LBREPORT.COM GETS ANSWERS FROM CITY STAFF … WITH PUSH FROM DELONG
By Greater Long Beach
[Editor's note: Several hours after 3rd district Councilman Gary DeLong read LBReport.com’s editorial Monday morning---demanding that city staff answer the questions of two Long Beach residents---those answers arrived.]
LONG BEACH (via LBReport.com)LBReport.com publishes in full below an emailed statement from Jacqueline Medina of the City of Long Beach’s Development Services Communications Division in response to a LBReport.com July 11 editorial (“Selective City Hall Secrecy on Proposed 2nd+PCH Development”).
Our editorial urged the City Council at its July 12 meeting to get a public answer from city staff on whether it plans to bring the 2nd+PCH project to the Planning Commission for voted approval on August 18 (as contended by the developer in a mass email, on its website and on its Facebook page).
Third district Councilman Gary DeLong saw our editorial Monday morning (July 11) and asked city staff to provide us with whatever information they can provide, including caveats, cautions, possible flexibility needed and the like.
City staff did…and the statement (received about 5:40 p.m.) follows in full below.
“It is premature to state that there will be a hearing on the 2nd + PCH project on August 18. Staff is currently reviewing all the comments received (over 100 received) to the Recirculated Draft EIR to be incorporated into a Final EIR.
“In addition, staff is reviewing requests to amend the zoning (SEADIP) and Local Coast Program on this project site that requires information from the EIR. August 18 would be the earliest possible date, but no date has been set at this time.
“The final EIR must be made available at least 10 days in advance of any public hearing and any action on amendments to the zoning regulations and Local Coastal Program require a minimum public notice of 14 days.
“The actual hearing date will be contingent upon completion of the Final EIR document and the noticing and circulation periods required to place the item on the Planning Commission agenda.”
66 Comments
In direct response to Ms. Aley’s inquiry on this issue, Planning Commission staff stated:
“Yes, I just wanted to make clear for the record that the applicant is not in control of the calendar and the scheduling of this project for action is going to be determined on how quickly we can get the work done and certainly staff cannot control what they (the developers) put on their website in their attempts to drive this schedule. I can commit to the commission and the public that we’ll try to give as much time as possible to review the finel EIR once it’s done and we certainly wont schedule any meetings until we feel like we are ready to move forward and we are comfortable with the EIR document and we’re comfortable with the recommendation to the Planning Commission.”
This seems a lot less like the “non-responsive response” or “shrug” that LBR characterized the response to be and a lot more like a pretty direct, unequivocal and responsive answer to Ms. Avey’s concern as voiced during the meeting.
The response from Ms. Medina, as facilitated by Councilmember DeLong’s office, really didn’t say anything different from what the Planning Commission staff said, she really said much the same thing, just in a different way.
Given the clear response initially offered by Planning Commission staff, it seems to me that the LBR editorial and GLB’s report of the editorial were both really much ado about nothing.
Much ado about nothing?
Just how did the developer get the August 18 date? Wild guess? I think not. (and feel confident enough to send out a mass emailing on July 1 and put up on their website and facebook when no-one else knew the “earliest” date for the hearing.)
Who leaked the information and gave the developer the August 18 date and an advantage to mobilize their supporters ahead of the public?
Even now the city still will not commit publicly to a date but according to Greet it’s OK if the developers know the date of the public hearings ahead of everyone else in the community.
@ janis, Isn’t it also possible that the developer didn’t truly “know” anything but is, as Planning Commission staff alleges, merely attempting to “drive this schedule.”? Isn’t it also true that the Planning Commission cannot control what the developer may *claim* in emails and on websites? All the Planning Commission can do is what we have appointed them to do…serve the interests of the voters of Long Beach at all times to the best of their ability.
The developer is, by nature, self-serving. By contrast, the Planning Commission -as a part of our duly elected and appointed local government- serves the people as represented by a majority of the voters and constrained by the rule of law.
Planning Commission staff comments seem very clear to me. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not think that I am.
That said, I think many government officials, whether elected or appointed, create more challenges for themselves than they solve whenever they fail to be more direct and concise in their responses.
A simple “We have not yet concluded our work on the final EIR. Because we have not concluded our work we have, likewise, not yet scheduled any public meetings to discuss the final EIR or to present our recommendation related to it. We have not disclosed any information to the developer that has not also been disclosed to the rest of public.”
As to time to mobilize support…really? As I recall, it took less than a day to mobilize a great number of supporters for a very public demonstration at Studebaker and Loynes when Hitchcock thought he could start developing a portion of the wetlands without anyone else noticing.
Phone calls, emails, texts, tweets, Facebook, etc, etc. Tell me those opposed to the 2nd/PCH project as currently proposed couldn’t have a considerable number of supporters in a public meeting on the matter within 24 hours or less if they truly needed to.
Is it truly reasonable to believe that the developer isn’t also very well aware of this truth?
I agree with Janis. Without LBReport and GLB publicizing this institutional disregard for communicating clearly with the public (and this may be all it is — which should be bad enough for anyone claiming to champion government accountability), we would not have this information today. Pearl and Wielenga were looking for a straight answer to a question. Before Monday, we didn’t have it. Today we do.
We still don’t have a good, above-board explanation for why the developers used the Aug. 18 date. It may or may not involve a city official or employee–that’s the beauty of plausible deniability. I’m guessing some secretary or office clerk in the developer’s employ will be encouraged to take the fall for this.
It’s a page from the “Developers Playbook” to use their superior knowledge of the twists and turns of the development process to make critics look bad as they come up to speed on the procedural maze. Watch for this to continue to occur. A huge benefit of the doubt should go to those trying to bring maximum light to this subject so we can make up our minds on this. Only someone who wants to make up our minds for us would find something wrong here.
Very well, then. The theorists will have their conspiracies and others will argue for more reasonable explanations in the absence of definitive proof to the contrary. The truth quite likely lies somewhere in between the two.
One thing I do feel quite certain of: Something new and improved has been long overdue at 2nd/PCH for quite some time now. May they build the current project, or something similar but more generally acceptable, soon!
Greets attitude for development “build anything” soon booster-ism resulted in both the Pike and CityPlace development disasters… subsidized by our tax dollars. Same with the Press Telegram project which destroyed a historic building by promising subsidized housing for both CSULB and non-profits and now is left crumbling. I don’t see any of those same boosters standing up for these failed projects.
The property owner is responsible for the current state of the Seaport Marina hotel and should be held accountable for that mess as part of considering this project.
What’s the hurry why not have a public hearing (which is announced well before the meeting date), with a 30 day review period for the EIR comments and responses, and a second drawn out hearing on the LCP/SEADIP changes.
If you had read the EIR you would realize that it is weak and will most likely fall in a court challenge. As far as the release of the hearing date to the developer but not to the public this too should be considered by the Judge (ala Home Depot).
Who are city staff working for that they could not have provided this response when first asked? Failing to respond to the public makes City Manager Pat West and his staff look both arrogant and awful underhanded.
Not long ago, I paid my $50 to appeal a Long Beach Zoning Administrator’s decision to the Planning Commission. Months later, I received notice from the city’s Development Services department three days before the Planning Commission meeting that my appeal would be on the agenda. By that time, it was already too late to submit documents and pictures for review to the Planning Commissioners by the time I received notice of the meeting.
I complained to City Council about the city not following their own public notification guidelines. Fell on deaf ears.
@ janis: I have never advocated that anyone “build anything” at 2nd/PCH or anywhere else. What I *have* said, and most recently immediately before your own hyper-generalization of my position was: “May they build the current project, or something similar *but more generally acceptable*, soon!” (emphasis added)
To the best of my knowledge, I have also *never* advocated that *any* private development receive taxpayer funded assistance of any kind. Private development should stand or fall, succeed or fail, entirely on its own. I made this specific point in prior articles on this very proposal…that I did not want to see a single dime of taxpayer money spent to subsidize the project. The people, through their duly elected and appointed government, can and, I think, certainly *should* encourage those private developments that they deem more suitable by waiving fees or extending tax credits, etc, but I do *not* believe that any general fund public monies should be gifted to *any* completely private entity for *any* completely private purpose.
This property owner and *every* property owner should be held fully responsible to the various laws, rules and regulations we have seen fit to enact to assure that properties do not become blighted or otherwise neglected. If we are not doing so in this case, we certainly should be.
The EIR should likewise stand or fall on its own merits. If some believe strongly enough that the EIR is somehow insufficient, then they should make that case in court and their case should, in turn, succeed or fail on the merits of the arguments.
We have a clearly established system of due process through which we can resolve virtually any and all concerns and challenges of the sorts you raise. It serves no constructive purpose to accuse me of beliefs that I do not hold or to allege conspiracies between city government and developers without offering some objectively verifiable proof of your assertions.
More dealing with the facts, if you please, and less with conspiracy theories and erroneous assumptions.
@Greet=mindless booster
@ janis: Yes, I suppose it could make perfect sense in some circles to characterize a person who encourages others to deal in facts rather than conspiracy theories and erroneous assumptions as a “mindless booster.”
Greet get your facts straight:
“Greet: To the best of my knowledge, I have also *never* advocated that *any* private development receive taxpayer funded assistance of any kind. Private development should stand or fall, succeed or fail, entirely on its own. ”
…..Yet you are advocating that members of the public take the city to court for a flawed EIR instead of insisting up front on a fair open public process.
But guess what?…..Long Beach taxpayers PAID for the Home Depot lawsuit because a Judge agreed.
“Long Beach, CA (August 6, 2008) – Five years after the project was first introduced, the homeowners group, University Park Estates Neighborhood Association, has thwarted plans for a 140,000-square-foot Home Depot in its community. In 2006, after the city council approved the project, the group brought a lawsuit against the city expressing concerns about development’s contribution to declining home prices, increased traffic, and pollution to a surrounding wetland. In 2007, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sided with the group, claiming that the environmental impact report (EIR) was not adequate, indicating possible harmful effects to the surrounding wetland went unmeasured. The judge ordered the EIR to be updated, and the application resubmitted. The developer has agreed to settle with the group, withdraw the appeal to the judge’s ruling, vacate all permits, and work with the community on a project more compatible with the area. ”
…..Then you go on to say its OK to give a tax credit. “Greet:he people, through their duly elected and appointed government, can and, I think, certainly *should* encourage those private developments that they deem more suitable by waiving fees or extending tax credits, etc, but I do *not* believe that any general fund public monies should be gifted to *any* completely private entity for *any* completely private purpose.”
Maybe you should be concerned that the developer is trying to assume public opinion traffic mitigation credit for the south bound left/right turn lanes which was un-built mitigation for the Marina Shores shopping center paid for now taxpayer money. This roadway improvement would help accommodate 15 years of area traffic growth but instead gets gobbled up by 2nd+PCH and they don’t have to put 1 dime into the improvement. Sweet deal.
“Engineer Says Street Improvements Would Aid second+pch Traffic Issue” http://www.secondandpch.com/
@ janice: Perhaps it is you who should consider getting your facts straight. Advocating that people seek a redress of a grievance in court is to advocate for nothing more nor less than their right under the Constitution to do so. Perhaps you would prefer to deprive them of that right but I most certainly do not.
Neither does advocating that people seek a redress of a grievance in court after the fact (which is truly the only time this *can* occur, well, unless you are Mr. Ruehle -the self-annointed Chief of the Future Crimes Unit in Long Beach- who seems to believe he is omniscient and can accurately see the future) in any way conflict with a similar advocacy that all of the publics business be conducted in a fair, open and public manner in the present tense.
The two advocacies are not to any degree mutually exclusive and, in fact, complement one another quite well.
It sounds as if the Home Depot incident worked out precisely as it should have, given that the EIR proved flawed. Perhaps that decision has incentivised the Council to require more accurate and comprehensive EIR’s on projects such as these. If so, the 2nd/PCH proposal can only benefit. If not, then City government will no doubt lose in court yet again and voters should remember that well when next any Councilmembers who voted to approve a flawed EIR come up for re-election.
As mentioned, I do not think private development projects should receive a dime of taxpayer funding. I have also said all along that one of the things we should require is that the developer completely mitigate any traffic or parking impacts the project can be reasonably anticipated to generate, and entirely at the developer’s expense, not the taxpayers’.
If the developer proves unwilling to such terms, then we should refuse to issue any permits that may be required to build the project he has proposed. We should refuse to issue them until he agrees to our terms.
And for your part we must be reasonable in our demands. A newly re-designed, re-constructed, and re-invigorated 2nd/PCH will also greatly benefit the taxpayers of Long Beach. So we should be reasonable in our demands so that we protect ourselves but also encourage the development.
Push too hard, the developer walks and no one benefits. Push too little and we and up with a project that non one likes and the taxpayers end up helping to subsidize.
Unlike most who argue against virtually *any* new development of private property in the area of 2nd/PCH, I seek balance.
What we see there now is anything but balance.
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – The Heart of the Struggle
“There is no more important struggle for American democracy than ensuring a diverse, independent and free media. Free Press is at the heart of that struggle.” — Bill Moyers
“The theory of the free press is not that the truth will be presented completely or perfectly in any one instance, but that the truth will emerge from free discussion” — Walter Lippman
“The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have [to] bare the secrets of government and inform the people.” — Hugo Black
“Some of the press who speak loudly about the freedom of the press are themselves the enemies of freedom. Countless people dare not say a thing because they know it will be picked up and made a song of by the press. That limits freedom.” — Geoffrey Fisher
“The liberty of the press is most generally approved when it takes liberties with the other fellow, and leaves us alone” — Edgar Watson Howe
(Source: thinkexist.com)
“Greet: As mentioned, I do not think private development projects should receive a dime of taxpayer funding. I have also said all along that one of the things we should require is that the developer completely mitigate any traffic or parking impacts the project can be reasonably anticipated to generate, and entirely at the developer’s expense, not the taxpayers’.”
Well then Greet….perhaps you should withhold your support until the EIR comments & responses are properly reviewed and testimony heard, which is the whole point of GLB and LBReport articles. In the EIR it states that the projects traffic is not mitigated and does not meet the zoning parking requirements. Same with the “similar” Lennar project.
“Greet-One thing I do feel quite certain of: Something new and improved has been long overdue at 2nd/PCH for quite some time now. May they build the current project, or something similar but more generally acceptable, soon!”
The public can judge whether Greet is a LIAR. Greet claims to have “NEVER” advocated “BUILD ANYTHING” at Second & PCH. However, the following are Greet’s direct quotes from April 1, 2011 GLB article on Second & PCH:
“The structure on the property has outlived its usefullness. Time to take it down and build SOMETHING in its place.”
“I think almost ANYTHING would be better than what is there now.”
“I would very much love to see it gone and SOMETHING newer and more business and recreationally invigorating erected in its place.”
Moreover, the following is Greet’s direct quote from the March 24, 2011 GLB article on Second & PCH:
“Because at this point, at least for me, almost ANYTHING would be better than the eyesore that is there right now.”
Hi John: Re. your second comment above….If the developer is attempting to “drive the schedule” by urging their supporters to attend an August 18th hearing (when one isn’t actually scheduled), isn’t that showing a lack of respect for their supporter’s time? I think it is.
I know that if I supported this Project and went to the developer’s website/facebook page and/or received an email from the development team telling me that attendance at the August 18th hearing was VITAL, I would rearrange my schedule and be sure to attend. To later find out that, well, there wasn’t ever a hearing date scheduled and it was just an attempt to manipulate the process, it would be I (me?) who felt manipulated.
FYI- I just got an email from 2nd+PCH stating that they are still encouraging people to turn out for the hearing on August 18.
Greet writes so many reams of circular jiberish and parses so many words that he frequently forgets what the hell he is writing about or what previous position he took.
Retired Long Beach Police Officer John B. Greet thinks he can fool people into thinking he is a scholar by writing endless civics 101 essays he thinks sound scholarly.
Greet, please help everyone by going back to school to gain the education you are trying so hard to prove to everyone else you don’t need.
Has anybody noticed our consumer economy based largely on home equity that blew out 3 years ago ain’t rebounding?
@ janis: So I “should withhold (my) support until the EIR comments & responses are properly reviewed and testimony heard, but you and other detractors need not thus restrain yourselves? Hardly seems either reasonable or fair. In fact, it sounds very similar to the very thing you and some others constantly accuse the developer and the city of attempting to do, to stifle comment and debate. What a pity.
I *do* like what I see of this project and I *would* very much love to see it, or something similar, built yesterday. I have said this. I have also said that the developer should have to mitigate any adverse impacts that can be resaonably anticipated and that taxpayers should not have to subsidize a dime of it.
I am not really sure how that makes me the bad guy here. Not all development is bad, just as not all development is good. Few projects are entirely ideal and are completely accceptable to everyone concerned, but *all* of Long Beach has been developed by *some*one and to one degree or another. All I am seeking is balance. I am seeking responsible development that properly mitigates adverse impacts. I want the developer to follow the law and so long as he does so I want government to get out of his way and let him work so that we might *all* benefit in some way from whatever it is he decides to create on that beautiful piece of *private* property.
The point of *this* GLB article and the LBR OpEd it references is *not* to encourage folks to withhold their opinions until the EIR comments & responses are properly reviewed and testimony heard. Rather it is to *stimulate* and to *encourage* dialog and discussion on all current issues and events, including this one because at the end of the day both of these sites (and several others) are *businesses.* Both need people to visit their sites to read their information and participate in the discussion because the more people visit their sites the more income they earn.
I am not the bad guy, here, Janis. I just want to see something really good happen at PCH/2nd, something that benefits all to the greatest degree possible. That happens to also include the property owner and the developer, who have a right to try to earn a handy profit from whatever they choose to do with the property.
We need to come to terms with them, and they with us. If not, nothing of a constructive nature will change there and it will remain the aging and ugly structure that it is currently. Perhaps that is what you and some others want, but it is not what I want.
I want this beautiful city and this fine community to continue to grow and develop and thrive and become the truly spectacular large beach city that it can be. I think the responsible development of PCH/2nd can be an important part of that, if only we will let it.
@ Mr. Ruehle: You are mistaken concerning your comments related to my honesty. Just because you seem to lack the wit to clearly understand a person’s comments does not mean that they are being deceptive. I do not support and have not supported “building anything” at 2nd/PCH.
You seem incapable of perceiving the difference between “anything” and “almost anything” or “something.” So be it. Let me try to simplify it for you.
I support responsible development. Whether that is the project as currently proposed or something similar, I simply want to see something wonderful, productive and constructive happen at 2nd/PCH. I want the developer to mitigate adverse impacts that can be reasonably anticipated and I do not want the taxpayers to spend a single dime subsidizing it.
If, after this, you are *still* having difficulty comprehending my position, I am afraid I can not help you further. Your endless offerings of personal insult, scoffing and denigration, however, offer nothing of a constructive or productive nature to this discussion. Then again, perhaps doing so is not your intent.
Hi Heather! Yes, I would agree that it is patently unwise for any developer to post such pre-emptive comments on their site or to otherwise advertise the scheduling and/or agenda of a government meeting that does not as yet appear to have been scheduled or agendized.
Just as I would have project detractors avoid unfounded conspiracy theories, I would have project developers avoid trying to unduly influence or drive the schedule on the city’s consideration of this project. I would prefer that some of our city officials would speak more plainly on questions that are put to them. I would prefer that city officials recall that they serve the people of our community, and that the best way to do that is to speak openly, honestly, and directly about the public’s business whenever they are asked.
And I would very much prefer that people like Mr. Ruehle would once and for all give over their caustic, insulting and thoroughly counter-productive approaches to debate and dialog and work in more productive and constructive ways to address matters of public policy.
The greet is awesome…what a tool! He reminds me of another LBPD Sargeant who was found in Griffith Park with his pants down, “helping someone in need”.
Amazingly, well maybe not, he was found not to be innocent, but to be not guilty.
Greet, I don’t care what you do or don’t support. YOU claimed to have “never advocated that anyone “build anything” at 2nd/PCH.” That is a bold faced lie. I have referenced the articles where you indeed DID repeatedly say to build anything.
You are the one who keeps telling everyone to get their facts straight. How about you quit being a hypocrite and follow your own advice.
Greet, for someone who dismissed both GLB and LBReport’s articles on the developers announcement of a August 18 meeting and the city’s response to citizens comments as “really much ado about nothing” you have now used up 2327 words in your posts. My observation is that your comments are really all about John Greet and less about the public’s ability to get honest answers and equal access to information.
Hi John, I agree with you. Regardless pro or con, rhetoric hinders more than helps which is why I prefer to rely more on fact based arguments.
Which brings me to another point about this whole “marketing tactic,” when the development team makes statements of fact (i.e. the public hearing will be held on August 18), that aren’t actually fact, I wonder what else they are declaring that isn’t necessarily accurate.
To this, I was a panelist at the Naples Improvement Association public meeting wherein the second/pch project was the topic (I was representing the opposing perspective). The development team panelists (comprised of David Malmouth and their traffic guy Gibson) made statements of fact such as, with the project site to bayshore shuttle, traffic will be fully mitigated at the intersection of bayshore/second street. Alrighty.
I asked the very simple question (twice, once at the beginning of the meeting and again at the end): where is this shuttle turning around? I mean, the shuttle isn’t circling the globe, so it’s gotta turn around somewhere (the intersection of second/bayshore is too tight for a shuttle to make a u-turn). Both times I asked they had no answer. I fail to see how one could declaratively state that traffic will be fully mitigated when they didn’t even know the route it would take.
Yet they tout the “community meetings” they have held. Well, are these community meetings for the sake of checking the box that they had a community meeting, or are they community meetings to share real information? Based on their non-responsive responses I would contend that oftentimes it is the former.
@ Mr. wrong, please try to get your facts straight. Stolpe wasn’t a sergeant.
@ Mr. Ruehle: As I suggested, you do not seem to be able to perceive the difference between what you erroneously allege I have said, and what I have *acually* said. No amount of repeating your false information is going to make it true.
@ janis: I find it interesting that virtually every time I engage with you or others in a debate or a discussion on a matter, you start counting the words I choose to use, rather than dealing with the actual merits of my arguments. Much like Messrs. Ruehle and wrong, I think your own debate tactics in this case speak volumes of their own concerning the quality -or lack therof- of some of your own arguments.
@ Heather: Thank you very much for avoiding destructive rhetorical tactics and relying, instead, upon facts and allowing those to speak for themselves. would that some others here could manage to also do so!
I also agree that the burden of proof should -and, indeed, does- sit squarely on the shoulders of developers, concerning the reasonable mitigation of any adverse consequences their projects may cause. If they cannot prove that they are reasonably mitigating these challenges, and clearly demonstrate *how* they are doing so, then the decision-makers in city hall should refuse their project applications until they do so.
Sorry Greet you got it wrong again. The developer pays for the EIR, but the City is responsible both for writing the EIR and certifying that document complies with CEQA.
The City also make a determination on whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient or a claim of over-riding considerations is merited. The developer can propose mitigation but the “burden of proof” is the city’s responsibility. That’s why your original statement that “Given the clear response initially offered by Planning Commission staff, it seems to me that the LBR editorial and GLB’s report of the editorial were both really much ado about nothing.”indicates that you know nothing about what you are talking about.
Greet “I also agree that the burden of proof should -and, indeed, does- sit squarely on the shoulders of developers, concerning the reasonable mitigation of any adverse consequences their projects may cause.”
18.24.110 Final EIR—Certification.
Prior to approving a project, the draft EIR shall be presented to the approving body for their review and certification that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the information contained therein was considered prior to project approval pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15090. (Ord. 404 (Exh. A) (part), 1987)
CEQA:
1. Who can prepare a draft EIR?
The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR.
1.Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff.
2.Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR.
3. Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant, a consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person.
4. Executing a third party contract or Memorandum of Understanding with the applicant to govern the preparation of a draft EIR by an independent contractor.
5.Usinging a previously prepared EIR.
Definition of a lead agency: When more than one public agency is involved, a “Lead Agency” is the public agency that has the primary responsibility for approving a project that may have a significant impact upon the environment.
Home equity losses since the peak in June, 2006 are now over 10 trillion, which had been the piggy bank for the consumer economy.
Gee, janis, I don’t know. That was a whole lot of words there. If we are going to critique you in the same manner you have chosen to critique me, it really doesn’t matter much *what* you say, only how many words you use to say it. Right? : )
I get a lot of things wrong. But, unlike Mr. Ruehle and some others, when I am proven wrong I readily admit it and seek to correct the record. I greatly appreciate your attempts to clarify things for me.
If it is true that the city must “make a determination on whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient” doesn’t the burden of proof then lie with the developer to prove to the city that the proposed mitigations *should* be considered sufficient? I am not trying to be difficult, only to more clearly understand the process.
My initial comment of “much ado about nothing” had nothing to do with this important and necessary legal process and everything to do with the non-issue I believe the developer’s announcements and invites (concerning August 18th) to be.
As I believe city staff has made clear now -twice- the developer does not determine the schedule or the agenda for these meetings. If the developer wants to go out on a very thin limb and claim that they know something that no one else, even city staff, seems to know, then they are free to do so. But to blow such hubris up as evidence of some sort of deep, dark conspiracy just seems silly to me and, thus, “much ado about nothing.”
See?
Wow. Retired Long Beach Police officer John Greet has his facts wrong again. And this is the guy who constantly scolds other people to get their fact straight. What a hypocrite.
No Greet. The developer proposes traffic mitigation, such as a new light then the city hires a traffic engineer to do the traffic analysis which determines the extent of the mitigation. The Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR says that they think the analysis is correct and sufficient to determine the extent of the mitigation. If the analysis shows that not all the project’s traffic impact can be mitigated then the city can make a determination of “over-riding considerations’, public good over weighs the negative impact.
The developer can make all sorts of false claims (which they have) about the extent of mitigation and the economic benefits etc., but the only real “burden of proof” falls on the shoulders of the city of Long Beach. The developer has refused to provide the economic benefit report that they keep quoting in the press. The developer is making claim of mitigation credit for the PCH lane additions which are part of another projects mitigation. None of the developers claims are included in the EIR but have been digested by supports of the project as fact.
In the past the city has refused to provide public documents (related to the public’s response to EIRs), limited public time at hearings, refused appellants right to rebuttal (in the Municipal Code) among other behavior which justifies some concern among the public that the city is “tipping the scale on the side of the developer”. The fact that August 18 is by the city’s own words (the earliest date) then just how did the developer get this information when the public had no heads up on this?
@ janis: Thanks very much for your further clarification. Like most humans, I am learning all the time. I think all of your questions are fair ones and that they are reasonably stated.
Is it possible that the developer was able to extrapolate the 8/18 date from the current circumstances and timelines surrounding this issue? Could it not have been more of an educated guess than evidence of certain knowledge on the developer’s part?
Could any of the opponents of this project not also have reached such an educated guess on this earliest possible date if they were inclined to attempt to do so?
Is it possible that the developer contacted Planning Commission staff and simply *asked* them what the earliest possible date for the hearing could be, that a staffer gave them that information, and that the developer decided to run with it as a fact, rather than just the earliest possible date that city staff has now acknowledged that it is?
For me it comes down to this: Why must some leap to unfounded conspiracy theories instead of simply asking direct questions to get the facts? Why can city staff not simply answer direct questions with equally direct, concise, and specific answers?
So much time could be saved and frustration avoided if some would simply learn to ask direct answers and others would learn to provide direct answers.
@ Mr. Ruehle: I have met in you in person, so I know you are an adult. Because of this it *constantly* amazes me that you you persist in conducting yourself on these public fora as if you are about 6 or 7 years old.
The Home Depot Project EIR being thrown in the garbage by the Norwalk Superior Court is an example of how the City of Long Beach tipped the scale to the side of the developer.
The City of Long Beach was responsible for making sure all Home Depot EIR questions posed during the comment period were answered. However, multiple questions, including substantial questions posed by the department of Fish and Game, were not answered or even addressed.
This issue of unanswered EIR questions was brought to City Staff’s and Councilman DeLong’s attention multiple times prior to EIR certification. The issue was ignored by city staff FOR SOME REASON. Likewise, Councilman DeLong refused to involve himself, claiming it was a legal issue outside his intellectual capacity.
Meanwhile, BOTH the Long Beach Planning Commission and Long Beach City Council CERTIFIED the Home Depot EIR DESPITE the protests from concerned individuals that city staff had not complied with their EIR responsibilities by allowing multiple EIR questions to go unanswered.
Subsequently, the City of Long Beach was sued and the Norwalk Superior Court judge threw the entire EIR in the garbage because the city had not fulfilled its responsibility to answer all EIR questions posed during the comment period.
Considering how much time, energy and money was spent falsely certifying the Home Depot EIR, every city staff person associated with its certification should have been fired, including Susanne Frick, who was Director of Planning and Building at the time, and was also the person directing the Home Depot EIR process for the city. Instead, Ms. Frick was promoted to Assistant City Manager in order to keep her mouth shut about who was directing her to ignore the issue of unanswered EIR questions.
The City of Long Beach not only tips the scale to the side of the developers, the City of Long Beach hands the scale to the developers and allows the developers to do the weighing.
Greet-You claim all your comments are based on facts and logic. When it is proven that you don’t know basic facts then you blame the person for not giving direct answers to stuff you should of already known to make that conclusion. Then after making all sorts of foolish comments you say you are still “lerning”.
@ janis: I understand that you dislike that I am a proponent of development at 2nd/PCH, but can you cite anything I said in my initial comment on this article that was not based in either fact or logic? I expressed my opinion, nothing more, and I based my opinion upon the facts as I quoted them in my comment. Those facts have not changed.
I certainly understand why you and some other opponents have become so very distrusting and skeptical of our city government. I simply do not share your level of distrust and skepticism. I do not condemn you for your feelings in this area, why do you feel compelled to condemn me for mine?
I readily admit that I do not know all that it is possible to know. Do you? does anyone? Of course not. Then why only complain that this is true in my case? Must a person only express an opinion *after* all* of the facts are known? Do you? Does anyone? I rather doubt it. Then why offer your condemnations only when I do so?
I offer opinions here, no different from you or anyone else. As far as humanly possible, I offer my opinions with repect and with courtesy and based upon the facts as I understand them at the time, no different from you or anyone else.
In the arena of ideas, differences of opinion are to be expected between reasonable people. Perhaps you shouldn’t get so annoyed whenever someone chooses to hold an opinion different from your own.
Greet, why do you feel it is OK for you to express your opinion on a subject before you know all of the facts, yet you CONSTANTLY advise people NOT to express their opinion on Long Beach Police misconduct until they know all of the facts, which will never happen because the police don’t release the results of their investigations to the public.
Those of us who do express their opinions on police misconduct are ridiculed and called names by YOU. Is this because you are a recently retired Long Beach Police officer and you are trying to protect your union brothers? Or is it just another demonstration of your hypocrisy?
Mr. Ruehle you are mistaken. I do not ridicule anyone or call them names for expressing their opinions. Ridicule and name calling is your M.O., sir, not mine.
What I object to is the manner in which you and some others often accuse police employees of misconduct and criminal activity without *any* facts upon which to base your accusations.
You recently accused Sgt. Fernandez of having lied without any proof that he did so.
You have constantly accused the officers in Zerby of having committed murder without any proof that they committed any crime whatsoever, let alone murder.
You have accused me of disclosing facts to the press about your criminal past, while I was still a police department employee, without any proof that I had done so.
These are just a few of the most recent examples of your habit of making accusations against police employees without a shred of evidence to support them. Whenever I call you on it, you simply ignore my requests that you offer proof and simply move on to the next unfounded allegation.
You are entitled to your opinions, Mr. Ruehle, just as I am entitled to call you on it whenever they don’t pass the smell test.
Sorry if that proves inconvenient for you.
My comments are not fact based but rather gut feel based.
First of all the planning commission will not go on public record that it disclosed the August 18th date to the developers. So no one will get a straight answer if asked.
Of course that information was given to the developers. Conversations are taking place between the developers, city council members, planning commission members regularly. Don’t you think questions are being asked of the developers concerning the DEIR? Any good developer will have a salesman mentality and will be able to pry information out of the commission staff.
My guess is that the DEIR analysis is already complete and the planning commission is strategizing on how to spin it in their favor to approve. I attended the planning commission meeting when they discussed the DEIR. It seemed to me that the commission was in favor of the development regardless of what the public thinks.
The only way this development will be downsized to fit the SEADIP zoning is if public outcry is great enough, or by legal action.
All the data I have seen shows that the majority of the residents do not want a development as proposed. The letters to the Grunion Gazette are at least 90% against. The comments at the planning commission meeting were 60% against. The SEADIP revision study showed the majority does not want a development this scale. The only reported pro majority was presented by a developer poll. This development is so far out of compliance with the zoning of the area, it boggles my mind that it has gotten this far in the process. This fact alone proves that the planning commission is not ethical, but acts in favor of their cronies.
How’s about a music vid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0
Is that a RAM reference?
It is also my opinion that the Planning Commission and City of Long Beach have already decided to approve the project and do not care/want the public’s input. This is based on my observations from attending the meetings.
It seems like the question is not whether they will approve this, just how they will implement it.
From everything I saw and heard at the last two meetings, I believe this will be approved by a slim margin. And I also believe the Council will approve the project “as is” as well–again by a slim margin. And then the real battle will begin. And I think the project will go down in flames in the courts and/or before the Coastal Commission. A boatload of both private and public sector money flushed down the toilet all due to greed and stupidity.
And a few months later it will all start again. The pot of gold at the end of this crooked rainbow is so huge that another group will line up to take a shot at it.
This whole traffic mitigation stuff is just BS as well. A shuttle bus, big whoop. We already have the passport and city buses. The shuttle will just add to the problem not solve it. You don’t need to be traffic study genius to realize that this many new cars will cause gridlock at the intersection. It is almost there currently during high traffic periods. The east west direction during peak hours will not even be capable of passing that many cars resulting in a continual accumulation of cars back to and beyond Studebaker. The only mitigation that is going to happen is that people will seek alternate routes to avoid the traffic nightmare.
A lot of time and money would be saved if the planning commission and city council does the right thing and stops this madness right now!
What do you say, Mr. Delong….?
Nice vid, by the way..
For further evidence that having NO background knowledge or understanding of ANY facts on a subject matter ever dissuades John Greet from commenting, read the comments on the current Greater Long Beach article regarding Rene Castro’s re-election on an Advisory Committee.
John Greet’s comment: “Sincere congratulations to Ms. Castro and all of the other electees!”
Rene Castro happens to be a man. However Greet doesn’t prevent small details such as this from scolding other people to get their facts straight. What a hypocrite.
Thank you very much for the correction. I have never met Mr. Castro and the article concerning his re-election did not mention gender. My sincere apologies to Mr. Castro for the inadvertent error, however, the congratulations were entirely sincere.
Damnnit all greet thank you very much for all the deep guffaws! I sit here reading your bullshit and imagine you as jerry mahoney or knucklehead smith turning your head from side to side at Mike, Janis, Heather and me, spouting your ridiculous nonsense, spit spray flying out with each verbal vomit expulsion. I owe you a sincere handshake, slap on the back and a beer. Laughs a’ plenty! THANK YOU!
BTW was that you with Corporal Stolpe sword fighting in Griffith Park?
My pleasure, Mr. wrong. It is said that those with little wit are easily amused : )
Greet acknowledges it was his “pleasure” to sword fight with the naked Long Beach Police Corporal Stolpe in Girffith Park. I wonder who won the duel…….or was it duet?
Mr Ruehle, you could contribute so much more of a constructive and productive nature to these discussions if you would only give over your petty and juvenile rhetorical tactics. Come on, Mike. Come up out of the sandbox, stop kicking at ankles, and join the adults in substantive and courteous discussion of the issues. You might even find that you enjoy it. Goodness knows a lot of other people would!
Isn’t it coincidental how DeLong has SUDDENLY become responsive to the public and residents. Where was this behavior his first term as Councilman? How much does this have to do with his recently announced election run for Congress?
DeLong is the same guy who typically is nowhere to be found during public comment periods at the beginning of each Council meeting. DeLong is the same guy who facebooks while the public is commenting on agenda items in City Council meetings. DeLong is the same guy who walks out of Council meetings when the final public comment period occurs at the end. So why the sudden change?
DeLong’s new-found involvement in residents issues with problem bars and city staff communications is only occurring because residents provide the votes he will need to be elected to Congress. The problem bar owners can’t vote for him because they don’t live in Long Beach. Otherwise, DeLong would still be ignoring resident issues like he did his entire first term as Councilman.
Mr. DeLong has not “SUDDENLY’ become responsive and his involvement with resident’s issues is not in any way “new-found.” In fact I feel confident that most in his District would agree that he, and his professional staff, have always been *very* responsive.
Mr. DeLong has not always been as *effective* as he might have been at addressing some of the challenges in his District and I suspect that he would be the first to agree with that. Despite what some seem to believe, however, Councilmembers are not to any degree omnipotent. There are limits to a Councilmember’s power and authority just as there are for any other elected public official.
Like all public officials, Mr. DeLong should answer for his conduct during public meetings. But if we are going to be completely fair and honest, Mr. DeLong doesn’t seem to cunduct himself much differently during Council meetings than any of his other colleagues on the Council often do.
I would very much love to see some significant changes made in the manner in which some of these meetings are conducted. I think the Council would greatly benefit from a stricter adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order and the appointment of a parliamentarian to help them do so.
As difficult as it sometimes must be, I think all of our Councilmembers should be more attentive to members of the public when they choose to speak and I think those “behind the rail” would serve their constituents far better by putting aside petty public bickering and by spending a lot more time studying the items on their agenda *before* the meeting actually commences. So much time seems wasted in asking basic questions, many of which are sometimes already clearly addressed in the supporting documentation.
Finally, I think we, the public, need to work harder to be better informed, ourselves, (and I am definitely including myself here) and to avoid cluttering up public comment periods with identical sentiments. When a significant matter is considered, and dozens wish to speak, I think the public would be wise to attempt to confer in advance and select one or two spokespersons to present similar views and opinions that are shared by many. We have important responsibilities during these meetings also and I think for our part we should work harder to meet them.
I think Shakespeare’s genius was on full display when he created the characters Beatrice and Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing — they were the two highly critical individuals who absolutely loathed each other at the beginning of the play, yet discovered by the end of the play that they were meant to spend their lives together. It’s a funny play, containing great Shakespearian squabbling, with the wonderful discovery by each character that what they thought was their hated opposite was really more like their own reflection in the mirror.
Anyone else notice that Greet tries to hold the moral authority on meaningful discussion, manners, logic and his “facts”? Starting with TGLB’s predecessor, The District Weekly, I’ve been trying to figure out Greet’s thinking.
Last week I saw this heartbreaking video by Ron Thomas a former Sheriff’s deputy who’s son was beaten to death by Fullerton police, and now it all make perfect sense.
Arrests for “contempt of cop” may stem from a type of “occupational arrogance” when a police officer thinks he or she should not be challenged or questioned.
What is “Contempt of Cop?” Posted by Travis Kiger in The Crime Beat, Union Goons on July 15th, 2011, Here’s an explanation from Ron Thomas, the former sheriff’s deputy who’s son was beaten to death by Fullerton police last week. http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2011/what-is-contempt-of-cop/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop
Contempt of cop is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by citizens towards law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority.[1][2][3][4] The phrase is associated with arbitrary arrest and detention and is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality[5] as a reaction to disrespectful behavior[6] rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.[7]
Arrests for “contempt of cop” may stem from a type of “occupational arrogance” when a police officer thinks he or she should not be challenged or questioned.[8] From such officers’ perspective, “contempt of cop” may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference (such as by asserting one’s constitutional rights[citation needed]), disobeying instructions,[9] or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer.[7] Flight from the police is sometimes considered a variant of “contempt of cop”.[10] “Contempt of cop” situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.[11]
Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons for a “contempt of cop” arrest.[7] Obstructing an officer or failure to obey a lawful order is also cited in “contempt of cop” arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.[12][13]
Direct quote from John Greet:
“I simply desire that the discussions in which I choose to participate remain, meaningful, constructive, productive, courteous, respectful and factual. The degree to which a discussion departs from those is usually the degree to which I sometimes take exception.”
Another direct quote from John Greet:
“And just like the despicable Mr. Ruehle, you have now chosen to speak flippantly, superficially, and with considerable dishonor.”
http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971
Apparently Greet’s standard for courteousness and respectfullness applies to everyone else but himself. What a hypocrite.
Oh but Mr. Ruehle, that *was* courteous and respectful. You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.
BTW janis: I am not a cop, thus the contempt I feel for the manner in which some people conduct themselves on this site and others has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory you spent so many words suggesting (like me, you really should sometimes try to be more concise.)
My contempt is for utterly disingenuous discussion and debate tactics such as those Mr. Ruehle and some others routinely employ. When people like Mr. Ruehle persistently post comments that they know -or reasonably should know- to be false, fraudulent, and otherwise misleading, I do indeed experience utter *contempt* for those behaviors. I do indeed find those who employ them to be utterly detestable.
Just like Mr. Ruehle, I sometimes get my facts wrong. Human beings will do that from time to time. Whenever an inadvertent error is brought to my attention I openly acknowledge my mistake, sincerely apologize, and then seek to correct the record.
People like Mr. Ruehle routinely refuse such acknowledgements of corrections, even in the cases when they truly do make an honest and inadvertent mistake. Such refusals, coupled with the other obvious instances in which they *intentionally* falsify information and *intentionally* misrepresent facts so as to *intentionally* mislead people, tells me that they really have no desire to improve the conditions about which they chronically complain but, rather, seek primarily to impugn, and denigrate, and desparage others with whom they happen to disagree.
Such tactics are not to any degree representative of mature and intellectual discussion. They are nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent of a little child running about in a room and kicking at the ankles of the adults, just because they can.
Mr. Ruehle and other alleged adults who debate and discuss as they do could have so very much to contribute if they would only stop acting so very childish.
A threatening John B. Greet comment:
“You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.”
This comment follows recently retired Long Beach Police Officer claim that he still continues to carry a gun even though he is retired. Exact quote from John B. Greet:
“I do sometimes still carry a gun, High, and quite lawfully”
Are Greet’s comments meant to threaten me? Does ex-cop John Greet carry a throw-down hose nozzle with his gun? Do I need to be in fear for my life from this Long Beach gun carrying ex-cop? Ironically, do I need to report Greet to the police?
“Mr. Ruehle and other alleged adults who debate and discuss as they do could have so very much to contribute if they would only stop acting so very childish.”
Tell that to the families of the victimes of Columbine. It causes me grave concern when you make such comments as you frequently do and also claim to carry a gun on your person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
Its probably time to notify the police in order to avoid another “comtempt of ex-cop” killing.
Notify whomever you like about whatever you like, Mr. Ruehle. But if you insist upon quoting me, please try to do so accurately and completely.
Mike and John, sittin’ in a tree . . .
To those who predict that the project will be approved by a slim majority — I urge you to write and call each and every city council member with your concerns — keep the feel and the life of our coastal village with sunsets, beaches, and a marina. Talk to family, neighbors and friends to engage them. And when it comes to the Planning Commission (August 18 or after) and to City Council come if you can, if you can’t come write and call again and again to protect what you love and enjoy.
to whom it may concern:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4s9V8aQu4c