SECOND+PCH WILL LIKELY HAVE TO RETURN ITS HOLIDAY GIFT FROM CITY
By Dave Wielenga
Opponents of the Second+PCH development have finally received the date—Tuesday, December 20—that the Long Beach City Council will hear their appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the wildly out-of-code project.
The announcement arrived in the same, plain rap of all City of Long Beach dispatches:
This is to inform the general public that the City of Long Beach City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-09. State Clearinghouse No. 2009101014) and approve entitlement requests (Site Plan Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, Standards Variance and Local Coastal Development Permit); and also consider text amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Subarea 17 of the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP).
But the scheduling of the hearing—five days before Christmas—suggests it may be a holiday gift for the development team headed by David Malmuth. City officials can’t even guarantee when their report will be available–they estimate around Dec. 12.
“How very dismaying,” wrote Heather Altman on her blog, EgretsNotRegrets.com.
Altman is a professional environmental consultant and east Long Beach resident who has been an outspoken critic, not only of the Second+PCH project, but also of the process and logic employed by City Hall officials as they have continued to approve a residential / retail / hotel complex that ignores decades of zoning restrictions.
Altman interprets the selection of a Dec. 20 hearing date as the latest example of city officials’ efforts to make it as difficult as possible for opponents to effectively present their case.
“Most people are either out of town, are entertaining visiting family or are otherwise consumed with holiday preparation and festivities,” Altman wrote. “My exceedingly strong opinion is that holding this very, very important hearing just days away from Christmas is an action indicative of an agency unconcerned with trying to effectively incorporate public participation into the decision-making process.”
Also? Some of it looks quite illegal.
Not the anti-democratic scheduling. While it may be appalling, and certainly sounds even more chilling in the flat-affect language of Tuesday’s announcement, it looks lawful.
The legally questionable parts are some of the decisions the City Council is being asked to make: the approval of exceptions to some zoning laws and the permanent rewriting of others. That is, they would absolve Second+PCH developers for violating zoning laws by simply dissolving those laws.
The Long Beach City Council doesn’t have that power.
Long Beach City code prohibits the City Council from approving a Coastal Development Permit unless that project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Plan. Second+PCH certainly isn’t. Among its many instances of disregard for that plan, the most egregious is the proposed height of the hotel (12 stories) compared with the existing height limit (35 feet).
California law prohibits the City Council from changing the certified Local Coastal Plan. The most the Council can do is make recommendations—non-legally binding recommendations—to the California Coastal Commission, which decides whether to certify those recommendations or reject them.
But in this case, the California Coastal Commission could not approve the Long Beach City Council’s recommendations, even if it wanted to. The Coastal Commission is prohibited by California law from approving a Coastal Development Permit for any project that is in conflict with the existing Local Coastal Development plan at the time that project is proposed.
In other words, even if the Coastal Commission were to approve the Long Beach City Council recommendations, that approval would not apply to the Second+PCH project because it was proposed when the previous conditions were in force.
For the Second+PCH project to be approved in its present dimensions, it would have to start all over again and follow the clear and public process that every other proposed project must follow—something that Malmuth has refused to do from the get-go.
That process would begin by proposing revisions to the current zoning laws. Those revisions would be formulated by public meetings that include all stakeholders—the same way the current laws were formulated decades ago.
After those changes were agreed upon, the would have to be approved by the Long Beach City Council, which would then need to recommend them to the California Coastal Commission. If the Coastal Commission agreed and certified the changes, they would represent the new standards for development.
At that point, Second+PCH could propose its project and have a reasonable expectation that it would be approved.
Malmuth knew all of this going in. His argument was simply that he didn’t want to wait that long. As it has turned out, he’s had to wait a long time, anyway. And if the City codes and California laws designed to prevent this kind of corner-cutting and favoritism hold firm, the gift he expects to get on Dec. 20 will eventually have to be returned.
















22 Comments
Why isn’t Councilman DeLong, whose district 2nd & PCH resides in, getting out in front of this issue to shut it down before anymore of our taxpayers dollars are spent by city hall staff in support of this project? After all, DeLong is the Chairman of the Budget Oversight Committee who is constantly beating his chest and telling the public how much of a figher of city hall negligent spending he is.
So why isn’t DeLong taking a stance on this project before the Norwalk Superior Court Judge throws this EIR in the garbage like it did the Home Depot EIR DeLong pushed though, at $millions of taxpayer expense, for his developer buddy Tom Dean?
Could it be DeLong is a bought man? How much do you figure it takes to buy a Councilman’s support? I wonder if it cost less to just get them to look the other direction?
Now just repeat everything I wrote above and this time insert Mayor Bob Foster in place of Councilman DeLong.
Garbage in (to the garbagemen) and garbage out.
Does Ruehle have any objectively verifiable proof of his thinly-veiled allegation that either Mayor Foster or Councilmember DeLong have accepted bribes to approve or at least look the other way concerning the 2nd/PCH proposal?
If so, Ruehle should present his proof.
If not, he should avoid making thinly-veiled and unfounded allegations that local elected officials have committed criminal acts.
Hi John. I have some questions for you. As I understand the sentiment of your previous comments here and elsewhere, you are all about citizen participation and the importance of being involved and voting, etc. And I totally agree with that. So I’m curious to get your take on this. How do you feel about the City scheduling this important hearing 5 days before a major holiday when most are otherwise engaged? What impact do you think this has (and will have) on the public participation process?
My opinion is that if citizens should participate in the public process, agencies should be making efforts to aid in, and not hinder, that.
heres a good place to start looking for delong treachery
http://fec-individuals.findthedata.org/search/FilerIndentificationNumber/C00500074
could it be that some of the contributors to “friends of gary delong” have some connection to 2nd/PCH? has an off the record conversation taken place promising delong contributions in return for support for 2nd/PCH? since delong is a republican we can assume he’s corrupt so its just a matter of following the money. gary needs a brand new bag for his next election run so its entirely possible he’d sell out his constituents for 30 pieces of silver. isnt america great? im free to express my opinion of our local politicians and their actions without anyone censoring me…
Dave did a great job summing up the issue for folks who may not understand how this project is illegally being moved through the city’s decision-making process. Hate mongering delusions of political crime and intrigue aside for just a moment (y’all are always so entertaining) it’s clear that city council should stop this project now before more time & resources are spent on it. Worse, it’s establishing a dangerous precedent when city staff freely state that there’s no budget money to do community based planning. They’re letting developers decide what and where they want to build – and breaking their own law to do it – and that’s unacceptable.
Hi Heather! I completely agreee with you. Citizens *should* participate in the public process (in constructive rather than destructive ways) and public agencies should aid in, and not hinder, those efforts.
Here’s my challenge, though: Some public agencies (including some public employees) do not aid citizens precisely BECAUSE not enough citizens participate in our public processes in constructive ways.
It is the latter that causes the former (or allows the fomer to persist). It always has been so and always shall be so.
For example, as fewer and fewer qualified people vote to elect our representatives, and then hold those electeds and appointeds fully accountable afterward, many electeds and appointeds necessarily become less and less truly representative and responsive to the public they are intended to serve. If more of us voted, and did so intelligently, and if more of us met our responsibility to hold our electeds fully accountable to us, then those we elect would be de-facto more representative of the will of a true majority of the people. This is simple logic. Unfortunately it is a logic that persists in escaping a majority of people in Long Beach who are qualified to vote.
Similarly, when Ruehle makes thinly-veiled and thoroughly unsubstantiated claims that local elected officials have accepted bribes, he certainly can be said to be participating in the process, just not in a particularly intelligent or constructive manner. Ruehle can sometimes be a fine researcher, but he often allows his personal venom and apparent predilection toward hyperbole, fraud, and falsehood, to get in the way of an otherwise very important and worthwhile motive and message. He seems to desire the same thing you and I do -a more responsive and responsible local government- but, in my opinion, his ends do not justify his means.
If enough people are sufficiently upset about the timing of this hearing, and communicate that clearly and respectfully to their elected Councilpersons, I believe the hearing date should (and would) be changed.
On the other hand, if enough people are truly that concerned about this issue, wouldn’t they make it a point to attend the hearing, regardless of the scheduling? At what point should people place their civic duty before their personal plans for the holidays?
Those are my two constructive suggestion for this specific challenge, Heather. People contact our electeds in numbers sufficient to convince them to change the date for the hearing or, absent that, if they are truly that committed to this cause, attend the hearing when it is scheduled, however personally inconvenient that may prove for them.
“Hate mongering delusions of political crime and intrigue”
i think a more careful reading of recent history than youve apparently done would show that these arent delusions but cold hard facts. if you insist i can post a long list of non delusional scandals the city council has been involved in.
I’m guessing that the present won’t have to be returned.
Not the present to the owners, the Lins. Yeah, that present goes back.
I’m talking about the present to Malmuth.
The only way this makes sense — this huge expenditure of public funds for attorney fees that the Council is about to invite by “approving” this development — is if the real gift is to Malmuth, who will be (has been) sharing the wealth with those who vote for him.
It’s possible that a clause of Malmuth’s contract with the Lins says he starts getting paid once these particular Council votes go his way. He may not care at this point if the development is built. So the Mayor and DeLong and all the councilmembers who vote in the affirmative on 12/20 may actually be approving a kind of “money laudering” scheme, where they take public funds, “launder” them in a fashion by running those dollars through the city’s legal office (and the contracts paid to law firms that will handle the work), and convert some fraction or multiple of them magically (Abracadabra!!!) into a check from the Lins placed in Malmuth’s pocket.
Any chance of seeing Malmuth’s contract with the Lins?
Also — OccupyLongBeach might want to read up on this whole 2nd+PCH development process. It localizes perfectly the main argument made by Occupy groups across the country — that politics at all levels are currently rigged to benefit the very rich at the expense of the public good and the wealth and power of the 99%.
Hollywood couldn’t script this better. I wonder which actor famous for sleazy roles would play Foster? DeLong?
Councilmembers who vote to approve this on 12/20 will be publicly declaring their allegiance with the 1%. They will be sending new recruits to Occupy.
This could revitalize the OccupyLong Beach movement. And that present stays with Occupy, to be used all year — at least through the 2012 congressional, state and council primaries.
Reflections on PCH/2nd et Consider:
l.The existing permit to develop NW corner of PCH/2nd on Albertsons/HH site.
2.Beachomber’s expose last month on the quasi SLUM LORD conditions at
Peter’s Landing/nexus to PCH/2nd.
3. If a 10-12 story structure goes up-it should go up not at PCH/2nd–but at
Basin 8-just north of PCH/2nd-acorss channel from Marina Pacifica
where it would be welcomed with open arms by;(A) the contingent from
the good folks at Bar Harbor
who at the last Planning Commission dealing with PCH/2nd–extolled the
virtues construction activity-visa a via job creation(B) Coastal
Commission who champions mixed use;lost lost components.Steps
away from :LBT?OCT stops it is a natual.
4. PCH/2nd owners should drive their referenced $33 million into
refurbishing the existing main building which will engender community
as well as their own, obviously lost pride yielding a attractive retail
center consistent with the tone of the area. To do so the owners might
have to seek out a developer with a solid track record of such-instead
of ones who concentrate on communities led by political hacks and
those who have lost their own self respect.
5. A destination point Inn can be created with SEA DIP-at Alamitos Bay
Landing.
6. As for the referenced Court actions; As with the Home Depot–and the
pending Court Actions regarding the two dangerous, ill advised maritime
hazards contained in the undondable Alamitos Bay Re Build Plan:
A.The 10-12 T boned slips which will impregnate the active transit lanes
of Inland Waters of United States–extending out into said waters
from existing LBYC long docks.
B.A’s companion new 600 foot wrap around long dock.
The current plan for PCH will be rejected as will be the referenced
components of the Marina Re Build.More to the point it will be
rejected in a manner designed to make sure SERIAL OFFENDERS
of due process –and COMMON SENSE–will travel down their to
worn paths again.
Interesting side note on the above referenced 10-12 slips.DIP STICK-
is the term used to describe Long Beach City Management relative
to the above 10/12 slips impeding maritime traffic–by one involved
in the federal review of such.
Said individual opined one not even have to examine any charts,
photos,satellite images et al.All one had to do is look at the fact
Long Beach has 3500+ slips in its Marinas-and realize any one
BUT A DIP STICK could fashion slips for said boats within the
3500″ slips.
Final Note–and only because someone brought into the discussion of
the Occupy Movement:
It would appear every dysfunctional element in society as attached it
self to the movement. Absent the Occupy Movement they would be
standing on a street corner–or wandering up and down the street
–after being just released by Nurse Cratchet.
Tuesday evening a number of them showed up a Council meeting.Though
there was no repeat of the their of control behavior displayed last month–
they did exude a clear disconnect to reality.
MORE SERIOUS:–less than a fortnight ago-comes this from one who has
worked with homeless-and vets for years(resident of LB) OCCUPY LB
and homeless have been infiltrated by Los Angeles–criminal elements
of the LA OCCUPY and homeless elements.Said individual said she
has stopped working with such–BECAUSE SHE DRAWS THE LINE AT
VIOLENCE-and is to prone to such.
Fact is, that people are busy/out-of- town/entertaining out-of-town guests and this is an important subject that ought to go to council when more people are able to participate. That people who have something to gain from this project willl be able to attend is NOT the entire community that is interested in what happens. This projects and others sure to follow will impact our community forever. Let’s do things the right way, Long Beach!!!
Correction—left out word NOT…..in above segment—on Court action…
the findings will be designed to make sure–SERIAL OFFENDERS
DO NOT—–travel that road again—–
Section dealing with Basin 8- mixed use high; Should have been
lost cost components not lost lost.
The Grunion said that only the people that filed an appeal can speak on the issue? Or will people be able to speak at another time at the meeting?
Andy, I noticed that in the Grunion as well. It is a good question to ask. Usually others have a chance to speak, as well, though time may be limited if there are a number of speakers. The more people who come, the better. The more people who write to all city council members, the better.
What happens if/when the city of LB approves this, and the developer moves ahead only to have the Coastal Commission deny the change to the area’s zoning? Can the developer then sue the city for its losses? If this is true he’s brilliant because he and his lawyers make money no matter what.
Typically, there is no speaking time limit for the developer and the people who filed the appeal. Everyone else is allowed to speak, but are typically limited to 3 minutes.
Generally, there is no avenue for the developer to sue the city in the event the Coastal Commission denies the permit to construct. That assumes no gross negligence or promises made on the part of the city’s approval. If so, Katy bar the door.
Thanks, Mike, for clarification.
And now we find out three Councilmembers will not be in attendance to make a decision. Shipske, Neal and Johnson will not be present to vote.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/dec11/dec20met.htm
It is exactly true that DeLong is a bought man. He doesn’t represent anything but the interests of a handful of money people. Dean, Malmuth and other low lifes like them.
US Blues
December 8, 2011
I’m guessing that the present won’t have to be returned.
Not the present to the owners, the Lins. Yeah, that present goes back.
I’m talking about the present to Malmuth.
Hollywood couldn’t script this better. I wonder which actor famous for sleazy roles would play Foster? DeLong?
After careful consideration, the best person to play the blob would be Ron Jeremy. Agree?
Delong?
Howardx
Howard, I originally contributed to Mr. Delong’s initial campaign for City Council after having breakfast with him. All I can say is…I am horribly disappointed.