The proposed development consists of two 35 foot tilt-up industrial buildings (91,700 sq. ft and 47,500 sq. ft), 168 parking spaces + 43 optional parking spaces (grasscrete parking) that "would support potential uses such as light manufacturing, warehousing, assembly and distribution, with ancillary office uses."

Source: Architect rendering attached to city agendized hearing materials

The appellants have cited increased traffic (including possible 24/7 truck operations), pollution, noise and light impacts and .want the City to perform an Environmental Impact Report. City staff says the development won't result in adverse environmental effects, is "consistent with all legally required findings" and includes mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." City staff's agendizing memo can be viewed in full here,

[Scroll down for further.]

City staff's agendizing memo states:

Both [new] buildings are sited to front on Studebaker Road, with vehicular access and parking located in front of, between, and at the rear of the two buildings. Vehicles will access the Project Site via a new 61-foot-wide driveway that creates a fourth leg of the signalized intersection of Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive. A second driveway will be provided at the northern limits of the Project Site along Studebaker Road, that is right-turn in and out only. The truck bays will be located at the rear of the property, adjacent to the Alamitos Energy Center. Both buildings are oriented to eliminate visibility of loading docks from Studebaker Road. The elevations along Studebaker Road are given the greatest level of architectural detail, creating facades that are attractive from the public right-of-way. Bird-safe window and glass treatments are required by the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) and are included as a condition of approval.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The appellants noted in their Planning Commission testimony that in addition to zoning matters (SEADP vs. SEASP not yet approved by Coastal Commission), city staff's "Mitigated Negative Declaration" didn't evaluate traffic impacts (including truck traffic), as well as truck pollution, noise and light issues. In their Planning Commission materials, the appellants stated:

In 2006, an Environmental Impact Report done for another project on this site [Home Depot-anchored commercial development] was found inadequate by a court of law. This Program Negative Declaration, which also includes Standards Variance, is even more inadequate. There was no study of what effect possible 24/7 truck traffic and headlights might have on the Los Cerritos Wetlands habitat. The traffic study was done in 2018, before the opening of the 2nd & PCH project, which will no doubt increase traffic on Studebaker. There was no mention of parking lot runoff into the cooling channel, which leads into the only Salt Marsh left in So. CA. It does not appear that Air Quality impacts included truck traffic which would add diesel and other pollutants to the air. This project deserves a full EIR.

Additional artist renderings can be viewed here.)

Sponsor

The development would be immediately south of the AES power plant, where state regulators and LB City Hall actions approved major changes (AES calls them upgrades) now being completed that will create what it calls an "energy center" offering a more aesthetic/less intrusive visual profile while home to one of the world's largest (to date) lithium-battery power storage facilities.

The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (a government body that would receive roughly 1.8 acres of land under the proposed development; its five-member governing board includes LB Councilmembers Suzie Price and Roberto Uranga) supports the project. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (an independent non-profit wetlands-protective advocacy group) didn't testify in the Planning Commission proceedings.

Sponsor

Sponsor

In 2006, the property's then-owner (a Tom Dean-LLC) sought to enable a "Home Depot"-anchored commercial development. Its proposal polarized the community, produced a split Council vote (6-3, O'Donnell, Schipske, Gabelich dissenting) and begat a lawsuit from the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (non-profit wetlands protective advocacy group) and nearby University Park Estates residents. A Superior Court judge ultimately ruled that City Hall's EIR was flawed, effectively requiring changes that the then-property owner declined to pursue. For years nearly nothing happened...until now.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to 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.