City staff said the proposed development is consistent with the property's industrial zoning and would construct two new 35-feet tall concrete tilt-up industrial buildings (91,700 sq. ft and 47,500 sq. ft) on the site with 168 parking spaces + 43 optional parking spaces (grasscrete parking.) for [city staff agendizing memo text] "potential uses such light manufacturing, warehousing, assembly and distribution. Office spaces would be provided in the interior frontage of each building to support the business operations."

Source: Architect rendering attached to city agendized hearing materials

Opponents cited increased traffic (including possible 24/7 truck operations), pollution, noise and light impacts...and may now appeal the Planning Commission's approval to the City Council and possibly to the Coastal Commission.

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.

[Scroll down for further.]

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.

Also testifying in opposition was Corliss Lee (founded/serves as president of the Eastside Voice) and University Park Estates resident Dave Shubla [sp?] who said the project would detrimentally impact property values with truck impacts, pollution burdens and could affect emergency operations on both sides of the LA/OC county line.

No representatives of University Park Estates spoke in opposition. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (a government body that would receive roughly 1.8 acres of land under the proposed development) supported the project. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (non-profit wetlands projective advocacy group) didn't testify against the project. The CEO of the LB Boys and Girls of LB said the applicant had been a good corporate citizen supporting LB youth. An IBEW representative said it would bring jobs. And retired LB Vice-Mayor/former Councilman and retired Harbor Commissioner Doug Drummond submitted an unsolicited letter supporting the project.

City staff's agendized city staff report stated in pertinent part:

The project would support potential uses such light manufacturing, warehousing, assembly and distribution. Office spaces would be provided in the interior frontage of each building to support the business operations. As proposed, the provided parking would support industrial uses that require one parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). The provision of additional grasscrete parking would enable flexibility for permitted industrial uses that may require a higher parking ratio than the typical warehouse use (which requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet of GFA. With incorporation of additional grasscrete parking, the site would provide parking at a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA. The SPR Committee required this additional parking to avoid developing a building that would have limited flexibility for a change of use that could render the building obsolete for reuse...

Buildings 1 and 2 are both sited to front Studebaker Road, with vehicular access and parking located in front of, between, at the rear of the two buildings. Vehicles would access the site via a new 61-foot-wide driveway, creating a fourth leg of the signalized intersection of Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive. A second access driveway would be provided near the northern limits of the project site along Studebaker Road that is right in and right out only.

The truck bays would be located at the rear of the property, adjacent to the Alamitos Energy Center. This location, which has been reviewed in coordination with the City's traffic engineer and offers the most feasible solution for on-site vehicular circulation, adequate truck turning radii, building placement and off-site traffic flow.

(Artist renderings/plans can be viewed here.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

The property is 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.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The proposed development's next stop may be appeals to the LB City Council and perhaps to the CA Coastal Commission. "The western project area is partially situated within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone, while the remainder of the site is in the City's jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone," city staff indicates.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Help keep our independent news going and growing in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests or other special interests seeking or receiving benefits of City Council development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. No one in our ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making 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.