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:
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
