LBReport.com

News

Council Vote Coming July 13 On Zoning Changes And CEQA Exemption To Enable Belmont Beach Aquatic Center

If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?
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. 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 12, 2021) -- The July 13 City Council agenda includes an item that would enable the Belmont Beach Aquatic Center by approving an ordinance with zoning changes recommended by the CA Coastal Commission and declaring the project statutorily exempt from the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project remains highly polarizing with long term opposition from (among others) from Citizens About Responsible Planning (including Ann Cantrell) and veteran shoreline environmental advocates including Gordana Kajer and (independently) Melinda Cotton and Jeff Miller.

The Council-enabling zoning change ordinance will require two Council approval votes; July 13 is the first.

City staff's agendizing memo describes Coastal Commission requested modifications as "technical in nature and do not change the design of the pool or ability to operate the pool for the recreational needs of Long Beach residents."

Suggested Modification 1: Ensure that public access and recreational use of the BBAC, beach, and park areas are provided for all people. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language and staff has incorporated the language into the Ordinance. This change relates to PD-2 in its entirety.

Suggested Modification 2: Clarify fhe standard of review and permitting requirements for local CDPs and development located within the Commission's retained iurisdiction. The Coastal Commission provided suggested language establishing Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act as the standard of review with the certified LCP providing guidance. This change relates to PD-2 in its entirety. Staff has incorporated the language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 3: Remove a reference to an uncertified element of the City's General Plan and add a reference to the applicable LCP component. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language removing a reference to the Bicycle Master Plan and replacing it with a reference to the version of the Mobility Element of the General Plan that is certified into the LCP. This is a previous version of the Mobility Element, as the effort to certify the current Mobility Element, which includes the Bicycle Master Plan, is still pending with the Coastal Commission. This change relates to an issue essentially unrelated to the BBAC project, but which must be resolved for the amendment to the LCP to proceed. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 4: Remove the exception of the BBAC from meeting the LCPs requirement for buildings not to cover more than 50 percent of their lot's area. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language modifying this development standard in the PD-2 Ordinance. This change relates to PD-2 in its entirety, but directly concerns the BBAC project. After confirming that this change and the Coastal Commission's understanding of the definition .of lot coverage will not negatively affect the project plans for the BBAC. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 5: Delete language that was already taken out of the certified LCP pursuant to LCPA No. 1-83 and remove the City's proposed language requiring no new parking be provided for new development in the future. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language cleaning up the PD-2 Ordinance language to make it consistent with the certified version in the LCP. These changes relate to a 1983 modification that was certified by the Coastal Commission but omitted in error from the City Ordinance. The subject matter is the number of parking spaces allowed in public beach parking lots, both currently and in future buildouts, and is essentially unrelated to the BBAC project, but must be resolved for the amendment to the LCP to proceed. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 6: Reinstate the policies approved pursuant to LCPA Nos. 1-828 and eliminate the policies proposed under LCPA No. 2-87 that were previously denied by the Commission. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language cleaning up the PD-2 Ordinance language to make it consistent with a 1982 modification that was certified by the Coastal Commission but omitted in error from the City Ordinance, and to remove language that was adopted by the City Council but denied certification by the Coastal Commission in 1987. The language in question deals with development standards in Subarea 1 of PD-2 (to be restored to certified 1982 language), and creation of Subarea 4 in PD-2 (denied in 1987 and to be removed from the Ordinance). Both changes are essentially unrelated to the BBAC project, but must be resolved for the amendment to the LCP to proceed. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 7: Clarify the new allowable uses in Subarea 5. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language clarifying the uses allowed in the new Subarea 5 of PD-2 (renumbered Subarea 4 with the deletion of the previous Subarea 4. These modifications directly concern the BBAC project, and clarify that, in addition to the public aquatics center complex, secondary uses are permitted to support it, such as uses that support beach or aquatics center programming, and storage or maintenance rooms. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 8: Modify the access requirements for the new BBAC subarea to reflect the current proiect description and ensure the proposed proiect (and future development) protects public access and recreational opportunities. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language clarifying access requirements to the BBAC subarea of PD-2 and ensuring the preservation of beach access and ocean views. These changes directly concern the BBAC project but do not negatively impact the project design. Staff has incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.

Suggested Modification 9: Distinguish the height of buildings from the height of structures allowed in Subarea 5. The Coastal Commission has provided suggested language clarifying the development standards between the permitted height of buildings (30 feet) and non-building accessory structures (60 feet) such as light standards. These changes directly concern the BBAC project. After confirming that these changes will not negatively impact the project design, staff incorporated the suggested language into the Ordinance.










Regarding CEQA, city staff says an EIR prepared for the prior version of the project was approved by the Council on May 16, 2017 an an EIR Addendum was prepared for the redesign of the BBAC project, which is the current version of the project, and was approved by the City Council on January 21, 2020...The current action, which is procedural in nature and consists only of relatively minor modifications to land use regulations, and does not include any direct land use approvals, falls within the scope of the previously certified EIR and the scope of the previously adopted EIR Addendum, and no further environmental review is required.

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 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:




Copyright © 2021 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here