT'S NOT USUALLY TYPICAL IN EIR'S TO WRITE IT OUT THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN OUT, THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY ATYPICAL. BUT HIS WHOLE CLAIM THIS WHOLE TIME IS THAT THE GRADING WAS GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY. EVEN CONFIRMED TONIGHT. IT WASN'T GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY. I CHECKED THE GRADING MYSELF. THERE'S ACTUALLY AN EXPORT OF ONLY ABOUT THREE THOUSAND CUBIC YARDS. AND IF YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I'M YOU CAN BUILD TEN LOTS AND YOU CAN GET OUT OF ALL THIS. AND IT WOULD STILL YOU GUYS COULD STILL GET THE MONEY YOU NEED FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CYNTHIA. MS. LOCKHART, YOU ARE NOT MUTED. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AS A 32 YEAR LA VERNE RESIDENT AND OWNER OF SEVEN HISTORIC HOMES AND TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN OUR CITY, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE STATE'S MANDATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ALONG WITH THE ASSEMBLY BILL FOR SURPLUS LAND ACT, WILL GREATLY AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE AMHERST PROPERTY IF AN AGREEMENT IS NOT REACHED WITH DEVELOPER [INAUDIBLE]. THEREFORE, I SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE AMHERST PROJECT. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER A FEW FACTS. THE FIRST BEING THE IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS APPLICATION FROM 18 MONTHS AGO WITH GRANDFATHER RIGHTS. THERE ISN'T ANY LOW INCOME HOUSING OF THE STATE'S 15 PERCENT MANDATED THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN A NEW APPLICATION. AFFORDABLE HOUSING EQUATES TO HOMES THAT MUST SELL FOR LESS THAN THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND. THE RECENT APRIL SALE ON AMHERST WAS A MILLION DOLLARS FOR AN UPGRADED NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN SQUARE FOOT HOME. THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPOSAL FORECAST ASKING PRICES IN THE HIGH SEVEN HUNDRED'S, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL SUPPORT THE HIGHER VALUES OF EXISTING HOMES WITH LARGER LOT SIZES. THERE'S NO DISPUTE THAT THIS PROJECT IS FAR MORE FAVORABLE THAN A MIX WITH LOW INCOME OR ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING. DIRECTOR [INAUDIBLE] CONFIRMS IN HIS AGENDA REPORT THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH MW INVESTMENT GROUP WAS ENTERED INTO BEFORE THE NEW SURPLUS LAND ACT PROVISIONS BECAME EFFECTIVE. STATE ASSEMBLY BILLS FOURTEEN EIGHTY SIX AND TWELVE FIFTY FIVE. SUPPORTING PUBLIC LANDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE THE CITY OF LA VERNE TO INVENTORY AND REPORT THE AMHERST PROPERTY AS EXCESS LAND AS PART OF THE STATEWIDE INVENTORY. IF THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT REACHED. CHANGE IS DIFFICULT. I DON'T CARE FOR THE NEW, NEWER, MEDIUM DENSITY, TOWERING TWO STORY APARTMENTS WITH SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AT THE CORNER OF 1ST AND F STREETS, EXCUSE ME G STREETS. THE AMHERST PROJECT IS POLAR OPPOSITE OF THAT PROJECT AND OTHER MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING LIKE THE BRANDYWINE HOMES, PROPOSED TWO PROJECTS WITH FIFTY EIGHT ATTACHED INTERLOCKING TOWNHOMES ON TWO POINT TWO SIX ACRES ACROSS FROM MCDONALD'S. THAT'S 20 HOMES PER ACRE, DOUBLE THE AMHERST PROJECT. THE OTHER BRANDYWINE HOMES PROJECT THAT IS COUPLED WITH THE FRUIT STREET PROJECT IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ON THREE PARCELS THE CITY IS SELLING TO BRANDYWINE HOMES. I LIKES AT THE AMHERST PROPOSAL IS FOR NEW QUALITY, FULL SIZE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE STANDALONE WITH ATTRACTIVE EXTERIORS, WITH FRONT, BACK AND SIDE YARDS. THE PROPOSED OH, AND DON'T FORGET THE PARK. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT MOBILE HOME PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE WAS GOOD REASON WHY THE CITY ACCEPTED MW INVESTMENT GROUP'S OFFER TO PURCHASE THE AMHERST PROPERTY OVER BIDS FROM OTHER DEVELOPERS. THERE'S GREATER MOTIVATION TODAY TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS CERTAINTY OF THE STATE'S MANDATED IMPOSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY BILLS FOR USE OF PUBLIC LANDS THAT WILL CRAM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT ON THE AMHERST SITE. I APPRECIATE MATT WAKEN SUPPORT IN SAVING FROM DEMOLITION THE TWO HOUSES. [INAUDIBLE] PLEASE. THAT ARE BEHIND ME THAT WERE MOVED FROM WIDE AVENUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MISS LOCKHART. [INAUDIBLE], YOU ARE MUTED. THERE YOU GO. HELLO, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE], AND I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT ON THE AMHERST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S A CITY OWNED PROPERTY. I THINK IT'D BE GREAT TO SEE THE SALE GO TOWARDS HOUSING USE AND THE CITY RECEIVING THE REVENUE BENEFITS THAT CAN GO TOWARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY. THE DESIGN OF THE HOMES. I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT AND WOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO THE AREA, WHICH LOOKS TO BE MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY MOBILE HOMES. I DO THINK THE DESIGN OF THE HOMES ARE ADEQUATELY SIZED, BEING CONSIDERATE OF ENERGY [02:45:06] EFFICIENCY, WHICH IS WHERE THE WORLD IS ESSENTIALLY MOVING IN TODAY'S WORLD. I'M NOT A FAN OF EXCESSIVELY LARGE HOMES OR LARGE YARDS. I DO FEEL THAT THEY ARE AN INEFFICIENT USE OF SPACE, A LOT OF MAINTENANCE. AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY THE CASE WITH THESE LARGER YARDS. HAVING THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAY PARKING ADDED TO THE AREA IS A PERFECT FIT WITH LA VERNE HOUSING CHARACTER, I THINK. AND I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT STAY THIS WAY. I ALSO DO LIKE HOW THE DEVELOPMENTS IS PROVIDING RESIDENT AMENITIES LIKE THE PARK AND THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR YOUNG FAMILIES TO COME JOIN THE COMMUNITY. JUST ON MY END. I WOULD SAY THAT AS A WORKING PROFESSIONAL IN THE MEDICAL FIELD, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING A HOME LIKE THIS AS I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING WITH A SMALLER LOT AND SMALLER YARDS TO MAINTAIN. THAT'S NOT AN APARTMENT. THIS IS THE SAME FOR OTHER YOUNG FAMILIES WHO I KNOW. THAT'S WHY I THINK BRINGING THESE YOUNG FAMILIES TO THE COMMUNITY WILL HELP KEEP THE CITY LIVELY AND GROWING, WHICH GIVES A PLACE LIKE LA VERNE THE ENERGY IT NEEDS TO THRIVE. I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE I WAS YOUNG. I WENT TO SCHOOL HERE FROM LA VERNE HEIGHTS ALL THE WAY [INAUDIBLE]. I COMPLETED MY UNDERGRAD. I WENT TO WESTERN ALL THE WHILE LIVING IN LA VERNE. AND NOW AS I LOOK TO GROW MY OWN FAMILY, IDEALLY I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MODERN HOME LIKE THIS WHERE MY CHILDREN CAN STAY IN THE CITY AND LIVE IN A BEAUTIFUL CITY LIKE LA VERNE, RATHER THAN ME HAVING TO GO TO AN OUTSIDE CITY AND GIVE THAT REVENUE SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO ALL IN ALL, I HOPE THAT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU MR. [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE], YOU ARE MUTED. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. AND WE'RE STILL MUTED. AND, MR. MAYOR, I'LL JUST TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST PERSON THAT WE SHOW THAT HAS THEIR HAND RAISED. SO IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ATTENDEES THAT HAVEN'T GOTTEN A CHANCE TO SPEAK YET, THAT ONE THING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU USE THAT HAND RAISING FUNCTION. HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN. THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. SORRY. THE PROGRAM TOOK ME ON A DIFFERENT PAGE FOR SOME REASON WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ALLOWED ME. LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND ALL THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THIS MEETING. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE], AND MY WIFE AND I WERE THE OWNER OF THE FIFTH HOUSE ON ON WILLIAMS. I'M A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I'M A BRANCH CHIEF IN CALTRANS. I WORK FOR NUMEROUS YEARS ON THE PRIVATE SIDE AND ON THE GOVERNMENT SIDE. AND CURRENTLY I'M ON THE GOVERNMENT SIDE FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS FOR MANY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS [INAUDIBLE]. ONE THING WE ALWAYS TRY TO DO AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS TO LOOK AT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE, NOT JUST ANY PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. AND I SPEAK AGAIN. I KNOW YOU TOLD ME NOT TO REITERATE, BUT I HEAR ALL THESE FOLKS COMING IN TONIGHT, WHICH WERE NOT THERE PRESENT PREVIOUSLY. THE MEETING WAS CHANGED ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND I CAN I CAN READ THE LIPS THAT MANY OF THESE FOLKS ARE READING FROM A PRE MANUFACTURED SCRIPT VOICING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HAPPENED. NONE OF THESE VOICES WERE HEARD. THIS PROJECT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE JEOPARDIZING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN YOU GET ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE SIGNATURES, THAT MEANS SOMETHING TO YOU THAT SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU. WE AT CALTRANS, WE ARE STATE CARE ABOUT ONE SIGNED LETTER FROM ONE RESIDENT FROM ONE COMMUNITY. WE WORK WITH THE MAYORS AND THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL HAPPY. ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE SIGNATURES FROM ONE SMALL COMMUNITY SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU. YOU ARE THERE TO BRING UNITY BETWEEN THE CITY MEMBERS. THE DEVELOPERS COME AND GO. WE ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF YOUR CITY. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SERVE OUR INTERESTS AND NOT THE DEVELOPERS INTERESTS. THIS DEVELOPER WOULD STAY HERE AND MAKE HIS MONEY. [02:50:03] HE'LL MOVE ALONG. WE ARE HERE PERMANENT. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THAT SO MANY OF US HAVE SUBMITTED. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS BY WRITING AND LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED. MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE VOICING THEIR OPINION IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT DO NOT LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AT ALL. THEY DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE SETUP OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE ARE FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS. WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE LARGE LOSS, BECAUSE OF THE SERENE AND PEACEFUL ATMOSPHERE, BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE WE HAVE BEEN IN LA VERNE. WE LOVE THIS CITY. WE WANT TO STAY LIKE THAT. SO WHEN YOU VOTE PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT STUPID PEOPLE. THEY WERE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. ALL FOUR OF THEM VOTED TO BRING THIS TO TONE DOWN THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO MENTION. BRING SOMETHING THAT'S SUITABLE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, NONE OF US ARE VOICING OUR OPINION TO SAY THAT WE ARE AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE WITH DEVELOPMENT, BUT BRING SOMETHING THAT SUITS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. JR. YES, SIR, I'M BRINGING ON THE FIRST CALLER RIGHT NOW. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. THANK YOU. HOW'S COUNCIL HANGING IN THERE, EVERYBODY OK? ROBIN. [LAUGHTER] OK. I'M STANDING, I CANNOT SIT ANY LONGER, I AM LIKE STANDING. IT IS THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE ART [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE. MR. [INAUDIBLE], HOW ARE YOU THIS EVENING? DOING WELL, HOW ABOUT YOURSELF, SIR? GOOD. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED NEW HOUSING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, INTRODUCED OFF OF AMHERST. WHAT ATTRACTED US TO THE AREA? WE MOVED HERE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PEACE, THE NOT A TON OF TRAFFIC. AND I JUST FEEL THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IS JUST WAY TOO MANY FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO CREATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC. I THINK THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ORIGINALLY LIKED ABOUT LA VERNE AND [INAUDIBLE] OUR AREA. I UNDERSTAND IF YOU WANT TO BUILD THAT, I THINK YOU CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SLOTTING FOR THAT AREA. I THINK ANOTHER THING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IS TO TRY TO DO THAT, OPEN UP TO [INAUDIBLE] STREET SO THAT YOU CAN LEVEL OR REDUCE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH AMHERST, BECAUSE NOW EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE COMING THAT WAY. AND AT MINIMUM, YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE [INAUDIBLE] STREET THROUGH FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. AND THAT'S ALL I REALLY WANTED TO SAY ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE AND I, WE JUST HOPE WE TAKE OUR THOUGHTS IN CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE JEFF ALRED ON THE LINE. GOOD EVENING, MR. ALRED. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. IT WAS GETTING LATE AND I'VE LISTENED TO ALL THE DISCUSSION AND APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS. THE MAJOR ISSUES ARE CLEARLY THE DENSITY AND TRAFFIC. AND WE BELIEVE A REDUCTION IN THE DENSITY TO THIRTY TWO HOUSES, AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAN BY THE DEVELOPER, WILL ADDRESS THOSE IMPACTS. BUT TODAY WE LOOK TO YOU, OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, TO CONTINUE LA VERNE'S LEGACY OF STRONG LEADERSHIP ON BEHALF OF LA VERNE RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF US OF THE CLOSE TO THE FACILITY AT THE SITE. WE ASK YOU TO PROTECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. THIS MASSIVE ZONE CHANGE, THE EXISTING THREE UNITS PER ACRE ON THE SITE TO EIGHT UNITS ON THE ON THE SITE, AND WE BELIEVE, AS DO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OVER 200, THAT THE APPROPRIATE ZONE ZONING DENSITY WOULD BE SIX UNITS PER ACRE OR 33 UNITS. SO WE ASK YOU TO RESPECT AND FOLLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S UNANIMOUS [02:55:01] RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO HIS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF UP TO THIRTY THREE VOTES RATHER THAN 42 HOUSES. AND IF THAT HAPPENS, I THINK WE'RE ALL HAPPY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK. THANK YOU, MR. ALRED. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE MARILYN [INAUDIBLE]. MS. [INAUDIBLE] GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR HEPBURN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR, I KNOW THIS IS A REALLY A LONG NIGHT FOR ALL OF YOU, APPRECIATE THE TIME AND APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO BE HEARD AND IN ADVANCE. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR HOPEFULLY MAKING THE BEST DECISION TO BENEFIT BOTH THE RESIDENTS OF LA VERNE AND THE CITY. WE'VE LIVED HERE ON AMHERST FOR OVER TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO LIVE HERE. WE WERE JUST HERE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS. AND I REMEMBER THE ORANGE GROVES AT THE CORNER AND EVERYTHING CHANGES. BUT WE DO FEEL THAT THIS PROJECT, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE HUNDRED PLUS INDIVIDUALS THAT SIGNED THE PETITION, THAT IT'S NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE AN EXPANSION, BUT 42 IS WAY TOO LARGE OF A NUMBER. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO REPEATING WHAT OTHERS REPEATED, BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I DO WANT TO MENTION ONE THING. I DON'T KNOW HOW NEW SOMEBODY JUST COMING OUT AND BUYING A NEW HOME. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN AFFORD IT. IF YOU DO A EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND HOME WITH A 20 PERCENT DOWN PAYMENT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HOA FEES ARE GOING TO BE, BUT WE KIND OF ESTIMATED THAT IT'S ABOUT A FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MONTH, WHICH IS QUITE HIGH UNLESS YOU HAVE HELP FROM SOMEBODY ELSE OR YOUR PARENTS. BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE RAYMOND FLECK ON THE LINE. GOOD EVENING, MR. FLECK. HELLO, MY NAME IS RAYMOND FLECK, AND DURING THE 30, 60 YEARS THAT I HAVE LIVED AT 4273 [INAUDIBLE] STREET, I'VE SUPPORTED A GREAT NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE ENHANCED OR AT LEAST MAINTAINED OUR HIGHLY VALUED QUALITY OF LIFE IN LA VERNE. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROJECT. TO BUILD 42 HOMES ON LOTS OF SIX ACRES WOULD NEITHER ENHANCE OR MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN LA VERNE. PARTICULARLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CROWDING THIS MANY HOMES INTO THIS SMALL AREA IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. AFTER A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE MATTER WAS [INAUDIBLE]. NOW, I TRUST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REJECT THE PROJECT AS IT IS PRESENTLY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO SHARE WITH YOU MY PERSONAL OPINION. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE ANDRE [INAUDIBLE]. MR. [INAUDIBLE]. GOOD EVENING. HI, MR. MAYOR, THIS IS ANDY [INAUDIBLE] I LIVE ON AMHERST, I'M VERY CLOSE TO A PROJECT, ACTUALLY A STONE'S THROW AWAY. I'M GONNA GO VERY QUICKLY. IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. SO LET'S SEE. THE APPLICANT ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY WAS FOR 33 HOUSES. AFTER THE DEVELOPER WAS SELECTED, HE CHANGED IT TO 42 HOMES. HE HAD A CLOSED SESSION WITH COUNCIL. [03:00:02] WHEN WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. WE WERE PRETTY UPSET, UNDERSTANDABLY, AND WE WANTED TO REDUCE IT TO 33 HOMES AS IT ORIGINALLY WAS PLACED. WE HAVE OVER 250 RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED THE PETITION. WELL, AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION, OUR PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED TO DENY THE PLAN 42 HOMES. I MEAN. AT FROM THIS POINT ON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. WHAT'S REALLY UPSETTING TO ME AS I'M WATCHING THIS MEETING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS WHOLE MEETING, IS ALL THESE PEOPLE COMING IN TONIGHT ON THE LAST HOUR, IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WEREN'T HERE BEFORE. HOW DID THEY GET NOTIFIED? I LIVE JUST DOWN THE STREET AND I HAD TO REACH OUT TO PEOPLE JUST TO GET SOME INFORMATION TO ME. I AM REALLY UPSET WITH [INAUDIBLE], WHO TALKED TO MS. LOCKHART CALLING IT. MY RESPECT FOR HER JUST WENT DOWN THE DRAIN. I HAD A GREAT. DUE RESPECT TO THAT ONE, HER CALLING IN DOES NOT EVEN MAKE HER COMMENTS, WHICH SHE DID. I AM, ME AND MY WIFE ARE JUST TRULY UPSET ABOUT THAT TRULY, JUST TRULY UPSET ABOUT IT. AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT, I MEAN, I WROTE THE STATEMENT OUT [INAUDIBLE] READ IT TO YOU. TODAY, THIS COUNCIL HAS A CHOICE TO MAKE WHETHER TO BEHAVE AS LEADERS FOR THE DEVELOPER OR LEADERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT VOTED FOR THEM. I SPOKE TO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND THE STATEMENTS THE MEMBER GAVE ME WAS SO LONG AS THE PLAN WAS DONE LEGALLY, LEGALLY AND FOLLOWING ALL CITY GUIDELINES IN GOOD FAITH. THEN A DECISION WILL BE MADE. SO I'M GOING TO ASK ALL YOU FOLKS ON. MR. HEPBURN, MR. DAVIS. MS. CARDER, MR. CROSBY AND MS. LAU. SO GIVEN ALL THE FACTS PRESENTED NOT JUST TONIGHT, BUT BEFORE THEN, THE COMMISSION VOTING AGAINST THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE MANY HOLES PRESENTED ON TOP OF ALL THE LEGAL ISSUES, ARE YOU WILLING TO VOTE FOR THIS PROJECT NOW? I WOULD SUGGEST NOT. PEOPLE IN THIS RESIDENCE, IN THIS LOCAL COMMUNITY THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THIS RESIDENCE ARE VERY UPSET, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CONDUCT OF THOSE TONIGHT [INAUDIBLE]. WHOEVER'S IDEA WAS TO CALL ALL THESE PEOPLE, HAVE TO CALL IN AT THE LAST MINUTE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THAT WAS A BAD CHOICE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE LIZ [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE. MS. [INAUDIBLE], GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. HOW IS EVERYONE? THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME. I HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND I FIND IT VERY UPSETTING THAT I WASN'T NOTIFIED WHEN THIS PROJECT STARTED AND I'M AT 2716 AMHERST AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR MAP AND YOU SEE THE PROJECT FROM MY HOME, I'M LITERALLY TWO DOORS DOWN. I HAD TO REALLY WAIT UNTIL THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY NOTIFIED ME OF THE PROJECT HAPPENING. BUT NOW ALL THESE OTHER RESIDENTS, THEY DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR ON THE STREET BECAUSE NOW WE KNOW EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY IN THAT IMMEDIATE PROJECT AREA, WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER. THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT OF THE WOODS. THEY DON'T LIVE NEAR THIS PROJECT. THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE FEEL AND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEM. I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND I ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC NOW. AND THE THING THAT I FEEL LOOKING AT ALL OF YOU GUYS ON SCREEN, I THINK WE'VE REALLY FORGOTTEN THAT YOU GUYS ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS, YOU'RE IN PUBLIC SERVICE. WE DON'T ELECT YOU TO RULE OR TAKE EVEN LEAD US. WE ELECT YOU GUYS TO SERVE US. THAT CONCEPT IS COMPLETELY LOST. YOU ARE LETTING THE DEVELOPER RUN THIS CITY, RUIN OUR LIVES. I AM A NEW RESIDENT HERE AND I PURPOSELY BOUGHT IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THE LOT IS HUGE BECAUSE I CAN ENJOY MY LARGE YARD. I DON'T CARE THAT I HAVE TO PAY SOMEBODY TO MOW IT. I'LL GLADLY DO THAT. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE NEED TO KEEP THESE PROJECT NUMBERS DOWN TO THIRTY THREE. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE TRYING TO PLEASE THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER AND JUST OVERLOOK ALL THE RESIDENTS THERE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA THAT HAVE BEEN CALLING IN MEETING AFTER MEETING. THAT'S IT FOR ME. [03:05:03] THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE ROSS LESSONS ON THE LINE. MR. LESSONS. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, I'M ROSS LESSONS, I LIVE AT 4162 BRADFORD STREET, I OWN THE HOME HERE AND I'M OPPOSED TO THE CITY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE HOMES BY CHANGING THE ZONING. THERE'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY. IT'S A CONDUIT FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CLAREMONT, THE PEOPLE THERE IN THE APARTMENTS ON FOOTHILL, THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THERE'S A TRAFFIC FROM THE MORMON CHURCH. THERE'S ALREADY TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. AND I THINK BY CHANGING THE ZONING, IT'S JUST GOING TO ADD MORE HOMES AND MORE TRAFFIC. AND ALONG WITH THE TRAFFIC COMES A LOT OF TRASH AND GARBAGE AS WELL. SO I'M VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO THIS IDEA THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HOW ARE WE DOING COUNCIL? EVERYBODY OK, ARE YOU? CAN I PROPOSE JUST A QUICK FIVE MINUTE RUN TO THE RESTROOM? YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I CAN SEE YOUR EYES ARE LIKE, AH. CAN WE DO ONE MORE? I'VE GOT SOMEBODY ON THE LINE. YES, PLEASE. YES. LET'S GO. WE HAVE 15, 10 TO 15 MORE THAT ARE LISTENING. WE NEED TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK AFTER THIS ONE. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE CHERYL [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE. GOOD EVENING MS. [INAUDIBLE]. HELLO? YEAH, GO AHEAD. THEY CAN HEAR YOU. WE CAN HEAR YOU. I'LL JUST I'LL BE REAL QUICK BECAUSE I CAN'T I HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD WHAT ANYBODY ELSE IS SAYING BECAUSE MY COMPUTER KEEPS GOING OUT THE SOUND. BUT I'M ON THE CORNER OF GUAVA AND AMHERST. I'M ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER. AND A COUPLE OF THINGS I NOTICED, NUMBER ONE IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, NO STUDY FOR THIS THREE WAY STOP INTERSECTION HERE. WE HAVE A STOP SIGN GOING, YOU KNOW, EAST, THE STOP SIGN GOING WEST AND A STOP SIGN GOING SOUTH THAT PEOPLE RUN CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, EAST OF THE F THE INTERSECTION YOU GAVE AN F TO. RIGHT THERE AMHERST AND FRUIT AND PEOPLE HEADING EAST COME UP FROM THAT INTERSECTION AND PEOPLE HEADING WEST COME THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION. AND THERE WAS THIS INTERSECTION WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND I'M SURE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRADED VERY, VERY LOW BECAUSE CONTINUALLY EVERYBODY RUNS THE STOP SIGN THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS, BECAUSE MY FAMILY OWNED THIS HOUSE PROBABLY FOR 40 YEARS SINCE IT WAS BUILT BACK IN 1978. AND THEN ME AND MY HUSBAND HAVE LIVED HERE FOR THIRTY ONE. AND THE TRAFFIC HAS INCREASINGLY GOT WORSE, WORSE, WORSE. WE'VE BUILT A HEDGE AROUND OUR HOUSE. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING. AND NOW THEY WANT TO BRING, YOU KNOW, FORTY TWO HOUSES AND CRAM THEM ON THE PROPERTY UP THERE TWO BLOCKS EAST OF US AND BRING, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST EIGHTY EIGHT MORE CARS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S JUST IT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE HERE. AND ALSO I WANTED TO MENTION THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY POINTED OUT THAT WERE TURNED FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY ARE ALL FACING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES THAT CAN ABSORB THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC IN THEIR AREA. BUT WE ARE NOT. WE ARE JUST NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, AND WE ALREADY HAVE SUCH A HIGH IMPACT, EVERYBODY CUTTING THROUGH SOUTH OF US FROM POMONA THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THE 210 FREEWAY HERE AND THE OFF RAMP. AND WE'VE OBSORBED THAT SINCE THE FREEWAY HAS BEEN OPEN. I MEAN, JUST ALLOWING THIS MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS IT WILL TURN INTO A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE ON THESE STREETS AND CREATE, I THINK, A HUGE LIABILITY FOR THE CITY OF LA VERNE. I'D LIKE TO SEE I KNOW THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DEVELOPED, THE INCOME IS NEEDED FROM THAT PROPERTY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MAYBE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER AND JUST NOT [03:10:06] CRAMMING QUITE SO MANY HOUSES INTO THAT AREA. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT TONIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK, EVERYBODY. WE GOOD WITH THAT? WE'LL BE BACK. SHALL WE SHUT EVERYTHING OFF? I'M SORRY? WE'RE READY. ARE WE ALL READY COUNCIL? OK, LET'S GO. JR WE'RE READY. OK, AND NOW WE HAVE. WHAT WAS THAT, MR. CROSBY LOOKS LIKE HE'S FROZEN. EITHER THAT OR HE'S JUST VERY STILL. AT LEAST TO ME, HE DOES, YES. MAYBE HE ATE SOMETHING HE SHOULDN'T HAVE. THERE HE GOES. HE'S MOVING. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE SHERRI BEST AND THEN SHE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAND THE PHONE TO SOME NEIGHBORS, I UNDERSTAND, WHO WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES ONCE SHE'S DONE. OK? MS. BEST. GOOD EVENING. HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN, VERY LOUD AND CLEAR. PERFECT. THIS IS SHERRI BEST, I LIVE ON BRADFORD STREET AND I AM HOSTING SIX PEOPLE FROM THE TWIN OAKS MOBILE HOME PARK BECAUSE THEY HAVE REALLY BEEN UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS. IF THEY'RE NOT HIGH TECH USERS AND DON'T HAVE COMPUTERS, THEY'VE BEEN REALLY COMPLETELY SHUT OUT OF ALL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE WEBSITE, NOR DO THEY USE TWITTER, INSTAGRAM OR EMAIL. SO IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION FROM USERS AT TWIN OAKS, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED. IT'S BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CONNECT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. SO I'VE INVITED THEM ALL OVER TO MY HOUSE. AND THOSE WHO ARE HERE AND HAVEN'T GONE HOME YET AND EXHAUSTED ARE WAITING TO SPEAK. BUT I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS A HOMEOWNER IN THE AREA. MANY ASPECTS OF MR. WAKEN'S PROPOSAL ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE, AND I HAVE TO SAY, PARTICULARLY IN MY OPINION, I LIKE THE POCKET PARK THAT WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD BE A VISUAL BUFFER FOR HOMES ON AMHERST STREET. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARK WILL CONTAIN A GAZEBO, BENCH SEATING, GREEN SPACE, PICNIC TABLES AND OTHER AMENITIES. HOWEVER, TWO CONCERNS PREVENT ME FROM FULLY ENDORSING THIS DEVELOPMENT AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED. THE FIRST IS THE NUMBER OF HOMES. FORTY TWO INSTEAD OF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL OF 33. THE CITIZEN BASED PLANNING COMMISSION IS UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE AND FIRMLY SUPPORTS THE THIRTY THREE HOME LIMIT. THE DEVELOPER STATES THAT HE CANNOT BUILD THE HOMES HE HAS PROPOSED AT THE LEVEL OF CARE AND WITH THE AMENITIES HE DESCRIBED UNLESS FORTY TWO HOMES GO INTO THE SPACE. SO THERE'S A BIG DILEMMA. THE SECOND CONCERN RELATES TO TRAFFIC. DRIVERS WHO WISH TO ACCESS FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CAN EITHER DRIVE SOUTH ON WILLIAMS AVENUE OR BRADFORD STREET, NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE A STOP SIGN OR STOPLIGHT. BETWEEN AMHERST AND FOOTHILL, THE EASIEST ROUTE TO FOOTHILL IS BRADFORD, A STRAIGHT, WIDE ROAD THAT TAKES DRIVERS AT THE ENTRANCES TO TWO SENIOR MOBILE HOME PARK. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRAFFIC SPEED ON BRADFORD, BUT THERE CAN BE NO SPEED BUMPS BECAUSE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. MANY PEDESTRIANS CROSS BRADFORD WHILE WALKING THEIR DOG, MAKING THEM ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TO SPEEDING CARS. I PROPOSE A COMPROMISE THAT MAY NOT PLEASE ANYONE, BUT WILL PROVIDE RELIEF TO EVERYONE. IN THE DRAFT OF THE AMHERST SPECIFIC PLAN, HOUSES NUMBER 14 TO 17, WHICH LIE ACROSS THE EXTREME SOUTH END OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, COULD BE OMITTED. INSTEAD, A CHILD'S PLAYGROUND COULD BE CREATED TO SERVE THE CHILDREN OF THE YOUNG FAMILIES WHO ARE ALLEGEDLY THE TARGETED BUYERS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS PARK WOULD CREATE THIS THIS NEW PARK WOULD CREATE EASEMENT FOR THE SENIORS IN THE MOBILE HOME PARK BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE HOUSES JAMMED RIGHT UP AGAINST THEIR BACK WINDOWS WHILE CREATING A CRITICAL AMENITY FOR RESIDENTS. MS. BEST IF YOU COULD FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE, YOUR TIME IS UP IF YOU COULD FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL FINISH MY THOUGHT. LET'S SEE. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN TWO PARKS INSTEAD OF ONE. YOU NEED TO LOOK ON TABLE FIVE POINT TWO THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY [03:15:02] MATRIX AND THE AMHERST SPECIFIC PLAN THAT SAYS PARK MAINTENANCE IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. AND I'VE HEARD THAT STATED TO THE OPPOSITE. AS DENSITY INCREASES IN OUR LIVING SPACES, THE ATTENTION WE PAY TO EACH OTHER'S NEEDS MUST ALSO INCREASE. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO PLAY A ZERO SUM GAME WHERE THERE ARE WINNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF LOSERS. WE NEED TO VALUE EACH OTHER'S NEEDS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND EMBRACE A VISION IN WHICH THE IMPORTANCE OF LA VERNE AS A COMMUNITY IS OPEN TO CHANGE WHILE MAINTAINING OUR SMALL TOWN FEEL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU MS. BEST. GO NOW TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER, DAVE HERNANDEZ. IF WE COULD PLEASE KEEP THAT THREE MINUTE TIME FRAME I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE AND IF WE'RE REPEATING WHAT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE, IF WE COULD PASS IT TO THE NEXT INDIVIDUAL, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT, LET ME PUT MY TWO CENTS IN REAL QUICKLY, GUYS. FIRST OF ALL, I'M A MOBILE HOME OR WHATEVER ELSE AT TWIN OAKS PARK THE DEVELOPMENT SITS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE RETAINING WALL, MY BACKYARD. SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY FEELING ON THIS. LET'S FACE IT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMMENSE IMPACT. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE IMMENSE IMPACT. WE ALL KNOW THIS AND THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENTIST. LET'S USE SOME COMMON SENSE HERE. ALL WE'RE ASKING IS COMPROMISE. A SIMPLE COMPROMISE OF 33 HOMES IS ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE CAN'T STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY. AND IF THIS DEVELOPER CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT AT 42 HOMES, THEN FIND ANOTHER ONE WHO CAN. IT'S REALLY SIMPLE, GUYS. THAT'S ALL I REALLY WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS, MY NEXT PERSON. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GAIL PELLETIERA AT. WELL, MS. PELLETIERA, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, I WELCOME YOU ALL TO OUR REGIONAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND MR. TIM HEPBURN AS MAYOR, I TOO LIVE IN TWIN OAKS MOBILE HOME PARK AND LIVED THERE. SINCE 1984, I HAVE SEEN MANY CHANGES WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE BETTER. BUT I AM AGAINST THE 42 UNIT HOME PROPOSAL FOR AMHERST DEVELOPMENT. IT INVADES THE PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENCE IN THAT GENERAL AREA. THEY, TOO HAVE A RIGHT, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SENIORS DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR CITY. WE DO. AND WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS TONIGHT WOULD BE TO ADDRESS BY REVERTING TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF 33 HOMES NOT TO BE MADE LARGER, SPREADING HOUSES FURTHER APART AND CREATING ADEQUATE BACKYARDS, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE NEXT TO EXISTING MOBILE HOMES. WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS UNDER PRESSURE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER THIS ON BEHALF OF THE OLDER COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS FROM THIS PHONE CALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT WITH THE OTHER RESIDENTS. THAT'S VERY NICE. THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. YES, I THINK THEY'LL BE ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING THIS WAY AT MY HOUSE FROM NOW ON. WELL, HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE BACK TO LIVE ON STAGE HERE PRETTY SOON. SO DOWN THE ROAD SO WE CAN ALL COME TO THE MEETINGS. BUT THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO DO IT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE EXPECTING A FEW MORE PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON THAT CALL, SO WE'RE GETTING THE NEXT PERSON ON LINE. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE JOE GABALDON ON THE LINE. MR. GABALDON, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS JOE GABALDON, RESIDING ON AMHERST, AND I WILL NOT HIDE IN THE SHADOWS OF ANONYMITY LIKE MANY OF THOSE AFTER SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT TONIGHT. [03:20:03] [INAUDIBLE] PROVIDE ME WITH SOME SMALL MEASURE OF EXCUSE FOR SPEAKING OUT OF MY TYPICAL DEMEANOR. AS WE LOOK BACK, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT PARTICIPANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THIS PROJECT TO FLY UNDER THE RADAR AND BE OVERLOOKED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOPING FOR US TO SIMPLY TAKE OUR MEDICINE POKE THROUGH THE SHADOWS OF COVID. FROM THE ONSET, WE'VE BEEN MISLED AND PLAYED [INAUDIBLE] AND BIASED, PERSPECTIVE BASED PROJECT PRESENTATIONS OFFERED BY OUR CITY STAFF AND THE MARKETING TEAM OF THE DEVELOPER. IN OUR PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCOVERY, WE HAVE FACTUALLY UNCOVERED OMISSIONS OF IMPORTANT DETAILS AND QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] ELEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. AND WHERE HALF TRUTHS HAVE REGULARLY BEEN PRESENTED AS FULLY HONEST FACTS, JUST LIKE THE HALF TRUTH THAT WAS CITED TONIGHT BY THE CITY STAFF, THE DEVELOPER AND OTHER MISINFORMED VOICES WHERE THEY MAY CLAIM THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING OF EIGHT TO ONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A CLEAR TRANSITION ZONE WHERE THEIR COMPARATIVE IS THE TWIN OAKS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH, HAVING NO ACCESS TO AMHERST, ALSO HAVING BIASED TRAFFIC PROFESSIONALS CLAIMING NOT TO BE ABLE TO ANTICIPATE CUT THROUGH ACTIVITY TO AND FROM THE FREEWAY. AND THE COMPOUNDED NEGATIVE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON THE ALREADY [INAUDIBLE] STREET RATINGS IS PURE B.S.. AND TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC FLOWS THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS THEY ARE TODAY, IS ALL PART OF THE FARCE AND THE GRAND ILLUSION PRESENTED TO US. AND THE RESIDENTS IN LA VERNE. OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, RECOGNIZE SOME OF THIS AND UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AGAINST THIS PROJECT AS IS. IN THE PAST, OUR CITY LEADERSHIP AND THE COUNCIL DEMONSTRATED IN THEIR ACTIONS TO PRIORITIZE THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE ALREADY LIVING IN ITS NEIGHBORHOODS ABOVE DEVELOPERS AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO STAFF IN THAT EXPECTATION. NOW A HEARING FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPRESENTED TONIGHT REALTORS WATERING AT THE MOUTH FOR [INAUDIBLE] AND UNINFORMED VOICES OUTSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWING LESS OF THE FACTS AND SPEAKING TO EMOTIONAL TALKING POINTS. WHEN WE ARE IN FACT OK WITH THIS PROJECT. AT A REDUCED COUNT SPEAK VOLUMES OF THE STATE'S BUYERS TONIGHT TO PROVIDE COVER TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT BY THE PLAYERS OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT TONIGHT WILL ONLY GO TO REVEAL A SAD TRANSITION FROM OUR PAST LEADERSHIP AND ITS CONSTITUTION AND A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME FOR CHANGE IN LA VERNE. I THINK TO VOTE IN FAVOR, I WOULD BE SKEPTICAL AS TO WHY IN OUR TOWN DEVELOPER INDIFFERENT TO THE WILL OF THOSE WHO REPRESENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WAS ALREADY IN VEST IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR MANY YEARS. THIS IS A DEVELOPER WHO PUBLICLY SAID IN RECENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT, QUOTE, "IF I CAN'T SELL THE 42 THE PROJECT WOULDN'T BE WORTH IT TO ME. I'D RATHER WALK AWAY ESSENTIALLY THREATENING COMMISSION TO TAKE HIS BALL AND GO HOME. OR WAS THAT SIMPLY THEATER? THINGS WERE ALREADY BAKED. AND NOW I'M EVEN MORE SKEPTICAL WHEN IT WAS REVEALED JUST DAYS AGO IN THE STATE OF THE CITY AND BY MS. WILKERSON TONIGHT THAT MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROJECT DISCUSSION TODAY HAVE ESSENTIALLY CONCEALED FROM US ANOTHER HOUSING PROJECT AWARDED TO MR. WAKEN IN OUR TOWN WIDE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, AN OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AND IT IS NOW CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE TWO PROJECTS ARE AND HAVE BEEN TIED TO EACH OTHER. MR. GABALDON, IF YOU COULD FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS I'D APPRECIATE IT. WAKEN TIME SPEAKERS] MR. MAYOR, I HAVE KATHY [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE. MS. [INAUDIBLE] GOOD EVENING. HI, MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS KATHY [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND JOE [INAUDIBLE], AS WELL AS OTHER SEVERAL OTHER NEIGHBORS IN FOOTHILL TERRACE. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE AMHERST'S PROJECT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF FOOTHILL TERRACE MOBILE PARK. AS MR. WAKEN MENTIONED, WE GO FROM TWO THOUSAND CARS PER DAY TO SIX THOUSAND CARS PER DAY, NOT ONLY OUR OWN VEHICLES, BUT WE HAVE EMERGENCY VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING ON A DAILY BASIS IN THIS PARK. WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE PLANS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING OF TWENTY TWO HOMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE RAY MOYA ON THE LINE, MR. MOYA, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU GUYS WORKING LATE TONIGHT? YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE DO FOR OUR RESIDENTS. WE'RE HERE. THAT'S GOOD CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD. [LAUGHTER] WE DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY, SIR. I'M SORRY. WE MUST LISTEN. VERY IMPORTANT. NO WORRIES. [03:25:01] SO DO YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME OR DO YOU WANTED ME TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT THE NEW HOMES THAT OVER THERE IN LA VERNE? ITS ABOUT THE NEW PROJECT, IF YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON IT, SIR. YEAH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I FELT [INAUDIBLE] THE PLAN AND I THINK IT'D BE A GREAT THING TO DO BECAUSE BRINGING IN THOSE NEW HOMES IS MUCH BETTER THAN BUILDING MULTI, MULTI COMPLEX APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK IT WILL HELP PUT A LOT MORE MONEY IN OUR ECONOMY. AS FOR YOUR BRING NEW FAMILIES THEN ALL THESE, LIKE I WAS HERE FOR MY 21 YEARS NOW. MY WIFE GREW UP HERE, MY SON, MY DAUGHTER. THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY WANT TO LIVE HERE. SO THEY HAVE SOME HOMES TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S GREAT. I'M TOTALLY FOR THE PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. AND NOW GO BACK TO SLEEP. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE MARIANNE KETO ON THE LINE. MS. KETO, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. AND ALL OF THE CITY MEMBERS APPRECIATE YOU TAKING MY CALL. I HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THESE APARTMENTS GOING IN TWO HOUSES NORTH OF AMHERST. THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY DON'T JUST GO BY SLOWLY. THEY FLY BY AND. THE ZONING IN THIS AREA ALWAYS WAS MEANT TO BE LOW DENSITY HOUSING, WHICH MY PARENTS HAVE OWNED THIS HOUSE SINCE 1977, THEIR ORIGINAL OWNERS AND, YOU KNOW, FORTY TWO HOUSES, APARTMENTS WITH ONE DRIVEWAY EMPTYING INTO AMHERST IS UNREASONABLE. IT'S TOTALLY UNREASONABLE THE DRAFT IMPACT FROM THE EIS FINDS A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE TRANSFORMATION AND PARTIAL RESULTS IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO HOUSES. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER WOULD YOU LIKE THE SAME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT YOUR LIFE, IS HOW I'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AND TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. SERIOUSLY FOR US THAT LIVE HERE THAT THAT NEVER EXPECTED SUCH A HUGE IMPACT IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. GOD BLESS YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MAYOR, I HAVE HUGH KELLY, ON THE LINE, MR. KELLY. GOOD EVENING, SIR. HEY. MAYOR AND COUNCIL THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT CAME THROUGH VERY WELL. I WAS ABLE TO HEAR THE ENTIRE THING, BUT I'M NOT REALLY CALLING ABOUT THAT. I SAID THE COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE ONLY 10 PERCENT OF THE WORDS, MAYBE LESS THAN I'M HEARING. THERE SHOULD BE A DO OVER. I KNOW YOU'RE ALL HAPPY ABOUT THAT. THIS WAS A PRIVATE MEETING. THAT PUBLIC. PUBLIC TO SOME IS NOT PUBLIC TO ALL, PUT IT IN A PARK, MASK. DON'T USE COVID AS AN EXCUSE. SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR WHOEVER SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THIS, I'M CALLING AND CHECKING TOMORROW. THIS IS A CITY THAT CAN'T ZOOM STREAM I'VE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED TONIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I HAVE GREG [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE. GOOD EVENING [INAUDIBLE] JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS GOING UP. SO GROWING UP IN LA VERNE AS A CHILD AND THROUGH ADULTHOOD DEFINITELY SEE [03:30:05] THIS AS A VERY DESIRABLE AREA TO LIVE. DEFINITELY STRIVING TO LIVE HERE LATER ON AND PURCHASE PROPERTY. SO I DO GET THE STANCE OF THE BUILDING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LA VERNE; ALL THAT TO SAY THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY IN THE WORKS IN LA VERNE SIMILAR. THERE'S ONE DOWN THE STREET FROM AMHERST SITE THAT HAS THERE'S A COUPLE OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES DOWN THERE THAT DO HAVE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SO IN REGARDS TO THE AMHERST SITE. SO ONE I THINK ONE IS THE PROBLEM IS THE TRAFFIC ISSUE THAT'S BEEN SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE DON'T WANNA REPEAT THAT. BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S ONE ISSUE. THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE THE INITIAL PLAN WAS FOR FIVE HOUSES PER ACRE, THIS NEW PLAN IS FOR EIGHT, WHICH DEFINITELY REDUCES THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE TO PUT IN PERSPECTIVE. THERE ARE SOME LOT SIZES IN LA VERNE THAT ARE UPWARDS OF LIKE SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IN THE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT. THERE WOULD BE A QUARTER OF THAT SIZE. IT'S A PRETTY SMALL LOT FOR, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. I THINK IT'S ALL [INAUDIBLE] THE CITY WOULD DEFINITELY BENEFIT TO HAVE MORE HOUSING ON THIS PROPERTY. THEY WOULD DEFINITELY GET MORE REVENUE. BUT I DO THINK THERE WILL BE OTHER SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WORKS WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR THAT WOULD OFFER ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GET REVENUE FOR THE CITY. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF HAVING FIVE HOUSES PER ACRE ON THIS SITE, I THINK IT COULD ALSO GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SIMILAR ZONING PARAMETERS FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN LA VERNE IN THE NEXT YEAR THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HELP TO MEET THE HOUSING CRITERIA THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE AREA. AND LET ME GET ONE MORE. ADDITIONALLY, BY HAVING THE EIGHT HOUSES PER ACRE, IT WOULD. DECREASE SOME OF THE VALUES OF THE HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, MOSTLY DUE TO THE OVERSATURATION OF PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. THAT'S IT FOR ME. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. MR. MAYOR, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES WHAT WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT ORIGINALLY HAD EMAILED IN THAT THEY WANTED US TO CALL THEM, BUT WHEN THE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ATTEMPTED TO CALL THEM, THEY DIDN'T ANSWER. WE'LL GIVE THEM A MINUTE. MR. MAYOR, I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EMAILS THAT WERE TRANSMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THOSE AND THEY ARE PART OF THE RECORD THIS EVENING, MANY, MANY E-MAILS, QUITE FRANKLY, AND SOME THIS AFTERNOON. SO, YES, WE HAVE. SO MAKE THAT NOTED. YES. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE CHAIR? YEAH. I JUST REFRESHED MY EMAIL. NOTHING ELSE HAS COME THROUGH. SIR, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FIRST THEN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD WITH THE RESIDENTS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS STAFF? MR. CROSBY. UNMUTE. [INAUDIBLE] COULD YOU BRING IN FOR CONVENIENCE, COULD YOU BRING IN CANDICE AS WELL AS LISA SO WE HAVE THEM IN AND IF WE NEED THE CONSULTANTS, WE CAN DO THAT, TOO. BUT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT THE RESIDENTS BROUGHT UP. MR. CROSBY HERE. WOULD SOMEBODY ELSE LIKE THE START AND WE'LL HAVE MR. CROSBY FINISH UP AS SOON AS HE CAN GET UNMUTED, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO REBOOT AGAIN I'VE HAD TO DO THAT BEFORE. MR. DAVIS, WENDY LAU, COUNCILMEN LAU, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? IS THIS FOR QUESTIONS? WELL WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. CROSBY, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, HE DOES. OK, YOU WANT TO WRITE IT DOWN AND SHOW IT TO US? IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I THINK IT [03:35:05] WAS MS. [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT BROUGHT UP WAS REGARDING THE LDS AND THE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, REGARDING THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND THEN THERE WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH ARENA NUMBERS. AND ON THE PARCEL DID. I'M JUST. JUST A QUESTION. I MEAN. THE STUDIES WERE DONE. THERE WAS NO ISSUES ON NONE IT WAS NOTHING. I'M JUST CURIOUS CANDICE MS. BOWCOCK AND ALSO THE COLLECTOR STREET AND THE LOCAL STREETS. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? YES, SO IF J.R. COULD BRING IN JOHN LEVEILLEE HE CAN COMMENT ON THE TRAFFIC COUNTS IN REGARDS TO THE LDS CHURCH LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN THE COLLECTOR STREET QUESTION WHILE HE'S BRINGING HIM IN, I CAN ADDRESS THE HOUSING ELEMENT ONE. WHEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS ADOPTED. THE PREVIOUS ONE, SHE'S CORRECT, IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE SITE. HOWEVER, WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF REDOING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND IT WILL BE ADDED. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE BEFORE IT WASN'T WE WEREN'T STAFF WASN'T AWARE THAT COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN SELLING THIS SITE. SO IT WILL BE ADDED. AND 10 YEARS AGO, THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED. RIGHT. YEAH. SO. SO JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THEN ON THAT, SINCE IT WOULD BE ADDED THEN ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LOW INCOME HOUSING. DOES THEN APPLY? IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I BELIEVE SO. SO. YOU'RE MUTED, WE'RE HAVING A MUTE ISSUE. SORRY THIS TIME I'M TRYING TO GET MY COMPUTER WORKING AND NOT USING THE PHONE. CAN YOU HEAR ME THIS TIME? YES WE CAN PERFECT. SO THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, CORRECT. SO, AGAIN, NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PART OF THIS PROJECT. BUT IF YOU ENTER INTO A NEW AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER DEVELOPER AND THEY BUILD 10 OR MORE UNITS, THEN THERE WILL BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 15 PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE PROVIDED. I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BRANDYWINE PROJECT THAT WAS DISCUSSED, THAT THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW CRITERIA. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE BRANDYWINE PROJECT. WAS THAT SURPLUS LAND? NO SO WHAT THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE 15 PERCENT. OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THE NEW STATE LAW RELATING TO SURPLUS PROPERTY WHEN THE CITY SELLS THEIR PROPERTY. THAT'S WHEN IT KICKS IN. SO YOU MAY HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SOME OF YOUR SPECIFIC PLANS. I KNOW I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CANDICE AND ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS ON ANOTHER PROJECT, BUT FOR THIS PROPERTY IN SPECIFIC, IT'S THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT THAT'S REQUIRING IT. ALRIGHT. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU? I THINK YES, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, OK, WITH THE NEW THAT IT WOULD BE ADDED INTO THE SURPLUS PARCEL BECAUSE IT WASN'T INCLUDED PREVIOUSLY. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 15 PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YES. AND I DO BELIEVE YOU OFFERED THIS PROPERTY THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS OFFERED. OR AM I CONFUSING THIS WITH SOMETHING ELSE? I THINK YOU'RE CONFUSED. OK, AND THEN, LISA, THE ADDITION TO THE 15 PERCENT LOW INCOME HOUSING, IT DOES ADD A DENSITY PIECE AS WELL. YES. I'M SORRY MY MICROPHONE, HASN'T BEEN WORKING SINCE WE WENT ON BREAK, SO I FINALLY GOT IT BACK TO WORK. MY QUESTION EARLIER, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS OUT OF TURN IS ABOUT, THE CHANGE FROM THIRTY THREE TO FORTY TWO THAT KEEPS BEING BROUGHT BACK UP. MR. RUSSI, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT, FOR US PLEASE? YES. THERE WAS NEVER A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THIRTY THREE. THAT THIRTY THREE WAS IN RESPONSE. THAT NUMBER OF THIRTY THREE CAME UP IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S RFP THAT THEY PUT OUT FOR CONCEPTUAL OF WHAT A PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE PUT WHEN WE PUT THIS OUT FOR [03:40:02] SALE, WE ACCEPTED IN BIDS AND PROPOSALS. THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED. COUNCIL EVALUATED ALL THE PROPOSALS, DIRECTED STAFF TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE SPECIFICALLY WITH THEM BASED ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAD. THEY WENT BACK. THERE WAS NO NOTHING SUBMITTED AT THAT POINT. IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF GOING BACK AND EACH PARTY DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT RFP IS TO OUR PUBLIC THAT DOESN'T KNOW ACRONYMS? THANK YOU. IT'S A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. SO AS WE WERE PUTTING THAT LAND OUT THERE FOR SALE, WE SOLICITED A NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS, SOME THAT HAD WORKED IN THE COMMUNITY BEFORE, TO OTHERS THAT HAD JUST EXPRESSED INTEREST TO THEN SEE IF WE WHAT RESPONSES WE GOT BACK AND CONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT, THE CITY JUST GENERALLY PUT OUT THEIR PARAMETERS SOMEWHERE IN THE FIVE TO SIX PER ACRE. WAS THE REQUEST FOR THE SUBMISSIONS? SO WE HAD SOMETHING TO COMPARE AGAINST WE RECEIVED BACK. GOSH, I THINK IT WAS FIVE OR SIX PROPOSALS. THIS WAS THE MORE FAVORABLE ONE AT THAT POINT. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO GO BACK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE WHAT CAME BACK AFTER THE DUE DILIGENCE WAS TO CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL AT THE FORTY TWO THAT WAS THE ONLY INDICATION THAT WAS GIVEN IN THE INITIAL. THERE WASN'T EVEN THIRTY THREE PUT OUT THERE TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A PROPOSAL, IT WAS A PRELIMINARY SKETCH WAS THE BEST I COULD DESCRIBE JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA OF WHAT A LAYOUT, A RENDERING OF WHAT A DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT IT WAS NOT A SUBMISSION. AND THIS WHOLE NOTION OF CLOSED SESSION, BACK DOOR DEAL, WHATEVER THAT NOTION THAT CAME OUT. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IS WHEN DID THE COUNCIL GIVE YOU GUIDANCE TO ALLOW MORE DIRECTION ON THAT. WHEN WE CAME BACK AND WHEN WE WERE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS AND GOING THROUGH PUTTING TOGETHER THE AGREEMENT TO PURSUE THEIR DEPOSIT, THAT WAS WHEN THE NEGOTIATIONS WENT TO IF WE WENT TO FORTY TWO, WOULD THAT NOT NECESSARILY BE AGREED TO, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE DIRECTION THAT THE COUNCIL GAVE US AT THAT TIME. NOT AN APPROVAL, JUST IT WOULD BE UP FOR CONSIDERATION. WHEN WAS THAT THEN? I WANT TO SAY IT WAS LIKE DECEMBER, BUT I KNOW, CANDICE, DO YOU REMEMBER THE TIMELINE OF WHEN IT WAS LIKE DECEMBER OF '19, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS IN EARLY 2020 THAT WE ACTUALLY MOVED FORWARD. THEY HAD CERTAIN TIME FRAMES THAT THEY NEEDED TO MEET. I REMEMBER DECEMBER OF '19, JUST AS A MAGIC NUMBER. I MAY BE OFF A LITTLE BIT, BUT ROUGHLY THE LATTER PART OF 2019 IF I RECALL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE OTHER ISSUE, TOO, I WANT TO KIND OF PUT THAT TO REST, THAT WE WERE DOING BACKDOOR DEALINGS WHEN WE STALLED THE MEETING AND WE JUST PUSHED AND PUSHED, NOT POSTPONE IT, BUT OPEN IT UP AND THEN CONTINUED TILL TONIGHT. AND THE REASON WAS, IS BECAUSE THE EIR DOCUMENT WAS NOT IN THE BASIS OF THE RESOLUTION, IS THAT CORRECT? MR. RUSSI OR CANDICE THAT IT WAS NOT IN THERE. WE HAD TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS WE COULD NOT CONTINUE IT BECAUSE THE EIR DOCUMENT WAS NOT IN THE REPORT. YES. OK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE HAD NO CHOICE AT THAT POINT. SO THAT WAS IT. AND I WOULD JUST CLARIFY, TOO, THAT THERE WAS A MEETING THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THERE WAS NO MEETING. THERE WAS A MEETING AT THE MEETING THAT NIGHT, THAT IS. NOW, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE [INAUDIBLE] HAD MENTIONED AND JUST BEFORE YOU DO IT, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY YES. THANK YOU. YEAH, I'M SORRY. YEAH. THIS IS FOR MR. LEVEILLEE THAT REGARDING THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND BEING A COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OR A LOCAL STREET AND HOW IT IT DOESN'T. SHE SAID IT WASN'T WORKING THAT WAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO US? I MEAN, TO MAKE SURE WHAT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT AND IT ALSO HAD TO DO WITH THE LDS SCHOOL AND ALSO THE LUTHERAN SCHOOL JUST KIND OF TITLES TOGETHER IN THE COLLECTIVE STREET AND THE COUNCIL AND THE TRAFFIC COUNTS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? ANY TIME YOU DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, YOU LOOK AT YOUR EXISTING USES WHICH ARE OUT THERE AND YOUR EXISTING PROJECTS AND THOSE FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC COUNTS. SO ALL EXISTING PROJECTS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE COUNTS WHICH WERE PERFORMED AND THEN ADJUSTED AS WE SPOKE EARLIER. ANY FUTURE PROJECTS HAVE TO BE APPROVED. [03:45:01] AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY. SKEPTICAL PROJECTS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMING DOWN THE ROAD, ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE IMPROVED OR NOT. SO THE THRESHOLD IS FOR ANY FUTURE PROJECTS HAVE TO BE APPROVED. AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY BEING INITIATED. YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP TRACK CHASING DOWN FUTURE PROJECTS AND ADDING THEM TO AS YOU GO. YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO FINALIZE THE TRAFFIC STUDY. SO THAT'S HOW YOU LOOK AT EXISTING AS WELL AS FUTURE PROJECTS. THE COMMENT, WHICH WAS MADE REGARDING CAPACITY FOR BOTH COLLECTORS AND LOCAL STREETS, IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BACK IN 1998, IN WHICH THE CITY IS ACTUALLY ON THE PROCESS OF REDOING AND IN THE TABLES. AND IN THE CASE OF A COLLECTOR STREET HAS A RANGE OF. FIFTEEN HUNDRED TO TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED, WITH AN AVERAGE OF SEVENTY FIVE HUNDRED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN A LOCAL STREET, SHOULD HAVE FIFTEEN HUNDRED MAXIMUM. SO THOSE STATEMENTS ARE ACTUALLY DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, COUNCIL OR COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE ANY MORE FOR STAFF? MR. DAVIS. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. MR. CROSBY, COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY ANYMORE WE'RE GOOD. OK, THEN I WOULD MOVE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS THEN ON THIS ISSUE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO START MR. DAVIS HERE. YOU'RE OPEN THERE. YOU WANT TO START. SURE. DAVIS. I PREPARED A LITTLE STATEMENT. I JUST WANTED TO IF I MAY READ THIS REAL QUICK. BEFORE WE START, I FIRST WANT TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS FOR THEIR COMMENTS, LETTERS AND EMAILS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR VOTE. I WANT TO THANK OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS PROJECT. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE RESIDENTS IN RELATION TO THE DENSITY AND THE BMT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AS A COUNCIL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE STAFF REPORT AND STUDIES ON THESE ITEMS. WE AS AN ELECTED COUNCIL MUST LOOK AT ALL THE ABOVE FOR THE GOOD OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WHILE I'M VERY INTERESTED ON WHAT MY COUNCIL HAS TO SAY ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS OF SIMILAR, IF NOT MORE DENSITY IN THIS PROJECT AND LA VERNE. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND OUR FINAL DECISION. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. I'M SORRY, SIR. NO, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, BECAUSE IT REMINDS ME THAT I WANT TO JOIN YOU IN THANKING OUR STAFF. YOU GUYS DID A FABULOUS JOB, CANDICE AND ERIC AND EVERYBODY ELSE SUPPORTING YOU. THIS WAS YEOMAN'S WORK. THANK YOU TO OUR LEGAL COUNCIL FOR WEIGHING IN, AS WELL AS OUR CONSULTANTS AND OTHER FOLKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE MOST GRACEFUL PROCESS, THIS SMALL DEMOCRACY AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, IT'S EVEN A LITTLE LESS GRACEFUL WHEN WE DO HAVE TO DO IT ON ZOOM'S SO THAT THERE THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES OF HAVING A CONVERSATION AND LISTENING AND BEING LISTENED TO AND THE TECHNOLOGY, WHETHER IT'S WORKING OR NOT, I CAN SEE FACES. BUT HOPEFULLY THE BROADCAST IS GOING BEYOND JUST THE FOLKS I SEE. YOU KNOW, LA VERNE IS AN EVOLVING COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHERE WE HAVE OUR EYES ON THE LONG TERM. AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S DISRUPTIVE TO NEIGHBORHOODS. THE RHNE NUMBERS ARE DAUNTING. THE TRANSIT NOW CALLED THE L-LINE COMING THROUGH. LA VERNE IS CAUSING MY NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE QUITE A BIT WHERE THERE ARE GOING TO BE HIGH DENSITY HOMES IN THE RANGE OF 30 TO 40 PER ACRE VERSUS EIGHT PER ACRE. YOU KNOW, LA VERNE, WHEN MY GREAT GRANDFATHER WAS HERE, HE HAD HIS HOUSE ON 16 ACRES AND MY GRANDFATHER HAD HIS HOUSE ON EIGHT ACRES. AND, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK ME 10 YEARS TO GET BACK TO THE HOUSE A HOUSE ON THE STREET I GREW UP IN. SO I UNDERSTAND THE TRANSITIONS THAT WE MAKE FOR HOUSING. AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE INTEREST PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE IN LA VERNE. [03:50:03] AND I WANT TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT LIVE HERE AND THOSE THAT WANT TO COME HERE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE LONG TERM AND NOT BEING VERY LONG, I THINK IT WILL BE MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING WHEN WE LOOK BACK ON THIS PROJECT AND THINK IT'S A GOOD THING WE DID THIS PROJECT WHEN WE DID BECAUSE THE MANDATES THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE PIKE COULD CAUSE SOME OTHER UNUSED PROPERTIES TO ACCOMMODATE MANY MORE THAN FORTY TWO FOR FIVE AND A HALF ACRES. SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. I RECOGNIZE THAT THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA ARE TREMENDOUSLY UPSET WITH ME AND I'M OK WITH THAT. I EMPATHIZE WITH YOU. BUT I THINK WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HAPPY TO HAVE THOSE FOLKS THAT HELPED TO CALM THE STREETS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE STOPPING AND TURNING INTO THAT STREET TO GO TO THEIR HOUSES. AND SO PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE FLYING BY AN EMPTY NURSERY THINKING NOBODY'S GOING TO BE THERE. SO HANG WITH US. WE'RE DOING THIS FOR OUR COMMUNITY, FOR THE LIFEBLOOD OF OUR COMMUNITY. LOOKING FORWARD FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. I WOULD JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY THANKS TO THE STAFF, TO THE RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THESE THINGS ARE ALWAYS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THROUGH. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY LIKE, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S 10:30 AND IT'S STILL GOING. BUT, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE FOLKS BEING ENGAGED AND REACHING OUT AND TALKING TO COUNCIL AND, YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATING IN TONIGHT'S CALL AS WELL. YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT WHO WE ARE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WHAT OUR ROLE IS. AND I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY BECAUSE I WAS ELECTED, AS WERE MY COLLEAGUES, TO LOOK OUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. AND THAT MEANS THE WHOLE CITY. AND THAT MEANS LOOKING AT VARIOUS MOVING PARTS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US. AND YOU TRY TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO SEE WHAT THE EFFECTS WILL BE IN THE LONG TERM, NOT JUST FOR A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE ENTIRE CITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE PROVIDED MANDATES THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD. I THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT CAN WE CONTROL WHEN WE CAN CONTROL IT SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF OUR CITY AND WHAT'S HERE. YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I DO LIVE IN LORDSBURG COURT, WHICH IS HIGHER DENSITY, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE ADVANTAGES OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE PROPOSAL CURRENTLY FOR THE AMHERST PROJECT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR PARKING. YOU KNOW, IF YOU ASK MY NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE UPSET ABOUT, IT IS THE PARKING. THEY YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD PROBABLY GIVE THEIR RIGHT ARM TO HAVE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THIS IS THE BEST NEIGHBORHOOD I'VE LIVED IN AND I'M EXCITED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEW FAMILIES THAT WILL COME IN AND BRING LIFEBLOOD INTO OUR CITY AND REALLY EXPAND AND PERPETUATE THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MOVED IN HERE WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS FIRST BUILT. AND MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE STILL THE NEIGHBORS THAT MOVED IN WHEN WE ALL BOUGHT. AT THE SAME TIME, I'VE WATCHED THEIR KIDS GROW UP, YOU KNOW, THEIR KIDS KEEP ME IN GOOD SUPPLY OF GIRL SCOUT COOKIES EVERY YEAR, YOU KNOW? SO IT'S A NICE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE IN TERMS OF THE ENTIRE CITY, WHAT IT COULD DO TO BRING BUSINESS IN, WHAT IT CAN DO TO RAISE REVENUES, WHAT IT CAN DO TO, YOU KNOW, REGENERATE OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR SPORTS PROGRAMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT IT AT A WHOLE AND HAVE LOOKED AT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN POSED, HAVE AS MANY QUESTIONS AS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES. I DO WANT THE RESIDENTS TO KNOW THAT, THAT WE DON'T GO INTO THIS LIGHTLY, THAT WE DON'T STAY UP ON THESE CALLS. AND THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE'VE EVER SEEN THINGS OR LOOK AT THINGS. YOU KNOW, WE PICK THINGS APART, WE'VE ASKED STAFF. WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD, YOU KNOW, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. I TRUST THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON HERE DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN RESEARCHING THEIR POSITION TONIGHT, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. SO HAVING SAID THOSE WORDS, YOU KNOW, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. I AM SYMPATHETIC TO HOW DISRUPTIVE CHANGE CAN BE. BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I THINK OUR STAFF AND OUR COUNCIL IS COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE LISTENING TO YOUR CONCERNS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO WORK WITH YOU AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE AS SEAMLESS AS POSSIBLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS INEVITABLE, AS SOMEONE MENTIONED ON THE CALL EARLIER IN THE COMMENTS. SO THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO? YES, I WILL, AND I'M IMPRESSED THAT THERE'S STILL FORTY SIX PARTICIPANTS ON [03:55:04] THIS, SO THANK YOU FOR STAYING UP. I ACTUALLY WROTE OUT MY COMMENTS WHILE I WAS HEARING THINGS, SO I'D LIKE TO READ IT SO I DON'T MISS ANYTHING. I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY VOTE ON THIS PROJECT IS NOT DECIDED LIGHTLY. I'VE DONE MY HOMEWORK. I HAVE MET WITH THE RESIDENTS ON AMHERST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. I HAVE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER. I HAVE MET WITH STAFF, GONE OVER ALL THE DETAILS AND I READ EVERY EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO US. I WALKED THE SITE ONE DAY, I WENT DOWN THERE DURING THE MORNING, AND I WALKED THE SITE TO UNDERSTAND THE GRADING, WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AND HOW THE IMPACT RIGHT UP AGAINST THE MOBILE HOME PARK WOULD BE. SO THAT GAVE ME SOME INSIGHT. AND THEN I WENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK TO TALK TO A HANDFUL OF THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT I BELIEVE THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE A POSITIVE ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHETHER IT WAS THIRTY THREE HOMES OR FORTY TWO, THE HOMES ARE ATTRACTIVE WITH MANY AMENITIES. THE PARK IS A GOOD ADDITION TO THIS PROJECT AND WILL ADD A PARK ON THE EAST SIDE OF LA VERNE, WHICH A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR MANY YEARS WITH ALL THIS. MY REAL CONCERN IS THE RESIDENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THIS PROJECT. WE HAVE ALWAYS STRESSED THAT THE CITIZENS ARE THE POWER OF LA VERNE. THE HOMEOWNERS DO NOT OPPOSE THE THIRTY THREE HOMES, BUT THE ADDITION OF NINE HOMES THAT ARE THERE CONCERN THE ADDITIONAL NINE HOMES TAKING ALL OF THIS INTO EVALUATION FOR THIS PROJECT, I AM READY TO CAST MY VOTE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, IS THAT A FOR OR AGAINST OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO WAIT TILL WE DO THE VOTE? WHEN I TAKE MY VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. THANK YOU AND PLEASE, MY MICROPHONE IS WORKING AGAIN. I THINK THE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAVE CLEARLY SAID WE HAVE ALL THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WE'VE ALL DONE A LOT OF HOMEWORK ON THIS. WALKING THE SITES, WALKING THE SMALL POCKETS THAT BEEN BUILT SINCE 2002 AS WELL TO SEE WHAT REALITY LOOKS LIKE. I ALWAYS SEE SKETCHES AND I AM A VISUAL PERSON AND HAVE TO SEE AND TOUCH THINGS RATHER THAN JUST ABLE TO READ ABOUT IT OR DO RENDITIONS. SO LOOKING AT THOSE PREVIOUS ONES AND THEN COMPARING TO THE SIZE OF THE HOMES, THE PROPOSED SIZE OF THESE HOMES ARE THE SIZE OF THE HOMES THAT ARE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO THEY ARE COMPARABLE TO THERE THE LOT SIZES ARE THE PIECE THAT IS NOT AS COMPARABLE TO THE HOMES THAT ARE NORTH AND EAST AND FARTHER WEST PAST THE MOBILE HOME PARK. I DO THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME MORE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA. AND THAT DOES CONCERN ME. I HAVE TALKED TO NOT ONLY SAT IN THE HOMES OF RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, BUT EVEN OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA TOO TO FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE ALL AROUND LA VERNE HAS TO SAY. AND WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THAT, WHAT CONCERNS ME IS IF THIS DOES NOT GO THROUGH WHAT THE IMPACT OF LOWER INCOME HOMES BEING PUT IN THERE AND WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON THAT COMMUNITY, FAR GREATER THAN THIS IS GOING TO BE ON THEM. THE IMPACT OF IF BY PUTTING OUR SURPLUS LAND, THE 15 PERCENT REQUIRED OF LOW INCOME HOUSING AND THEN THE GREATER DENSITY OF TWENTY NINE BEING ADDED TO THAT BECAUSE OF PUTTING IN LOWER INCOME HOMES, THAT IS WHAT IS A BIG WORRY OF MINE BY SIMPLY PUTTING 10 HOMES IN THAT SPOT. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD SELL, THEY WOULD NOT BE COMPARABLE TO THE HOMES THAT ARE IN THE AREA AROUND IT. SO HAVING THE THE COMPARABLE OF THE SIZE OF THE HOMES IS IN NEED, AND THEN I ALSO WAS VIEWING OF CITIES OUTSIDE OF LA VERNE AND WHAT OUR NEW PROJECTS GOING ON AND NEW PROJECTS GOING ON. AND I WAS IN COSTA MESA THIS WEEKEND AND SAN DIMAS AND CLAREMONT AND SEEING NEW [04:00:03] PROJECTS GOING IN WERE HOMES THAT HAVE LESS PROPERTY SIZE. THAT IS NOT THE WAVE OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE BUILDING NOW COMPARED TO WHAT WE'RE BUILDING. AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT I WOULD BUY ONE OF THESE HOUSES BECAUSE I VALUE MY PROPERTY SIZE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING BUILT NOWADAYS AS WELL. WITH ALL THOSE IDEAS AND PUT IN, I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR FOR THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE WHEN IF THIS DROPPED AND THEN WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT IN BY BEING TOLD FROM THE STATE RATHER THAN US MAKING THE DECISION. THANK YOU, MR. CROSBY. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS, THEY'RE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. I KNOW THIS IS A LOT OF WORK AND WE DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE TONIGHT THAT THIS IS NOT OUR JOB. THEY ELECTED US. TO MAKE SURE THE DIRECTION THE CITY IS IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION, BUT ALSO DISCUSS IT WITH THE RESIDENTS AND THANK THEM FOR INVITING US INTO THEIR HOMES. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. WE ALL EDUCATE OURSELVES EVERY DAY. WE'RE ALL ON COMMITTEES, WHETHER IT BE TRANSPORTATION OR GOLD LINE OR SANITATION DISTRICTS OR TRANSPORTATION. WE'RE EDUCATING OURSELVES ALL THE TIME. MYSELF PERSONALLY, BEING ON THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, I CONSTANTLY SEE THE BARRAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILLS AND STATE BILLS TO TAKE AWAY THE FABRIC THAT OUR COMMUNITIES WERE BUILT ON, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH CEQA AND WITH DENSITY. AND AS ALL OF YOU HAVE SAID AND ESPECIALLY MR. CROSBY, THE PROJECTS THAT CAN BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF SAY IN THEM. UNLESS AND RIGHT NOW THIS DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF THE FABRIC OF LA VERNE. IT'S FOR YOUNG FAMILIES. IT'S THE YARDS AREN'T SUPER BIG. IT'S GOT GREAT PARKING. THE HOUSES ARE GREAT. WE HAVE A PARK ON THERE. THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. I DO TOO AGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT. WE'LL ADDRESS THAT DOWN THE ROAD RIGHT NOW WHERE IT SHOWS THERE, BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES AND THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES ON WILLIAMS AND ALSO ON [INAUDIBLE]. SO THOSE ARE SITUATIONS THAT ARE THERE NOW CURRENTLY. BUT THE DENSITY AND SOME OF THE OTHER WHICH I'VE TRAVELED THROUGH, ALL THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST SEVEN TO EIGHT YEARS. THIS PROJECT IS LESS DENSE THAN THOSE, AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT BUILDING SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT, THE PEOPLE AND THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THESE COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO LIVE WELL. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN. THEY'RE GOING BE PART OF THE SCHOOLS. THEY'RE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COMMUNITY ON SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAXES. AND THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. I, TOO, DON'T WANT TO SEE A CHANGE IN THAT PROJECT TO MORE DENSE, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I THINK IT'S GOING TO DO WELL ON ITS OWN. BUT I AGAIN, I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM ALL THE CITIZENS AND THE RESIDENTS. WE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. THESE ARE FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT I'VE KNOWN, MANY OF THEM FOR YEARS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO DO RIGHTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. THIS IS A GOOD DEVELOPMENT. IT'LL GO WELL, I THANK STAFF I THANK ALL OF OUR OUTSIDE VENDORS FOR THEIR INFORMATION. THANK YOU, MR. RUSSI. THANK YOU FOR ALL OUR JOURNEYS FOR THIS. IT WAS QUITE A PROJECT THAT'S LASTED QUITE SOME TIME. WE STARTED WITH IT 2018 ON THIS PROPERTY DISCUSSING TO SELL IT AND NOW WE ARE IN 2021 BEING. THAT SAID, I'M AT A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREEMENT TO THIS PROJECT AND I WANT TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE THIS IN TWO PIECES, MR. KRESS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE RESOLUTION NUMBER 21-18. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO I NEED A I NEED A MOTION AND THEN A SECOND. I'LL MOVE THAT WE'VE APPROVED RESOLUTION 21-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? CROSBY HAD HIS HAND UP FIRST IF YOU DON'T MIND MS. LAU. WE HAVE A SECOND. ROLL CALL, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER NO. MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS, YES, MAYOR HEPBURN, YES, NEXT RESOLUTION WILL BE RESOLUTION TWENTY ONE SIXTEEN TWENTY ONE SEVENTEEN, ORDINANCE NUMBER TEN NINETY NINE WILL BE [04:05:02] APPROVED ALL IN ONE VOTE, ONE MOTION AND A SECOND AND A VOTE. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KRESS? IT IS THE ORDINANCE YOU WOULD BE INTRODUCING THE ORDINANCE AND WAIVING READING IN FULL, BUT YOU CAN TAKE THE TWO RESOLUTIONS AND THE ORDINANCE AS ONE MOTION. SO WE'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NUMBER TEN NINETY NINE. SO I NEED A MOTION FOR THAT, MR. RUSSI, AND I NEED TO READ IT BY TITLE. CORRECT YES, OK. YES, GO AHEAD. AND WE'RE GOING TO ORDINANCE NUMBER TEN NINETY NINE. I CAN READ IT. OR I SHOULD LET SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION. LET'S GET A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN RESOLUTIONS AS WELL. GO AHEAD MR. RUSSI. DO I HAVE LET'S GET A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ALL THREE ITEMS. MOTION, MR. CROSBY. I MOVE FOR THE RESOLUTION NUMBER TWENTY ONE SIXTEEN, RESOLUTION NUMBER TWENTY ONE SEVENTEEN AND ORDINANCE NUMBER TEN NINETY NINE. THANK YOU SIR. SECOND. ORDINANCE TEN NINETY NINE. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF LA VERNE CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATION FROM PR 3D TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING THE AMHERST'S SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE SITE LOCATED AT 2820 AMHERST PARCEL NUMBER 8666-021-902 AND ANY PORTION OF THE ADJACENT PARCEL 8666-021-904 IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE. WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE YES, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER NO. MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS, AYE. MAYOR HEPBURN, AYE. MOTION IS CARRIED, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ITEM EIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON JR WAKE UP . MR. MAYOR. JUST A REMINDER, IF THERE'S THOSE THAT ARE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT WERE NOT ON THE AGENDA, THESE ATTENDEES CAN RAISE THEIR HANDS. AND THEN WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING VIA EMAIL UP TO THIS POINT. [INAUDIBLE] NOTHING, JR. NOTHING, SIR. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I'M GOING TO MOVE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS AND CONFERENCE MEETINGS, REPORTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. [9. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS] SO AN UPDATE ON CASSIE, JUST SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF ARE YOU MAY HAVE STARTED TO SEE MORE OF A SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE, OUR LOVELY INTERNS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE HAVE RAMPED UP SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GOING OUT. YOU MAY HAVE ALSO SEEN IT REPOSTED BY THE CITY OF LA VERNE'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AS WELL. SO THANKS TO OUR STAFF FOR DOING THAT AS WELL. THERE WILL BE UPDATES ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SIGN UP FOR THE JOIN US FOR DINNER EVENTS, AS WELL AS PARTICIPATE IN OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE GOING ON. WE DO ALSO HAVE A DONATION THAT WAS MADE BY CASSIE OF SOME BOOKS TO THE LITTLE LIBRARIES AROUND TOWN. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST RECENT SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS WAS ABOUT. SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING OUT SOME OF THE LITERATURE THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED TO THE COMMUNITY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP BY. AND IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, WE HAVE EIGHT LITTLE LIBRARIES IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, WHICH I THINK IS PRETTY COOL AND PRETTY AWESOME. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK JUST YOU KNOW, AS ALWAYS, THANKS FOR HANGING IN THERE WITH US AND FOR BEING ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT EVEN WHEN FOLKS DISAGREE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THAT DIALOG. AND I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SPEAKERS THAT CAME UP AND WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING OF THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND, YOU KNOW, STILL ACKNOWLEDGE, HEY, WE'RE STILL NEIGHBORS. WE MAY NOT AGREE ON THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, GLAD WE COULD ALL BE HERE TO VOICE OUR OPINIONS. AND I THINK THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF LIVING IN AN AWESOME DEMOCRACY. SO THANK YOU FOR LIKE I SAID FOR EVERYONE THAT HUNG OUT WITH US THIS LATE ON A MONDAY NIGHT. AND FOR ALL YOUR ENTHUSIASM AND ENGAGEMENT, IT IS MUCH APPRECIATED. AND LAST NOTE WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, THE COVID VACCINE IS AVAILABLE. THE CITY DID RUN ITS CLINIC LAST FRIDAY, WHICH WAS WELL ATTENDED FROM ALL ACCOUNTS, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD. SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S ANOTHER GROUP OF RESIDENTS THAT IS NOW ON THEIR WAY [04:10:01] TO BEING FULLY VACCINATED. AND HOPEFULLY WE ARE ALL ONE STEP CLOSER TO BEING ABLE TO SEE EACH OTHER IN PERSON, BEING ABLE TO HUG AND SHAKE HANDS AND DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE MAY HAVE BEEN MISSING OUT ON. SO UNTIL THEN, STAY SAFE AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS. YEAH, I'LL KEEP WELL, RATHER THAN EDITORIALIZING. I WAS ALSO ON THE CALL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER LAU WITH CASSIE AND THAT WAS A GOOD EVENING AND A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING ON. SO PLEASE GET INVOLVED WITH US THERE MONDAY. WHILE IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL POSITION, WE HAD OUR MONTHLY PUBLIC BANK POMONA VALLEY DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT PUBLIC BANKING AND HOW THAT MIGHT HELP OUR COMMUNITY, I INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT PUBLIC BANK, POMONA VALLEY, EITHER ON FACEBOOK OR ON THE WEBSITE. I WAS ABLE TO JOIN IN AND BE THE ALTERNATE SUPPORTING OUR MAYOR FOR THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. AND WHAT OUR MAYOR SAID WAS RIGHT, WHICH IS THERE ARE A LOT OF RULES COMING DOWN THE WAY OF HOW WE CAN USE LAND AND HOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS HOUSING. AND AND IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THIS WASN'T THE LAST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROJECT THAT WE EVER AND I MEAN EVER APPROVE. WE MAKE IT EIGHTY USE AND WE MAKE IT DUPLEXES. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO SEE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ANYMORE. SACRAMENTO HAS BASICALLY REMOVED THAT IS AS A ZONING CHARACTERISTIC. BUT I TOO WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THIS EFFORT AND IT WASN'T EASY. BUT THAT'S WHAT KEEPS OUR DEMOCRACY GOING AND THAT'S WHAT BUILDS OUR BONDS HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY OF LA VERNE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT WON'T BE EASY TOMORROW, BUT IT'LL GET EASIER AS WE GO ALONG AND WE CAN COME BACK TOGETHER AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE HERE FOR EACH OTHER. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. IS HE IS HE BROKEN? NO, I'M ALL GOOD. YEAH, I WANT TO APPRECIATE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER LAU SAID WITH THE VACCINATIONS. ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE VACCINES IN THE CITY DID LAST WEEK. I'M ON THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT BOARD AND THEY ARE HAVING VACCINES THIS SATURDAY, THE 24TH IN COVINA. YOU CAN GO JUST TO THE WEBSITE AND CLICK ON IT SO THAT IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A BUS, YOU CAN GO RIGHT TO THEIR DEPOT AND GET A VACCINE FROM THEM AS WELL. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT ALL THE INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYBODY. YOU KNOW, JUST REMEMBER TOO TONIGHT WAS HARD DECISIONS. BUT BUT WE ARE A COMMUNITY AND A COMMUNITY ALWAYS IN NEED. WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT LIFE IS IMPORTANT. WE LOST A BONITA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT AND MY DAUGHTER CAME HOME TO TELL ME THIS TODAY AND IT'S JUST HARD. SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HUG YOUR FRIENDS AND TELL YOUR PEOPLE YOU LOVE THEM EVERY DAY. SO. THANK YOU, MR. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. YES, A COUPLE FRIDAYS AGO, I WAS INVITED TO THE POMONA FULTON AREA WHERE THEY'RE REDOING THE TRACKS AND BUILDING THE BRIDGE. AND SO WE TOOK THE TOUR AND TIM SANDOVAL FROM POMONA WAS THERE AND GLENDORA CAME. AND THEY'RE PROGRESSING REALLY FAST AND STILL UNDER BUDGET. AND SO THEY'RE WORKING VERY HARD. AND IT WAS A REALLY INTERESTING TOUR TO HEAR HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. IF YOU RIDE OVER ANY OF THESE TRACKS, GO OVER [INAUDIBLE] HOW SMOOTH THEY ARE. SO THEY'RE DOING THAT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE FREIGHT TRAINS AREN'T COMING THROUGH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TAKING OFF THE TRACKS RIGHT NOW TO REASSEMBLE THEM IN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN AND SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS WHERE THE DELIVERIES END THEY HAVE TRUCKS GOING TO PICK UP THE MERCHANDISE AND BRING IT TO THE LOCATIONS THAT USE THEM, SUCH AS METROPOLITAN WATER, AND THEY GET THEIR SUPPLIES BROUGHT TO THEM STILL. SO THERE'S NO LAG IN DELIVERIES. SO THAT'S IT. OH, THERE IS ONE MORE THING I HEARD TODAY THAT A LONG TIME RESIDENT SOMEONE INVOLVED IN OUR COMMUNITY, HE WAS ON THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE WITH ME, JEFFERSON HILL PASSED AWAY. SO IT WOULD BE VERY NICE IF IN A LATER MEETING WE COULD DO A CLOSING IN HONOR OF HIM. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. [04:15:02] I WILL ALSO REITERATE THAT I WANT TO THANK ALL MY COUNCIL AND STAFF. THIS WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION TO HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE VERY IMPASSIONED AND UPSET ABOUT THIS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE RIGHT FOR ALL, AS COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT, AND COUNCIL MEMBER LAU IS SHAKING HER HEAD. THIS MAY BE THE LAST DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERIOD. SO NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT MR. DAVIS DID JUMP ON WITH ME ON THE SAN GABRIEL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND WE MADE A ACTUALLY A RESOLUTION AGAINST ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS OF HATE CRIMES. AND SO WE PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THIS WORLD AS ONE AND TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT. AND IT WAS A VERY HOT DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK IT WANTS TO BE EVERYONE AND EVERYONE IS INCLUDED IN THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE HAVING A MAJOR, MAJOR PROBLEM WITH HATE CRIMES AGAINST THE ASIAN POPULATION AND ITS UNACCEPTABLE. SO WE DID DO A RESOLUTION NUMBER. I'M VERY PROUD OF THAT. AND IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. SO THAT WAS A GOOD THING. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN PUT A STOP TO THIS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE HAVE MAY 1ST FROM9 A.M. TO 3 P.M. WE HAVE THE TV COMPUTER RECYCLING PAPER SHREDDING COLLECTION EVENT AT BONITA HIGH SCHOOL PARKING LOT. SO THAT'S MAY 1ST FROM 9:00 TO 3:00 P.M. AND AGAIN, AS COUNCIL MEMBER LAU SAID, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE VACCINATIONS WERE GIVEN OUT. THAT'S ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROTECTED. THAT MEANS THE MORE THE NUMBERS IN LOS ANGELES ARE DROPPING TO LEVELS, THEY'VE NEVER THEY HAVEN'T BEEN JUST AT PRE COVID. AND IT'S THE MORE VACCINATIONS THAT GO OUT THERE, THE MORE WE CAN OPEN UP AGAIN. WE CAN OPEN OUR RESTAURANTS TO FULL CAPACITY. DISNEYLAND'S OPENING UP UNIVERSAL STUDIOS IS OPENING UP. I MEAN, THIS IS IMPORTANT. WE'VE GOT TO GET THIS MACHINE BACK ROLLING SO THAT PEOPLE CAN GET BACK TO WORK. SO PLEASE, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE VACCINATION. THAT'S FINE WITH MOST PEOPLE THAT CAN THEY'RE OPENING SITES EVERY DAY. AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE VACCINATIONS ARE GOING TO BECOME MORE AND MORE AVAILABLE. AND THERE'S EVEN SAYING BY JUNE OR JULY THERE'LL BE MORE VACCINATIONS. THERE WON'T BE AS MANY PEOPLE THAT NEED THEM, WHICH IS AN ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL THING. SO PLEASE VACCINATE, PROTECT YOURSELF, PROTECT YOUR FAMILIES. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU ALL THE RESIDENTS FOR ALL YOUR INPUT TONIGHT. WE DO VALUE IT. AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US INTO YOUR HOMES AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IS ON MONDAY, MAY 3RD AT 6:30 PM AND I WILL REITERATE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER SAID. WE LOST JEFFERSON HILL ON FRIDAY, APRIL 16TH, AS HIS SON SENT ME AN EMAIL. HE LIVED IN LAGUNA WOODS, I GUESS ALMOST MAYBE LESS THAN A YEAR. BUT AS COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER, HE WAS ON THE GENERAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. HE WAS ON THE TWIN OAKS SOCIAL COMMITTEE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME HE LIVED THERE. AND ALSO I THINK HE WAS THE ONE THAT STARTED MEALS ON WHEELS. IF I'M CORRECT. MR. RUSSI, IS THAT CORRECT? HE WAS ONE OF THE STARTERS OF THAT IT. HE WILL BE MISSED BECAUSE WHEN HE WAS HERE, HE ALWAYS HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATION AND SOME VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR ALL OF US. BUT HE WILL TRULY BE MISSED. WE ALSO LOST AN ICON. VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE WAS VICE PRESIDENT WITH JIMMY CARTER AND HE DIED TODAY, ACTUALLY, AND HE WILL BE KNOWN AS A CHAMPION FOR LIBERAL POLITICS. SO ANOTHER ICON IS LOST TODAY. SO WE WILL CLOSE A MEMORY AND WE'LL DO WE'LL DO SOMETHING IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE AND WE WILL DO NOT HAVE A MR. KRESS WE DO NOT HAVE A CLOSED SESSION TONIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT? I UNDERSTAND AND WE DO NOT. SO WE WILL NOT GO. WE WILL NOT WE WILL BE ADJOURNING. OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS MONDAY, MAY 3RD AT 6:30 PM. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR STANDING THROUGH THIS EVEN WITH ONE BREAK. WE MADE IT THANK YOU ALL. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND. JUST A HAIR UNDER ELEVEN O'CLOCK. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.