(Dec. 19, 2015, 9:05 a.m.) -- A group of Long Beach residents, responding to City Council votes that without dissent approved a zoning change enabling a dense residential (townhouse) development on what had been privately owned park-like open space adjoining their residential neighborhood, has hired a law firm that alleges multiple issues in the way LB City Hall approved the development...and has filed a Superior Court legal action to stop it.

A Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, was filed Dec. 18 on behalf of Citizens About Responsible Planning (CARP) by the Channel Law Group LLC. To view the Writ Petition as filed, click here..

The legal action alleges violations by the City and the development parties of the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in changing current zoning to allow 131 two and three story residences (2,100 to 2,900 sq. ft. townhouses) on 10.5 acres of what was formerly the Will J. Reid Scout Park (4747 Daisy Ave.) The developer-sought, city staff-supported, Council-approved density is considerably higher than allowed by traditional residential neighborhood protective zoning.

Image included in agendized materials

[Scroll down for further.]

The group's legal action may have implications beyond the Daisy Ave. location as the Council also approved an ordinance creating a new zoning classification ("Planned Unit Development") inviting (subject to subsequent City Council approvals) dense residential developments (specific density levels unspecified) on parcels of roughly five acres or more, some of which are in scattered parts of the city (at least two in the 7th district and at least one in the 5th district.) Although the other locations aren't the subject of the current legal action, CARP says in a release that it is "dedicated to the protection of both the community and the environment in Long Beach" and "is concerned not only with the Riverwalk development but numerous other potential sites that may utilize the new PUD zoning."

Advertisement

Advertisement

The legal action on the Daisy Ave. development cites the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in asking the Court to reverse all project approvals, actions, resolutions, ordinances, plan amendments and findings related to the Project, including the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approved by the Council, rescinding the EIR and any authorizations to proceed with construction. The court filing alleges that the EIR approved by the Council doesn't comply with CEQA on grounds including inadequate findings, failure to recirculate the EIR, inadequate response to comments and inadequate project description.

In November, the Council voted to approve a proposal by the property's owner/developer, Integral Communities of Newport Beach, to build 131 two and three story residences (townhouses) in a unified development in an area bordered by the Union Pacific rail line on the south, the L.A. River to the west and a residential neighborhood nestled between Del Amo Blvd. to the north and Long Beach Blvd. to the east.

Image from agendized materials

The owner/developer says its Riverwalk project will improve the neighborhood, increase property values and provide amenities for the development's residents...and also agreed to build at its expense a new park on Del Amo Blvd. for general public use.

City officials weren't immediately available for reaction to the legal filing.

Scroll down for further

Advertisement

Advertisement

At the Nov. 17 Council hearing, podium speakers and neighbors were sharply split on whether to approve the proposed development. Some supported the development, voicing hope that it would improve the neighborhood, provide opportunities for new residents and enhance their property values.

However over half of the hearing speakers were opposed, several citing specific impacts on the adjoining neighborhood...and they brought a petition signed by over 200 residents in opposition.

During the Council proceedings, the first podium speaker, neighborhood resident Kenneth Kern, asked Councilmembers to ask city staff four questions (paraphrased below) before certifying the EIR:

• How can the EIR justify using the LB average of 2.8 persons per household which includes tens of thousands of 1 and 2 bedroom units, while the development would build 3 and 4 bedroom units...and U.S. census report indicates 3.6 persons which is a 29% understatement of all impacts.

• Why does the EIR use 2.0 vehicles per household when the U.S. average is 2.3, an understatement that amounts to 40 additional vehicles for which there's no room to park in the development and will therefore park in the nearby residential area.

• Why are Oregon Ave, which is only 18 ft wide, and Daisy Ave. and 48th St. is only 30 ft wide, omitted in the report...when recommended street widths are 36 ft. with 32 feet at minimum?

• What specific street will be used for the project in carrying 2,064 dump trucks of dirt...which can't pass on the narrow streets?

Mr. Kern stated in conclusion: "The EIR is flawed and biased. It should be rejected, because all impacts and mitigation measures are underestimated. Adoption of the reduced density alternative allowing 65 homes would eliminate the need to revise the EIR and be in keeping with current zoning. You area inviting a lawsuit under the CA Environmental Quality Act if you certify this EIR and approve these 131 homes. I beg you to ask those four common sense questions."

No Councilmember(s) asked the questions requested by Mr. Kern. In public testimony that followed, ELB resident Ann Cantrell also raised additional EIR issues.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Council approved development is in the 8th Council district, where incumbent Councilman Al Austin is currently seeking a second Council term. Austin was elected in April 2012 with the support of organized labor and exiting two-term Councilwoman Rae Gabelich. At the November 2015 Council hearing, Ms. Gabelich was among speakers urging the Council not to approve the project, citing lack of ingress/egress on narrow streets as well as impacts on the environmentally sensitive Dominguez Gap.) Other Riverwalk opponents compared the project to 1980's developer-desired (now discredited) "crackerbox" density allowed in downtown adjacent areas.

In its November approval of the "Riverwalk" development, city staff supported and the Council approved a residential density of just under 13 dwelling units per acre (compared to about 7 dwelling units/acre in traditional residential zoning in the adjoining neighborhood.) Council approval allows 131 two and three story residences with interior sizes ranging from 2,100 to 2,900 sq. ft. on 10.5 acres (a little under 13 dwelling units per acre.) During the Council hearing, Director of Development Services, Amy Bodek, noted that the Crown Point development built in the late 1970s near Los Cerritos Park (7th district) had allowed over 14 dwelling units per acre.

Other LB residents in the Alamitos Beach neighborhood several miles away, recently retained the same Channel Law Group when faced with City Hall actions that neighbors believe could bring negative impacts

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, Alamitos Beach residents concerned over already scarce neighborhood parking hired the firm in connection with a proposed Alamitos/Ocean Blvd. high rise enabled by previous Council approval of a sweeping, mainly developer-friendly "Downtown Plan." Prior to a Planning Commission appeal hearing, the law firm sent the City a letter, with detailed legal brief style citations, in questioning City Hall's previous and planned actions. Just hours before the Planning Commission hearing, the City webposted an unusual notice, announcing a "continuance" of the hearing "to allow additional time for community outreach/input." On December 3, 2015 the Alamitos Beach group stated on its website that it had it had resolved the dispute with the developer after meetings with developer, the city and the neighborhood group's attorneys, saying the project applicant had volunteered additional parking, mitigating its concerns.

On its website, the Alamitos Beach neighborhood group also didn't flinch at taking aim at its Council representative's record...but also invited workable remedies:

[lbparking.blogspot.com text] -- The Downtown Plan championed by our own City Councilperson Suja Lowenthal in 2012 lowered the downtown parking requirements to a level that’s much lower than the rest of the city. All new developments built downtown now only require 1 parking space per unit regardless of the size of the unit (even the 1,900 square foot units in the townhomes only require one parking space). They no longer need to include parking for the first 6,000 square feet of commercial/retail spaces plus there are more parking exemptions for retail space. The requirement for guest parking is still 1 space for every 4 units. The result will be that many more people would be driving around looking for parking...This would have a ripple effect far into Alamitos Beach because people cannot park west of here (meters), south (ocean), and do not want to park very far north (safety reasons). This problem will occur everywhere a new building is built downtown. Some of these buildings take away existing parking lots. Aside from the Downtown Plan allowing buildings without adequate parking, the City has also increased the number of metered or 2 hour zones for businesses (taking more parking away from residences) and will continue to do so into Alamitos Beach...

...Solving these parking problems can be achieved, but it will take thorough analysis, creative thinking, and a willingness to proactively engage with the City and our elected leaders. TAPS is committed to this mission and believes that resolution of the instant dispute is a step in the right direction..."

During the hearing on the Daisy Ave. "Riverwalk" project, Mayor Robert Garcia announced (without objection by any Councilmembers) that supportive city staff would have a non-time-limited period that included Power Point slides, followed by a supportive presentation by the city's EIR consultant with Power Point slides, followed by an advocacy presentation with video by the developer/project applicant (who requested 10-15 mins.) Total time elapsed for what amounted to project supportive testimony (before developer response/rebuttal): 45 minutes.

Public speakers were then allowed three minutes each to speak on all the hearing issues (including site plan, density, draft EIR, ordinance.) [The City previously adopted rules preventing public use of the Council's audio/video equipment unless the public submits its materials for city "review" several days in advance.] Following public testimony, the Mayor then allowed the developer short period (less than five minutes) to rebut/respond to public testimony.

In a colloquy with staff, 9th dist. Councilman Rex Richardson asked if the increased number of market level housing units would help the City meet new housing unit numbers regionally by the So. Cal Ass'n of Governments (SCAG); city staffer Bodek said they would...and he was likewise supportive of the project.

Councilwoman Suzie Price commended Councilman Austin for supporting the project, saying she'd learned a lot from city staff.

Developing.