CONO Report Three

Council of Neighborhood Organizations (CONO)

Community Report on the transcripts of the Long Beach Department of Development Services staff's public testimony to the Long Beach Planning Commission on August 17, 2017

CONO Report Three: Planning Commissioners Questions

The Council of Neighborhood Organizations (CONO),  the city-wide coalition of neighborhood organizations, released three reports on the transcripts of the  controversial August 17th Long Beach Planning Commission meeting on the Land Use Element (LUE) place-type maps. 

At the August 17, 2017 Long Beach Planning Commission meeting, staff from the Long Beach Department of Development Services (LBDS) under the direction of the department's Director Amy Bodek made two presentations to the Planning Commission, answered questions from the commissioners and reacted to the Planning Commissioners motions for more public outreach following extensive public testimony from neighborhood organization leaders and residents from across Long Beach.

This is Report Three on the transcripts of those LBDS staff reports and interactions taken from the public video and audio on the City of Long Beach website:

http://longbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=9297

In Report Three CONO transcribes portions of the audio of the online video concerning the Planning Commissioners questions to the LBSD after the hours of public comment on :

Agenda Item 5 17-051PL Recommendation to recommend that the City Council approve the selected alternative for the Place Type and Height Map, superseding the existing adopted Land Use Element and Scenic Routes Element. (Citywide) (Application No. 1701-01)

CONO's Report Three quotes are transcribed from the Planning Commission Video link above (go to Agenda 5section and click on Agenda 5).  The report includes video Time Stamps as indicated by the (TS) followed by the nearest time down to the second of the quote taken from the city provided video.

CONO Report Three: Planning Commissioners Questions

(TS) 4:05:27 - Planning Commissioners Questions

(TS) 4:05:40 Commissioner Lewis question to staff about variances between the adopted Mid Towne Plan and the proposed Land Use Plan (LUE)

(TS) 4:06:13 - 4:07:49 Staff responds

" So I believe that in front of you, you have packets, maps of the city. If you turn to council District 6, there's a dark blue outline that represents the midtown specific plan boundaries so you will see that we exceed those boundaries along PCH and points south. That was done intentionally because those are within walking distance of the transit line so it is anticipated, if not today or tomorrow, that sometime in the next twenty-three years it would be appropriate to adjust the zoning in that area to a more transit oriented development".

"The other variance is if you look at the 10 stories that is centered near the medical center, we have moved that boundary approximately two blocks from Earl to Pacific. Again anticipating, if not today, then sometime in the next 23 years it maybe appropriate to revisit the height limit which in that specific location is within a quarter of a mile of a transit stop. And based on the nationwide research is the area most likely to benefit from transit oriented development and be able to capture these residents into alternative forms of transportation. Those are the variances related to the midtown plan.

 (TS) 4:07:49 Commissioner Lewis question to staff about changes in LUE in District 5 since the last Planning Commission study session

(TS) 4:08:02 - 4:09:30 Staff responds

"Sure, so if you turn to Council District 5, comparing this all the way back where we were in February, we made a number of changes at the commissioner’s request. So looking at the most northern part of the map, we restored the multi-family areas along Bellflower as well as along Lakewood.

And expanded the mixed-use areas and added an additional story, at, those, you see them as 4 stories near Long Beach City College.

The other changes along Bellflower at Spring, that is the shopping center that has been referred to by a couple of the speakers, that was changed to 5 stories mixed-use on the large parcel and 3 stories on the smaller parcel. There are grocery shopping centers along Los Coyotes, the larger parcels were changed to 4 stories mixed use approach and the smaller parcels to 3 stories.

Commissioner Christoffels had a specific request at a prior meeting, I believe at the April meeting, to change the Long Beach Towne Center to a mixed-use approach and that is reflected in this map at a 6 story mixed-use segment. Those were changes, the primary changes, made to Council District 5".

-LBDS staff to Planning Commission about high density LUE 8/17/17

(TS) 4:09:30 Commissioner Lewis asks what the 5 story shopping center is currently zoned

(TS) 4:09:37 Staff responds

"So that's the Lowes-Kmart Shopping Center. It is currently zoned exclusively for commercial so no mixed use is allowed and that is a 2 story height limit today."

(TS) 4:09:46 - 4:09:52 Commissioner Lewis states " And we did not make any changes to the single family residential zoning in the fifth [ Council District] "

(TS) 4:09:52 -4:10:19 Staff responds

"That is correct so everything that you see in the yellow color remains unchanged, and that is actually consistent throughout most of the city, We're not making wholesale changes to single family as we talked about in the presentation that is 34% of the land area which necessitates the changes on the corridors on the corridors and the other sites."

(TS) 4:10:19 Commissioner Lewis states that the Planning Commission is looking at the height and place-type maps and wants to staff to clarify that other zoning with setbacks and other requirements will follow

(TS) 4:10:40 - 4:11:33

"Correct, so this is a policy document this is a maximum set of parameters for future zoning decisions. In the text of the document there is what is called our Implementation Plan which sets out a 5-year process by which if the General Plan update were to be approved by City Council, staff would then go about making changes of various zoning ordinances to conform to this plan.

Based on specifics of the individual parcels, as we do this work, in partnership with this commission and the community, we certainly can be more restrictive, than the General Plan, we do not have the ability to be less restrictive than the General Plan and that process as I mentioned will take about five years and those are legislative items, so they come before this commission and they come before City Council in the open public process."

(TS) 4:11:33 Commissioner Lewis states that the commission does not want cracker box development and states that it is an important comment to make that these plans do not effect single family residential

(TS) 4:10:40 - 4:11:33 Chair Van Horik comments about the LUE maps:

" These maps are hard to read. And I have to use a magnifying glass because I cannot read the street names. So, I think in terms of out reach, the maps have to be as user friendly as possible. And then I have a question about there are some areas that are colored red and there is nothing in the legend that explains what those red areas are. Like for instance in the 5th District right in the middle, I think it is institutional, but I'm not sure. but .. [ interrupted by staff].

(TS) 4:11:33 - 4:13:07 Staff responds

" So if you look at just above "Institutional" on the legend, you see "CC", Community Commercial.  The laser printing doesn't get the color match exactly perfect.  Bu, that's the red color you see on the map.  The Community Commercial category is your legacy commercial so that's an are that is anticipated to be purely commercial without any opportunity for residential or other uses. 

(TS) 4:13:07 Chair Van Horik responds to staff's explanation of the LUE map colors: "So what might be red is really hot pink or something? Community Commercial, or its really orangey pink? [pause no response] That's helpful thank you."

(TS) 4:13:19 Commissioner Templin thanks the staff for the work and recognizes the neighborhood speakers’ confusion on what is actually being presented and the opportunity for neighborhood leaders to comment on the plan she continues: "Mostly what I am hearing is that they haven't had enough ability to comment on it."

(TS) 4:14:09 Commissioner Templin asks for clarification on speakers comment on 2% less population

(TS) 4:14:30 - 4:15:16 Staff responds

"So the U.S. Census Bureau reported population in the City of Long Beach in 2010 462,257. They reported our 2016 population at 470,130. That's a net increase, not a decrease. Furthermore, the population increase figures for the future 2040 are not up to the city, they are promulgated through a regional agency called SCAG through a document called the Regional Transportation Plan Sustainability Communities Strategy and those numbers we use because they are only numbers we are legally allowed to use for our future growth assumptions."

(TS) 4:15:16 Templin responds "I've read those reports thank you. And saying no to density I am sorry that isn't going to stop it. You have to plan for it".

(TS) 4:15:27 Commissioner Templin asks about flight path heights over Los Altos

"There was a question about increasing them in the flight path, FAA, where the old Sears, well I should say still Sears, soon to be old Sears" [ interrupted by staff] staff smiling "For the moment" Templin continues "Um at 5 stories, is that not being considered?"

(TS) 4:15:56 -4:16:34 Staff responds

"That has been considered, we consulted with the agency called the Airport Land Use Commission, we also consulted with the Long Beach Airport. That is not within a runway protection zone.  that is not within a runway protection zone.  The fact that something is in a flight path is different than being in controlled airspace.  So while that is on the path of travel for airlines approaching the airport, it's not controlled airspace.  So the difference between a 2 story, 3 story, 4 story, 5 story is consistent with the plans to protect the airport and its airspace."

(TS) 4:16:34 Commissioner Templin asks about SB 35

(TS) 4:16:51 - 4:17:17 Staff responds

"So that is pending state legislation that is not adopted. So here at the staff table it is going to be very difficult to pontificate on what Sacramento is thinking or whether that bill will be approved in its current form, or denied, or amended, I apologize for not answering your question, but we're not in a position to answer that question."

(TS) 4:17:17 - 4:17:33 Commissioner Templin continues asking about SB 35 and how it would affect the LB Master Plan if SB 35 does pass. 

(TS) 4:17:33- 4:21:35

LBDS Director Amy Bodek who recently entered the meeting after the public testimony speaks for the first time:

"So I first want to say thank you to the women who raised it because I think it is incredibly important that citizens understand the regulations that we are forced to confront the history and pattern of cities across the stat for not dealing with the housing issues as they are suppose to.  Because of that, the legislature has continued to constrain over the years the cities abilities to regulate housing in particular. Because there are many cities who are not as forthcoming in embracing change and density.   So as a counter-reaction to local agencies who have over, and I am talking the last 30 plus years, refused to comply with the housing requirements, the state has continually forced local jurisdictions hands.  And you can see that in our Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations, and the historic flow of regulations that have come down from the state.  And we as a city did try our best to dodge the impact of granny flats when that state law came into affect. We had something on the books, but it was difficult to comply with. The state understood that, the state, I'm going off story, but it will eventually come around, the arc of the story will come around.  The state eventually understood what we and other jurisdictions were doing and they tightened our ability to do things and they created the new Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements. We are again complying with that, but as you know we did put restrictions where we could on the compliance with that, SB35 is going to be a similar issue if it is adopted.

I think it will be very difficult for us from a zoning perspective, less so from a General Plan perspective because our General Plan has been carefully thought-out where we are not throwing density willy-nilly into single family residential neighborhoods. We are trying to focus on areas of change and certain commercial corridors and linking them to transit. 

But we are very concerned about activities at the state level and how they intended to take away any local control.  and SB 35 is a perfect example of that because they will absolutely take away the local control and we will not have the ability to have Public Hearings on residential projects if SB 35 proceeds. And their implications, we don't know how to consider those implications because that law is not far enough along for us to know whether amendments are going to be proposed and excepted by the state legislature.  So until that happens we cannot specifically say what those impacts are.

But I absolutely applaud the constituent who brought it up.  I think it is fabulous and frankly critical for there to be an understanding of why this state does this and how that ties our hands locally.   

That was a really long answer, but the short answer is we really won't know how it affects us until, or if, it gets adopted.

(TS) 4:21:35 Commissioner Templin comments on how basically the state wins

(TS) 4:21:40 Director Bodek relies

"Yes. Similar you know to affordable housing within a quarter of a mile of transit. It has special parking requirements and we are not able to increase those parking requirements even if they are below our Mid-Town plan. We are tied."

(TS) 4:22:04 Commissioner Templin asks about a reference to state bill 1000

(TS) 4:22:10 - 4:23:50 LBSD staff replies

"Commissioner I believe the question was in reference to Senate Bill 1000 which is a requirement to address environmental justice in plans. That was another mandate from Sacramento that was delivered without any funding. And it does require us to address environmental justice in our planning documents. Cities have two different options for compliance, they can do a stand-alone Environmental Justice Element. as was mentioned, or they can address those issues within there Land Use Element which is what we have done. There are policies specifically related to investment and environmental burden in disadvantaged communities, and there are maps of disadvantaged communities and their implementation measures to address that.  You know, its in my opinion that law was targeted for jurisdictions that have been more derelict than Long Beach. We have specific plans relating to issues to our port, to addressing long standing issues environmental issues on our West Side. Should they have happened sooner? That's history sure, but were far ahead of many jurisdictions and we really weren't the target of that legislation, but none the less, the plan in front of you does comply. And we did specific focus group and follow-up outreach during the period between February and today with the environmental justice advocacy organizations here in the city to help us craft those policies that they felt were most appropriate for the plan."

(TS) 4:23:50 Commissioner Templin asks about a public comment about "commission planners" who use to attend community meetings

(TS) 4:24:10 Director Bodek relies

"Yes, we do not have the resources with our work load to have community planners and that's just how it is. the community planner function was removed from the department somewhere I think around 2008. So we really haven't had community planners, per say, attending monthly meetings of every single community organization in the city since about 2008.

(TS) 4:24:10 Chair Van Horik comments and raises questions about the Magnolia Industrial Group's concerns

(TS) 4:25:30 - 4:29:06 Staff responds

"Sure, so if all the commissioners can turn to the map of Council District 1, roughly in the center of that page you see the Magnolia Industrial Group area its in the dark blue area labeled 40 feet. So I think what is important to this discussion, if you look directly to the east of that, you see multi-family development. To the north-east you see mixed-use development. To the south-east you see mixed use development. And further south you see single-family. Directly south you see the recent expansions of Drake Park where the soccer fields have gone in. And further south you see, the expansion, the future expansion of Cesar Chavez Park. And adjacent you see the L.A. River. So with that in mind, what staff did with all the outreach we have done over eleven years, was see this as a place that was appropriate, not to kick any existing operator out, but to transition over the next 23 years, to cleaner industrial uses and a mix of industry and office that would be more comparable with this particular setting that has residential on all sides and a river we hope over time with the river plan will become more of an amenity and gathering place. We have read all of the comments from Magnolia Industrial Group and there was a change to the plan text based on those comments. they had a fear that there would be residential uses introduced into this area. We made it clear that there could not be ground-up residential construction, that any development that included residential had to include a job producing use and the only situation that residential would be an adaptive re-use of a building where a portion of that building would also contain a job producing use. There was a comment about there not being people in the district and opposition to approving the pedestrian environment in the district. We hear that comment, but respectfully disagree. the employees that go to work in that district, I think the quoted number was over a thousand, are human beings, and they do travel around that district, whether it is just going to work in the morning, or going somewhere for their lunch break. And whether we make it neo-industrial or don't make it neo-industrial, the city's policy consistent with the Mobility Element to elevate and improve the pedestrian environment for those individuals.

So those were the reasons behind staff's decision. We did review all of the materials provided by the speaker and provided by the business association. We actually feel that over time these changes will be positive for the property owners and will actually allow for the gradual redevelopment of parcels within that district and the ability to have a greater density of jobs in cleaner buildings than you have today which is consistent with the positive outcome and consistent with the goals of the plan of the Land Use Element that also consistent with the city's Economic Blueprint.

(TS) 4:29:06 Chair Van Horik responds "I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be better to have some type of transition plan and buffering around the edge of all these, these all the neighbors the neighborhoods around, the varying neighborhoods around, because industrial is industrial. I don't think it's, its not going to be, its gonna be messy.  If you don't have some type of buffering area to transition."

(TS) 4:29:32 - 4: 30:16 Staff responds

" I hear you. And those are the actual kind of issues we would address when we wrote the actual Zoning Ordnance for the area. But we last update the General Plan in 1989. When we complete this update, I think I do imagine it will be quite a number of years or decades before it is updated again. It is not the type of document that we would come in every couple of years and move the buffer, adjust the boundaries. And we're glad to forward any changes the commission would like to make to city council for their consideration. But we do fell that location is appropriate as drafted in the map based on our analysis.

(TS) 4: 30;16 Chair Van Horik "OK, I have one more question, this map is so small, I forgot to bring my magnifying glass. Just go to District 7. The area where I think the Blue Line Station is for Wardlow. Is that area that is two four story areas. Is that area around the Blue Line Station? I cannot tell for sure. Then there is a three story designation across Wardlow. Is that correct?"

(TS) 4:30:45 Staff responds

"So that 4 story is the properties immediately adjacent and across the street and caddy-corner to the Blue Line Station. That 3 story multi-family is an existing 3 story multi-family development".

(TS) 4:31;12 Chair Van Horik asks about across Pacific

(TS) 4:31:10 Staff responds

There's a parking lot. there's a shooting range, and a couple of other structures today. Gun club! It's an indoor gun related facility"

(TS) 4:31;27 Chair Van Horik asks about displacing residential

(TS) 4:31:28 - 4:31:50 Staff responds

" No. there is an existing senior facility within those boundaries, but it is non-conforming to height, it is over 4 stories. And it's not anticipated that it would be displaced because it recently went through a financial arrangement to upgrade the facility."

FOR THE FIRST TWO TRANSCRIPT REPORTS CLICK ON:
CONO REPORT ONE

CONO REPORT TWO