[Scroll down for further.]

Instead of separating the issues, a Council majority voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), AND the Site Plan Review, AND Conditional Use Permit, AND the Standards Variance AND the Local Coastal Development Permit.

City staff led Councilmembers to believe that they could approve all of these issues after which staff would work with CA Coastal Commission staff to work out any problems. But the CCC doesn't rule on EIR's; it only rules on whether a project conforms with the Coastal Act and the city's Local Coastal Plan. CCC staff had already notified the City -- most recently in a May 11, 2017 letter -- that another location should be found for this pool because of wave rush/sea level rise, height variance (78 foot building instead of zones 25-30 feet), and need for public views and access to the beach.

In certifying the EIR, a Council majority said in effect:

• There don't have to be any more traffic studies. This is despite the fact that there's no traffic plan for large events and construction now that the City has put East Ocean Blvd on a "road diet."

• There don't have to be adequate Seismic Studies. Building on sand, in a liquefaction/earthquake zone is a great idea.

• In spite of new state information, there is no need for further studies of wave rush/sea level rise. It is OK that the parking lots and lower levels of the pool, (containing the very expensive equipment, including that for the moveable floor, air conditioning, air machine to keep the ETFE plastic roof inflated) will be under water in a few decades.

• Alternate Locations were adequately studied and properly rejected. There is no other place in the Tidelands to build the pool.

• The immense size and height of the building won't block public views or access.

• No new Biological studies need to be done. Replacing old growth trees with 15 gallon size trees is not going to affect the nesting birds.

• There has been adequate study of ETFE Plastic roofs, although some firms that work with this material have said in their view, this material shouldn't be used in beach areas because of blowing sand, salt air, port pollution; condensation and heat problems and building damage to and by birds.

• There do not need to be any new mitigations; the few mitigations in the EIR are adequate.

I repeat: the Coastal Commission can only address the issues pertaining to the Coastal Act and the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). Now that the Council has approved the EIR, City Hall can use it to build the BBAC at the beach site unless residents to hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit within 30 days that shows a Superior Court judge the deficiencies in the EIR and, over opposition by the City's lawyers, obtains an order directing the City to do what CEQA requires. In other words, taxpayers have to use their own money to hire an environmental law attorney to sue their City so their City will follow the law, while the City uses taxpayers' money to fight the taxpayers.

I understand that most of the public, including the Council and their staffs, aren't familiar with CEQA's many requirements, but I do expect the City Attorney to advise the Council as to whether they are following the correct procedure.

I believe there were procedural errors made at the hearing. These include a failure to swear-in those testifying, which the City's Municipal Code indicates is required in a such hearing. (This appeared to free staff to say some things about the adequacy of the EIR that I consider untrue.)

Although the City Attorney might have predictably claimed the EIR was adequate, not one Councilmember asked the opinion of the City Attorney on whether the document could withstand court scrutiny.

The five Council approvals were combined into one agenda item and voted on as a group instead of separately, as has been the process in the past.

As Councilmember Uranga said, "Why kick this down the road to the CCC?" Staff stated that if the CCC required changes to the building, this would require a new EIR. The Council would have saved months of time and thousands of dollars if they had directed staff to correct the deficient EIR before sending it the CCC.

One can only hope that next time, they can get it right.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor: Computer Repair Long Beach

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor