Hear It: Planning Comm'n Says "No" To City Staff, Votes 3-2 To Await Further Info & Toxic Control Agency Workplan Before Action On Studebaker/Loynes Tank Removal; Los Cerritos Wetland Land Trust & University Park Estates Homeowners Say EIR Is Req'd
(Feb. 23, 2010) -- LBReport.com provides follow-up below on a story we first reported...including extended on-demand salient audio of recent Planning Commission proceedings
On a 3-2 vote at its Feb. 18 meeting, LB's Planning Commission voted to withhold action on city staff's recommended approval of a mitigated negative declaration and coastal development permit that would allow a Tom Dean-related LLC to remove above-ground storage tanks on its Studebaker/Loynes property.
Image: City of Long Beach staff report
The Commission action (with Commissioners Van Hork and Gentile absent) followed testimony the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and several University Park area homeowners, a number of whom supported removing the tanks but opposed doing so on the basis of a negative declaration that they said was inadequate on several grounds LCWLT Exec. Dir. Elizabeth Lambe cited a letter from the group's attorney, Doug Carstens, arguing that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Some opposition speakers suggested that if the tank removal were approved with the negative declaration, a court challenge might result.
City staff said it had consulted with the City Attorney's office on the matter...and stuck by its position that a mitigated negative declaration was appropriate and urged approval of the mitigated negative declaration and a coastal development permit.
A Commission majority voted down a substitute motion (details and audio below) to proceed with the project with conditions (2-3) and then voted (3-2) to await further information on the project and a work plan from the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) before taking further action.
To hear extended portions of the Commission proceedings (including salient testimony by the applicant's representative, public testimony and Commission colloquy), click here [MP3, 1:07, large file may take longer than usual to load; a "whoosh" sound indicates an edit (an audio ellipsis)].
City staff provided a written report (visible here) and in its opening presentation, said it had consulted with the City Attorney's office and believes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of review. City staff acknowledged receiving communications prior to the hearing arguing that an EIR was required but said it disagrees with this and stood by its recommendation.
Testifying on behalf of the applicant property owner (Studebaker LLC), advocate Mike Murchison indicated that his client currently has no contemplated use for the property at this time ("There is no other company out there that is knocking down our door saying we want to use that property") but has come to realize that the tanks have to come down.
I think we'd all agree that those tanks have been an eyesore for at least over forty years that I can remember, but for us, for eventual conforming use, we had to have those tanks come down, and that's why we're in front of you today. It allows us to market the property and gives us the ability to put it out there to conforming users to let them kind of see with those tanks down what the value of the property is.
In colloquy with the Commission, Mr. Murchison indicated that his client would go with any use that the city has identified as a conforming use within its zoning [which is consistent with a high intensity industrial use, further below].
In public testimony:
Tom Marchese, a University Park Estates resident and 3rd dist. City Council candidate, opposed staff's recommendation and urged the Commission not to approve the application as now prepared. "Presently I am opposed to the removal of these tanks under these circumstances...Please vote to continue the review of this application."
Heather Altman, publisher of EgretsNotRegrets.com, said that while she isn't opposed to removal of the tanks ("they need to go...not pretty") she is concerned about the process, saying she is dismayed to learn that the staff report was prepared while the comment period was still underway. This "isn't very indicative of an agency that cares about public concern," she said...and argued that a modified work plan is needed from the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control.
Pat Towner, President of the University Park Estates Neighborhood Ass'n, said roughly twenty people in her area opposed moving forward until issues about contamination are addressed, voicing concerns about what may be in the soil and how trucks will get in and out of the area. "This stuff is contaminated, it's toxic, I'm begging you please...Please protect us. Don't let them be pulling these tanks down and not knowing where the dust is going to go..."
Elizabeth Lambe, Exec. Dir. of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, said that to remove the tanks without a full EIR is illegal, said her group an Environmental Impact Report is necessary and cited points previously provided to city staff by attorney Doug Carstens (click here). "We all do indeed want to see those tanks removed but in an environmentally responsible way, and I would hate to see this issue be pushed unnecessarily into the courts..."
Mary Parsell, Conservation Chair of the El Dorado Audubon Society, supported the position of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust.
Plains All American Pipeline (which owns the tank farm property immediately to the south) said through a representative that its property, and the adjoining property, were once part of a single [Edison Co.] unit with interconnecting pipelines, voiced concerns about the project's effects on pipelines and other items that run through or connect across its property. Plains said it's neither for or against the tank removal project and asked to be kept informed of plans so it can protect its operations.
Janice Dahl, a previous president of the University Park Estates Neighborhood Ass'n, said an EIR was needed.
Ann Cantrell [separately LBReport.com Contributing Editor/Parks, Recreation & Open Space] raised the issue of contaminated soil being carried into the air and nearby waters. "I don't consider this a mitigated declaration. The only mitigation I saw for the effects that this was going to have...on nearby schools was that they were going to notify the schools seven days prior to the demolition...What are the schools going to do? Are they going to close? Are they going provide the students and teachers with gas masks and hazmat suits? Are they going to tell everyone to quit breathing? This is not mitigation and this is not a negative dec that will pass any kind of scrutiny by the courts."
City staff responded by reiterating that its review of the project indicates no significant impacts after mitigation and said a mitigated negative declaration is legally allowed and sufficient.
Commissioner Durnin moved to request a delay on the project, await a DTSC certified work plan and see some engineering analysis on the interlocking pipeline systems and get a better understanding of the substrate under the tanks to better understand what mitigation may be necessary.
Commissioner Blair moved a substitute motion that would certify the negative declaration and approve the local coastal development permit but with conditions of approval: no demolition permit until applicant or DTSC provided city with certified work plan; that there be cooperation between applicant and adjacent property owner; and city inspections at least once daily. The substitute motion failed 2-3 (Yes: Blair, Fox; No: Durnin, Saumur, Smith). [Van Horik, Gentile absent] The main (Durnin) motion passed 3-2 (Yes; Saumur, Durnin, Smith; No: Blair, Fox).
As previously reported by LBReport.com, in early December 2009 city staff issued a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for removing the tanks that indicated future "dry vehicle storage" (now withdrawn).
The property's IG zoning permits a wide variety of industrial uses. From LB's Municipal Code:
General Industrial (IG). The General Industrial (IG) district is considered the City's "industrial sanctuary" district where a wide range of industries that may not be desirable in other districts may locate. The emphasis is on traditionally heavy industrial and manufacturing uses. The IG district is intended to promote an "industrial sanctuary" where land is preserved for industry and manufacturing, and where existing industries are protected from non-industrial users that may object to the operating characteristics of industry. Performance standards still must be met, but the development standards are the minimum necessary to assure safe, functional, and environmentally-sound activities.
The IG district includes uses such as large construction yards with heavy equipment, chemical manufacturing plants, rail yards, and food processing plants. The buildings that house these operations may be older industrial buildings retrofitted to accommodate the use, or new state-of-the-art manufacturing plants. As is the case with all the industrial districts, the focus of the IG district is on the operating characteristics of the use, rather than the particular product created.
There are multiple uses consistent with the current IG zoning. City staff has previously indicated to LBReport.com that in general, a property owner could change an initially proposed use to some other use consistent with the IG zoning...but depending on the type of use proposed, additional city staff (and possibly public) review may be required.
Studebaker LB, LLC had previously proposed to use the site at 400 Studebaker Rd. at Loynes Dr. for a retail development anchored by Home Depot which would have required rezonings. That use was opposed by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and the University Park Estates Neighborhood Association, which filed a court legal action challenging the retail development's EIR (which was certified on a 6-3 Council vote with Schipske, O'Donnell, Gabelich dissenting).
Some had speculated that if approvals for the retail development were denied, the landowner might move forward with industrial uses such as cargo container storage; opponents of the retail development dismissed that at the time as a scare tactic.
The site is across the street from the University Park Estates neighborhood and the Los Cerritos Wetlands and is a bit south of a residential neighborhood on the east side of Studebaker Rd. (north of the 22 freeway)...and is within sight of the privately gated Bixby Hill and a CSULB-adjacent residential neighborhood. It is just north of the eastern end of 2nd St, the gateway to Naples and Belmont Shore's Second Street.
