LBReport.com

News

L.A. Superior Court Judge Rules City Council Majority Met Legal Standards In Approving $100+ Million "Belmont Beach & Aquatics Center"; City Staff Will Now Advance Project To Coastal Comm'n.


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(July 24, 2018, 5:40 p.m.) -- A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge has ruled that the City of Long Beach met minimum legal standards in a City Council's split-vote approval (6-2) of plans to build a $100+ million "Belmont Beach & Aquatics Center" at the same shoreline location where seimsic issues doomed the City's previous (and considerably smaller) Belmont Plaza pool.


Citing previous court rulings that upheld the authority of decision-making City Councils to approve projects that meet minimum legal standards even if, in the opinion of challengers, they aren't optimal or wise, Judge James Chalfont denied a request by Citizens About Responsible Planning (CARP) for a Petition for Writ of Mandate that challenged the City Council's actions under the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court also declined to grant a requested stay (halt) to the project's advance to consider Coastal Act issues, effectively allowing the City to advance the project to the Coastal Commission...which the City swiftly indicated in a release it plans to do.

The judge's July 17, 2018 opinion upheld approvals of the project, concluding the City (through the Council majority's action) didn't violate CEQA and had the authority to grant a height variance for the project (which will be built on a costly elevated pedestal that the City says will adequately address seismic and sea level rise issues.)

On May 16, 2017, following a contentious roughly five hour hearing, the Council voted 6-2 (Uranga and Gonzalez dissenting, Pearce absent but stating in writing she would have voted "no") to approve the project.

Councilman Uranga, who dissented on the Council's voted approvals, is currently a member of the CA Coastal Commission that will ultimately consider the project on Coastal Act grounds.

[Scroll down for further.]





Judge Chalfont concluded that the City had sufficiently considered and addressed the project's environmental impacts, alternative locations and alternative formats for the project. The court also declined to consider CARP's Coastal Act challenges to the project (that alleged City approvals of the project were inconsistent with the City's Local Coastal Program and Coastal Act) until after the Coastal Commission had considered and ruled on the project. That effectively invites the City to advance to project that step...which the City now intends to do.

The City's release states that "the project team spent significant time and effort understanding the Coastal Commission staff’s technical comments and questions regarding the project, specifically as it relates to sea level rise, erosion, height, alternatives analysis, view corridors, recreational components, and access to the entire city, state and region as well as encouraging use by disadvantaged communities."

[City release text continues] In response to those questions, over the last year, the City has created special studies to address sea level rise through an innovative sand replenishment program, developed technical answers to questions, provided further information on the City’s review of alternatives and reasons for the selection of the proposed site, and developed a robust outreach plan to ensure the facility makes direct connections to disadvantaged communities and encourages participation through programming and opportunities for all to visit and enjoy the facility.

The City's release indicates it plans to "finalize the [Coastal] permit application and anticipates submission [to the Coasyal Commission] within two weeks" with formal Commission consideration of the project likely in 2019.


It's not immediately clear if CARP plans to appeal the judge's ruling. The City Attorney's office worked with outside legal counsel from the firm of Rutan and Tucker in defending the City's position.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor


Sponsor

Sponsor



Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



Adoptable pet of the week:





Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2018 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here