ONE QUESTION … FOR ROBERT GARCIA: DID YOU KEEP SERVICE-YARD PROMISE?
By Dave Wielenga
[ Another in a weekly series ]
Background: Wealthy local businessman Tom Dean has sold the city’s former Public Service Yard—which he acquired in mid-2010 swap for some of the Los Cerritos Wetlands—to a private buyer with unknown plans for the land. The swap was being negotiated last spring while 1st district council member Robert Garcia was campaigning for re-election, and in response to questions from the press during a candidates forum he said he would support “restrictions” on the use of the property, “clear guidelines as far as what can and cannot be done.” Garcia clarified: “[W]hat we don’t want there is, is a very, very heavy use that’s going to bring trucks in and out of neighborhoods.” But Garcia did not attend the May 18, 2010, city council meeting where the swap was approved, 6-2, and no such restrictions were included in the deed or covenant that were binding on Dean or the property’s subsequent owners.
The question: Do you think you kept your campaign promise to protect residents near the former public service yard from uses that would negatively impact them?
Robert Garcia’s answer: Absolutely! We have actually changed the whole trucking policy in the City of Long Beach by instituting a conditional use permit (CUP) process that was not in place before I was elected. Long Beach was one of the few cities that did not have a CUP, and most of the trucking community was against it. The new conditional use permitting process for trucking facilities requires a series of steps that was not required before, such as public notification, landscaping , architecture and design review—all sorts of different things. But of course, we don’t know if this property is going to be a trucking facility or not. If it ends up being a trucking use, it has to go through the CUP process, where mitigation has to be approved. If it ends up with some other use—like light industrial—the positive thing is we already had mitigation measures in place for that.
6 Comments
duh
READ THE ENTIRE STORY ON LBREPORT.COM
October 19, 2010, an item came to the Council proposing to lift a moratorium on truck related uses in industrial zones (which had been in place since Dec. 2, 2008). The Council voted 8-1 (Andrews dissenting) to enact a staff-recommended ordinance allowing truck related uses (details below) in IG zones citywide subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
A few moments earlier, the Council voted down a substitute motion by Councilman DeLong, seconded by Councilman Andrews, to approve a Planning Commission favored version of the ordinance (which included development standards but didn’t require a Conditional Use Permit) which failed 2-7 (with Andrews and DeLong voting yes).
The ordinance received final Council approval on November 2 (second reading, approved 8-0, Schipske absent).
The now-approved ordinance permits storage of “transport containers used for storing goods, materials, or equipment to be transported by truck, train, or marine vessel…anywhere on a lot, with the exception of any required corner cutoff area. No more than two (2) containers shall be stacked atop one another.”
The ordinance adds that “all drayage trucks, as defined in the Clean Truck Program, utilized for trucking business operations shall comply with the Clean Truck Program” and “all yard areas shall be developed and maintained in a neat, quiet, and orderly condition and operated in a manner so as not to be detrimental to adjacent properties and occupants. This shall encompass the maintenance of exterior facades of the building, designated parking areas serving the use, fences and the perimeter of the site.” It also includes some landscaping requirements.
The Public Service Yard property is accessible via PCH which is the border between the 1st Council district and 6th Council district. A south Wrigley residential neighborhood is just north of PCH.
Since the underlying property documents for the land exchange didn’t include protective verbiage beyond current zoning, residents are now presumably subject to whatever zoning or Conditional Use Permit approvals for truck related or other industrial uses that current or future Council majorities may allow.
In urging inclusion of a Conditional Use Permit requirement (which the Planning Commission didn’t support), city staff wrote in its agendizing memo:
Long Beach is committed to protecting and improving residential areas and enhancing the visual appearance of industrial uses in the City. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council require a Conditional Use Permit that incorporates the Special Development Standards, as a means to assist staff in dealing with site-specific impacts (noise, loitering, and site maintenance). A Conditional Use Permit would also allow Long Beach to be consistent with nearby jurisdictions, which require a Conditional Use Permit for trucking related uses.
y Keith Higginbotham | City Beat | 08.05.09 |
| Text Size: +
The Long Beach City Council Tuesday approved a contentious motion by a 5-4 vote (Gabelich, Garcia, Schipske and Reyes Uranga dissenting) allowing city management to move forward with a land swap of 37.7 acres of private wetlands property for 13.4 acres of City property currently being used as a public service yard.
too bad garcia didnt listen to resident like this on the palstic bags issue.
Garcia conveniently fails to mention there was a MORATORIUM on new trucking facilities when he first became a Councilman. Soon afterwards, Garcia voted with other Councilmembers to LIFT THE MORATORIUM as long as the CUP cost was increased to generate more revenue for the city.
The current CUP process is the same as it was prior to the Moratorium. The only difference is the cost. Furthermore, the CUP does not have protections for the public built-in as could easily have been accomplished by placing restrictions on the property when it was sold.
Ask Garcia why the moratorium was not enforced and his district was flooded with un-permitted new truck yards.
now was this the vote where garcia was in the restroom or is it the one where he was on the phone conducting “family business” or was it the one where he spent the bulk of the time people were testifying texting? hard to keep track.