ON EVE OF 2ND+PCH DATE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, PROBLEMS WITH EIR
By Greater Long Beach
BY KERRIE ALEY
The 2nd+PCH mixed-use—hotel, residential, retail—project proposed for the current site of the Seaport Marina Hotel is scheduled for review by the Long Beach Planning Commission on Wednesday at 5 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall.
Among the many documents before the Planning Commission are the Environmental Impact Report for the project and a recommendation from the staff of City Manager Pat West.
At this time, the city staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Adopt a Resolution with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-09); 2) Recommend City Council approve a General Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment and Amendment to Subarea 17 of the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan(SEADIP); and 3) Continue requests for Site Plan Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, Standards Variance and Local Coastal Development Permit approval to a date uncertain for a mixed-use project consisting of 325 residential units, 191,475 square feet of commercial retail space, 100 hotel rooms with 4,368 square feet of hotel restaurant space and 3,510 square feet of hotel meeting space, 21,092 square feet of non-hotel restaurant space, a 4,175-square-foot science center, a 99-seat theater, and 1,440 on-site parking spaces.
Planning Commission Agenda Item 11-055PL
But a major obstacle for the 2nd+PCH project is the Final Environmental Impact Report’s (FEIR) compliance—or lack of it—with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document includes 200 pages of “Final EIR Errata” (that is, corrections) and 1,345 pages of comments from government and the public, as well as the city staff’s responses.
The FEIR was prepared by the City of Long Beach with the “assistance” of Rincon Consultants, who claim—in the spirit of CEQA Guidelines—that “the primary purposes of this FEIR are to provide decision-makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with development of the site, identify ways to minimize the significant environmental effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.”
According to CEQA guidelines an EIR must be revised and recalculated for public review when new information is added to the EIR. This is the second public review and revision of the project’s EIR.
“Significant new information” requiring recirculation can include such things as (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Ceqa 1508.5
Included among the corrections and additions which were added to the revised Draft EIR (DEIR) because of public comment:
• Define “significant” project impacts from loss of light from building shadows.
• Revision CalTrans 2015 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Table IV.L-13
• Revised project parking analysis which shows that the proposed parking (1440 spaces) is not 255 short but 618.
• Traffic counts sheets have been updated to correct dates and orientation.
• Added requirement that proposed shuttle service along 2nd street between Bayshore Avenue and project site shall be fully funded by developer.
• Traffic analysis at PCH at Clark has been revised.
• Added statement on alternative projects: “Another alternative that was considered in the original DEIR, but rejected from further consideration is a hotel only alternative. If moved forward as an actual proposal, that alternative would likely have included ancillary uses similar to certain components of the proposed project (restaurants, meeting space, etc.). When the RDEIR was prepared, the EIR alternatives were refined and it was decided that two other alternatives, namely Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) and 6 (Reduced Intensity Alternative D) each individually meet the intent of the previously considered hotel only alternative. Alternative 1 involves retaining the existing 240-room hotel. Alternative 6 involves a 100-room hotel with restaurants, meeting space, the science center, and a reduced retail component, but no residential component and no theater. Therefore, further consideration of yet another specific “hotel only” alternative was determined to be duplicative and unnecessary.”
The FEIR includes hundreds of comment letters on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report” and support for/against the project. A large number of commenters have requested that the FEIR be rejected. A small sample of comments are shown below. A complete copy of the FEIR comments can be found at http://www.lbds.info/planning/environmental_planning/environmental_reports.asp.
State of CA Transportation Regional Planning, IGR/CEQA Branch Program Manager, Dianna Watson
(Letter 4 RTC pages 55-63)
“The Revised Traffic Study is incomplete. We would like to refer you to our correspondence dated September 2, 2010. Item #1 through #4 which has not been addressed in your recent submittal and we require the studies be complete and re-submitted before the project’s approval and permit process.”
“In order to assess the impacts to the I-405 freeway, a traffic study, per the Department’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines is required. … The revised Traffic Study showing the Level of Service (LOS) should include analysis on State Routes at the following segments: a. SR-22 from San Gabriel River Bridge to I-605/I-405 interchange, b. I-605 N/B from just North of the Interchange to Katella, c. I-405 N/B & S/B from Bellflower Blvd. to Orange county Line.”
“Please be reminded that in determining the cumulative significance of an individual project, CEQA holds that the lead agency should consider the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects. It is recommended that a span of 10-25 years be used instead of the build-out year of 2013. The project development project site is in a highly desirable growth area and may see a greater number of development projects in the future. It is prudent to use a longer horizon to assess potential traffic problems now and work on needed long term mitigation.”
City Of Seal Beach, Mayor Michael P. Levitt (Letter 8 RTC pages 74-107)
“In submitting the following comments, Seal Beach is not asserting overall opposition to the proposed project, but seeks to forcefully convey to the City of Long Beach and to other cooperating and responsible agencies, that the current environmental analysis document is deficient and must be revised and corrected to comply with the full disclosure requirements of CEQA.”
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The areas that the City of Seal beach believes are still not adequately addressed within the Recirculated DEIR are Traffic Projects, CA Dept of Transportation (Caltrans) Study Methodology, Lack of Detailed Traffic Impact “fair Share” Calculations, Lack of Discussions as to Potential Transportation Impacts to Seal Beach and Inadequate Mitigation Measures. Requests an analysis of aesthetic and views, light and glare impact on residences. Seal Beach asks for a more thorough analysis of potential impacts to biological resources and adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands.]
“The City of Seal beach believes that the proposed project raises a substantial issue regarding consistency with the City’s Adopted Local Coastal Program policies, specifically the adopted policy provisions regarding “adequate open spaces is preserved,” “improved local circulations,” improving traffic flow on PCH and Studebaker Road,” “controlling the number of dwelling units as to minimize traffic impact” and “improve access to the downtown area and coastline” all seem to discounted in the proposed project.”
Long Beach Marinas Boat Owners Association President Carl Kernbauer (Letter 11 RTC pages 108-110)
“We, the board of the Long Beach Marinas Boat Owners Association, represent 3500 customers of the Long Beach Marine Bureau. Our organization strongly opposed the 2nd & PCH Development project that includes a hotel, apartments, shops, and extras such as a repertory theater and marine education center with buildings reaching as high as 13 stories. This proposed development is contrary to the SEADIP provisions and is at odds with the dictates of the Coastal Commission. Any new development at this intersection should conform to existing zoning plans and Coastal Commission requirements.
“Our primary concern is the huge increase in vehicular traffic at the 2nd and PCH intersection and along Marina Drive.”
“The project also provides for inadequate parking on the development site and the proposed ‘shared’ parking plan will send overflow traffic into the Alamitos Bay Marina parking lot. The severe congestion caused by this project is simply unacceptable to boat owners and other users of the marina who desire unimpeded access”.
Our Town Long Beach, Joan Hawley McGrathy Recording Secretary (Letter 12 RTC pages 111-117)
“The Economic or Financial Analysis. Not provided—which should have been in the EIR. Developers say they will give that to the city. When? And will this report be available to the public? At present, the public as well as the city is left in the dark.
“Mixed Use. The design, height, design location and mix of uses must be tailored to fit the local market. There must be sufficient demand. On-site residents will not be sufficient to ensure financial success, with unrealized retail. We feel this fails as it is inappropriate fort the area. Many times in the past, retail space in a project remains vacant, as in the Pine Street multi-use development. Mixed-Use development is often seen as risky by lending intuitions because economic success depends that many different uses remain in business.”
Andy McAfee (Letter 15 RTC pages 122-123)
“I do not agree that this project is consistent with provision 9 of the SEADIP. To say that this project will be in harmony with the character and quality of surrounding development so as to create community unit within the entire area is something I do not see. I see the proposed project to be a total contradiction to the harmony and character of the surrounding development. This development will be so disruptive to the current feel and look of the area.”
William L. Waterhouse (Letter 64 RTC pages 264-302)
“The RDEIR concludes that the project “should represent a substantial aesthetic improvement relative to the existing appearance of the site” (RDEIR p IV.A-35), reasoning that pretty new buildings are better than ugly old poorly maintained buildings. This conclusion ignores any visual benefits of viewing trees against a blue sky from public view sheds near the project.
“The project drawings demonstrate that the project will create a new massive urban viewscape of large buildings over the entire project site, replacing and obliterating existing natural views of palm tree, blue sky and, from some locations, mountains.”
Mary Parsell Conservation Chair, El Dorado Audubon (Letter 97 RTC pages 425-427)
“How does this project’s tall buildings (12 story, 6 story and so on) very close together affect the wildlife that moves between the San Gabriel River, the marina and the wetlands?” Wild includes migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway, wintering, and resident species? How will the noise, light and increased activity affect the wildlife? Would it disorient birds? To state that it does not and would not be affected is not enough. The analysis is inadequate, there are no solutions offered to minimize the impacts and no mitigation offered. Please explain.”
Heather Altman, Egrets Not Regrets (Letter 145 RTC pages 537-584)
“The (recently added) last project objective is to, “create a southeastern gateway to the City that is welcoming, iconic in nature, and visible from a distance.”
“For a development to “be visible from a distance” would mean that it would need to be taller than anything else around. SEADIP restricts building height to 35 feet, and none of the building circa SEADIP exceeds that threshold. The only way a project could satisfy the objective of being “visible from a distance” would to exceed the established height limit (i.e. violate zoning requirements). Why was a project objective adopted which limits “acceptable” projects to only those violating the master plan for the area? “
“3) When the LCP was adopted, a tradeoff was made. Density was to be concentrated downtown and the SEADIP area was to remain low rise and respectful to the water. That tradeoff has been respected since inception of the LCP and that is why the Downtown and SEADIP areas look as they do: the former is dense and buildings reach for the sky, whereas the latter is exactly the opposite (most buildings don’t exceed the 35 foot height limit). Allowing this Project to proceed, as proposed, ignores the tradeoff made years ago and would essentially obliterate the comprehensive master plan in place for the SEADIP area.”
Pacific Castle (Owners of the Marketplace)- Erica A. Stuckey Attorneys Carmel & Naccasha, LLP (Letter 159 RTC pages 622-625)
“Lastly, as you are aware Pacific Castle has plans to redevelop the Marketplace. While the RDEIR considers cumulative impacts, we are concerned that the sheer massive size and scale of the Project will hinder future development that would have a positive social and economic impact on the community of Long Beach. The City should squarely address whether the significant unavoidable impacts will stifle future beneficial developments and redevelopment, including the Marketplace, in its Statement of Overriding Considerations.”
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust –Micahelle Black Chatten-Brown & Carstens (Letter 160 pages 626-880
“The Second + PCH project objectives are rather broad and would be satisfied by any economic reuse of the site that focuses on accessibility, high-quality design and aesthetic appeal; incorporations of the active Alamitos Bay Marina; and recreational visor-serving opportunities. Perhaps most importantly, these objectives do not require a project of any specific size or scale, all of the City’s objectives could be met with a scaled-down project that requires little , if any diversion form existing land use regulations. The Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled against the City in the Home Depot litigation regarding a proposed project nearby on Studebaker, in part because the EIR did not find a reduced project to be infeasible before rejecting.”
“The Project proponents have reportedly asserted that various alternatives are financially infeasible. However, the EIR does not include financial information on the various alternatives considered. To support any finding s ultimately made regarding the feasibility of alternatives and mitigation measures, the City must require the disclosure of this financial information and must provide the type of comparative economic data and analysis that will allow the public and the decision makers to fully understand why certain course of action could be rejected as in feasible. This information should be in the EIR.
It is our understanding that financial information about the Project is available to the City in the form of memorandum from Robert Charles Lesser & Co dated November 4 2009. This memorandum was addressed to “City of Long Beach, Development Services” and apparently considered by the City but was not circulated to the public. This violates CEQA. We have managed to obtain a copy of this memorandum and attach it to this letter. (Encl. 9.) However, it should be included in the RDEIR and recirculated to the public since it provides information necessary for the public to evaluate the claims made in the EIR.”
“In failing to provide any financial analysis, the City undermines the public’s ability to meaningfully evaluate alternatives. Failing to provide information on economic feasibility is contrary to the statutory language of CEQA, runs directly against the holdings of two leading Supreme Court CEQA cases, and has been rejected by numerous appellate courts.”
“Since even the RDEIR’s flawed analysis admits that Long Beach residents and visitors can expect a 10-fold increase in traffic due to the project, it is important that the public and city’s decision makers have a full and accurate disclosure of expected traffic impacts. Accordingly, the TIA and the RDEIR traffic analysis should be repeated after correcting the errors and inconsistencies pointed out by the Minager & Associates peer review.”
Kerrie Aley (Letter 170 RTC pages 1158-1224)
“The list of City objectives included in the DEIR for the proposed project violates current zoning by including residential units. These objectives encourage increased density and use and induce significant environmental impacts. Questionable open space allowances are more suitable for high density areas such as downtown. As far as I know there was no public input as to what these objectives were. The City’s own recent SEADIP survey (http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2800) listed “Restoring the Wetlands” as having an overwhelming importance, with tourist/recreation opportunities leading both retail and housing as a priority. It seems to me that the project objectives must align with public input, current zoning, SEADIP, the Local Coastal Plan, and state coastal access requirements and should not fit the applicant’s exact project proposal.”
“The traffic intersection counts and volume capacities should be revised to reflect the elimination of one eastbound lane on 2nd street between Bayshore and Naples Plaza due to the installation of a bike lane. Intersection LOS may be impacted due to heavier slugs of traffic congestion caused by the bike sharrows and the loss of a lane through Naples. The bike lane was installed after the DEIR traffic counts (2009).”
“The Downtown Plan Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and all recent area approved project EIRs are deficient because the traffic analysis stops at Alamitos Avenue ignoring all intersection level of service (LOS), safety or quality of life impacts due to the increased east-west flow of a total projected 130,433 vehicles per day into or out of downtown. This makes no sense (other than a RDA fiscal boundary) as the building density west of Alamitos Avenue is projected in this plan to grow substantially.”
Allan Songer (Letter 171 RTC pages 1225-1246)
“The property owners and project applicants Seaport Marina LLC are not responsible stewards of
the property at 6400 E PCH and should not be rewarded with a financial windfall for running
their business irresponsibility and inflicting blight on our community. Why has the city allowed
the property owner to leave their property in this condition? Where is code enforcement and the
health department? See below picture and comments from their hotel guests.”
“Trip Advisor
“Feb 23,2008 “Bottom line, I think the owners are trying to squeeze as much income without having to improve the property.” Big Raffa I’d rather sleep in a box on the street!”
“Do not stay here! The rooms were filthy and smelled. The carpets were sticky from bug bomb residue. The nightclub on the premises had loud, drunk people slamming car doors in the parking lot and partying until 3 am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. There was a cockroach in one bathroom, another cockroach in the hallway outside 302, black mold all over, termite and dry rot everywhere. Room 106 has a fallen down asbestos ceiling and room 206 just above was occupied!?! Part of the floor of my room, 202, was spongy and three tiles were pulled up in the bathroom. The showers were lukewarm. The pool was freezing and the spa was broken. There was a raw sewage smell. Key cards were changed during our stay. It was unbearable!”
“I don’t mind it being run-down and a little tired, but the carpet in the room was so filthy
that the soles of my kids’ feet were black after just a few moments. That explained the
smell. The desk clerk seemed unconcerned and unimpressed when I mentioned it to her,
but they were kind enough to deliver 12 extra towels to the room, which we used to lay
walkways from the bathroom to beds and balcony. Looks okay, but hidden filth will keep
me from returning. • This hotel has SEEN its day!!!”
“Holy CRAP! Do NOT stay here EVER! This place is horrible! Our room had blood spatters all
over the drapes as if a murder took place in the room before we got there! The walls were
peeling, the room smelled like a combo of mold, smoke, and urine! The floors were filthy. The
ceiling had a huge, poorly patched hole. Mold on the lampshades that was BLACK! I can’t even
describe to you properly how disgusting this place was and do proper justice! No words can
capture this monstrosity of an establishment.”
“It was horrible. In addition to the reservation and towel messes we also found one of our rooms totally uncleaned one night, called the front desk and were told someone would be right down. Needless to say the room never got cleaned. On our first day of arrival a woman had lost a tampon in the swimming pool, as of 5 days later when we left the mess was still there. The rooms themselves were no better than the service. Though the hotel claims the rooms have been renovated I’m not sure where they get that, the tile is falling apart in the bathrooms, the carpet was so filthy that if you walked in white socks you left the room with black bottoms to them, the rooms have a horrid odor, the sidewalks outside of the hotel had broken bottles on them that weren’t cleaned the whole time we were there.”
20 Comments
The good Planning Commision Chair states: Tell us what you want”
Here then is my suggestion:
.l. Retain the Sea Dip Proctols.
2 Have the Port of Lonmg Beach buy the site and build a state of
the art–Corporate Office Complex-the likes of which this State or
Country has not seen.
3.Have the good peopple of Naples and equally good people of Banc Cap
sit down and work out a plan for a botique two-three story hotel on
Ban Cap site–from their main building to the jetty.
Lautrence B. Goodhue
Long Beach
Thank you, for good summary and for listing some of the comments. El Dorado Audubon Society, California Chapter of National Audubon Society member families concerned and some Seal Bch members will be there!
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day –- Pushed By the Negative
“Success is often achieved by those who don’t know that failure is inevitable.” — Coco Chanel
“You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don’t try to forget the mistakes, but you don’t dwell on it. You don’t let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.” — Johnny Cash
“The line between failure and success is so fine that we scarcely know when we pass it: so fine that we are often on the line and do not know it.” — Elbert Hubbard
“I have always been pushed by the negative. The apparent failure of a play sends me back to my typewriter that very night, before the reviews are out. I am more compelled to get back to work than if I had a success.” — Tennessee Williams
“I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.” — Bill Cosby
(Source: brainyquote.com)
Great article Kerri–thankyou. One would hope that the proponents of the Second+PCH project would take some time to absorb this and realize that
the city’s “Development Envelope” would pertain to surrounding sites–using the same parameters. A new master plan for SE Long Beach?? Nasty! Will attend tomorrow’s meeting.
What is so puzzling is how the EIR could have been so problematic.Did it not
have the endorsement of the City Attorney Robert Shannon??!!!!
Kerrie: In the tome of comments I submitted on both the original draft EIR and the recirculated document, you managed to pick out not just my “favorite” comment, but the one that speaks to the root of my concerns with respect to this project: comprehensive master planning and a failure to respect the tradeoffs that were made years ago when the Long Beach coastline was comprehensively master planned.
The SEADIP area was envisioned to be low rise, low density and respectful to the water. And it wasn’t planned that way by chance. It was a conscious determination made given the issues at hand: ecologically sensitive wetlands flanked by a rapidly increasing amount of traffic through the area. When you marry those two primary concerns, it made sense to keep the area low density. It still makes sense. The wetlands are still there limping along, and traffic has only continued to increase.
I and others have been claiming since this project’s inception that there was a very real potential for approval of this Project to set a precedent for future development in the area. “We” were told that was absolutely untrue, no way, no shape, no how.
Then 6 days before the Planning Commission is set to vote on the matter, they release a staff report which expressly states that, “these amendments would also set standards that could be applicable to other nearby properties for future improvement proposals.” I see.
When casting a vote on this Project this evening, I think the Planning Commissioners should be asking themselves if this Project, and the staff’s apparent desire for it to be a blueprint for future development, respects the long standing tradeoffs that were made. Comprehensively master planning of the area is vital; disregarding it should not be done at the request of a single developer. And it certainly shouldn’t be done in a manner which so utterly blindsides the public.
Another grossly biased article that hopes to discredit this much-needed development on this underutilized gateway into our city. Of all the FEIR comments you ‘sampled,’ not one shows the development in a positive light. I guess that is what makes this a blog and not an actual news source.
The 2+PCH project is looking *ahead* at the fact that cities need to become more efficient with land use. This project seeks to establish multiple uses in one compact area-something that I would imagine would please the environmentalists (closer buildings with shared walls reduce heating/cooling costs, reduce amount of car trips/gas/carbon emissions, etc) . Instead, the few groups that are complaining are latching on to completely outdated zoning laws that reflect the naive views of a car-centric, 1950s Southern California. They claim that birds will somehow not see these buildings and presumably crash into them (and die?). They claim the traffic will be so bad from the establishment of a gateway into one of California’s largest cities that they might have to spend a couple more minutes in their isolated car bubbles before pulling to their Naples Island driveways. All of this is CRAP.
While smarter cities in the country (like Portland) actively encourage and seek out projects like Second+PCH for it’s better use of resources and higher-reaching aesthetics, some of our locals and this website are trying their hardest to push this development out. And what alternative would you naysayers rather see? Replacement of the current dilapidated box with another bland, low-rise stucco box with a sea of abundant parking around it?
I will be spreading the word to the many, many reasonable people I’ve talked to that support this project to make sure to be there for this Commission Meeting so a couple of well-healed NIMBYs and misdirected environmentalists don’t ruin it for the rest of us….
Very informative comments in the FEIR. Maybe a pole can be placed somewhere between Lincoln Park and City Hall, the mayor can place his hat on top, and all citizens be ordered to bow before it or be fined to help raise revenue.
Did anyone really expect anything different from the city of wrong beach?
The approval of the FEIR and LCP (Alternative 3) last night is the death knell of the development project 2nd+PCH. The fault (and the legal shortcomings) does not lie with environmentalists or concerned citizens but with the developer’s greed and the Planning Commission’s confusion.
City Staff told the Planning Commission that they did not think that the Coastal Commission would approve a 12 story residential tower but they voted for this any way.
Commissioner Fox said it best when he said that the commission was more concerned with the developer’s profit than the benefits to the public. In spite of the significant environmental impacts (and Statement of Overriding Considerations i.e. Good out ways Bad), the economic analysis of the alternatives was not considered in the EIR nor was the public given adequate time to review the 200 pages of EIR corrects, or the 1300+ pages of EIR comments and the city’s responses.
What you got last night during the 5 hours of discussion is a clear picture of the politics and power structure that cloud intelligent planning and decision making in Long Beach.
Last night a number of speakers chose not to speak about their support for the project but to turn their back on the commission and yell at specific members of the audience who opposed the project. The chairman of the commission did nothing to stop this outrageous behavior.
Amy Bodek said that Development Services was “testing the temperature” of the public’s acceptance of height and density in the SEADIP area. Now that the public knows which direction the city is going (high rise density) changing the entire fabric of the South-East coastal area of LB, expect stronger opposition and new voices to appear asking for much more modest development standards.
Higher density is the only way to go. We can’t be one of the largest cities in California (and part of the THIRD LARGEST metropolitan area in the WORLD) and expect to move into the future with a low-rise, low-density mindset. And enough with ‘developer greed’-all developers are businessman and obviously any project they take must be profitable for them to peruse it. Simply making a developer stick to the backwards and outdated zoning of this part of town will not prevent them from being ‘greedy’. They can still cut corners in the quality of the materials and overall design, like with the low-rise City Place shopping center in downtown. Do we really want that for this gateway?
Compromise was necessary and none seems forthcoming from the developer, who cited the need for 12-stories to make the project financially viable. But in the current floundering and tentative economy, is a larger project really feasible?
Isn’t 80-90% occupancy of 4-stories better than 30-40% occupancy of 12?
Sure, the economy will most likely turn around and become robust again at some point, but not before substantive changes occur at the national and state government levels. Who truly knows how long we will have to wait those sorts of constructive changes in government?
Until then, why over-build?
Why not build to what best suits the current economic conditions AND in closer alignment with what the Coastal Commission will likely approve AND in closer agreement with the preferences of many (if not most) in the community immediately surrounding the project?
Why persist in championing the larger project with so many very reasonable arguments against doing so?
If it is true that a 4-story project will not be financially viable now, then perhaps the best answer is to not build right now, rather than to build bigger now.
Personally I am not averse to 12-stories at all. I think such a project, if built well, will attract more interest and economic activity than would 6-stories or four. Perhaps a 12-story project built attractively and with a nod toward green technologies (supplemental solar and wind power, recycled water landscape systems, etc) would be just the right thing to kick start our entire local economy again.
I understand why some dislike the 12-story plan and I respect their reasons for doing so.
I just do not agree with them.
What I want is what I have called for all along, a project that can pass CCC muster, that is not taxpayer subsidized, and that reasonably mitigates all traffic and parking impacts.
Greet:
“What I want is what I have called for all along, a project that can pass CCC muster, that is not taxpayer subsidized, and that reasonably mitigates all traffic and parking impacts.”
This massive project will never get by the CCC–anyone who seriously follows their actions knows this. And I guess is all depends on what you mean by “reasonably mitigates,” but there is no way a project of this size will have traffic impacts mitigated. Even the developers have said this over and and over again–they just say “it’s worth it.”
What I find sad is that the City paid for another terrible EIR that will get thrown out in court when the Land Trust sues them–I doubt this project will even make it to the Coastal Commission. It’s another “Home Depot” all over again. Millions of dollars and several years wasted and we will back back to square one.
Changing zoning to allow higher density and heights only enriches the property owners who bought the land at the current zoning.
After the property is sold with the entitlements, the selling price of the land goes up proportionately and then the same circular argument continues, we must get more variances to the existing zoning to make a profit.
I can easily avoid that intersection for my infrequent trips to Belmont Shore. But the pro-development clique, who probably whined fiercely during last summers 2nd. Street roadwork, will face the traffic repercussions daily, which will delight me to no end. blob, old bev et al HAVE FUN! Traffic bad now? I can’t wait!!!!
What I want is what I have called for all along….SHADDUP greet. Who cares!
LOL…sorry wrongbeach…you no more control this forum than I do. How annnoying that must be for you!
The proposal as approved by the Planning Commission is beyond inappropriate.
It is a textbook hijacking of public process to serve private interests.
It is a 12-story-high middle finger expression of rich people telling the rest of us what’s best for them.
So pipe down, everyone. Your betters are speaking.
This article made me helpless with laughter–especially the comments from Alan Songer regarding the hotel, see Trip Advisor comments above.
The owners have indeed been slum landlords,-their other property at Peter’s Landing has also gone downhill.
IF this is built–the developers will be long gone leaving, leaving a monstrosity behind—AND still owned by the current landlords!!!!
What a joke on the community of East Long Beach –which was never suppose to look like the urban mess the city has made downtown.
@Baktaah: Do you even plan on living here when this is done? Do you realize how terribly insulting you are to people who actually own proeprty and bought it here in east LB because er like this community the way it is? I have lived in 17 places around the US before I chose LB as my home. I love the quality of life in this side of town. Honestly, I’ll probably be selling my house and moving after this development is built. This won’t be the LB I love anymore. The selfishness in the name of profit is beyond saddening. I look at all the empty storefronts and struggling businesses here and LB and now know for sure, that the politicians and planing commission are not here for the residents of LB, but instead for people like David Malmuth, who doesn’t even make his home in LB. All these jobs that will be created won’t even benefit our own city’s people. The developers sold a bill of goods to the planning department.