Substantial Issue Found, CCC

At the California Coastal Commission's meeting yesterday, they voted to uphold the appeals on the 2H/Sean Hitchcock matter. They found that a "substantial issue" exists and a de novo hearing will be held in the future. The staff report and hearing results can be found here.

As I am currently out of town on business, I was neither able to attend the hearing nor listen to the meeting online. I will do so (once I get back to civilization), and provide an update as to what transpired (and what it means).

An educated voter is a better voter.....

It's election time in Long Beach!

The Long Beach Business Journal is in the process of conducting and publishing candidate interviews. They can be found here.

They started with the 9th district and are working their way down. To date the following are available:

1. Four Vie for Ninth District Council Seat (2/2/2010)
2. Four Vie for Seventh District Council Seat (2/16/2010)
3. Two in the Fifth, Three in the Third Vie for Council (3/2/2010)

Additionally, LBReport has direct links to campaign contributions reported by the candidates for the period January 1 - February 27, 2010. You can access that information here.

I encourage you to read up on the candidates! Enjoy.

Tank Removal Project Status

Okay, I admit it. I'm a bad blogger.

Here I am blogging about the tank removal project, and then not providing an update as to its status after the Planning Commission meeting. Hey, what can I say? Life happens.

In a nutshell, it was delayed pending additional information.

LBReport.com did an absolutely fabulous job covering this meeting. Check it out here.

Tank Removal Project Before Planning Commission Tonight

Quick reminder that the Tank Removal Project is set to be approved by the Planning Commission tonight, 5pm, at City Hall (333 W. Ocean).

Attend and comment!

Snowy Bayou

Remember Tim Anderson, former Executive Director of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust? Naturalist and volunteer extraordinaire?

He moved to Louisiana a bit ago. He just sent me this picture of the snowy bayou he calls home. Snow is an anomaly, apparently. Pretty though.

Be well, my friend, and stay warm!

Thanks LBReport!

Just saw that LBReport published a blurb about tonight's tank talk. Thanks LBReport!.

Tank Talk Reminder

Just a reminder that tonight at Kettering Elementary (500 Silvera), I'll be speaking about the Tank Removal Project.

As posted earlier, the meeting starts at 6:30. It's a packed agenda and I'm speaking later in the evening.

If you are at all curious about this Project, come have a listen.

Thanks District Weekly!

Saw that The District Weekly ran a blurb about my upcoming Tank Talk. Hey thanks!

I'm Talking Tanks

At the request of Pat Towner, University Park Estates Neighborhood Association (UPENA) President, I will be speaking about the Tank Removal Project (Project) at UPENA's upcoming meeting. Details follow:

Thursday, February 11
6:30 P.M. (that is the meeting start time; I will be speaking a little later in the evening)
Kettering Elementary School (500 Silvera)

I have been asked to speak about the following (generally, and briefly):

1. Explaining what a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is and how it differs from an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
2. Explanation of the Project
3. Concerns regarding the Revised MND
4. Question and Answer Session
   

Sound thrilling? Well, probably not, but it will be informative.

I am told this meeting is open to the public and all are encouraged to attend and learn.

And if you go, remember....no heckling the speaker!

Reminder - Tank Removal Project

Just a quick reminder that the comment period on the Tank Removal Project revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is running now and expires, February 16.

The Project is scheduled for approval at the Planning Commission on Thursday, February 18.

It is important to note that if the Planning Commission approves the Project and you want to appeal the decision to the City Council, you need to have established yourself as an "aggrieved party." To do this, you must have participated in the Planning Commission hearing process, either by submitting written comments to the Commission directly or by testifying at the hearing.

Green Speed Dating.....

Okay. So I was having dinner at Tantalum tonight and I saw this flyer thing by the hostess area. I thought it was interesting, so I'm posting about it.

On Wednesday, February 24 at 7 p.m., Tantalum will be hosting "green speed dating" wherein eco-conscious singles (age 30-50) can meet.

Cost is $25 and all proceeds benefit Power to the People's solar project in Nicaragua.

Brilliant.

RSVP: greenspeeddating.com
General info greenspeeddatinglb@gmail.com

Want to Learn More About Los Cerritos Wetlands?

Following are two links to videos produced by the Aquarium of the Pacific. Both are about the Los Cerritos Wetlands and star local salt marsh ecologist, Eric Zahn. Check em out!

The podcast is 4 min, 40 seconds and can be found by clicking here.

The full length feature is 71 minutes, 50 seconds and can be found by clicking here.

I know the video is long, but it's great and worth a viewing. So saddle up with some popcorn or something and check it out!

Water, Water Everywhere!

There's water out on the Los Cerritos Wetlands......

Thanks to Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence for providing me with all these photos (taken 1/21). My fave is the last one....totally caught that bird flying across (clicking on the photo below should open it in a larger window).

Revised MND for Tank Removal Project Released

As reported on LBReport, the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tank Removal Project has just been released.

The comment period begins today and runs through Tuesday, February 16.

The project is set for approval on Thursday, February 18.

The revised MND can be found here.

Filing an Appeal with the CA Coastal Commission

[revised 1/21 to reflect appeal period dates]

As mentioned previously, the City has filed a Notice of Final Action with the California Coastal Commission over the Sean Hitchcock permit mess. This triggers the appeal period.

Time Frame for Filing an Appeal: An appeal must be filed by 5:00 p.m. of the 10th working day after a sufficient Notice of Final Action on the permit application was received by the CCC.

The appeal period for the Hitchcock matter expires January 29.

Persons Eligible to Appeal: The applicant, any aggrieved party or any two members of the CCC may appeal. An "aggrieved person" is any person who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing of the local government in connection with the decision being appealed, or who, by other appropriate means prior to a hearing, informed the local government of the nature of his/her concerns or who for good cause was unable to do either.

How to Appeal: The appeal form can be found here.

For the Hitchcock situation, select the "South Coast District" form. You may download as either a Word document or as a PDF.

Valid Grounds for an Appeal: The grounds for appealing a project are limited to whether the project conforms to the requirements of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) or the public access policies of the Coastal Act.

So there ya go...more than you ever wanted to know about how to appeal to the Coastal Commission!

Notice of Final Action Sent to Coastal Commission

The City of Long Beach has sent to the California Coastal Commission a revised Notice of Final Action for application 0904-15 (in English, the Hitchcock illegal earthwork matter).

Below are the pages I received (pages 2 and 6 were blank pages in the file, and I took the liberty of removing those and not posting them):

Clicking on each of the images will open them up in a larger window and they should be legible.

page 1












page 3












page 4












page 5













Apologies for posting the pages as individual jpg files. I am certain that there is a way for me to attach PDF documents (I've seen Councilwoman Schipske do it on her blog!). But I am not equally savvy....so individual jpgs it is!

What this all means, and how to appeal, will be the subject of subsequent posts.

"Regerfest" at The Factory Gastrobar

Went to a really cool fundraiser last night at The Factory Gastrobar. I did a write-up on it for LBReport.com and you can read it here.

Fun things ahead......

There are some great, fun events planned for the not so distant future! Sign up to receive the Egrets Not Regrets newsletter and be the first to find out about them!

Tank Farm Project Update, Part Deux

The following information was contained in a City Distributed Press Release regarding the Tank Removal Project:

Development Services commissioned a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a project consisting of demolition of five existing storage tanks, and a subsequent use consisting of storage of inoperable vehicles located at 400 Studebaker. After consulting with the City Attorney, along with consideration of concerns expressed by community members, we determined that the MND did not adequately describe nor analyze the vehicle storage use. Therefore, we have placed the project on hold (there will be no hearing on January 7, 2010), and requested a more thorough description of the proposed vehicle storage use. We will add this description and additional analysis to the MND document and recirculate it for a new 30 day review. We anticipate that the new document will be released in January.

Brrrrrrrr!

Okay, it is positively frigid here! With wind chill it is -5 degrees Fahrenheit! Brrrrrrrrrr........

I can't wait to come home!

Tank Farm Project Update

The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Tank Removal Project has been deemed inadequate with regards to the Project Description. After Planning consulted with the City Attorney, it was determined that there was not enough information included about the "dry vehicle storage" aspect of the Project and more information has been requested from the applicant.

It is my understanding that the Project Description will be "beefed up" and the MND recirculated for public review and comment. The City does not have a firm timeline as to when the revised document will be recirculated.

When I get additional information I will pass along.

A White Christmas!

Happy holidays! I am enjoying my very first white Christmas! It just started snowing! I've seen snow on the ground scads of times, but have never seen it falling from the sky...until tonight! It's so beautiful!

Merry Christmas!

What is a Mitigated Negative Declaration?

Given the recently released Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Tom Dean's proposed Tank Removal Project, I have been getting a fair amount of questions on the matter. These can loosely be grouped into two primary categories: 1) what is a MND and how does it differ from an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and 2) is a MND the appropriate analysis document and what do I think of this project.

This post will attempt to answer the first question: what is a MND and how does it differ from an EIR.

In short, a MND is very different than an EIR – both with regard to content and process.

A MND is an environmental analysis document prepared when (generally): 1) there is no substantial evidence showing that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or 2) the project may have a significant effect on the environment, but mitigation has been incorporated which avoids or reduces the potential effect to below a level of significance.

An EIR is an environmental analysis document prepared when any aspect of the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.

An EIR is intended to be a "comprehensive" analysis document, whereas the "analysis" conducted in a MND is decidedly less exhaustive. A MND does not need to consider alternatives to the project, nor does the lead agency prepare responses to comments, both key components of an EIR.

During the EIR process, there are several opportunities for public review and comment. This is not so with a MND. In a "typical" MND situation (assuming such a thing exists), there is a lone comment period and no requirement for public/community meetings.

The differences between an EIR and MND as described above are easily showcased by comparing the formerly proposed Home Depot Project (and its associated EIRs) with the currently proposed Tank Removal Project (and its associated MND). Though the two projects are different, I think this is a relatively reasonable comparison given that both projects have a common project area and also share project components (demolition of the tanks).

The formerly proposed Home Depot project spanned many years and spawned several thousand pages of analysis documents (2 draft EIRs and a Final EIR). Many public meetings and study sessions transpired throughout the process. That, at the end of the day, the Judge ordered all project approvals to be vacated and declared the EIRs fatally flawed with regards to analysis, brings us to where we are today: a newly proposed Tank Farm Project processed under a MND.

The currently proposed Tank Farm Project was announced December 1, 2009 and the comment period on the 64 page analysis document (the MND) expires on December 30, 2009. The City has scheduled a Planning Commission hearing for Project approval on January 7, 2010 (yes, I said approval). There are no scheduled public/community meetings prior to the hearing. This represents a start to finish process of 38 days (barring any appeal, which would extend the approval timeline).

So there ya go. Told ya they were different!

My comments on the MND will be the subject of subsequent posts.

Coming Soon....

Apologies for the pertinent post dearth, but I've been getting over a nasty lung infection thing. I'm on the comeback trail now (hopefully). Within the next few days, I will be making a series of posts which deal with the newly proposed Tank Farm Project and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Of note, this Project is up for approval on January 7, 2010.

The comment period is running now and expires December 30, 2009....so get your comments in!

Ponding on the Hitchcock Land

The following photos were taken of Hitchcock's illegally graded land and show water ponding after Monday's storm. Thank you for providing them to me.



Source: Tidal Influence




Source: Tidal Influence


Source: Tidal Influence

Moving Forward in 90 Days

What a mixed bag of reactions in response to the Planning Commission's decision! Whatever your feelings (good, bad or indifferent), the City has a 90-day clock to come up with a plan. We can sit and talk about what happened at the meeting and if justice was served, or we can sit and talk about how to produce the best restoration plan possible. That's the goal, right? So moving forward.....

As I stated earlier, I think that the City should work closely with the California Coastal Commission. Their input and assistance should be solicited early and often.

I also think that the additionally produced biological reports (one by Land Protection Partners and another by Brenda McMillan) should be considered on even footing with the Hitchcock report and the City's peer review. As it stands now, they weren't even included in the Planning Commission's staff report. These additional two reports are excellent resources and should be heavily relied upon throughout the preparation of this restoration plan.

Ya know, when deliberations were transpiring (which was an admittedly cumbersome discussion), Mr. Beck mused that maybe production of another biological report was necessary. He doesn't need one. He has two very good ones. Just use them.

It also doesn't appear as though the "pre-destruction" photos were in the staff report either. These photos are brilliant. They show contours (which the land now lacks). They show vegetation (which the land now lacks). They show continuity with the surrounding environment (which the land now lacks). They're great.

Photo-documentation is perhaps the best tool to use when trying to "put back" something that has been destroyed. We are so fortunate to have photos available. They should be used.

I also think that this should be a collaborative process. There are many stakeholders and they should be recognized. They should be given a seat at the table during discussions. So reach out to them.

I believe that the Planning Commission tried to do the right thing. Commissioner Van Horik said it best, "enough is enough." Yes it is.

They voted unanimously to require that the site be returned to its previous conditions. Let's make it happen....responsibly, swiftly and in light of full information.

Media Coverage of Last Night's Hearing

Should you want to read additional coverage of last night's hearing, you can do so here:

The District Weekly, "Planning Commission Orders Remediation of Hitchcock's Devestation."

LBReport, "Hear it: Planning Commission (5-0) Approves After-the-Fact Permit for Loynes-South Parcel (Hitchcock) Conditioned on City Staff Returning w/in 90 days with Remediation Plan."

Press Telegram, "Panel OKs Pemit for Soil Cap on Wetland Site."

LBPost, "DW: Razed Lands Must Be Returned To Original State."

We Win (I hope)!

The Planning Commission exercised common sense last night and required that a condition to the requested permit be added which directs Mr. Hitchcock to work in conjunction with City Staff and produce a restoration plan to restore the site to what it was before the illegal activity.

Excellent!

It was a long evening, with proceedings lasting about 3 hours, but it was worth the wait.

The very first appellant, Sandie Van Horn with the group Our Town-Long Beach, absolutely hit it out of the park and set the tone for what was to come. Though all presentations were good, her power point was so well thought out and, I believe, the most effective presentation of the evening.

She matter-of-factly laid out a series of pictures to demonstrate the timeline. She started with the many pictures showing what the site looked like before (whoever says that isn't possible clearly hasn't talked to Sandie), then pictures of the destruction in process, then pictures of what it looked like now.

It was a rather chilling display to see it all laid out like that. Chilling and a little sad to see what it was before, the habitat teeming with wildlife, and then see it now...a leveled field. Even sadder, however, was when Mr. Hitchcock's attorney came up later and said that (essentially) nope, it looks exactly the same today as it did before. Yeah okay.

Ultimately, however, the restoration plan must be produced and then back to Planning we go.

My ardent hope is that City staff and Mr. Hitchcock work CLOSELY with the California Coastal Commission in determining what should be incorporated into the restoration plan. Inter-agency communication and coordination would go a long way towards the production of a meaningful restoration plan. The last thing we need would be to see a restoration plan which only pays lip service to the term "restoration."

In any event, thank you to all who attended and to those that spoke.

Breaking - Councilmember O'Donnell Requests Restoration

LBReport has just posted notice that Fourth District Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell requests restoration of the illegally graded lands. Read it on LBReport....

Reminder - Hitchcock Hearing Tonight

Just a reminder that the Sean Hitchcock illegal earthwork matter will be heard this evening at the Planning Commission, 5 p.m. in Council Chambers.

The original hearing notice can be found here.

Hope to see you there!

Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tank Removal at Former Home Depot Site

Just received via e-notify that the City of Long Beach has initiated the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Studebaker LB, LLC Tank Removal Project (site of the ill fated Home Depot Project).

(A Negative Declaration is an environmental document prepared when it has been determined that the project would not have any significant environmental impacts and therefore preparation of an Environmental Impact Report would not be required.)

From the notice.....

The Studebaker LB, LLC Tank Removal Project, located at 400 N. Studebaker Road, is a nearly rectangular shaped 17.8 acre parcel located on the east side of Studebaker Road at the Loynes Drive/Studebaker Road intersection. The site contains six above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), conveyance pipelines, and containment berms. The four large ASTs (tanks Nos. 1,2,3,4) originally stored Fuel Oil No. 6, which formerly fueled the adjacent power plant. The remaining smaller ASTs (cutter tank Nos. 1 and 2) have been used to store distilled oil. The tanks are surrounded by a berm system originally constructed to contain any tank spills. There are no existing occupants or land uses on the site.

The applicant (Studebaker LB, LLC) intends to remove the four large ASTs (tanks Nos. 1-4), cutter tank No. 2 (cutter tank No. 1 is still in use and will remain), and conveyance pipelines to allow for a dry vehicle storage land use. In addition, the existing containment berm system would be reduced in height by approximately two feet.

Tank demolition would take approximately six weeks to complete. Approximately two tanks and associated piping would be demolished at one time before moving on to the other tanks. The tanks would be demolished and stockpiled in bins until taken to a landfill. Hauling the tank panels would use approximately 18 trucks for up to two days, while hauling the scrap metal would use up to 40 trucks over a three day period. Hauling would occur once all of the bins are loaded and would not occur during tank demolition. Pickup of demolished materials would be phased during non-peak hours to reduce potential traffic impacts. Trucks would enter and exit the project site through an access gate by the intersection of Loynes Drive/Studebaker Road.

Once demolition is complete, the project site would be covered with a three-inch compacted rock base for use as a dry vehicle storage lot. The project site is located in Subarea 19 of the PD-1 zoning district, which permits this type of land use. Dry vehicle storage is long-term and is used for vehicles that have been rendered immobile. In addition to fuel, all other fluids have been drained from the vehicles to prevent contamination of the underlying soil. All fluid drainage would occur prior to vehicle storage on the project site.

The ND 15-09 Initial Study has determined that no significant impacts would occur to any resource areas as a result of this project.

Review Period during which the Lead Agency will receive comments on the proposed Negative Declaration:

Starting Date: December 1, 2009
Ending Date: December 31, 2009

Public Meeting of the Planning Commission:

January 7, 2010, 5:00 PM
Long Beach City Hall
Council Chambers
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802

Copies of the Negative Declaration and all referenced documents are available for public review by contacting LBDS staff or on the Department's website at: www.lbds.info/planning/environmental_planning/environmental_reports.asp

For additional information, contact:

Craig Chalfant, Planner
Department of Development Services
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
562.570.6368
craig.chalfant@longbeach.gov

Hitchcock Hearing Reminder

As a reminder, the Sean Hitchcock illegal land scraping matter will be heard before the Planning Commission this Thursday, December 3 at 5pm in Council Chambers. The hearing notice can be found here.

You are encouraged to attend and I hope to see you there.

Newsletter Sign Up

If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to sign up to receive the Egrets Not Regrets email newsletters. You can sign up by entering your email address in the box to the right.

I'm fixin' to get a newsletter distributed soon, likely this weekend, so sign up today!

Team Egret in the News!

Well, well. Back from vacation less than a week and Team Egret is already making headlines!

First, LBReport linked to the blog post made earlier about the Second and PCH meeting format.

Then, the folks over at The District Weekly used this blog post in their "staff infection" section.

Cool, eh?

Thanks for the nods; I appreciate it!

Hitchcock Hearing Before Planning Commission Set

As an appellant in the Hitchcock land scraping matter, I received a "Notice of Public Hearing." The matter will be heard before the Planning Commission on:

December 3, 2009
5 p.m.
1st Floor Council Chamber

Following is the mailing I received:


Hope to see you there!

Second + PCH Meeting Thoughts

Well that was interesting.

The evening seemed to start off tame enough, but then about half hour in, tensions rose. And I could totally see why.

Jeff Winklepleck, the City's point person for this project, began to introduce the process for the "breakout sessions," and things started trending south. People seemed to have objection with the breakout sessions, preferring instead to have a "group discussion" wherein questions could be asked/answered in real time. Questions about impacts and the like.

Craig Beck, Director Department of Development Services, intervened and further attempted to explain the environmental regulatory process and how "we just aren't there yet" with regards to having a discussion of impacts...that it is too soon in the process, and that discussion transpires with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

He is absolutely right. Both Mr. Winklepleck and Mr. Beck did their level best to try and explain that a discussion of impacts is simply just too premature. Couldn't agree more.

However, there is a fundamental disconnnect between where this project is in the environmental regulatory process and the information distributed by the Second + PCH development team at this community meeting and the scoping meeting (and also posted on their website).

At the City's meeting tonight, "we" were provided an "information packet" from the Second + PCH developers that listed several statements about project impacts (or seeming lack thereof). No data. No analysis. Just statements.

For example, in the table entitled "Change to Traffic Flow with Mitigations," it shows that with the project and mitigation, traffic at the intersection of PCH/Second will decrease by 1% in the AM peak, increase by 7% in the PM peak and increase by 12% in the Saturday peak periods. That's it...no supporting data, no defining variables, no identification of mitigation, etc.

With that information in hand, the public had (and has) questions. And I think that's fair. I mean, when I walk into a meeting, am handed this information and read that traffic mitigation exists which could reduce impacts, I want to know about the mitigation. When I read that "there will be NO negative impacts on the wetlands" (emphasis theirs), I want to know what tools were used in that analysis.

Those (and others) are valid questions that the public wants to ask...but we can't because it is "too soon."

But as it is too soon to ask the questions, it is similarly premature for the Second + PCH team to be distributing/posting the information, especially in the absence of any supporting documentation.

Granted, the Second + PCH team has every right to distribute/post this information, but I believe that doing so at this early stage only serves to facilitate a breakdown in the public communication process, as was evidenced tonight. I believe that the Second + PCH team needs to respect where we are in the environmental process and let the City/EIR consultants do their job. It is the responsibility of the latter to identify and address potential impacts at this stage, not the job of the development team.

Should the Second + PCH team continue to publicly distribute/make available this "impact" information before the release of the EIR, I believe that the public process will continue to devolve as questions about the distributed information will inevitably persist....and the questions will continue to go unanswered.

We (the public, the City and the development team) should be striving for as "pure" of a public communication process as possible, not introducing materials which serve to hinder it. (And that goes for "both sides")

Second and PCH Community Meeting Format

I have spoken with City staff about the format for tonight's Second and PCH community meeting. Following is a summary of what should transpire this evening:

The meeting will begin with introductions.

The developers will make a presentation about the proposed project.

Following the developer presentation, there will be "breakout sessions" facilitated by city staff. These are essentially small groups wherein each group will have a chance to voice what they like about the project (and why) and/or what they don't like about the project (and why). These small groups will not be arranged by "topic." By that, there will not be a focus group to discuss traffic and another to discuss density, etc. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to take notes.

After the small group portion of the evening concludes, it is the responsibility of the facilitators to report the results to the larger audience.

Second + PCH Meeting Reminder

I'm back from vacation and starting to get into the swing of things again (very, very slowly).

Just a reminder that the Second + PCH community meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (Monday). Meeting information is contained in one of my earlier posts and can be found here.

See you tomorrow.

Second and PCH Comment Letter (NOP)

Following are the pertinent portions of the comment letter I drafted and sent regarding the proposed Second and PCH Project in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study:

• Given the likelihood of significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project, feasible mitigation will be necessary to reduce said impacts to below a level of significance. Such mitigation should not include extension of either Shopkeeper Road or Studebaker Road as doing so would cut a road through the wetlands, and would also have associated environmental impacts. Should extension of either road be identified as traffic mitigation for the Project, however, impacts of the road extension(s) must be analyzed in the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  

• For consideration of compliance with SEADIP's 30% usable open space standard, only "on the ground" aspects should be included in analyzed calculations, being mindful that "building footprint, streets, parking areas and sidewalks adjacent to streets" shall not be considered usable open space. Whereas the Project contains both "above ground" and "private" open space, these areas should not factor into the equation when determining usable open space under SEADIP.
  

• It is my understanding that the Project will also include approval of a Development Agreement (DA). Aspects contained within the DA should be analyzed in the EIR. For instance, if the DA is to include off-site improvements such as landscaping (either adjacent to, or even on, the wetlands), the EIR must identify and analyze the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with this (and any other) surface disturbing activity.
  

Second and PCH Community Meeting - Monday, Nov. 16

The cast and crew of the City of Long Beach Department of Development Services will hold a community meeting for the proposed Second and PCH development. Details follow:

Monday, November 16, 2009
5:30 p.m.

Wilson High School
Media Center
4400 E. 10th St.
Long Beach, cA 90804

For more information: Jeff Winklepleck (562.570.6607) or jeff.winklepleck@longbeach.gov

Additional details can be found on the flyer below:

Want to learn more about CEQA?

There will be a CEQA study session and presentation (to the Planning Commission) on the "consideration of environmental factors in project planning and decision making, and an overview on the policies and procedures that go into analysis and identification of the potential environmental effects of proposed projects."

This study session will be held on Thursday, November 5 in the 3rd Floor Large Conference Room in City Hall at 5:00 p.m. Jill Griffiths (comprehensive planning officer, Department of Development Services) is identified as the contact.

Women's Conference - Day 2!

What a great conference! So inspiring and empowering and simply just fabulous.

The conference concluded with the Minerva awards, wherein 4 remarkable women were honored for their courageous and tireless work helping others less fortunate. One of the winners was Dr. Kathy Hull. She is the co-founder of the George Mark Children's House. I knew nothing about this before yesterday.

George Mark Children’s House is the first and only freestanding residential pediatric palliative care center in the United States, and is located in San Leandro, CA. It offers a unique alternative for children with life-limiting illnesses, and their families. They are setting the standard for pediatric palliative care.

Even more amazing is that assistance is provided regardless of the financial situation of the families, thanks to the generosity of donors.

Please consider taking a moment to check out the George Mark Children's House website. What an amazing thing they are doing.

Women's Conference - Day 1!

How awesome!

What a great experience. My favorite was Martha Beck, life coach and author. I don't exactly know what a life coach is, but she was a fantastic speaker...so funny and engaging.

It all was lovely. And good swag too.

I phoned into LBReport.com and the audio can be heard here.

Can't wait til tomorrow.

Appealing to the Planning Commission

If you do not like the decision made by Zoning Administrator, Derek Burnham, and you spoke or provided written comment, you may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days after the date of decision (see below).

The appeal form can be found on the City of Long Beach website, by clicking here.

THE FOLLOWING IS APPLICABLE FOR APPEALS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (AND/OR TO THE CITY COUNCIL)

• Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on a project that required a public hearing.
• An appeal mustbe filed within ten (10) calendar days after decision.
• An appeal shall be filed with The Long Beach Development Services on a form provided by that Department.
• A public hearing on an appeal shall be held within sixty (60) calendar days after The Long Beach Development Services receives a completed appeal form or after the City Clerk receives the appeal from The Long Beach Development Services.
• A notice of the public hearing on the appeal shall be mailed by The Long Beach Development Services to the applicant, all persons entitled to mailed notice, and any known aggrieved person not less than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the hearing.
• The Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction on appeals from the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and the City Council shall have jurisdiction on appeals from the Planning Commission.
• Except for appeals to the Coastal Commission for projects located seaward of the appealable area boundary and appeals to the City Council of local coastal development permits on developments regulated under the City's Oil Code, there shall be no further appeals after a decision on an appeal.
• You are hereby provided notice that the time within which judicial review of the herein reported decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Forms should be sent to:

Long Beach Development Services

• 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Fifth Floor
• Long Beach, CA 90802
• Attn: Jeff Winklepleck

A $50 fee is required per form.

Hitchcock Hearing

As expected, Derek Burnham voted to approve the permit for Sean Hitchcock's illegal activities. He opted not to attach a condition requiring restoration of the subject lands. Disappointing, however, was his rationale.....that since there was no way to know what was there before the illegal earthwork, there is no way to make him put it back. Huh?

What do you mean no way to tell what was there before? Any number of tools can be used to try and re-create history....aerial photos, google earth images, eyewitness accounts, photographs taken, etc.

It isn't that it can't be done, it is that no one is requiring it be done. Big difference.

Looks like an appeal to Planning Commission is in order.....

OPINIONS on this Whole Hitchcock Business

Alright, so I have some opinions on this whole Hitchcock business. The operative word in that sentence is OPINIONS. If you agree with me, fine; if you don't, you don't. Here goes....

I've been a fairly active commenter over at The District Weekly's comment board about this matter, so the following is largely a recitation of things I have posted over at TDW, and is summarized below.

As mentioned previously, Derek Burnham can do one of several things on Monday. I don't really think that outright denial of the permit is feasible as Hitchcock has already done the requested work (importing the soil, etc.) and this matter is really a formality. So that leaves 1) approve the permit outright, 2) approve with conditions, or 3) delay.

I'm liking option 2: approve with conditions. Mr. Hitchcock clearly did wrong when he conducted his earthwork without a permit. He destroyed habitat (critters did call that land home) and endangered human life (hence the emergency action to replace the landfill cap due to methane release).

This is a serious matter and it deserves serious attention. Moreover, it deserves serious discussion about what options are available as remediation for his egregious actions. And I just don't think that discussion is transpiring, which is an absolute pity.

My default position is to require restoration of the subject lands. He erred and he should put it back. However, what is feasible with regards to restoration? That is the kicker.

Restoration can mean any number of things - it can mean just restoring the contours, it can mean just re-planting vegetation, it can mean just "putting back" the soil, it can mean some combo of the three, etc.

I think it is important to ask for restoration that is commensurate with the level of violation (come on people, he didn't destroy Bolsa Chica, the subject lands weren't exactly pristine anything....). But in order to understand how best to remediate, one must understand what the land WAS prior to the illegal earthwork (not what the land is currently).

Is it a wetlands now? I dunno. He stripped the area of vegetation, imported "foreign" soil and then conducted determination surveys in the dry season. You do the math. However, I do not think it fair to say "well, the area isn't wetlands now, so no restoration is necessary."

Was it a wetlands prior to the illegal earthwork? I dunno. But I do believe that is the baseline which should be used in decision-making.

If looking at the historic baseline shows absolultely no wetlands, then it is what it is, and the area should be recontoured to its previous state.

If looking at the historic baseline shows wetland potential, then restore to that previous potential.

That is why I believe that a condition of the requested permit should be to require a restoration plan be produced. Again, restoration means many things - it could be minor (simply restoring the contours), or it could be much more labor intensive (contours and vegetation, etc). I can't make a call as to what is adequate as I'm no biologist.

But I know that as the situation stands now, nothing (to my knowledge) is required of him. And I just don't think that is fair.

Hitchcock Hearing - Monday, October 12, 2 p.m.

Hitchcock's illegal scraping business is being heard at zoning on Monday, Oct 12 @ 2pm. The action on which a decision is necessary is explained here. This post will deal with "process."

At Monday's hearing, the zoning administrator (Derek Burnham) can do one of several things:

1. "approve" the permit outright without conditions,
   
2. "approve" the permit and add conditions,
3. delay the matter until a future hearing, or
   
4. "deny" the permit altogether.
   

Should you choose to attend, you can "testify" and make recommendations as to the desired course of action.

If one doesn't like the decision made by Derek Burnham, they can file an appeal. Doing so would kick the matter up and be heard at the Planning Commission.

If one doesn't like the decision made by the Planning Commission, they can file an appeal to the California Coastal Commission. (I have been made aware that in order to appeal to the Coastal Commission, you need to have "standing" by being an appellant previously in the process.)

As this whole process started at zoning, City Council is bypassed; had this started at Planning Commission, an appeal would have landed at Council.

So if you have an opinion on the matter, show up at City Hall on Monday, October 12 @ 2 p.m.

Sean Hitchcock's Hearing - Monday, Oct. 12

As alluded to previously, the matter of dealing with Sean Hitchcock's illegal earthwork activities will be heard on Monday, October 12 at 2pm down at City Hall.

Dave Wielenga of The District Weekly penned an article on this which can be found here.

Likely tomorrow (or maybe even later today) I'll be posting some thoughts on this matter. I've been out of town for the last several days and need to get my head "back in the game." (speaking of game, Go Dodgers!)

So stay tuned.

Scoping Meeting Tonight

Quick reminder that the Second and PCH project scoping meeting is this evening, 6:30 at Rogers Middle School (365 Monrovia Ave.)

As explained previously, you show up to the scoping meeting and state:

• your general concerns and/or what you like about the project,
• suggest any alternatives and/or mitigation measures you believe are feasible, and
  
• identify what you would hope to see analyzed in the EIR and why (if you can).

And what if you don't want to speak? No problem! Show up and listen.

Scoping

Things sure went from fun and festive to business as usual in a hurry.

Since the Second and PCH community/scoping meeting on Oct 7 at Rogers Middle School is soonest, I suppose it's probably best to start there.

An application has been submitted to build the aptly named Second and PCH project. Submittal of said application triggers CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

CEQA is an environmental law which enables public agencies to make informed decisions. It also facilitates public participation. CEQA compels public agencies to examine and disclose the potential significant adverse environmental consequences of their actions, including the approval of private development projects (Planning and Conservation League, 2007).

With regards to Second and PCH, given the potential for significant effects under CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is going to be prepared.

When a Lead Agency (the City of Long Beach in this case) decides to prepare an EIR, scoping is necessary. Scoping is essentially an early public consultation process. Scoping is helpful to agencies as it assists them in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important (CEQA 15083(a)).

So what's the gist?

Basically, you show up to the scoping meeting, state your general concerns and/or what you like about the project, suggest any alternatives and/or mitigation measures you believe are feasible, and also identify what you would hope to see analyzed in the EIR and why (if you can).

For instance, if you don't think that cutting a road through the wetlands is appropriate traffic mitigation given the inevitability of wetlands habitat destruction, you should show up and say that.

Alternatively, if you think the current place is a neopolitan ice cream looking eyesore and needs to go, say that too and also add what you would like to see there instead.

So that's it. Scoping.

Now show up and participate on October 7, 6:30 at Rogers Middle School (365 Monrovia Ave.).