[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[3:27] Welcome to the October 19th meeting of the City of Long Beach Planning Commission. We could please call the meeting to order.
[3:39] Commissioner Castillo. Present. Commissioner Clemson. Here. Commissioner LaFarda. Commissioner Wehr. Vice Chair Templin. Present. Chair Lewis. Present. We have quorum. Thank you. Commissioner Clemson, would you like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
[4:23] Thank you, Commissioner.
[4:27] All right. With that, do we have a director's report this evening?
[4:30] Yeah, it's good evening chair, vice chair and commissioners.
[4:34] The main thing I wanted to report this evening is to announce that our current planning officer,
[4:39] Alexis Orpesa, today is her last thing with the city of Long Beach.
[4:43] So I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to congratulate her and thank her for her service here at the city.
[4:50] Alexis joined our team here in the planning bureau in 2016.
[4:54] She started as a senior planner where she facilitated and guided
[5:00] A whole gamut of complex and controversial projects, including major mix use, commercial and residential entitlements. She moved up to the current planning officer role, where she has guided our staff and team overseeing review of entitlement projects and processes during a period of major development in the city, while also serving as the zoning administrator, where we've had increased length and complexity of agendas and cases during that time. More importantly, Alexis has provided
[5:29] strong and steady leadership for our team during what has been truly a crazy
[5:34] few years. First moving to our new city hall which was a big endeavor to move all
[5:38] of our files and staff and the work that takes open a new permit center and then
[5:43] the COVID pandemic and shifts to remote work. Major development cycles here, huge
[5:49] complex projects, multiple changes in vacancies to the staff and management team
[5:54] not to mention several changes to state law, changes to our first major
[5:59] overhaul of the landy settlement and zoning code in a few decades and a few
[6:05] other changes like our local emergency ordinance where we've been reviewing
[6:08] projects much faster. She's done it all with Grace and the smile and on a more
[6:13] personal note I feel genuinely lucky to have worked with and learned from Alexis
[6:17] over these past several years especially together on the management team. She's
[6:22] intelligent, thoughtful, caring and kind and she brings all of that to her
[6:27] decisions and recommendations so I just want to congratulate Alexis on her new role as
[6:33] planning manager for the city of Hermosa Beach and to wish her well in her next chapter
[6:37] and thank her for truly helping to make Long Beach a better place.
[6:50] We're going to miss you and I do hope for the best for you and I hope they appreciate what
[6:58] they're getting so thank you so much thank you for all the time to have helped us up here
[7:04] and research things for us and brought it for it.
[7:08] We wouldn't be where we were without you.
[7:11] So I appreciate it.
[7:12] Thank you.
[7:15] Likewise, I'd like to echo that.
[7:17] And the City of Hermos Beach is just
[7:19] taking a big chunk of our knowledge,
[7:21] just to turn knowledge out.
[7:23] So they will benefit from your knowledge and experience.
[7:26] And hopefully you can share some of our wisdom
[7:31] and bring it back to us as well.
[7:37] And we didn't get to work there for too long, but I do appreciate the work that you put
[7:41] in to helping us understand, you know, what we're presented.
[7:46] So I wish you the best of, you know, luck at Hermos a beach.
[7:50] Thank you.
[7:52] I know you enjoy all of these accolades.
[7:54] I know that makes you feel comfortable.
[7:58] You know, my entire seven years on the commission you have been here and your professionalism and
[8:03] your knowledge has been so helpful to me as a commissioner and also in my work with
[8:09] the city being able to contact you and talk to you and learn from all of your experience
[8:13] and knowledge has really been beneficial to me personally and here on the commission.
[8:18] So I just want to wish you all the best and I hope that we will see you around Long Beach.
[8:24] Thank you so much for the kind words it's really been a privilege to serve the city of Long Beach
[8:29] Jim, you will see me around, they still have family that lives here.
[8:32] Good.
[8:33] Good.
[8:33] Good.
[8:33] Good forward to it.
[8:34] All right.
[8:35] Thank you for the director's report.
[8:38] With that, I think we are ready for a regular agenda.
[8:42] Have our first item of business, please.
[8:46] Recommendation to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission, meeting on Thursday,
[8:50] October 5, 2023.
[8:52] Thank you.
[8:53] Do I have a motion?
[8:54] Commissioner Templin?
[8:55] and a second from Commissioner Clemson, a person, a second.
[9:01] Any discussion or comments on the minutes is presented?
[9:05] No. Any members of the public that we'd like to address the commission on the minutes from our October 5th meeting?
[9:13] Seeing none. Do you have any virtual comments?
[9:16] If you're joining us virtually and you would like to make public comment on the minutes, please use the raise hand function at this time.
[9:26] There appears to be no further public comment on this item.
[9:29] Thank you.
[9:30] My thought will bring it back behind the rail, and if we can have the roll call, please.
[9:43] Motion carries.
[9:45] Thank you.
[9:46] Next item of business.
[9:52] Recommendation to receive and file a presentation for National Community Planning Month.
[10:01] Chair and commissioners, I would like to provide a brief presentation to celebrate National Community Planning Month, which is celebrated in October of every year. And as we begin the celebration, I just want to start as we think about planning for and with communities with an acknowledgement of the indigenous lands that we occupy here. And so I would like to acknowledge the Gabriela Tongva and kids peoples as the traditional land takers.
[10:31] of this land and pay our respects.
[10:36] In celebrating National Community Planning Month,
[10:38] here is a photo of our planning team
[10:40] getting ready to go out and do some field work last week
[10:42] to help support our technical analysis
[10:45] for our downtown plan update.
[10:48] And you all know that this month,
[10:51] we're also marking the name change for our department.
[10:54] So we are now the Long Beach Community Development Department
[10:57] and our updated mission as shown here
[10:59] is a team of dedicated experts who work with our community
[11:02] to build and sustain a safe, resilient and equitable, long beach.
[11:07] And our vision is to be a leader in the delivery of effective community development services.
[11:13] And I start by talking about community development because that is the department under which the
[11:17] planning bureau is situated.
[11:20] We're one of five bureaus in the department which also includes building and safety, code
[11:27] enforcement and housing and neighborhood services along with planning and of course, our administration bureau.
[11:35] So first, as we talk about planning and looking at how we regulate development as a city.
[11:41] Our general plan is that broad, long-range policy document that guides future development,
[11:45] whereas our zoning ordinance is a primary tool to implement those policies.
[11:49] And general plan policies and zoning guides are development review processes,
[11:53] including planning and discretionary or entitlement permits, like conditional use permits.
[12:00] Once entitled, projects must contain building permits to ensure they're built safely and
[12:04] to meet both zoning and building code standards.
[12:08] So what exactly do city planners do?
[12:11] We interpret and apply local county and state ordinances and regulations.
[12:16] We implement the city's development review processes and we develop long range plans and
[12:21] and update local regulations to address emerging challenges.
[12:25] Here are a few photos of our planners at work out in the fields, including looking at mobility
[12:29] issues and challenges and doing a final inspection for a new residential project in downtown.
[12:37] Just to give you a sense of the scale of what we do, we have 24 planners in the city and you
[12:44] can see that over the last fiscal year, which ended September 30th, we processed nearly
[12:51] 700 entitlement applications, over 600 historic preservation cases, and assisted close
[12:59] to 20,000 customers, both on our zoning line and at the permit center, and we facilitated
[13:05] close to 50 community outreach and engagement events during that time for various planned
[13:10] update processes.
[13:14] Just this year alone, especially with the state of emergency, where we've had a focus on facilitating
[13:20] affordable housing and housing development, planning as process and improve entitlements
[13:25] for over 1,500 housing units just this year, including 532 affordable housing units.
[13:31] For comparison, we had 717 affordable housing units produced in the entire 5th cycle from
[13:38] 2014 to 2021, so not every project that's entitled ends up at building permit, but that is
[13:44] still a huge accomplishment, and we've done it faster and more quickly under this expedited
[13:50] process with a state of emergency. We have a lot of ongoing major planning efforts
[13:55] here in planning, again related to doing expedited review under the state of emergency, updating
[14:02] our entire citywide zoning code, and the map on the right gives you a sense of the bright
[14:09] green and bright blue where we've re-zoned already and adopted those new zones and then
[14:14] the other various areas where those are underway and will be coming to the commission shortly.
[14:20] And other efforts to implement our housing element related to fair housing efforts to
[14:24] produce housing and high resource areas facilitating more mixed income housing than we have in
[14:30] the past including through our inclusionary housing ordinance and our enhanced density bonus
[14:34] program and working on a religious facilities overlay to help facilitate affordable housing
[14:40] co-located with religious facilities. We're also updating our downtown plan and our downtown
[14:46] shoreline plans. You can see a couple photos of that on the right. We are updating our victory
[14:51] on Santa Cruz Park Design Guidelines, which we'll talk about later this evening. We're preparing
[14:55] to update our open space element, taking various actions to implement our...
[15:00] Our Climate Action Plan, we reinstated the Mills Act Historic Preservation Program this year. And you can see the nearly 200 folks that came out for a workshop for that earlier this year. And are updating our historic context statements to better reflect the diverse communities of Long Beach, as shown on the slide. Also, overhauling our subdivision ordinance, which we'll also talk about this evening, creating an ADU and SB9 local ordinance, which you'll hear more about next month, making minor amendments to the zoning
[15:29] code to improve and tweak while we work to overhaul and rezone more comprehensively,
[15:35] providing looking at parking reforms, including a change of use parking, which we'll talk
[15:41] about shortly as well, providing sequence support for other city departments, not just our private
[15:47] development projects, liaising with the Coastal Commission, operating our permit center and
[15:52] providing a customer open house, and improving our online and website services.
[15:57] Here are a few things we've been up to just this month, including fieldwork, various outreach
[16:02] activities, putting together community advisory groups for some of our plan update processes,
[16:07] and we have an event coming up next week in partnership with the American Institute of
[16:12] Architects Long Beach chapter on sustainability at Cal State Long Beach, and more to come soon.
[16:20] We've also received recognition regionally and across the state for our work this year,
[16:24] including an award of excellence for the housing element update from APA Los Angeles
[16:30] an award of merit for our climate action plan and a special award of excellence for
[16:35] outstanding young planner of the whole region Mary and Cronin who you'll hear
[16:39] from later this evening and we were the only city got recognition from the L.A.
[16:43] Conservancy this year and that was for work on our race and suburbanization
[16:48] context statement so at that I want to say thank you to our planning team and our
[16:54] community in honor of national community planning month. Here are our planners in action
[16:59] with our community and that concludes my report.
[17:05] I think we should just stop the meeting there really. It's amazing the amount of work
[17:10] that you guys do. I know we see the in-products that we're looking through, but what funnels
[17:14] down to get to us is just a phenomenal amount of work and so thank you to you and all of
[17:19] your team for doing that. Any other comments from the commissioners on the report?
[17:24] Good report. Good report, Mr. Castillo.
[17:28] Similar, I just continues to impress me the amount of change and activity that goes on.
[17:35] And certainly the struggles from a staffing perspective over the last 18 to 24 months have been staggering.
[17:41] So thank you for keeping the wheels on the bus and doing your best. Thank you.
[17:46] Thank you, and I want to acknowledge I work for a similar organization that has a public board and you know I know the flurry of the board reports that we put together and those are every other month not every the week.
[18:00] Let alone the council meetings and everything else that you folks need to do and I just want to thank you because I think a lot of the work that you're doing is is going to help improve the city.
[18:09] and I'm really proud to be working alongside you folks with that, thank you.
[18:16] I was very encouraging to see how many parts of the city we have actually are in the process of up-zone and re-zoning right now.
[18:22] I know that seemed like a very daunting task and it still does, but it's nice to see areas of the map now that are done,
[18:30] as well as the number of affordable housing units that's a pretty significant increase from what we were in the last cycle.
[18:36] So thank you again for your report.
[18:37] So with that, I think we
[18:44] should have probably started with the motion, but we'll take one now for receiving the
[18:49] National Community Planning Month presentation.
[18:58] I have a motion from
[19:00] Commissioner Templin and a second from Commissioner Castillo. Any members of the public wish to address the
[19:06] commission on the presentation?
[19:09] Seeing none do we have any virtual comments?
[19:12] If you're joining us virtually and you would like to make public comment on this item,
[19:15] please use the raise hand function at this time.
[19:18] We do have something with our hand up.
[19:21] Ablea Lopez, you have been unmuted.
[19:23] You have three minutes to provide public comment.
[19:35] Oh, hello.
[19:36] Can you hear me?
[19:38] Yes, we can.
[19:39] Thank you.
[19:40] It was more of a question than a comment if I may.
[19:45] I was curious as to why the name changed like starting
[19:51] this month, just if I may ask a question.
[19:57] Set the interview comments.
[20:02] What was that? Are those are those the extent of your comments? Yes. All right. Thank you very much for that. All right. Bring it back behind the rail to any of the commissioners have any questions?
[20:15] Perhaps staff would like to answer that question for us. Yes. So thank you for the question. So October 1st marks the new fiscal year here at the city. So it was part of the budget adoption process that our department proposed a name change to the department. And that was reviewed by the city council.
[20:34] Council and the public through the budget review process and the budget goes into effect
[20:38] October 1st of this year, so that's why it changed this month.
[20:42] Perfect.
[20:42] Thank you.
[20:42] Good timing with it being National Community Planning Month.
[20:47] All right.
[20:47] Are there any other comments?
[20:49] Discussion?
[20:50] Seeing none, if we could have the vote, please.
[21:05] Motion carries.
[21:06] Thank you.
[21:07] If we could have the next item of business.
[21:09] Commissioner Chair Lewis, before we move on to the next item, we will be taking evidence.
[21:14] Do you mind swearing the witnesses for us?
[21:15] I would love this for the witnesses. Thank you.
[21:18] Any of you planning on giving testimony to the commission this evening if you wouldn't
[21:22] mind standing, please?
[21:35] I don't actually have our
[21:41] swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth
[21:44] and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Maybe seated.
[21:56] All right, if we could have the item of business, please.
[22:00] Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing
[22:04] and consider a third-party appeal filed by the Parking Not Parks Organization represented
[22:10] by Melinda Cotton, Julie Dean, and Brian Cochran representing, except categorical exemptions
[22:17] CE-23093 and uphold the zoning administrators approval of a local coastal development permit
[22:24] and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval there too for the installation of
[22:29] a permanent park lit within a portion of the public right away currently designated for two
[22:34] on street parking spaces,
[22:35] butting a restaurant at 5215 East Second Street
[22:39] in the neighborhood pedestrian zoning district,
[22:41] district three.
[22:43] Thank you.
[22:44] And before we start just for the commission
[22:46] and the public's notification,
[22:49] this is a appeal.
[22:50] So we will have a staff report
[22:53] followed by the appellant parking not parklets
[22:56] and following that we'll have the applicant
[22:58] too, we'll have some time to respond to those comments.
[23:01] If I could ask that staff and the applicant and appellant all limit their comments to ten minutes total so that we can get through this in a timely and effective way.
[23:12] With that, we'll hand it over to the staff report.
[23:16] Good evening, Chair. Project Planner, Marianne Cronin has this presentation for you this evening.
[23:22] Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.
[23:26] Before you this evening is a third-party appeal of a local coastal development permit or LCDP for a parklet
[23:33] about in the open Sesame restaurant along Second Street in the Belmont Shore area.
[23:38] The Zoning Administrator initially heard this LCDP application on August 14, 2023.
[23:46] The ZA decision was appealed thereafter within the 10-day window on August 24, 2023.
[23:52] This hearing is to receive supporting documentation in the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider this third party appeal for the local coastal development permit for the park clip.
[24:03] The project area is located within the second street public ride avoid area between Nieto Avenue and Corona Avenue.
[24:10] The project area, a but's private property, addressed as 5215E Second Street, located on the
[24:18] east side of Second Street.
[24:20] The open Sesame Restaurant occupies the building that abuts this public space.
[24:25] The site is surrounded by commercial and restaurant uses on both sides of Second Street.
[24:30] Residential uses are located across the rear alley.
[24:34] This slide shows a project location with respect to Second Street.
[24:37] all improvements would be completed within the public right-of-way. On this slide,
[24:43] you will also see a nearby public right-of-way parklit application that was
[24:47] before this commission on appeal. That is located at 5-2-3-6 Second Street, which
[24:53] is the project sponsor for the parklit would be the Legends Restaurant. On August
[25:00] March 23, the planning commission of held the zoning administrator's decision to approve the local coastal development permit at legends. This would occupy two parking spaces. And this approval was considered in light of the cumulative analysis that you'll hear in today's presentation. It's important to note that while the LCDP is approved by this commission, the parklet at legends is not installed and is subject to the public works process that is undergoing.
[25:28] So, while if you drove out to the site, you wouldn't see that parkla installed today.
[25:33] It is approved at this commission level, but still has other regulatory bodies to be heard before.
[25:39] Nonetheless, while not visible or installed today, it was considered an accumulate of analysis.
[25:46] As shown on this slide, also, there are green areas that are public parking lots that are off-street parking lots.
[25:54] and those are operated by the city of Long Beach and are occupied by the public and used
[26:00] on meter and as well as pays basis.
[26:07] During the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary parklets were established under the emergency
[26:11] proclamation.
[26:12] This slide shows the previous temporary installation.
[26:15] It should be known that the Department of Public Works maintains a sidewalk dining and
[26:19] parklets handbook that predates the COVID-19 pandemic.
[26:22] That handbook and the policies enclosed in that handbook were approved by City Council with the intent to enhance the pedestrian realm and encourage pedestrian activity in a safe and organized manner and to establish rules and regulations to ensure best management practices are installed along with those parklets.
[26:43] It should be note that the parklet handbook while the terminology says a permanent parklet.
[26:50] The design of that is to be a raised foundation that's even with the sidewalk that abuts.
[26:57] So they can be completely removable in the event that a new business owner does not want
[27:01] to sponsor that parklet in the future.
[27:03] It can be completely removed and reinstated as parking spaces within the public right of
[27:09] one.
[27:10] This installation that you see here was done admits that the COVID-19 pandemic and the goal
[27:16] for this applicant today is to install a permanent parklet that meets all the provisions
[27:22] on standards of the Department of Public Work Standards specifications to ensure an
[27:28] orderly and regulatory eye has been placed on this new parklet.
[27:36] This slide shows the existing onsite conditions which includes the two parking spaces that were
[27:41] restored upon removal of the temporary installation that I showed you on the previous slide.
[27:45] As you can see, there are existing fixtures within the street that include a
[27:51] bike rack as well as parking meters and signage. The applicant does occupy the
[27:57] public sidewalk dining ordinance requirements and those are adhered to on this
[28:03] railing that you see in the bottom right hand corner.
[28:08] At the rear of the
[28:09] property, there are nine existing off-street parking spaces for which are
[28:12] in tandem at the rear.
[28:14] In addition to this area for parking, there are parking spaces that are used by the employees
[28:20] and by the public.
[28:22] In addition to the location of trash receptacles and delivery lock boxes that serve the business.
[28:29] Normally, parklets do not require planning approval as they are entirely situated within the public
[28:35] right of way that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works.
[28:38] but due to the location of this application within the coastal zone a local
[28:43] coastal development permit or LCDP is required. The proposal would remove two
[28:48] meter parking spaces within the public right of way to accommodate a 256
[28:53] square foot parklet which includes a removable foundation railing screens at
[28:58] drainage gaps, wheel stops, umbrellas, and solar LED lighting. It is important to
[29:04] And note, no pavement excavation would occur during the parklet installation and the parklet
[29:10] could be removed in the future at the request of the property owner and our restaurant owner
[29:17] and or at the requirement of the city.
[29:20] The items included on the proposed plans that are before you and your package are the permitted
[29:25] items to occupy the public parklet in conformance with public work standards.
[29:30] As outlined in the Parklet Handbook, the Department of Public Works holds all applicants
[29:35] that have parklets are required to pay an annual fee to maintain the parklet. These fees
[29:40] are collected also for any parking meters that are removed to accommodate the parklet.
[29:49] This slide shows the extent of improvements for the parklet described on that previous slide.
[29:55] The new parklet would be 256 square feet in size and shown as
[30:00] Section on plans have a total of 17 seats. Within the sidewalk area, the existing sidewalk will remain untouched and remain in place for the path of travel. The overall design would require compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the installation of guard rails to ensure that tables and visitors do not spill into the path of travel. The elevations on this slide show the proposed solar lighting as well as the proposed umbrellas. The overall height of all structures shown on the plans,
[30:29] do not exceed 10 feet in height. On the plans you also will see that a drainage gap
[30:36] between the edge of the sidewalk and curb and the parklet would include screens
[30:41] to ensure that debris flow can be collected per conditions of approval. So if
[30:47] there's any trash that gets enclosed in the drainage gap it can be collected in a
[30:51] timely manner to ensure the removal of litter as well as the passage of storm
[30:56] water and the event of a rain.
[30:59] The parklet would remove two meter parking spaces along Second Street and in consideration
[31:05] of the overall availability of off-street and on-street parking, this map was prepared
[31:11] in conjunction with the Department of Public Works.
[31:15] As I had previously noted, the analysis does include the consideration of the Legends Parklet
[31:21] which removed a total of two parking spaces.
[31:24] because therefore this analysis looked at a total of four parking spaces presently approved and under application here today for consideration of cumulative impacts to access to the coast as part of this mobility analysis.
[31:39] Under current conditions with no parklets installed on 2nd Street, the city maintains a total of 1,855 parking spaces that available to the public during the operation of a typical restaurant use.
[31:52] this includes metered parking spaces along second street and a budding streets as
[31:59] well as private parking lot, private property parking lots, but are open to the
[32:03] public and maintained by the City of Long Beach. It is worth noting that street
[32:09] parking that is not metered or maintained by the City of Long Beach was not
[32:15] included in this, so that is additive of the 1855 parking spaces as that is highly subjective
[32:23] to the size of vehicle that can be parked in those areas that are not marked as red
[32:27] or curb areas.
[32:30] With consideration of both parklets and this application and included in your packet, there
[32:36] are service of bus transit along this corridor that is served by Long Beach Transit.
[32:44] In addition, there are bicycle hubs operated by the mobility group in our public works department as well as the circuit is shown on here, which is a local
[32:57] circulator that can also serve this area.
[33:00] And in consideration of all the forms of mobility and the encouragement of the use of non-vehicular travel modes, the staff did find that the findings can be made
[33:11] in the affirmative and the loss of a net of four parking spaces amidst the available bus,
[33:18] vehicle parking as well as other modes of non-motorized transportation, there is sufficient
[33:24] access to this area that would be maintained with this application.
[33:29] Four reference due to the consideration of cumulative effects.
[33:34] On the right-hand side you will see the current parking applications that have been presently
[33:38] filed with the planning bureau today, which includes legends and the application before
[33:43] you.
[33:44] There are other applications that you can see under those bullets.
[33:47] Those are under staff review and are not subject to this hearing today, but we wanted to be
[33:52] very full disclosure on the amount of parklets that are coming forth.
[33:58] The other consideration that we did look at is the location of this parklet in amidst legends.
[34:05] So, this location is across the street from legends and not on the same geographical block.
[34:12] In consideration of that spacing as well as the items before you right now on this TDM
[34:18] plan slide, the applicant does participate in the bus program for employees as well as providing
[34:27] encouragement to both patrons and employees to utilize all non-motorized transportation options.
[34:34] In addition, the applicant has provided a TDM plan as well as other ways to reduce vehicular
[34:41] travel to and from this establishment, which also includes incentives for employees that
[34:47] use non-motorized transportation to get a meal during their shift or other things that
[34:53] include compliance with green business certification intent.
[34:58] So therefore, we're going to
[35:00] With the conditions of approval to create a holistic and a very encouraging situation for which both employees and patrons are encouraged to use non-vehicular travel modes. The staff did find that the TDM plan submitted met the findings to encourage that multimodal approach to access in the coast. It is important to note that conditions of approval were included as part of the zoning administrators approval of this LCDP.
[35:29] in conditions included emphasis on public access signage as public
[35:34] parklets as required under the parklet handbook are required to be public
[35:38] open to the public at all times. Therefore, conformance with public
[35:43] work standards and maintaining an active public works application with paid fees
[35:49] would ensure that compliance can be maintained as well as enforcement action if
[35:55] needed. As noted previously a required TDM plan was required of the applicant as well
[36:01] as compliance with alcoholic beverage control standards. These conditions are intended
[36:07] to ensure compliance with not only the local coastal program but also the coastal act
[36:12] to encourage public access for all and creating space for all rather than accommodating only
[36:17] two vehicle parking spaces for two individuals at one time.
[36:24] A third party appeal was filed
[36:25] the opposition to the loss of parking spaces as well as identifying concerns related to
[36:30] access related to the Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, cumulative parking impacts
[36:37] and as well as consistency with the local coastal program and prior city planning decisions.
[36:43] The appeal documents as well as all public comments received during the zoning administrator hearings
[36:48] are included in your packet for review and consideration.
[36:53] In addition, it should be noted that staff does look at projects on a multi-modal basis
[36:59] as well as consistency with the local coastal program.
[37:03] And staff did, was able to make the findings that the inclusion of all required conditions
[37:10] would create a public space for all rather than a space for two vehicles.
[37:15] and that the public parklet would create a space for the community in the
[37:22] intent of the city council's approval of the parklet program. It is important
[37:29] to know also and we noted in the staff presentation and during the zoning
[37:35] administrator hearing conditions of approval are requirements and therefore
[37:39] failure to adhere to these conditions of approval can result in enforcement
[37:45] and as previously noted, the parklet is permanent by name, but it is removable.
[37:51] So if we find that somebody is not acting in the spirit of this requirements,
[37:56] that can be revoked or removed at this time.
[38:00] There are required findings to recommend approval of the local coastal development permit.
[38:05] This project is not a religious land use short term rental prohibition,
[38:09] and unpermitted dwelling unit or motel conversion,
[38:12] therefore some of the findings are not applicable.
[38:16] Therefore, the remaining findings
[38:18] is what I'm gonna focus on for this short slide,
[38:21] but is to relate to the consistency
[38:23] of the LCP related to public access policies
[38:26] as well as best management practices.
[38:28] The park would be open to the public at all times
[38:31] with opportunities for co-use at the abutting restaurant.
[38:34] In consideration of public concerns related to access,
[38:37] conditions of approval include operating conditions relating to a TDM plan
[38:42] making sure there's public signage as well as encouragement of using
[38:47] multimodal options. This project does include the net gain of public space for
[38:53] all and therefore as conditioned with this application and included in your
[38:59] packet staff does recommend approval.
[39:04] Pursuant to the California Environmental
[39:06] quality act, CEQA, this project is eligible for a categorical exemption per section 15303 for
[39:12] new construction or conversion of small structures, as this is a removable structure and there
[39:17] would be no ground disturbance with the installation. Public comments both in support and opposition
[39:23] of this proposal have been received and included in your packets, including all comments received
[39:28] during the zoning administrator procedures.
[39:35] Therefore, staff does recommend the approval of
[39:38] the local coastal development permit, which includes upholding that zoning administrator
[39:42] decision on August 14, 2023, and the acceptance of all associated environmental considerations
[39:51] which include the categorical exemption.
[39:55] This concludes staff's presentation.
[39:57] Both the appellant and applicant are present.
[40:00] Is it available for questions as well as the Department of Public Works has a representative that's available for any questions? Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Commissioner, is there any questions for staff?
[40:14] Yes, and this is in relation to the conditions of approval, specifically, I'd like to inquire on provisions 26 and 29.
[40:26] 29, 26, speaks to the permit and all development rights here in Shell Terminate, three years
[40:33] from the effective date, and that's how that begins, and then item 29 is in the event
[40:39] of a transfer of ownership of the property involved in this application, new owner, shall
[40:43] be fully informed of the permitted use and development.
[40:46] Between those two, and I didn't see this in the other conditions of approval, what is the
[40:52] the timeline and or validity of this permit and what are our options in terms of limiting the duration of the overall permit in terms of renewal.
[41:05] Sure, so it sounds like a simple question commissioner but it's not so the item that's before you is the coastal permit.
[41:15] So the standard length of a coastal permit is three years, but this commission has within its power
[41:21] to modify that on any given project, so you can make it shorter.
[41:27] I don't think you can make it longer because of the restrictions of the municipal code, but that's not the only approval necessary to operate a
[41:35] So, this coastal permit is good for three years and assuming that it becomes vested during those three years, it's good going forward.
[41:48] They don't have to come back again and again.
[41:51] But they do have to come back to the city and again and again.
[41:54] So, their approval from the Department of Public Works, the actual permit to occupy the right away, is a one year permit.
[42:01] and from a risk management standpoint they have to present new insurance because they
[42:05] end up in the city every year to the public works department but that's a ministerial
[42:11] review it doesn't go before any commission it's no one's making a judgment call if it's
[42:17] good or bad they're checking whether the insurance is correct and they're renewing the permit.
[42:21] So those are the parameters as they're set up you know drafted today but if the commission
[42:28] and wanted to do something different.
[42:29] We're all glad to work with you and affectuate that.
[42:33] Thank you.
[42:34] Thank you for that clarification.
[42:36] And that's the spirit of which I want to understand.
[42:38] Because this is all new ground for us.
[42:41] We've had two of these surface.
[42:44] And I want to understand how we, as a commission,
[42:48] could best plan and or administer some of these programs.
[42:53] In particular around when things go wrong.
[42:57] long, or as things happen to go sideways other than what our intended objectives are,
[43:03] what recourses we have, and I'd like to make sure that we have appropriate repealing
[43:13] authority in that.
[43:16] From a qualitative perspective, we have an opportunity to review it either through the
[43:21] zoning administrator level or some other mechanism, not necessarily the planning commission.
[43:28] So that's my level of inquiry in terms of what those triggers are and how that would be handled.
[43:35] Yeah, so even silent conditions, we always have the ability to revisit and
[43:42] approval if they're in violation of the conditions or if they're creating a new sense.
[43:46] So even if they're not to the letter of violating
[43:50] any of these conditions, if they create a nuisance,
[43:53] we can open an inquiry.
[43:56] We can request information ultimately hold a hearing
[44:00] and if necessary, revoke the permit.
[44:03] It's not an easy thing to do.
[44:06] But there's also no way for you to impose a condition
[44:09] that says make it easy to revoke the permit
[44:12] because the property interests the applicant
[44:15] has certain rights and we have to provide them notice and we have to provide them due process and
[44:20] our decisions need to be rational and supported by evidence. So but if the the concern is about
[44:30] enforcement you have a few options right so I don't know that this commission wants to be
[44:35] receiving annual reports on every park let in the city but certainly you can require the applicant
[44:40] and to submit those to the zoning administrator,
[44:43] whether it's one time or annually or whatever,
[44:47] the commission as a whole decides to do.
[44:52] You could place a term on the parklet.
[44:55] I think staff would recommend against that,
[44:58] but just giving you all of your options, you could say,
[45:00] This approval is only good for five years. They would then have to come back, pay new fees, apply for a new council permit, come before the commission and plead their case about, I guess, why it should be further extended. By practice, we don't generally do that because that does mean if they operate perfectly. We're going to reward that perfect operation by charging them a lot of money and making them go through the hearing process again.
[45:27] And so, those are just some factors to think about.
[45:31] Thank you for that.
[45:33] And one final question for the end of all three.
[45:36] One of the concerns I have, and I know from,
[45:39] I anticipate some of the feedback from the community will be giving permission and perpetuity.
[45:47] And although there's a lot of checks, and thank you for explaining that,
[45:51] how we could best revisit our decisions in the future of things.
[45:56] Again, I'm looking at it from a scenario of
[46:04] reevaluating the situation as things evolve.
[46:08] And I know in one of our previous approvals, we had included a provision that if there was a change in ownership,
[46:16] not just necessarily just the property, but also the business that it isn't inherently tied to that.
[46:22] that so we could, again, as a trigger for us to revisit that, depending if the operator
[46:28] to your point was doing well, but a new operator comes in, that's an opportunity to revisit
[46:34] the board.
[46:35] Yeah, so we didn't draft it that way, but I think from the staff table, that would be a
[46:39] good revision that I think we would recommend that it run only with this operator, and that
[46:45] if there's a change in operator, that they would need to obtain a new permit.
[46:50] Thank you.
[46:51] Can
[46:54] you just clarify, we're seeing this item today because it's a local coastal permit.
[47:00] Are the other parklets that are approved throughout the city that are not in the coastal
[47:03] zone, is planning at the staff level still putting conditions of approval to those or do
[47:08] it, does planning not see those in the same capacity that we see these local coastal permit
[47:12] applications?
[47:16] Planning staff still reviews as part of the process for the public walkway occupancy permit
[47:21] at the initial stage but it's not a planning entitlement in the same way where the local coastal
[47:26] permit has to go through the zoning administrator process and can be appealed to commission.
[47:31] So these parkwoods that are happening in the coastal zone are in essence have a higher bar of
[47:38] more restrictions placed on them. We have more control over how they're operated with our conditions
[47:41] of approval, then we would, other parklets, all right.
[47:46] Mr. Clemson, do you have any questions?
[47:49] No, perfect.
[47:50] Thank you.
[47:52] All right, with that I would like to invite the applicant, parking, or parking up parklets
[47:58] if they wanted to make any presentation to the commission.
[48:03] And would the appellant like to reserve any time?
[48:37] Be clear about process and time limits because I'm here on behalf of a group, both here
[48:43] in person but also people who couldn't be tonight, I want to be fair and represent the
[48:47] entire effort effectively and engage with you as closely as possible. So, first off,
[48:52] is this the Q2 change the slides? Okay, and it's just left or right, what? Okay, so I
[48:58] don't need to call anything on that. I would ask if at about six minute mark, if I can
[49:03] get a little Q that says we're at that mark and I'll try and rain in from there, I do want
[49:07] to leave some free time for questions and opportunities if necessary, but I think we can proceed.
[49:13] questions you can that doesn't have to come from your time so there will be an
[49:18] opportunity for the commission to inquire and ask questions after your
[49:21] presentation. I know that you are a group of appellants so you represent the
[49:25] entirety of the appellants. This is appellant time and then public comment is for
[49:29] public comment time. If you have appellants that are not presenting that want to
[49:34] withdraw as an appellant and provide public comments they would need to do that
[49:38] at this time and we need to record it on the record that they are no longer an
[49:41] the Palantinus matter, does that make sense?
[49:43] Thanks, so.
[49:54] My name is Melinda Cotton.
[49:56] I've been out of town for a month.
[49:58] We've been on a camping and.
[50:00] And RV, visit, family, and relatives, and grip, but no cell phone, no contacts. So, the presentation was made made done by Brian and Julie. So, if I could speak separately in public comment, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Well, I guess you're an applicant. So, if you would like to withdraw yourself as an applicant, you can do that. Or Brian could save a couple of minutes at the end for you to speak during the applicant time. I'm sure we could accommodate it. And just to clarify, you're an appellant.
[50:29] I'm sorry, thank you.
[50:31] I assume there's no future appeal process for this, so I can withdraw.
[50:40] If you want to sit in the felon, I'm sure we can accommodate it.
[50:43] If you have a few minutes that you want to add in, which is what public comment would normally be limited to.
[50:48] I'm sure we can fit that within your group's presentation.
[50:55] I'm going to remove my name.
[50:58] So Julie, do you mind just putting it on the record for us?
[51:04] It's helpful when you say it and I don't say it to be your presentation.
[51:08] Thank you, Ms. Dean.
[51:09] Hi.
[51:09] Yeah, for so item number three, my name is Julie Dean and I'm going to remove my name as an
[51:15] appellant and speak during public comment.
[51:19] Thank you, Mrs. Dean.
[51:20] Thank you.
[51:22] Ms.
[51:22] Ms.
[51:23] Dean.
[51:23] Hi,
[51:36] as it goes.
[51:38] All right.
[51:38] Well, thank you very much.
[51:39] My name is Brian Cochran and I have a resident of Long Beach and Belmont Shore and have been for 20 plus years.
[51:45] In an ideal situation, this would be more of a dialogue. We've got questions and we're certain you do as well.
[51:51] But absent that ability to have a genuine dialogue tonight, we're left to post some vital questions for you on this issue this evening.
[51:57] They're at the core of the permit application and the parkour issue itself for our community and maybe for the city as a whole.
[52:05] Fundamentally, does this parkour fit within the LCP, and more importantly, it's intent?
[52:11] Second, what are the logical and inevitable impacts on our neighborhood of this parkour,
[52:16] and those coming after it being approved?
[52:19] And third, when is enough enough?
[52:23] I'll direct you to the slides now, this is our presentation.
[52:28] This is from the LCP, it outlines again what the principles are within that and how it's
[52:33] meant to guide the city and its approach to these kind of programs.
[52:37] The conditions approval, as we've heard discussed so far, we feel there, we view them as an
[52:43] adequate and full of holes.
[52:45] There should be a condition making managers responsible and their employees responsible
[52:49] for stopping customers encroaching on the walkways, that five foot space is crucial.
[52:54] We see and have documented this throughout the last two years, even when there wasn't
[52:58] a bar foot there, this is common to the business.
[53:01] There should be a condition mandating staff from treating the sidewalk as restaurant property.
[53:05] They ignore pedestrians and ADA rights regularly, and they require management supervision of such.
[53:14] You'll see a lot of reviews here.
[53:16] These have been taken over the last year or two, but mostly recently as much as possible.
[53:20] This is the kind of conditions we see typically on 2nd Street and with open sesame.
[53:26] These conditions are approval.
[53:28] They're not consistent among the three businesses so far before you.
[53:30] And that includes Belmont Brewing Company, which is at the pier.
[53:34] There's umbrellas allowed in some circumstances, not in others.
[53:38] As you'll see later on, we've documented those umbrellas encroached regularly and impede
[53:42] progress along the street and safety for people all along.
[53:45] Belmont Brewing Company seemingly having a private negotiation with the city and planning
[53:49] and the zoning administrator about whether umbrellas will be allowed or what kind of coverings
[53:53] that wasn't part of the conditions abuse there.
[53:55] They are introduced sometimes and sometimes not.
[53:58] The fundamental issue here is that none of these conditions are ever enforceable or monitored
[54:03] by the city.
[54:04] We've been watching this condition for three plus years now.
[54:07] These things are on the ground, lived realities by our residents constantly.
[54:11] We do not see any enforcement, we do not see any mechanism by which people can report them
[54:15] and have timely and efficacious response from the city.
[54:21] These sandwich boards exist outside the rules of 2nd Street and the conditions of use
[54:26] already in place for where they're allowed.
[54:29] Nothing's been enforced to date.
[54:32] Just blocks away.
[54:33] Another restaurant has its umbrellas
[54:34] preached dangerously over the sidewalk in the streets.
[54:38] Bars, which are supposed to be prohibited from advertising their
[54:41] specials and drinks, do that regularly, no enforcement.
[54:45] That's a neon moving sign that's not supposed to be
[54:48] allowed on the second street or on any conditions of use.
[54:50] It's still there.
[54:51] It's never been enforced.
[54:54] and more on the sidewalk zone, they've always encroached there.
[54:57] They've been that way before COVID, before the temporary...
[55:00] rosary carpets. They exist now when the temporary carpets have been removed. You can account for the stray things that come up, but these are the kind of encroachments that are allowed, and that are come as a consequence to having the parklets and sidewalk dining that they exist. People will usually use these spaces for these even if they're approved or not, the restaurant owners and their staff and their employees will never enforce these conditions. Recruist in place they don't want to say no. Mister Cochrane if I may we're at six minutes. Oh great will move fast.
[55:29] All right, I'm going to skin through this.
[55:32] The conditions of these are never monitored.
[55:33] These businesses are already-
[55:34] Here you have six and a half minutes left.
[55:36] We'll give you a little time.
[55:37] Oh, thank you.
[55:38] Okay.
[55:39] These, the existing sidewalk dining conditions that have been in place since the 1990s.
[55:44] None of the businesses, for the most part, have adhered to that.
[55:47] They encroach any work from a number of couple inches to a full foot out into the pedestrian
[55:51] walkway.
[55:52] This is Alpoio Loco, which is a full foot and a little bit over that into the space.
[55:56] one of the most recent installations, and yet somehow in that entire space of time, no
[56:02] one's ever enforced that or tried to reign it in.
[56:05] Curve management as a whole.
[56:07] These permits are being granted before there's a curb management study that's scheduled to
[56:11] take place.
[56:12] Why rush these through now when there's no comprehensive data behind the impacts that these
[56:16] will occur?
[56:18] Parkland application review should not occur until after the pilot's, pilot programs and
[56:22] studies that are promised, this is an unknown territory for everyone in the city.
[56:27] Delivery trucks are one of the giant, huge impacts on our community.
[56:31] They continue to park on 2nd Street, blocking transit stops, blocking residential vehicles,
[56:36] blocking sight lines.
[56:37] The drivers are unhappy about the conditions, but they're required to serve bars and restaurants.
[56:42] That's what they do.
[56:43] So they block it.
[56:44] They park there for hours at a time.
[56:46] They move their carts up and down the street because they don't want to move because once
[56:49] they find a spot in an already impacted area they don't want to keep moving
[56:52] forward. You can see some of the impacts here. These stay for hours. They block
[56:57] transit stops multiple times. Six buses failed to be able to stop at this one
[57:02] recently.
[57:17] There's a condition or a statement that the operator shall discourage
[57:20] use of locking bicycles or leash pets on the railing of the parkour dining area.
[57:24] As you saw in the previous photos and we have witnessed repeatedly and
[57:27] documented that is never a condition imposed. It's never enforced by staff. It's
[57:32] not enforced by the city, there's no known mechanism for even people to call in and let
[57:36] people know that there's an issue with it, but it's happened all the time.
[57:40] And then the language has been changed perpetually from the zoning minister hearings on the BVC
[57:44] and now to this where it's discouraged.
[57:47] BVC blocked the actual prohibition of something, so the condition was changed to discourage.
[57:52] How many, what kind of teeth does that have in it to make it meaningful to the community?
[57:59] The public access provision of being allowed to sit there, if that's disingenuous completely,
[58:03] people will not sit in a fenced area that's being served drinks and food to
[58:07] paying customers. They're not going to sit there. This is part of the city's
[58:10] original vision and picture with Arklitzer meant to be there was something
[58:13] called Barclad's Mayor Garcia promoted this free community thing in the space
[58:17] not single park in the community existed in that circumstances. They will not
[58:21] be enforced. These will this conditional exists will be posted but no one will
[58:25] heed it. No one will appreciate it. It will not be used effectively. It's a
[58:28] soft to the public to say that's open to the public. There are three minutes left.
[58:34] Thank you.
[58:36] At the California Commission meeting, the majority of the commissioners, 8 of 12, indicated
[58:41] that a fence and a railing like this is envisioned would not be effective.
[58:45] That was in just a week ago.
[58:59] These go to the comments from the coastal commission at last week's meeting.
[59:02] They said if the propositions to truly use space for public use, there would be no barriers.
[59:07] We recommend that the city pull together a holistic program.
[59:10] It found that the approach to the BBC's application and the approach that they understood to be coming
[59:15] for these parklets was not adequate and effective in communicating the issues and addressing
[59:20] the concerns that the community has in general.
[59:24] Sorry, I do want to underscore they found some substantial issue with the privatization
[59:28] of public space at BBC at the pier.
[59:31] These are within the coastal zone but not under the coastal commissions purview but they
[59:34] did express those concerns about this program in general.
[59:40] In San Diego they used the initiated a thing called spaces as places and regulations requiring
[59:45] businesses that displace parking to create new parking for those occupying
[59:51] outdoor dining. I've had concerns about elimination of any parking spaces.
[59:56] We're looking at four already for the two applicants on Second Street. You see
[1:00:00] There are three more applications, four more applications pending. The list of the city and the public works had as many as 20 of them until fairly recently. So you're looking at the inevitable consequences of that. The photos in the staff reports typically show empty pristine conditions. We're kind of mystified that these idyllic presentations come forward with like it doesn't show impacts at all. We show you the impacts and that's the reality. This is the lived reality of our residents. Residents have also spoken to open cities managers and staff frequently about these issues.
[1:00:29] They've never been addressed, no mitigation occurs whatsoever with the staff on site.
[1:00:35] Again, this is typical. They have their host to stand out front into the sidewalk space.
[1:00:41] This is their, the woman in the left is one of their hostesses and one of the staff members there.
[1:00:46] They are blocking the pedestrian way with something already encroaching in the sidewalk.
[1:00:57] I have another question for you.
[1:01:03] We circle back to one of the key questions posed at the start.
[1:01:05] Win will enough be enough. That's not just our question. It was posed by the Zoning Administrator
[1:01:10] Alexis Orpesa after legends that already gotten its part could have proved and open
[1:01:14] sesame was first being considered. And there don't seem to be any guides or specifications
[1:01:19] transparent to the public or anyone as to what densities do much, what displacement will
[1:01:23] be over some imaginary line. We think the Coastal Commission wants a little answers as well.
[1:01:31] This again speaks to the LCP and its definition of what Belmont Shore in the quarter is meant
[1:01:35] to be this is not what we see day to day and what you would not see if you were able to walk there
[1:01:40] right now. A survey in 2021 asked people how they felt about Parklets. It was addressing the
[1:01:45] temporary park program. People who are in the community unequivocally denied that. We have a
[1:01:50] petition with more than 600 names of local residents. People who live in the area that are impacted by
[1:01:55] this that oppose these unequivocally as a wholesale thing in their community and each application individually.
[1:02:01] They recognize that the density is inappropriate for this. They may be perfect in other parts of the
[1:02:05] city. They do not fit our community.
[1:02:12] In the past, the B.S.B.A. President has worked
[1:02:18] with the city and the district council member to put angle parking that changed the number
[1:02:22] of lanes on Ocean Boulevard. This has brought more traffic to second street. Second street
[1:02:28] has already impacted area. The next thoroughfare that's available for people in our community
[1:02:32] get in and out is seven street. All these do not pose a possibility for second
[1:02:38] street turning into a plaza of easy traffic and ease of transportation there.
[1:02:52] I'll get close to the end here. We just want to say open sesame was able to
[1:02:57] close down what it was already a second location that ocean at second at
[1:03:01] Nieto. It's a place that essentially transported those seats to a parklit
[1:03:05] temporarily and now it wants to do it permanently. What you're going to
[1:03:08] here tonight will inevitably be the usual platitudes from the owner or their
[1:03:11] representatives saying they care about their community, they will mitigate, they
[1:03:15] really want to work with you on solving the problems. The example, the
[1:03:19] concrete reality though is that this will never happen. There's no mechanism for it
[1:03:22] to be there, there's no stop-yaps that you guys can
[1:03:26] instillate in still at this point to make a difference on that. It will go down a
[1:03:30] road that will just inevitably hurt the community around it. You'll also hear
[1:03:34] from supporters, as you'll know from the correspondence that went before the
[1:03:38] zoning administrator, those are 90% supporters from outside the community, they are customers,
[1:03:43] friends of the business, ours are 600 plus people who live in the community, documented,
[1:03:47] who care about their streets, quality of life here.
[1:03:50] We just ask that you deny this permit, it's not appropriate for this one, in aggregate, it's
[1:03:54] not appropriate for them all to be there.
[1:03:56] These fit other places of the city, we don't think they belong here at all, and we appreciate
[1:04:00] listening to this.
[1:04:01] Thank you for your comments, Mr. Cochrane.
[1:04:04] Ms. Cotton, would you like to address the commission for a few minutes?
[1:04:06] Good
[1:04:16] evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is Melinda Cotton. I'm
[1:04:21] a 40-year resident of Belmont Shore. I participated in half a dozen parking studies and I was
[1:04:27] on the city's transportation task force that was run by a dog auto. The question before
[1:04:32] you today, is it a benefit to the public to allow open-sense to me to take over two parking
[1:04:38] spaces in order for ad seating for 17 restaurant patrons? And as we learned today, planning
[1:04:45] Bureau already has for more second-street parking applications.
[1:04:51] Restaurants on second-street already have their allowed outdoor sidewalk dining.
[1:04:56] They have for many years.
[1:04:58] Public meter money that-
[1:05:00] It pays for the bond issues that allowed the widening of second-street sidewalks for outdoor dining and the purchase of additional parking lots to take into the Slack. Each year until 2040, the first $200,000 of revenue that comes into the parking meter fund goes to pay off these expensive bond issues. The staff report insists that multimodal transportation options, vehicle bus, bicycle
[1:05:31] We'll take care of the loss of parking spaces.
[1:05:34] But second street has no dedicated bike lane.
[1:05:38] It's the people who ride bikes, who ride scooters,
[1:05:43] who skateboard use the sidewalks.
[1:05:46] There's no enforcement.
[1:05:47] So it's very scary for pedestrians.
[1:05:50] And three of the new security people
[1:05:53] that the shore has hired that ride bicycles
[1:05:56] as part of their work.
[1:05:57] three of them have been hit by cars.
[1:06:01] So it's very dangerous out there.
[1:06:03] And your own commissioner, Alvaro Castillo,
[1:06:06] explains the difficulties with the approach
[1:06:08] of the loss of parking at the September 7th
[1:06:13] planning commission meeting.
[1:06:15] And we appreciate your comments.
[1:06:17] I hope it's all right if I excerpt some of them.
[1:06:20] You said, and I hope everybody will listen
[1:06:23] to your complete comment.
[1:06:24] You explain that day that we don't just have a good mass transit system in the greater
[1:06:30] LA metro area.
[1:06:32] You added even if you want to and have a desire to use mass transit is not practical.
[1:06:38] Parking is a necessary evil.
[1:06:40] As a homeowner, I would not buy a house that did not have a parking.
[1:06:44] If I'm going to a restaurant, I will way away from parts of town or even restaurants that
[1:06:49] don't have enough parking.
[1:06:51] It's just inconvenient.
[1:06:52] It's a factor.
[1:06:53] And as a business owner, if I didn't have the space to accommodate my customers, I know
[1:06:59] that that was a determining factor for the success of my business and for a restaurant,
[1:07:05] a county firm, and any other.
[1:07:07] And the retail businesses in Second Street are definitely losing the loss of parking.
[1:07:12] So I hope that you will recognize the wisdom of those statements and the concerns that
[1:07:19] We have for the present and future of second street and the viability of the restaurants and the retail that are there because without parking customers are going to stay home and I thank you for your listening.
[1:07:35] Thank you, Mrs. Cotton.
[1:07:36] All right, if we could have the applicant come forward.
[1:07:50] Good evening.
[1:07:51] Good evening.
[1:07:54] I understand there are concerns for that again.
[1:07:57] Can you introduce yourself, first please?
[1:07:59] Aliko Basie, the owner of open session.
[1:08:01] Thank you.
[1:08:02] Thanks.
[1:08:03] I understand there are concerns about the proposed
[1:08:05] parking installation from open session.
[1:08:08] I'd like to address these concerns.
[1:08:11] Explain why I believe this project will be.
[1:08:13] will benefit our dormitory community as we look to the future, reducing our reliance on
[1:08:22] personal vehicle is crucial. While the debate between parking spaces and
[1:08:28] parking is complex, several compelling reasons support the adoption of
[1:08:32] parklets including urban sustainability, community engagement, health, economic
[1:08:37] benefits, alternative transportation and climate change mitigation. We must
[1:08:44] One shift away from the parking centric mindset of the past and embrace a more forward
[1:08:49] thinking and sustainable approach.
[1:08:52] Past parking focus design have led to car-dominated urban environment, lacking in human-centred
[1:08:58] design, Parklet offers a more people-friendly, sustainable and aesthetically pleasing alternative.
[1:09:07] Moreover, these parklet are designed with safety, sustainability, adaptability and
[1:09:14] flexibility in mind, allowing for reconfiguration of removal of changes needed.
[1:09:22] In an era marked by climate change, we need to transition to sustainable and eco-friendly
[1:09:28] transportation mode, like public transit, walking, cycling, and right-sharing.
[1:09:34] This shift naturally reduces the need for parking spaces.
[1:09:38] Community spaces like Parklet encourage social interaction, promoting physical and mental
[1:09:43] well-being and active lifestyle.
[1:09:48] Partlets have shown to stimulate economic growth by attracting more pedestrian to local
[1:09:53] businesses, boosting sales, creating jobs, and contributing to long-term urban development.
[1:10:00] It's not about business owner greed, but about ensuring community vitality and strong local economy. Change can be unsettling, I understand, and concern about parking and traffic are valid. However, city officials have thoroughly researched this project, considering all these factors. We must break away from adequate parking centric thinking and prioritize sustainability, adopting
[1:10:29] adapting adaptability and community well-being in urban planning.
[1:10:36] In summary, advocating for parklets over parking spaces is not about neglecting business
[1:10:42] or community needs and said it is about shifting to a more forward thinking sustainable approach
[1:10:50] that creates healthier, more vibrant urban environment ready to face the challenges of the 21st
[1:10:59] century. And as far as the corner location that was mentioned, this corner location has
[1:11:07] been used for four years now. During COVID we used it for storage and after that we used
[1:11:17] it only for bandwidth. So it was not used to accommodate any of the customer. We had to
[1:11:21] close it. It would have been costing us a fortune every year. We had to break out of the
[1:11:26] and we close it, there has nothing to do with the park list or anything like this.
[1:11:34] And that's it, thank you so much.
[1:11:38] Thank you, sir.
[1:11:39] Thank you for your comments.
[1:11:41] With that, I'd like to open it up for, I'm sorry, commissioners, did either of you have any
[1:11:45] questions for the applicant or the appellant?
[1:11:51] Yeah.
[1:11:51] Yeah.
[1:11:54] So I do have some questions about the appeal and the applicant mentioned sustainability
[1:12:02] and I want to talk about climate.
[1:12:07] The city's climate action plan says that we need to reduce driving by 25% by 2030 in
[1:12:14] order to meet our climate goals.
[1:12:15] I, if we're arguing over two parking spaces, I don't understand how we're going to meet
[1:12:26] those goals.
[1:12:27] Ms. Cotton, you were on the Transportation Commission, or Transportation Element Advisory Board,
[1:12:35] correct?
[1:12:39] Do you have, I mean, this seems like something that you'd have some thoughts on, on how we're
[1:12:45] are supposed to meet our transportation,
[1:12:47] our driving reduction goals when we can't.
[1:12:51] One of the things that's come up before your commission
[1:12:56] is electrical vehicles, electrical vehicle charging.
[1:13:00] And if you don't have parking spaces for vehicles to charge,
[1:13:04] that's a problem.
[1:13:06] Already, I'll make sure it's parking impacted.
[1:13:09] There's very few garages that are usable.
[1:13:11] and so with the addition of ABUs and the single Airbnb type operations, we're finding that there are more and more cars on the street and people are being allowed to turn their garages into ABUs, which means where are the electric cars going to park overnight, which is the natural time to charge them.
[1:13:34] So, that's definitely a factor that I see right now.
[1:13:38] And again, second street has been allowed to turn into what they are now calling restaurant
[1:13:46] rail.
[1:13:47] This was not the design of the LCP that was written in 1980.
[1:13:52] Second street was supposed to be region serving for the residents or nearby people who could
[1:13:58] walk there and not the type of large operation restaurants.
[1:14:04] We have two new big restaurants coming in, La Antica, the Pizzeria, Michelle, and South
[1:14:12] of NYX.
[1:14:13] Neither of those has new parking.
[1:14:15] In fact, some of them are being allowed to take parking spaces and turn them into outdoor
[1:14:21] dining.
[1:14:22] So the impending increase of that.
[1:14:25] And then there's the huge impact on coastal access.
[1:14:30] During COVID, row restaurant turned its parking lot
[1:14:35] for 14 cars.
[1:14:38] Into a dining patio, it's still there.
[1:14:41] It has 50 patrons.
[1:14:42] And it's right next to Bay Shore, which in the summer,
[1:14:47] is for coastal visitors.
[1:14:48] And we're trying to get people from the inland
[1:14:51] to be able to come to the coastline, to the shore,
[1:14:55] to participate in being on the sand to...
[1:15:00] Get cooled off, and how do families come with children and strollers and picnic coolers and ice chest? How are they going to come to the shore if they don't have a car? And as we learned previously at use parking study, 72% and 74% of those people have to have cars to get to work or to work either in the senior elsewhere. So we're trying to preserve parking for coastal visitors. And staff
[1:15:30] uses the parking space at the beach as an example of parking that can be used to
[1:15:37] serve as the restaurant business and second-street and honestly I don't
[1:15:42] understand that but you know through the years there used to be kept a list of
[1:15:49] the parking requirements for various businesses so that you could add them up and
[1:15:53] know that those 1800 spaces have probably been given away to her three times so
[1:15:59] So I think I do look found on that, but I'm a bike rider myself, my husband is, we love
[1:16:05] to ride bikes.
[1:16:06] There's no dedicated bike lanes on second street.
[1:16:10] You'd probably be better off taking away the parking and putting in bike lanes, but that's
[1:16:14] a whole other discussion, right?
[1:16:16] But thank you for the question.
[1:16:22] Like, if you want to talk about that, that's great.
[1:16:25] But I don't think that that would be something that a lot of people would support, and I don't
[1:16:29] know if, anyway.
[1:16:30] So talking about the local coastal program, there are the overarching goals of the local coastal program which are increased reliance on public transit, decreased reliance on all bills, provides slightly more parking and increased pedestrian and bicycle access opportunities.
[1:16:47] This seems like a project that would fit several of those goals.
[1:16:51] Taking away parking spaces, encouraging pedestrian use, you know, lowering reliance on automobiles.
[1:17:02] Well, the problem is, and commissioners can see it pointed out that the mass transit doesn't really work.
[1:17:10] The buses start about six in the morning, there's already workers there, so they have to get to work somehow.
[1:17:18] and they end before the shift to in the morning and so that's a problem and the
[1:17:26] gentleman from the owner of Belmont Brewing Company told the first hearing
[1:17:32] that none of his employers currently rode the bus. He would not ask them to ride
[1:17:37] the bus because they thought it was too dangerous. He would not pay for it because it
[1:17:41] was a problem with the IRS and the zoning administrative hearings are not
[1:17:46] but recorded, and so I can't present it to you verbally,
[1:17:51] but I certainly have.
[1:17:53] So excuse the interruptions,
[1:17:55] just procedurally we seem to getting a little off field.
[1:17:59] So you're certainly welcome to ask the appellant questions,
[1:18:04] but you can have a debate amongst members of the commission,
[1:18:08] but we can't have a debate or dialogue
[1:18:11] with members of the audience.
[1:18:12] So staff's also glad to answer questions,
[1:18:16] but just want to make sure that we're focused on the substance of the appeal.
[1:18:20] I think the thing to keep in mind is keeping your questions to what our
[1:18:24] appellants and our applicant are the masters the fact of.
[1:18:28] I know what you do for staff.
[1:18:29] All right, apologies.
[1:18:30] All right,
[1:18:35] well I'm going to end here then.
[1:18:43] Thank you very much.
[1:18:44] Thank you.
[1:18:46] Go ahead, can you share?
[1:18:48] There's a question for the appellant.
[1:18:53] On your presentation, you had indicated there,
[1:18:55] on one of your policies, there should be condition mandating staff
[1:18:58] from treating the settler because restaurant property,
[1:19:01] ignoring pedestrian, et cetera.
[1:19:04] What condition approval was that absent or addressing?
[1:19:09] Correct, it's absent.
[1:19:10] There was nothing that suggests that the employees and staff
[1:19:13] should regulate the behavior of their customers.
[1:19:16] Got it, thank you for that, you're welcome.
[1:19:22] Thank you.
[1:19:23] With that, we'll open up for public comment.
[1:19:24] Are there any members of the audience
[1:19:26] that would like to address the commission on this item?
[1:19:29] If so, please come forward and introduce yourself
[1:19:31] and you'll have three minutes.
[1:19:31] Thank you very much.
[1:20:01] Aye, thank you, commissioners. My name is Julie Dean, and I am a 28-year resident of DelMontshore, and I have been on the board of the DelMontshore Reson Association for 14 years. The last two is President. I am speaking today for myself only, though. I urge the Planning Commission to deny this permit for open sesame. Authorizing this at other parklets on Second Street is incentivizing business owners not to invest in the property and space that they should in favor of taking free space, the city grants.
[1:20:30] This is not a business model and puts other non-bar non-restrawns at a disadvantage.
[1:20:37] City Council having completely removed the established community or input on parklets
[1:20:46] several months ago, which directly impacted residents led to a $432 hurdle for residents
[1:20:56] to take appeals to planning commission before an application can even reach city council.
[1:21:02] Residents therefore face that burden to even be heard.
[1:21:05] This, sorry, the parking and transportation points brought up by staff today are insincere,
[1:21:11] including the 1,000 plus beach lot parking spaces is a wild exaggeration.
[1:21:16] People do not park in the beach lots in order to walk all the way up to second streets.
[1:21:21] Additionally, the circuit micro-transport has extremely limited hours, a small radius,
[1:21:27] minimal seating, and exists on a temporary basis.
[1:21:31] Last week I was appointed to the Long Beach Commission on Disabilities.
[1:21:35] I took this role because I want to support and fight for those with disabilities.
[1:21:39] ADA regulations are not currently being met.
[1:21:42] I reported this over and over, our group has reported this over and over, and it's much
[1:21:48] much worse when the parklets are in place and the public right away is completely trampled
[1:21:52] all over. Parklets are overwhelmingly not supported by our neighbors. As Brian mentioned,
[1:21:58] we have over 600 petition signatures from our direct and local Belmont Shore residents.
[1:22:04] And also the results of the survey of 2021, the people who were against the parklets were
[1:22:12] they had multiple reasons versus the majority of the people who were for the
[1:22:19] parklets didn't live in the area and basically just said I love parklets I
[1:22:24] love eating outside. Enforcement does not happen that's the other issue. I love
[1:22:30] Long Beach but we are not good at oversight or enforcement and the conditions
[1:22:34] of approval are insufficient to address the to address the impacts of the
[1:22:38] parklets. Conditions of approval are essentially negotiations between the business and the zoning
[1:22:46] administration and city officials without a meaningful input mechanism from affected residents.
[1:22:52] Why isn't there a website or e-mail dedicated to those needs? Why aren't conditions of approval
[1:22:57] shared until just before each hearing? And why are conditions of approval not allowed at yearly
[1:23:04] relief, sorry, revisions not allowed at yearly renewals, even if documented abuses emerge
[1:23:10] and circumstances change.
[1:23:14] We have spoken to the managers and staff of open sesame specifically, and they have not
[1:23:20] enforced their staff from standing in the sidewalk, look, sorry, taking orders over the fence,
[1:23:31] It's moving customers along, getting them into spaces that don't block the public right
[1:23:39] of way.
[1:23:40] And finally, it's not just two spaces, it's the two spaces, plus all of the parking spaces
[1:23:45] taken by the 17 patrons in the parklet and the additional staff required to support them.
[1:23:51] Again, I urge the Planning Commission to deny this permit for open session, thank you.
[1:23:56] Thank you Miss Dean.
[1:24:15] Good evening commissioners, staff, fellow citizens, Pete Marsh, second district. So I'm a neighbor to second street about a mile and a half away.
[1:24:26] I resonated with Commissioner Clemson's comments about how are we going to meet the goals of the city's climate action plan and you've heard me comment mostly about climate. That's why I'm here tonight.
[1:24:39] transit transport is a huge part of our climate challenge. I looked up and I
[1:24:46] apologize I was late, the Climate Resilience Commission had buildings and
[1:24:52] energy tonight, so my heart was all flutter up there but I found a few
[1:24:58] articles that talk to
[1:25:00] Our love affair with cars and streets and parking in this country. There's a quote in the big
[1:25:08] thing by urban designer Jeff Speck, the twin gods of smooth traffic and ample parking have
[1:25:15] turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at. Another
[1:25:23] other quote from Bloomberg about this topic said parking has eaten America's cities.
[1:25:31] And in that article, they talk about parking density in cities around the country.
[1:25:40] Arlington, Texas, wins with 42% of its surface area dedicated to parking.
[1:25:47] Central Manhattan, 1%, you know, there's a huge range around the country.
[1:25:53] In business insider, the glut of parking spaces in the U.S. is driving up housing costs and
[1:25:59] hurting the environment.
[1:26:00] Parking spaces in the U.S. take up as much land as Connecticut and Vermont combined.
[1:26:07] I've read several estimates.
[1:26:10] We have around a quarter of a million cars in this country for our 330 million people.
[1:26:16] We have somewhere between 1 billion and 2 billion parking spaces.
[1:26:19] that's 4 to 8 parking spaces per vehicle.
[1:26:25] So, and we're probably going to see, you know, debates
[1:26:28] over 1, 2, 10, 20 parking spaces at a time, unfortunately.
[1:26:34] I get the point is, for 70 or 80 years, perhaps,
[1:26:40] we've been suburbanizing.
[1:26:43] We have urban flight, redlining, sad history of some racism
[1:26:46] with that and our love affairs with cars and we're now trying to densify our
[1:26:56] congressman Robert Garcia former mayor is putting together federal initiatives
[1:27:00] around better transit and I would just urge the commission and the city to you
[1:27:07] know keep pushing forward that reduce the vehicle miles traveled I rode my bike
[1:27:13] here, I'm trying to do my part, I'm a fat old guy, but you're trying to get where I can
[1:27:21] with low emissions and low parking demand.
[1:27:24] Thank you.
[1:27:25] Thank you.
[1:27:26] Thank you, thank you for your comments.
[1:27:27] Next speaker please.
[1:27:40] Good evening, commissioners.
[1:27:41] I'm Jeff Miller.
[1:27:42] I live in Belmont, Shore.
[1:27:44] I ask you to deny a permit for open sesame for a parklet.
[1:27:50] You've heard the many reasons why this request should be denied, and in fact why there should
[1:27:54] be no parklets on second street in Belmont Shore. These few blocks of second street are simply too narrow
[1:28:01] to congested and too dangerous. In testimony at City Council previously, I presented specific
[1:28:07] details of the dangers of traffic collisions with parklets. I noted numerous cities in California
[1:28:14] and around the nation where vehicles have crashed into parklets. Some of these crashes resulted in
[1:28:21] injuries, and there were some fatalities.
[1:28:24] In Long Beach, two restaurant parklets have been destroyed by car crashes, one in Belmont
[1:28:28] Shore and one in Naples.
[1:28:31] Parklets continued to be destroyed by car collisions.
[1:28:34] In April, the parklet at the press room bar in Santa Barbara was destroyed by a car crash.
[1:28:41] The Long Beach ordinance allows for parklets only on streets with a speed limit of 25 miles
[1:28:46] per hour.
[1:28:47] This would seem to make it acceptable to establish a park lit at Open Sesame.
[1:28:52] However, this speed limit is in fact a fiction.
[1:28:55] Vehicles approaching Belmont Shore on 2nd Street from either direction are approaching with speeds at limits of 35 miles per hour,
[1:29:03] and many are going 40 or more.
[1:29:05] If there's a green light, many of them do not slow down to 25 when they enter the shore.
[1:29:12] In engineering terminology, this discrepancy between the wishful post and speed limit and
[1:29:20] the actual speed is called ground truth.
[1:29:24] Your decision about park list should be made based on this ground truth, not on the post
[1:29:30] and speed limit, which is not enforced.
[1:29:32] This excessive speed precludes the approval of park lists in Belmont, Georgia, it would
[1:29:37] It would simply be too great a risk and a danger on this busy street.
[1:29:42] Parklets are getting a lot of attention now.
[1:29:45] They are controversial because of their risks and adverse effects on neighborhoods and
[1:29:49] traffic.
[1:29:51] The recent attempt by a Belmont Brewing Company to add a parklet was covered by NBC TV news.
[1:29:57] People are watching Long Beach, it would not be
[1:30:00] We had a good look for Long Beach to be in the news for the next crash into a parklet. Do not allow this to go forward. Make your decision for the safety and the good of the community, not for the desired additional profits by a restaurant. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any other speakers? Any audience?
[1:30:24] All right. Seeing them will look for virtual. If you're joining us virtually and you'd like to provide public comment on this item,
[1:30:30] please use the raise hand function at this time the first person with their hand
[1:30:35] raise is Christopher Grodech you have been unmuted you have three minutes to
[1:30:39] provide public comment Christopher
[1:30:59] Grodech you have been unmuted you have three
[1:31:02] minutes to provide public comment staff
[1:31:10] is it possible to give directions on how he
[1:31:12] can unmute himself yes you killed you killed me to unmute on his end I
[1:31:28] know we
[1:31:28] wanted the next speaker when you come back to them our next person with their
[1:31:34] Your hand up is Estella. Estella, you have been unmuted. You have three minutes to provide
[1:31:38] public comment.
[1:31:48] Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
[1:31:51] Hello. Hi. I'm Estella Tahidor. And I need to say that I disagree with the city presentation
[1:31:58] that implies there is a preponderance of parking in Belmont, sure. I live right off second
[1:32:05] street. And it is a rarity that I'm able to park near my house or even on my block.
[1:32:13] We need parking for residents and the non-restaurant businesses and those who
[1:32:19] drive to Second Street to dine and to shop.
[1:32:26] This is not a democracy. This is
[1:32:28] a pandering to a well-funded special interest. Seal Beach and Huntington Beach
[1:32:35] have taken down their parklets. I strongly believe that the parklets are
[1:32:40] are destroying the character of our seaside community, which is very important to the residents
[1:32:47] here. I implore you to not approve the parklet for Open Sesame. Thank you.
[1:32:55] Thank you.
[1:33:01] Our next person with her hand up is Anne Cantrell and you have been unmuted.
[1:33:05] You have three minutes to provide public comment.
[1:33:14] Can you hear us, Ms. Cantrell?
[1:33:15] Can you hear me?
[1:33:17] We can go ahead, please.
[1:33:18] Good evening, commissioners and Ken Trell, and I too urge you to deny this permit for the
[1:33:27] taking of public property for a private restaurant owner. I love to eat outdoors. In fact, I only
[1:33:43] go to outdoor dining because of COVID, but I see nothing inviting about sitting in the
[1:33:52] middle of Second Street with all the fumes from the cars going by and all the people crowding
[1:34:02] around in the sidewalk and trying to enjoy a meal. If this restaurant owner and other
[1:34:12] The restaurant owners want to provide outdoor dining.
[1:34:16] They should do it on their own property.
[1:34:19] Not look to the public to provide the property for them.
[1:34:30] I do not go down to Second Street anymore because I can never find a parking place.
[1:34:38] I go to the restaurants that provide enough parking so that I don't have to walk a half
[1:34:45] a mile to the restaurant.
[1:34:47] I think there's many reasons why you should deny this and the only reason I can see for
[1:34:56] your approval would be to handle...
[1:35:00] Over public property to a private enterprise. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. Once again, if you're joining us virtually and you would like to provide public comment on this item, please use the raise hand function at this time.
[1:35:25] It appears we have no further public comment on this item. We'd like to have an opportunity for Mr. Grotech to attempt public comment again.
[1:35:36] Of course, you have been unmuted. Please unmute yourself on your end.
[1:35:55] All right. Thank you.
[1:35:56] Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back behind the rail.
[1:36:07] A couple of quick questions for staff and maybe this is for our public works team that's
[1:36:15] here.
[1:36:17] How do we establish the ultimate number of parklets that would be or could be allowed on
[1:36:22] second street?
[1:36:23] Is there a traffic study or is it a first come, first serve of just a certain number?
[1:36:28] for what's the long-term goal for Parkwoods on Second Street?
[1:36:35] I can start with how planning staff is looking at these as indicated.
[1:36:41] So we started with Legends, which was the first application.
[1:36:46] We looked at the context of where public parking lots were located on one side of Second
[1:36:54] Street looking at just the other context.
[1:36:57] and then when open sesame came in, we're looking at them one by one as they come in in order,
[1:37:04] but also cumulatively as they come to hearing. So with this, it wasn't located on the same side
[1:37:11] of the street. It was a block away. It is at the more central point of second street, so context-wise,
[1:37:19] there is a distribution of public parking spaces available that include also ADA dedicated spaces
[1:37:25] in those public lots, as far as location wise, the Department of Public Works is also screening
[1:37:33] those before they even come to planning to make sure all the parklets are designed one in
[1:37:38] accordance with the parklet handbook, but also in accordance with what the traffic standards for
[1:37:45] the Department of Public Works. So that's what planning is looking at within the context of the two
[1:37:51] that you've seen here today or discussed today and then we do have the traffic engineer
[1:37:57] from the Department of Public Works if you have specific questions on those operational
[1:38:02] items that they look at.
[1:38:04] Thank you.
[1:38:06] And then one of the slides that were presented talked about conditions of approval being
[1:38:12] inadequate as far as the managing of the public sidewalk itself.
[1:38:19] I assume these are our conditions of approval related to our local coastal permit, but there are other conditions and public
[1:38:27] ordinances that would apply to somebody having a public
[1:38:31] walkway permit. Is that correct? Yes, so Chairman, there are conditions as part of the
[1:38:37] occupancy of the public right away that are enforced by public works. There are street use inspectors that enforce those.
[1:38:44] Some of the pictures you saw of sandwich signs, which I mean the commenter is correct in all
[1:38:49] the things that exist in the public right away, making someone take down a sandwich sign
[1:38:54] is not the highest priority, but we do on a complaint basis, do enforcement, but we have
[1:39:01] tried to address the public concerns by including conditions in this approval as well, that
[1:39:07] address, complying with ADA and keeping the street clear, so Marianne's going to point
[1:39:12] those out to you.
[1:39:13] I think it's condition five, and if the commission wanted to modify or strengthen or add to those,
[1:39:19] We'd be glad to work with you on that.
[1:39:23] So one of the conditions that Christopher alluded to
[1:39:26] is condition number five.
[1:39:28] So chapter 14.15 is the public works code
[1:39:32] that has parklets.
[1:39:34] In addition, there's been an added subsection
[1:39:36] to that compliance, which talks about maintaining
[1:39:40] all the required clearances that you see on the plan.
[1:39:43] There is a distinct clearance for ADA path of travel.
[1:39:47] And all of the parklets are designed
[1:39:49] with that guardrail to prevent the over spilling of seating and or any kind of installations
[1:39:56] into the public right-of-way. The temperance-
[1:40:05] In addition, through the two and three different kinds of parklets sidewalk dining applications we received in the last year. Condition of approval number seven, as alluded to with the applicant testimony, was added to discourage the locking of bicycles or leash pets that you saw on those photos. And that is something that is implied that the management and the named applicant that is on this applicant
[1:40:29] location would be required to adhere and discourage from anybody to do that and then an additional subsection on that condition is there sign and shall be installed on the park let's saying it is discourage so while it is discouraging it's also going to be signed in accordance in addition some other items just for enforcement action related to maintaining clearances.
[1:40:56] because there are conditions that include signage for how to report enforcement activities.
[1:41:03] So if we find that the management which is implied to adhere to these conditions of approval,
[1:41:08] whoever holds that permit with the Department of Public Works and exercises this option,
[1:41:14] there would be a signage that indicates if you find that there somebody is encroaching in
[1:41:18] that right of way, there would be an identified person from the Department of Public Works that
[1:41:22] that you could contact and call and report that,
[1:41:25] and that would be another lever
[1:41:27] to make sure of enforcement to prevent encroachment.
[1:41:30] So those are included in conditions of approval
[1:41:33] as well for that signage aspect.
[1:41:35] Thank you, that was exactly my next question.
[1:41:37] What would the enforcement mechanism and notification?
[1:41:40] So thank you for answering that.
[1:41:43] Commissioners, any other questions?
[1:41:45] Commissioner Templin?
[1:41:50] Operator is asked to discourage.
[1:41:55] But does that include, I believe, the operator would also have the right to limit who they
[1:42:02] want to serve or not, I know I've seen little signs, we've reserved the right to serve
[1:42:07] you or not.
[1:42:08] Would that be included if they do not reply to the discouragement, would it be upon the
[1:42:19] operator then to say, well, we're not going to serve you because you're not following
[1:42:23] are guidelines. Well the public is allowed in these
[1:42:27] parklets even if they're not being served. I'm sorry I'm sorry just just for the blocking like
[1:42:34] the dogs and the bicycles and all that. Yeah well the management can take whatever action is
[1:42:40] necessary but the reason it does discourages because at the end of the day they should take all
[1:42:45] available measures but they're not being asked to act as law enforcement officers right they're
[1:42:50] not going to forcibly remove someone or risk injury to remove someone's dog, right?
[1:42:57] So they're going to take, they're going to warn the person, they're going to ask them
[1:43:00] to move, they're going to not serve them food, they're going to do whatever they're going
[1:43:05] to do, but it does say encourage because they're not going to physically remove someone from
[1:43:13] the public right away, it would be the city that would have to do that.
[1:43:18] And I like that you're encouraging public works and
[1:43:21] specters and following through on all those sidewalk blockages, including signs, umbrellas,
[1:43:28] eaters, etc.
[1:43:31] Thank you.
[1:43:33] Just to follow up on that, um, director of the, uh, I will, and also maybe the city of
[1:43:40] turning on this, um, because I, I'm inclined to, um, modify that provisions to either stipulate
[1:43:47] or change a two prohibit, but again, this is a semantic issue maybe, but I want to make
[1:43:54] sure that it is an active participation on behalf of the applicant to discourage that
[1:44:01] obviously, maybe the other language, but I certainly do not intend to create a police
[1:44:11] state situation from the front of the applicant, but I do want to make sure it's an active
[1:44:16] involvement in that because I do want to put more teeth into that piece because
[1:44:20] discourage can be naively interpreted as please don't as opposed to you are not
[1:44:26] welcomed here if you choose to lock up your car or leave your dog in the right
[1:44:34] away etc. So like the opinion if possible turning. So prohibition has taken place
[1:44:40] There are state laws under the ADA that regulate blockages and the ability to have a pathway.
[1:44:47] So we're not giving any of our applicants or operators a regulatory power.
[1:44:52] So I think that's why you're seeing the word discourage and kind of piggybacking off of the comments of Mr. Coons.
[1:45:00] There are limitations to how far their discouragement can go to where we're not going to using language like take all all efforts. Now we're getting into the area of what is that effort look like physical removal. That's where that becomes a challenge.
[1:45:32] So if you wanted to bring more teeth, you could use a word like actively discourage. And that's something that opens up or suggests the need to use.
[1:45:42] kind of the types of response behaviors that Commissioner Templin suggested of not serving folks, of asking folks to leave.
[1:45:59] Commissioner Castillo? Good.
[1:46:02] Commissioner Templin.
[1:46:03] Commissioner Clemson?
[1:46:05] If anyone has anything.
[1:46:09] So I wanted to just make a few comments, just addressing some of the things that were sent in as the appeal and expand on that.
[1:46:21] The first thing I did mention that the goals of the local proposal program, including increasing reliance on public transit, decreasing reliance on homo meals, providing slightly more parking and increasing pedestrian and bicycle access.
[1:46:34] I believe in 2019, the city did the road diet project that added 150 spaces to Ocean Boulevard.
[1:46:44] I think if anything, that would give us some room to take away a couple of spaces and still be in compliance with the slightly more parking.
[1:46:54] It also, the local coastal program also explicitly calls for areas like the convention center
[1:47:00] in downtown here to preserve all spaces.
[1:47:05] And so just to, you know, they called for preserving all spaces in one place, this should
[1:47:10] give us some flexibility to add and move spaces.
[1:47:14] And then there was reference to a Coastal Commission decision from October of 1992, 1999.
[1:47:25] And the appeal quotes or mentions a new restaurant, really, the moratorium that ended in May of 1999.
[1:47:36] The decision ended up being that the land use plan is now compliant with or the suggestions
[1:47:46] that the Coast Commission, which I assume were implemented, allow or eliminate lower parking
[1:47:54] requirements that were in Belmont Shore for new restaurants will now allow for limited
[1:48:01] And that that would in the Coast Commission's opinion provide slightly more parking as dealt with in the Belmont Shore area.
[1:48:10] And I don't know if we've gone and we've seen the Walker study.
[1:48:15] But there's a reference to people walking not wanting to walk far for parking.
[1:48:23] There's additional information that they suggest having to do with increasing turnover in delivery spaces, and usually typically the way that that's turnover is with timements or raising prices,
[1:48:37] which is another suggestions that the Walker study have includes extending parking meters to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 12 a.m. on weekends,
[1:48:47] which I think that the parking commission denied creating parklets for bike parking and then seeking coastal commission approval for on paid-on-street parking for residents.
[1:49:00] In my opinion, these are going to be more effective things than keeping two parking spaces.
[1:49:05] I think it's going to move the needle on creating more parking availability.
[1:49:10] And I hope that that's something that we can try and figure out how to implement in the future.
[1:49:15] But I think I just want to summarize by saying I think that this project is
[1:49:19] in compliance with at least all the coastal commission decisions that I'm aware of and the local coastal program.
[1:49:27] Thank you, commissioner.
[1:49:29] I will say it was pleased to see in the traffic demand, traffic demand management plan.
[1:49:35] The incentives for free meals for employees.
[1:49:37] I think those simple kind of concrete solutions like that have a big impact on getting people to change their behavior.
[1:49:46] Any other discussions or questions from the commissioners?
[1:49:49] I do one more thing.
[1:49:50] I think that I have put in those code violations,
[1:49:55] and the city does deal with that.
[1:49:58] And so if we are seeing, well.
[1:50:00] The ones I put in have, so I've put in a number of them, and for people blocking sidewalks with fans, the little wacky waving man thing, and, you know, fun stuff. But they do go out and they do deal with these things. So I really do encourage to make those complaints, and especially more than one person does it. I think that they'll come out, and they'll deal with, especially the things that are more static.
[1:50:27] All
[1:50:30] right, with that, I'm going to ask if we could have a motion, please.
[1:50:42] Mr. Clems and
[1:50:46] Commissioner Templin for the second.
[1:50:49] I have a first and a second in the other discussion.
[1:50:52] Mr. Chairman, just a week at the motion, right?
[1:50:55] I think the commission wanted to add the word actively to condition number seven.
[1:51:02] And I also believe there was a discussion about the entitlement not running with the land,
[1:51:08] but only running with this particular operator.
[1:51:10] So I don't know if that's part of the motion or not, but we need to know here at the table.
[1:51:15] As of right now, it's not, but I will find out if they would like to add that to it.
[1:51:19] Did you want to have active as part of it?
[1:51:21] Was that how you did?
[1:51:23] You okay with that?
[1:51:24] Yes.
[1:51:27] And then how did we feel?
[1:51:28] Well, we'll formally add amendments.
[1:51:30] Yes.
[1:51:30] Did you feel about wanting to make an amendment to not running with the land, but with the operator?
[1:51:35] So we're a discussion now.
[1:51:37] Well, we're about to make a friendly amendment from Commissioner Templin.
[1:51:42] Perfect. Yeah, I was going to make that, make that of amendment as well.
[1:51:45] I do want to be the initiator of the motion or the second, but now that we're in, I certainly concur with that.
[1:51:50] I stole my ammo, thank you.
[1:51:52] And just be clear, that would be if the business were to close, they wouldn't have, the next business wouldn't have access to without, okay.
[1:52:01] I will repeat that motion with the two amendments.
[1:52:04] So we have a request for two friendly amendments from Commissioner Castillo to modify the condition of approval to include the word active and then that the approval runs with the business and not with the land.
[1:52:19] That is correct.
[1:52:20] Yes. That's been seconded by Commissioner Templin.
[1:52:25] All right.
[1:52:27] We've got a first and a second.
[1:52:29] We've got a friendly amendment that's been approved.
[1:52:31] I think we'd like to have the vote please.
[1:52:33] Well,
[1:52:38] I guess point of order, I guess we've made the motion now, we're in discussion on the motion.
[1:52:44] We've had some prior discussion, but if the item has not been, if you feel like there's additional discussion, it's within the chair's discussion to take that discussion, but when we begin the vote, must continue forward.
[1:52:55] Yeah, I apologize, I was waiting to make my comments and based on what the motion was going to ultimately be.
[1:53:04] I'd like to share that I am in opposition to this request, but I also, in the spirit of transparency, want to share why.
[1:53:13] First and foremost, as I look at evaluating this decision, there are kind of three components that I'm looking at.
[1:53:18] First and foremost, the applicant, I want to share that I'm a huge fan, a huge, huge, huge fan.
[1:53:26] I always make my decision based on my stomach and your location and your venue is phenomenal.
[1:53:32] But however, I am in opposition to it for a couple of different reasons.
[1:53:37] Number one, we've been discussing parking and or the lack thereof in some cases.
[1:53:44] I want to commend staff for taking a broader approach on this and being more inclusive in
[1:53:51] in terms of the evaluation of this criteria,
[1:53:55] because the city always gets,
[1:53:57] and especially this department sometimes gets a bad rap
[1:53:59] because all these regulations and things that happen
[1:54:02] seems to always be the government coming in
[1:54:05] and making all these rules and regulations.
[1:54:07] I appreciate the fact that there's a broader interpretation
[1:54:11] of access and parking.
[1:54:13] However, as has been noted, I'm not necessarily
[1:54:18] and I don't want to pigeonhole myself
[1:54:20] as a parking advocate, but in this area, in this location, I don't think it's appropriate
[1:54:27] to cannibalize existing parking, not because we don't need to be more dependent on public
[1:54:37] mass transit, but it is ineffective in this area and it does create other problems.
[1:54:44] The other piece of it too is that in cases where we are offering at least from my perspective exclusively or providing this, I'm a huge advocate,
[1:54:54] to park less because I think there's an outdoor dining etc. I think it's a great
[1:55:00] So, the other direction for the city to do and be more open to that. However, again, this location is not optimal. There's already outdoor dining already. At this location, I also was not a fan of when we approved this for the other applicant legends, thank you, legends, for the very same reasons. And I want to be consistent in that approach. I think we are limited in parking in this area.
[1:55:28] it does create an impact on the local community.
[1:55:32] As much as I love coming in there
[1:55:34] and dining at all these establishments,
[1:55:37] we've got to be balanced in that regard.
[1:55:39] And I think it's suboptimal to approve it here
[1:55:41] at this location, at this site.
[1:55:45] But that's driving my disc intent
[1:55:48] with this particular motion.
[1:55:50] And again, I also want to be cognizant of the fact
[1:55:52] that there's probably six, seven or eight more applicants
[1:55:54] coming down the way.
[1:55:56] and again it's already an impacted area and I certainly would be more inclined
[1:56:02] to support it if the applicant and or the location was maybe farther out. I
[1:56:07] know some have argued at the center of Second Street is makes it easier. I would
[1:56:13] also argue it makes it worse because it does create more issues for the other
[1:56:18] businesses in the area. So anyways I took up too much time on that but I wanted to
[1:56:24] at least share my reasons for my not supporting this motion.
[1:56:30] Thank you, Commissioner.
[1:56:32] Any other discussion?
[1:56:36] I would say no if we could have the vote then please.
[1:56:51] Motion carries.
[1:56:52] Thank you.
[1:56:53] Thank you all for coming down this evening
[1:56:55] and sharing your views with the commission.
[1:56:57] It's appreciated.
[1:56:57] I know it's a lot of time out of your time
[1:57:00] to come down here and we appreciate that.
[1:57:03] If we could have the next item of business, please.
[1:57:08] Item four is recommendation to recommend
[1:57:11] that the City Council determined that the project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act under Article 5 Section 15061 of the State CEQA guidelines and 15308 actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources and recommend that the City Council approve a code amendment and local coastal program amendment to repeal and replace the subdivision regulations of the City of Long Beach, the amendment includes revisions to one comply with the subdivision
[1:57:41] map act to streamline major map approvals, three improved procedural consistency and accuracy
[1:57:47] in processing subdivisions to include clear and unambiguous language and text, four
[1:57:53] update the design standards to align with the general plan, five streamline the decision making
[1:57:58] process allowing the zoning administrator to approve maps with up to 50 residential lots or maps
[1:58:03] for projects that include 100% affordable residential units, six update notice requirements,
[1:58:09] and seven introduced chapter 20.18 related to urban lot splits citywide.
[1:58:19] Thank you commissioners may I have a motion to move forward on this item motion
[1:58:26] for Commissioner Templin second from Commissioner Clemson
[1:58:31] All those and no get the motion. Sorry
[1:58:35] I've got a staff report
[1:58:37] The project planner Sergio Gutierrez will provide this presentation for you.
[1:58:44] Thank you Lexus. Good evening chair fellow commissioners. The item before you is a
[1:58:48] Public curing pertaining to the city subdivision ordinance amendment.
[1:59:05] Apologies on having technical difficulties with the remote here.
[1:59:17] My apologies.
[1:59:19] So the agenda for this item will provide an introduction to subdivisions.
[1:59:23] Discuss the work program established for this update.
[1:59:26] Highlight main updates to the ordinance as well as discuss the next steps in this process.
[1:59:33] We began with understanding what a subdivision ordinance is.
[1:59:36] So subdivision ordinance is a key element in the city suite of land division regulations which follows the state subdivision map back with local refinements.
[1:59:45] Subdivision ordinance helps to promote coordinated and efficient developments consisting with a general plan and zoning regulations.
[1:59:52] The subdivision ordinance is a part of Title 20 of the city's Long Beach Municipal Code and was last updated comprehensively in 1983.
[2:00:01] We continue with understanding what a subdivision is and the various types of maps associated with subdivisions. A subdivision is a map which shows the division of land or units on a property, whether improved or unimproved, into multiple lots of units for individual sale, lease, or financing. A subdivision can involve a simple division of land by dividing one parcel into two parcels, which will result in the preparation of a parcel map. Subdivisions can also involve divisions of much greater land area.
[2:00:30] into many parcels which result in a track map.
[2:00:34] Subdivisions generally create real lot lines
[2:00:37] and can be defined as the exclusive right
[2:00:39] to occupy airspace within a building
[2:00:42] which is commonly referred to as a condominium.
[2:00:45] Conversions are also a form of subdivision
[2:00:47] where existing rental units and buildings
[2:00:48] are converted into four sale units.
[2:00:52] Subdivisions can also involve the alteration
[2:00:54] of existing parcels that were once divided.
[2:00:56] This process can be done through what's called a lot merger.
[2:01:00] A lot merger is a consolidation of two and more contiguous recorded lots into one and
[2:01:04] more parcels.
[2:01:06] Lots that are voluntary merge are used to eliminate the lot line to accommodate the
[2:01:09] development project.
[2:01:11] Lot mergers are also city initiated, which are pursued to address technical deficiencies
[2:01:16] such as a lot area, access issues and lack of service to create more conforming lots when
[2:01:21] such lots are held by the same ownership.
[2:01:24] Another form of sub-division is a lot-line adjustment.
[2:01:27] So a lot-line adjustment is defined as the adjustment of the boundary between two or more
[2:01:32] adjacent lots, where the land is taken from one lot is added to the adjacent lot.
[2:01:36] This type of sub-division does not result in the creation of any additional lots.
[2:01:41] Lot-line adjustments are exempt from the tentative map requirements if the adjustment involves
[2:01:46] four fewer lots in which the final changes are reflected in recorded dates.
[2:01:52] Within this update, the overall goals of the subdivision amendments are to create a subdivision
[2:01:57] ordinance which is legally consistent with the state's subdivision mapback.
[2:02:01] Align city processes for a view of minor map approval, such as lot murderous, lot-line
[2:02:05] adjustments, and parcel maps with the state lots of stream-like work efforts.
[2:02:09] Provide consistency with the general plan which includes updating updates to the land use
[2:02:14] elements, mobility elements, and the urban zone elements, and improve procedure consistency
[2:02:20] and accuracy in processing subdivision cases by including clear and unambiguous language
[2:02:24] in the text and clarifying applicable processes for different map types.
[2:02:29] So, the slide provides an overview of all the work efforts of this program for this ordinance
[2:02:33] and updates.
[2:02:34] Staff and RM Design Group have been working closely together on this updated efforts, which
[2:02:40] Again, with researching and background analysis in the summer of 2019, consultation means
[2:02:45] with ordinance users such as city staff and stakeholders were held in July and September
[2:02:50] of 2019 to further understand what works in the subdivision code and what sections can
[2:02:54] be further refined and improved.
[2:02:57] And the administrative draft was provided in the late 2020 and the first of two study sessions
[2:03:02] with the commission was held in May of 2020.
[2:03:04] A second study session was held with the commission to provide updates on the additional topics
[2:03:09] fixed added to the draft ordinance as well as a release of the draft ordinance for public review, which was in May of 2023.
[2:03:17] This update is now in the public, the planning commission public hearing stages with city council tend to be tentatively being scheduled for December of 2023.
[2:03:27] So during the consultation meetings, staff and consultants captured many key elements from these interviews.
[2:03:32] The comments related to reinstating roundtable meetings with the applicant and staff from various departments involved with the review of maps to determine red flags during the early stages of review.
[2:03:43] Streamlining lot line adjustments and registers, having the zoning minister to act on parcel maps, identifying inconsistencies between subdivision regulations and zoning regulations, and lastly not to issue building permits until math are finalized and environmental clearances are obtained.
[2:04:00] So, this next slide just provides a brief overview of the various chapters codified within
[2:04:05] the subdivision ordinance, many of which will be updated.
[2:04:11] To ensure consistency with state law, various sections have been updated to reflect the
[2:04:15] current language within the subdivision map, which includes exemptions to subdivision
[2:04:20] requirements, noticing for public hearings, currents, mobile home part conversion requirements,
[2:04:26] and updating terminologies and definitions.
[2:04:31] So this next slide provides a comparative analysis
[2:04:33] of the current proposed review authorities
[2:04:35] for map reportables, which is one of the main topics
[2:04:38] of the sub-vivian ordinance of efforts.
[2:04:41] As you know, the matrix, the current reviewed authority
[2:04:43] for lot-line adjustments and a lot mergers
[2:04:45] falls within the Zoe Minister of Action.
[2:04:47] The proposed amendments in the sub-vivian will allow
[2:04:49] for the director as a review authority,
[2:04:51] which will allow required public hearing.
[2:04:54] Another proposed change to highlight relates to tentative maps. Currently, the Planning Commission is a review of the
[2:05:06] The proposal amendments will allow the zoning administrator as a review and authority for this map type. Additional updates include a line of the zoning administrator to act on residential projects with less than 50 dwelling units or lots. And projects that include 100% affordable units over 50 dwelling units or more. With this update, the decision would remain appealable. However, the planning commission would be
[2:05:29] be responsible for hearing any appeal.
[2:05:33] This change aligns with the planning commission's April 2020
[2:05:36] delegation of the SIP plan to be authority for housing projects
[2:05:39] with up to 50 units.
[2:05:41] This current process can cause significant delays to projects
[2:05:44] with time-sims activity that help meet the state's current
[2:05:48] housing crisis.
[2:05:49] Based on past project examples that have been appealed to
[2:05:52] city council only due to the map and not the number of units
[2:05:55] proposed.
[2:05:56] Updates to the decision making body are necessary for projects
[2:05:59] to ensure consistency with state housing laws.
[2:06:02] The recommended delegation of review authority is also consistent with the housing element
[2:06:08] go to mitigate government constraints to housing investment and affordability.
[2:06:13] These efforts also help to support housing element program 2.6 related to the development
[2:06:19] review process and tend to support faster and smoother project reviews.
[2:06:25] The next major goal within this update will improve procedure consistency and accuracy
[2:06:30] in the processing of sub-division cases by providing concurrent processing of sub-divisions
[2:06:36] with other entitlements processes in terms of hearing dates and approval expiration dates,
[2:06:41] updating the noticing procedures in alignments with other sections of the municipal code and
[2:06:46] the sub-division map back, amending the appeal section to be consistent with the zoning
[2:06:50] ordinance and include information in the code about submit requirements on maps.
[2:06:59] Throughout the design standards and other chapters within the proposed subdivision
[2:07:02] ordinance, various sections have been updated to ensure consistency with the city's housing,
[2:07:07] land use, mobility and urban design elements, which have all been updated since the subdivision
[2:07:13] ordinance was last amended.
[2:07:15] A few of these key topics include updates to street typologies to align with the depth
[2:07:19] that functionality requirements of the mobility element to ensure necessary improvements are captured with maps of the development stages for all modes of transportation and accessibility requirements for private streets and sidewalks to ensure adequate capacity and design that efficiently
[2:07:34] common is almost a transportation which is consistent with the mobility of the General Plan and
[2:07:39] the Americans with Disabilities Act.
[2:07:43] The update also includes amendments to condom apps which
[2:07:47] the subdivision map act includes minimal requirements for maps and belonging condominiums.
[2:07:53] To make the requirements clear and provide consistency with the city's general plan elements,
[2:07:58] a few of these amendments include creating a chapter related to common interest subdivisions
[2:08:03] that provides procedures for airspace
[2:08:05] condominions and planning developments
[2:08:07] and improvements to the condominium conversions
[2:08:09] chapter change for consistency
[2:08:11] with the housing, land use mobility
[2:08:13] and urban design elements.
[2:08:15] A few key updates to the condo conversions
[2:08:17] includes requiring the submission
[2:08:19] of an existing conditions reports
[2:08:22] and an improvement plan to determine
[2:08:23] if right away building facade upgrades,
[2:08:26] landscaping, utility improvements
[2:08:28] and other site improvements
[2:08:30] would be required for the development.
[2:08:32] The improvements also include updating the findings to require
[2:08:35] prescriptions of units to be affordable and only allowing for conversions if a vacancy
[2:08:40] rate for multifamily dwellings units in the city is greater than 5%.
[2:08:47] To ensure consistency with state law, the proposed ordinance includes the new chapter related
[2:08:51] to Senate Bill 9, also referred to SB 9, which is urban law splits.
[2:08:57] The state legislator adopted and adopted this Senate bill and become effective in January
[2:09:02] first of 2022. In urban law split is defined as a subdivision of an existing legal
[2:09:08] law zone R1, single-family district, to create no more than two new
[2:09:12] parcels. The ordinance will align with state law, with some local refinements
[2:09:17] which will include which will be complete at the ministry level, required each
[2:09:22] lot to have access from a right of way, required minimum lot size of 1,200 square
[2:09:28] feet per lot, conform to the minimum lot with standards of the zoning
[2:09:32] designation and prohibit law splits with special resource restrictions on sites that include
[2:09:36] but not limited to the sites within the wetlands, hazardous waste sites, and lots that are within
[2:09:42] historic district or designated landmark, historic landmark. In addition to the major changes,
[2:09:48] proposed within the subdivision ordinance, clarifying and more administrative changes are also proposed
[2:09:54] in order to increase user friendliness by providing the table, summarizing the review authority of each
[2:10:00] And math types. Clarifying street name changes, process by providing name conventions, procedures, application filing requirements, and required findings for approval or denial. Established, established parameters for model homes and application processing. Established requirements for the right away vacation process, including application filing requirements, findings for approval or denial, and the decision making process. And lastly, established a chapter for illegal subdivisions and certificate
[2:10:29] of compliance which will replace the existing fraction of a lot chapter.
[2:10:33] The new chapter provides clarity on applicability, procedures, conditions, and required fines
[2:10:39] for approval or denial.
[2:10:42] The stuff division ordinance will also ensure consistency with the city's local coastal
[2:10:46] program by updating the provisions to properties in the coastal zone.
[2:10:51] These provisions include ensuring that the, ensuring that all maps up types maintain and provide
[2:10:57] adequate public access to coastal recreational amenities and coastal
[2:11:02] resources such as beach, ensuring coastal visibility is not obstructed, and
[2:11:07] ensuring the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is
[2:11:11] consistent with the LCP as it considers projected sea level rise, slope
[2:11:15] stability, hazards, and potential storm flooding for the life of the project
[2:11:19] based on available female information.
[2:11:23] To ensure consistency with the general
[2:11:25] plan, the proposed ordinance has been amended to reflect the various goals, policies, and strategies within the city's general plan, housing, land use, mobility, and urban zone elements.
[2:11:34] The amendments, the subdivision ordinance will allow for subdivisions for all housing types, which is consistent with housing element policy 4.2, intended to encourage a balance of rents and home ownership opportunities, including high quality apartments, town homes, condominiums, and single family homes to accommodate the housing needs of all social economic segments of the community.
[2:11:54] including lunch families.
[2:11:56] The efforts within this update will also support
[2:11:58] LUE policy 13-2 to provide new housing opportunities
[2:12:02] in neighborhoods serving centers and quarters
[2:12:04] within transit-origin development areas and downtown.
[2:12:08] Furthermore, housing element action 2.6.1
[2:12:12] requires the city to update the subdivision ordinance
[2:12:14] to streamline housing development
[2:12:16] by streamlining the lot-merger process
[2:12:18] and reducing oversight requirements
[2:12:20] which has been included with this update.
[2:12:21] So there have been a bit of minor changes throughout the ordinance since the commission
[2:12:30] last seen the draft documents in May of 2023, and these changes reflect the city survey
[2:12:36] as a review and edits.
[2:12:37] These edits include updates to terminology, clarification of multiple lot-line adjustments
[2:12:42] that are submitted concurrently or sequentially to circumvent the four fewer existing adjoining
[2:12:48] parcels threshold.
[2:12:49] in the map back will not be allowed.
[2:12:53] Clarification a lot more to require in a parcel map when merging five or more locks
[2:12:57] and clarification on when a record of survey is required for various map processes.
[2:13:04] Presumably to the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5 Section 15061 and the state
[2:13:10] CEQA guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that the subject modifications to the city's
[2:13:16] municipal code will not have the potential for having a significant effect upon the environments and therefore is not subject to CEQA.
[2:13:23] The project is also exempt pursuing to CEQA Section 15308, which exempts actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources.
[2:13:35] A public draft of the subdivision ordinance was released in May of 2023 for public review.
[2:13:40] The required public hearing notice was provided in accordance with the Long Beach municipal code.
[2:13:44] noticed was published in the Long Beach press telegram on October 5, 2023.
[2:13:51] Additionally, notices were provided via the city's link, LB, email blast
[2:13:54] system, and to city libraries, stakeholders, and a notice was posted within City Hall.
[2:14:02] No comments have been received as the as of the preparation of this important
[2:14:06] ordinance update. Steph finds that positive findings can be made as
[2:14:12] support of the amendments to the sub-division ordinance and the amendments will help promote several general plan goals and policies.
[2:14:20] Therefore staff recommends that the city council,
[2:14:24] planning commission recommends the city council to determine the project is not subject to CEQA,
[2:14:29] pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Mac under Article 5, Section 15061 and the state of the state CEQA guidelines.
[2:14:38] and 1530A actions by regulatory agency for protection natural resources and also
[2:14:43] recommend that the city council approve code amendment ZC A19-005 and local
[2:14:49] coastal program amendment LCPA 23-001 to repel and replace the subdivision
[2:14:55] regulations of the city of Long Beach also refer to as title 20 in the Long Beach
[2:15:00] So, the next steps in this process, if recommended, for approval by the commission, will bring this item for city council public hearing in late December of 2023. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Commissioner, is there any questions for staff on the presentation? Commissioner Templin? This is all done with additional staff, right?
[2:15:29] That's what we're being told you're going to have more staff to cover in the case.
[2:15:33] Someday soon.
[2:15:34] That's a friendly amendment actually to the month.
[2:15:38] Good.
[2:15:40] All right. Any other questions on the staff's presentation?
[2:15:44] Just a comment that thank you for bringing this forward.
[2:15:47] This is great.
[2:15:47] Great cleanup.
[2:15:48] Thank you.
[2:15:49] All right.
[2:15:49] With that, I'm going to open it up to a public comment or any members of the public and the audience
[2:15:55] would like to make comments on this item.
[2:15:59] Seeing none I'll see if we have any video on virtual if you're joining us
[2:16:03] virtually and you would like to make public comment on this item please use
[2:16:06] the raise hand function at this time.
[2:16:17] There appears to be no further public comment
[2:16:18] on this item. Thank you with that I'll close public comment bring it back behind
[2:16:22] the rail. Make sure there's any discussion with
[2:16:30] that we have a motion a second
[2:16:32] can we have the vote please.
[2:16:41] Motion carries.
[2:16:47] Congratulations that is the
[2:16:48] culmination of an awful lot of work.
[2:16:51] Anticomatic, but Sergio here has worked on this for years,
[2:16:55] and our existing code is garbage.
[2:16:57] So this is a pretty amazing, wonderful move forward.
[2:17:02] Thank you.
[2:17:03] And I think for the applicants that are
[2:17:04] be using this, it will be much easier
[2:17:06] to use a lot more streamlined and some of the more basic things
[2:17:09] to not have any go through so many procedures.
[2:17:11] So good job on that.
[2:17:13] All right, I think that brings us to our last regular item.
[2:17:16] Item
[2:17:19] 5 is recommendation to recommend that the City Council accept categorical exemptions
[2:17:24] CE 23113 and approve a local coastal program amendment and repeal the 1989 victory
[2:17:32] park design guidelines and adopt victory park Santa Cruz Park design guidelines and proposed
[2:17:38] findings there to to establish updated design guidelines for victory park and Santa Cruz
[2:17:43] Park in the downtown shoreline plan development district 1.
[2:17:46] Thank you.
[2:17:48] May I have a motion to hear this item?
[2:17:52] The motion for Commissioner Templin,
[2:17:53] the second from Commissioner Clemson.
[2:17:55] Do we have a staff report?
[2:17:59] Yes, commissioners.
[2:18:00] This is another project that's been in the work for many years.
[2:18:02] I'd like to introduce Project Planner and Landscape Specialist,
[2:18:06] Alex Mulder, to provide this presentation.
[2:18:12] Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.
[2:18:15] I am excited to finally bring before you this evening
[2:18:20] a local coastal program amendment for Victory Park
[2:18:23] and Santa Cruz Park. The playing guru and our consultant's grown associates shout out to Dean
[2:18:32] Howell and his team that they're listening has been in an engagement a multi-year effort to
[2:18:38] update the Santa Cruz and Victory Park design guidelines for the first time since the late 1900s.
[2:18:51] Victory Park is in the downtown area on the south side of Ocean Boulevard at the first 80 linear
[2:18:58] feet of South of Ocean Boulevard sidewalk spanning between Queensway and Collinsway between
[2:19:04] her place and Shoreline Drive. Although the parks are directly in front of private
[2:19:08] development, along the Southside of Ocean Boulevard and are maintained by the budding private
[2:19:14] on property owners, the parcels are publicly owned. Then the entire Victory Park and Santa
[2:19:21] Cruise Park area within the Coastal Zone and within the downtown Shoreline Plan
[2:19:27] development pd6 Santa
[2:19:39] Cruz for the next two slides the existing these will be
[2:19:44] the existing conditions of the park Santa Cruz Park spans the first 30-40 feet
[2:19:50] south of the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk between Golden Shore and Cedar Avenue
[2:20:00] Victory Park is since from Cedar Avenue to Los Alamedos Avenue. And the, in 1980, the city council
[2:20:10] and California Coastal Commission certified the LCP with design guidelines adopted in 1989,
[2:20:16] the LCP seeks to reestablish Victory Park as a unified park throughout downtown Long Beach.
[2:20:23] The LCP requires all development and conversions of apartments to condominiums to rebuild
[2:20:30] Victory Park and Santa Cruz Park according to those design guidelines and dedicate the
[2:20:36] additional depth to the to the park and create minimum of 80 feet from Ocean Boulevard
[2:20:42] from the Ocean Boulevard's curb.
[2:20:44] Six blocks have been partially or completely redeveloped since this requirement was established.
[2:20:50] The 18 or 1989 design guidelines were created to ensure that the land segments dedicated to victory park and center crews park were available for the enjoyment of the residents in general public of Long Beach.
[2:21:03] At the same time, the guidelines served to coordinate the design, the guidelines served to coordinate the design and renovation of the park to implement a cohesive design.
[2:21:16] that is reminiscent of a historic Long Beach and reinforces the character of Ocean Boulevard as a grand boulevard.
[2:21:23] These same guidelines have not been changed or updated in over 30 years.
[2:21:29] Over the past decade, a greater emphasis has been placed on water efficient landscapes due to drought.
[2:21:35] Dwindling water supplies, higher water costs, storm water pollution and climate change.
[2:21:41] The City of Long Beach seeks to update the 1989 Victory Park and
[2:21:46] Santa Cruz Park design guidelines to encourage the use of current sustainable
[2:21:53] landscape best practices to mitigate the effects of climate change.
[2:21:57] In addition to the updated guidelines, it will establish the consistent design
[2:22:04] vision for Victory Park and Santa Cruz Park that will offer an inviting open space
[2:22:09] environment for residents and visitors while providing a habitat for native and native
[2:22:13] floor and fauna.
[2:22:21] Originally dedicated to the city as a public parkland in 1889, the victory
[2:22:28] park originally named by park number one that was renamed in 1920 and Santa Cruz Park is
[2:22:34] the oldest public park in the city of Long Beach. The park consists of a number of small
[2:22:39] all landstrips dated to the city by the Long Beach Land and Water Company, also known
[2:22:45] as the company, and settlement of a suit by the city against the company. The land
[2:22:52] was to be used for the purpose of the of ornamentation and recreation. The lawsuit resorted, or
[2:23:00] sorry, resulted from the original subdivision of Wilmore City, which had dedicated area between
[2:23:06] Ocean Boulevard and the High Tide Line as a public park. However, when the rancher Los
[2:23:12] Cerritos reclaimed Wilmore City due to non-plainment and resold the area to Long Beach,
[2:23:17] Land and Water Company, the new owners disputed the park dedication that dispute was settled by a
[2:23:26] comprised whereby the area top of the bluff would be dedicated public park while the bluff face
[2:23:33] and area between the bluff and the high tide line would belong to the company.
[2:23:38] Early versions of the park, including portions designed by the legendary
[2:23:42] landscape architect, like Frederick Law on St.
[2:23:45] Junior, who designed New York City Central Park.
[2:23:48] The segments, both victory and center cruise parks have been developed on a
[2:23:53] block my block basis as adjacent developments have been erected.
[2:23:57] As a result of the various park segments, which make up victory park and
[2:24:01] in the city of Santa Cruz Park, today very in-depth amenities and overall character during the building boom of 1920s,
[2:24:11] fueled by the old discovery of signal hill and the Aluminos Bay Area.
[2:24:15] Substantial buildings were built between both the Victory Park and the High Timeline.
[2:24:20] Many of these developers of the buildings wanted access to the buildings from the, from Ocean Boulevard.
[2:24:26] The city granted such access in many cases in exchange for the developer's landscaping the park and establishing roadways to the high timeline then defined by seaside way.
[2:24:39] This created a pattern of circular driveways through the park and the inconsistent landscaping and additional interruptions in the park roadways.
[2:24:49] the
[2:24:57] updated guidelines you don't you utilize fire
[2:25:00] We have design principles unify, variety, respect, access, and promote. Each of these design principles are clearly defined in the guidelines and establishes the solid precedence for landscape architects and designers when designing their portion of the park. The updated guidelines also consider existing conditions of Victory Park and Santa Cruz Park. The analysis completed by grown associates indicated that there are three conditions that are repeated throughout the entire length of the park.
[2:25:29] park, these conditions or segments as defined in the guidelines were created due to over
[2:25:35] development of certain properties along the south side of Ocean Boulevard and to the
[2:25:41] required park dedications.
[2:25:43] These updated guidelines define the segments and provide guidance on how to treat each segment
[2:25:49] when compliance is triggered.
[2:25:51] The update will also provide guidelines on site organization, allowable architectural elements,
[2:25:57] sites, amenities, landscape planting, operations and maintenance.
[2:26:07] There are many illegal non-conforming conditions that currently exist within that
[2:26:11] mouth stretch of Victory and Santa Cruz Park.
[2:26:14] As development progressed, the dedicated park space began to dwindle and
[2:26:19] transform into front lawns of the budding private properties.
[2:26:22] As the 1989 guidelines were neglected, the updated design guidelines were
[2:26:29] We're crafted not only to address the existing non-conformities, but also to help restore and identify victory in Santa Cruz Park as an actual public park over time.
[2:26:41] Triggers are placed within the guidelines for property owners to comply with the new guidelines so that their piece of victory park or Santa Cruz park can be updated accordingly.
[2:26:52] These triggers include new entitlements, major renovations, new development, or any voluntary changes that are made to victory or Santa Cruz Park itself.
[2:27:03] Compliance is only required when triggered.
[2:27:06] New and renovated landscape projects are required to comply with the state's model water efficient landscape ordinance.
[2:27:15] Design strategies within the updated center crews and victory park guidelines are tailored around this ordinance to ensure to ensure compliance for any project proposed within the designated park.
[2:27:27] The
[2:27:33] following findings are required for a local coastal program amendment.
[2:27:36] One proposed change will benefit the public interest.
[2:27:40] Two proposed change is consistent with zoning designations.
[2:27:43] Victory in Santa Cruz Park is in the downtown Shoreline area of the 1980 local coastal program
[2:27:51] which is which largely incorporates the policies of PD 6.
[2:27:55] In addition to public access requirements of the Coastal Act, the Thailand's restriction
[2:28:00] preserved victory park and Santa Cruz Park for visitors serving uses.
[2:28:08] The policy plan for the downtown Shoreline is comprised of an integrated and varied
[2:28:13] group of developments. Some existing, most new, the Victory Park Santa Cruz and Victory and
[2:28:22] Santa Cruz Park is intended to serve general visitors within the Certified LCP, the effect of
[2:28:29] zoning regulations are an implementing ordinance. The entirety of Victory Park is within PD6, which
[2:28:39] which is the zoning destination.
[2:28:41] Therefore, the change to the regulations incorporated by reference in P-D-6 triggers
[2:28:50] the amendment to the LCP, which must be approved by the Planning Commission, City Council,
[2:28:57] and a California Coastal Commission.
[2:28:59] Since the LP is an adopted element of the general plan, and 1989, Vickery Park guidelines
[2:29:07] were certified by the California Coates Commission in 2004, the repeal and replacement of the
[2:29:13] guidelines trigger a general plan amendment. The general plan amendment via LCPA will allow for
[2:29:21] the updated guidelines to be implemented across all park parcels to enable the cohesive and sustainable
[2:29:28] park design along the entire frontage ocean boulevard. The updated guidelines continue the goals of
[2:29:35] of the policies of PD-6 while also enhancing the public realm through guidance for architectural
[2:29:41] elements, site amenities, landscape planting operation and maintenance. Furthermore, it reinforces
[2:29:48] the general plan elements such as the open space element and local coastal program and the
[2:29:53] coastal act of 1976 through preservation of public open space for all to access.
[2:30:06] Community outreach for the proposed guideline ordinance was conducted over a multi-year period. An open house event was held at Billie Jean Library on December 14, 2019, which included a walking tour of the park. Public comments and input during the outreach process were included in the draft guidelines on April 24, 2023. The draft guidelines were posted online for a public reviewing comment.
[2:30:35] An additional event was held at Invictory Park on May 20, 2023 to solicit feedback on the drop-out lines.
[2:30:44] Staff attended the Ocean Residence Condominium Association meeting on June 26, 2023 to provide an overview of the project and how to participate.
[2:30:56] Comments received during these events, including feedback related to compliance triggers, active versus passive and design strategies.
[2:31:04] pursuant
[2:31:12] to the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is eligible for
[2:31:18] a categorical exemption section 15301, existing facilities, 15305 minor
[2:31:25] alteration and land use limitations, and 15308 actions by regulatory agencies for
[2:31:33] protection of the environment of the SQL guidelines. In accordance with the public
[2:31:38] Recurring Notice Requirements for Zoning Ornance Amendment and Long Beach Municipal Code.
[2:31:44] Notice of this public hearing was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on October
[2:31:49] 5th, 2023.
[2:31:52] Written notices were sent to the Coastal Commission and all interested parties, public hearing
[2:31:58] notices, sorry, and a notice of the proposed code amendment was distributed through the
[2:32:06] the city's link LB email email blast system.
[2:32:10] Notices were also provided to city libraries.
[2:32:14] As a preparation of this report,
[2:32:17] four comments have been received,
[2:32:19] expressing both support and recommendations for edits.
[2:32:27] Staff recommends approval of the LCPA
[2:32:30] as necessary components of the public park amenities,
[2:32:34] design treatments and landscape elements
[2:32:35] that will enhance passive coastal recreational activities
[2:32:40] and access to and through the public park areas proposed design guidelines will
[2:32:46] follow and will allow for the continued use of this important visitor serving
[2:32:51] and resident serving resource within the downtown Shoreline area. The water
[2:32:57] efficient plant pallet and sustainable approach to design will ensure that the
[2:33:02] park assessments convey a uniform and a resilient landscape. The guidelines
[2:33:07] We're trying to ensure a clear and comprehensive design standards that are apply uniformly across the park summits to encourage enjoyment by a broader public and local residents consistent with the LCP and coastal act goals that encourage visitors visiting uses within the coastal zone.
[2:33:31] Thank you. Thanks for your presentation.
[2:33:33] Any questions for staff on the presentation?
[2:33:38] Correct, Commissioner?
[2:33:40] Since the triggers are what will primarily drive some of the improvements, what's the
[2:33:50] anticipated timeline that is foreseeable in terms of how this would unfold over time relative
[2:33:58] to the entire park being accessible available and unified as a park space.
[2:34:08] Because of the unique nature of this park, it is a public park but it's maintained by
[2:34:13] the developments that front that park. The trigger is when we have these major entitlements
[2:34:19] to have greater compliance with the design guidelines. However, obviously we're not starting
[2:34:24] from scratch here. We have existing conditions, we have existing development so it really is
[2:34:29] a gradual process. The guidelines help us get closer to the vision you see in front
[2:34:35] of you, but it's not something that would happen on one field swoop or overnight, but
[2:34:39] rather over a lengthy period of time as redevelopment happens in this area.
[2:34:45] Thank you, started to allude to it in your presentation. How long have you been working
[2:34:48] on these guidelines since 2019?
[2:34:53] 2019, and correct me if I'm wrong. I think because we've had the benefit of that work, there's
[2:34:57] considerable amount of development that's
[2:35:00] This happened on Ocean Boulevard along there and I'm assuming that you guys have encouraged those developers even though these haven't necessarily been adopted at that point that these were the guidelines that they should be following. Yeah, this has been a working document and the existing guidelines are so out of date that we can't implement them. They're all about turf and all about water and all about fertilizer, which is not really the most sustainable approach to landscaping. So, you know, part of it's going to occur over many, many years but I think, you know,
[2:35:29] And we're now out of the drought, it will be in a drought again at some point in the future.
[2:35:33] So I do expect that those properties that have just big turf areas that they're going
[2:35:39] to voluntarily be into the city to make changes and make upgrades, and this planning document
[2:35:45] will allow us to make sure that that is cohesive and that it all flows together and more accurately
[2:35:51] depicts what it is that it's a public park where everyone's welcome.
[2:35:54] And with that in mind, I know some of the segments that were in the design guidelines.
[2:36:02] They have, I don't know the terminology, but the driveways that come forward or through
[2:36:10] are there plans to proactively move or minimize those because that's the major impediment to
[2:36:19] unification because up until this presentation was moved forward and I lived
[2:36:26] here my old life I never realized that was part of the city so at least I just
[2:36:33] thought I was a driveway for for each of those and certainly most folks will
[2:36:38] not feel welcome to you know loiter there or hang out there or take a nap
[2:36:45] there because it would be considered or they would proceed it to be private
[2:36:48] property. In terms of the community discussions, what conversations have taken
[2:36:54] place around that because specifically that's a use that I'm sure will create a
[2:37:00] lot of havoc for the tenants and or owners in those buildings but they've
[2:37:06] gotten probably used to it if not if not entitled to it in their mind so I mean
[2:37:12] what is going to be our approach to that because I don't see that changing
[2:37:16] any time soon unless we move it along in some way.
[2:37:20] Yeah, so I don't see us coming out and ripping out driveways.
[2:37:24] I just don't see that happening.
[2:37:26] So that's why it's not just beautiful landscaping and
[2:37:30] street furniture. It is also signage making it more clear that
[2:37:34] their public parks. But Alejandro is reminding me there are also
[2:37:38] specific rules. No new driveways or curb cuts
[2:37:41] that don't already exist. And many of the buildings that are there
[2:37:45] will be there for a long time or forever, but we do have office buildings that will be
[2:37:54] coming down at some point in the future, so I do think that there's some opportunities
[2:37:59] in the medium term to change the way that these properties are accessed and access them
[2:38:06] from the rear so that whether it's Santa Cruz Park or Victory Park that it maintains a better
[2:38:15] Park Landscape then maybe it has today
[2:38:18] Also our guidelines do speak to other
[2:38:23] Hard services that we could use that are permeable that are more sustainable
[2:38:28] That can be walked on and drive them so
[2:38:33] You know considering all the conditions existing condition that we had we took extra thought and to
[2:38:40] Implementing those options within our guidelines
[2:38:43] Has there been a vastness here, but has there been discussions around putting a time certain
[2:38:55] on some of these that could be considered long-term within ten years, there needs to be
[2:39:08] action in terms of redesigning or reclaiming, not suggesting I'm in a domain because we
[2:39:14] already own it. But it's in terms of them to start making plans around finding alternative
[2:39:22] entry points, for example, on the driveways. Again, I'm trying to be sensitive here, but
[2:39:27] I also realize that there's a lot of work involved in this, and this could conceal the 75 years
[2:39:34] from now and still nothing's moved and nothing's changed because as a property owner if I'm
[2:39:39] not forced to do it I'm not going to I'm not going to touch a thing to not trigger anything so
[2:39:46] I'm looking at this kind of from a practical perspective not to put staff on on a defensive here
[2:39:53] or again I just want to be sensitive to the practicality of those two terms again reclaiming the land
[2:40:00] So once we give someone a driveway, it's really hard to take it away, but that's not to say we don't have tools. So there is no magic 10 year, 12 year, you know, deadline, but we're doing the PD six update right now. So Alejandro and his team are doing that. And that's going to provide the economic incentives for some of these properties to change or expand or redevelop. So that's one piece. And then whether they remove the driveway or not, I think there are going to be some strong
[2:40:29] economic incentives and
[2:40:32] distance incentives that are going to drive the landscape changes, because they think they cost of water and the regulatory ability to maintain large areas of turf is going to change.
[2:40:44] There was a change in the legislature this year that affects us as a city, doesn't affect residential land owners this year but may in future years sort of prohibiting you from watering turf that is
[2:40:59] So, we're thinking about legal mechanisms to get there, but there's not a magic timeline.
[2:41:10] One more follow-up on that.
[2:41:11] In terms of, to your point, the economic factors and economic incentives are disincentives.
[2:41:17] Is there also the possibility of charging for that access or that use as it relates to the driveways?
[2:41:27] are again to encourage or discourage that that motivation of retaining existing land again I'm I'm
[2:41:36] trying to we can play through the property lawyer up there is going to tell you you know once we
[2:41:43] grant people access and we sit on our hands for not just years but decades we may as a city not
[2:41:53] necessarily have the right to then come and ask for a fee.
[2:41:57] It's very easy to do that on a brand new arrangement, but there's there's certain latches and
[2:42:04] a stopper concerns.
[2:42:06] Did I understand Crippy, though, in the presentation that this ocean bull of art access, that the trade
[2:42:11] off and allowing that with property owners was that the property owners are then responsible
[2:42:16] for the maintenance of these parks, right, the city is not paying to maintain them.
[2:42:20] So I think that was the historical context of how these drive approaches and things went through that public parkway.
[2:42:30] And it will take a long time to unwind that for sure, Commissioner Clemson.
[2:42:34] Thank you.
[2:42:34] So just to beyond new construction, are there other triggers that would require them to update the landscaping?
[2:42:47] Yes.
[2:42:48] So there's new construction, there's made-on settlements which don't necessarily require new construction, major interior, there's our major exterior renovations, park renovations, demolition, and any introduction of additional units, so even if it's an existing building, but they're adding units or square footage, all those will be triggers as well.
[2:43:09] So that's part of why we are incentivizing and ensuring that we don't have to wait decades.
[2:43:16] It starts to see change happen between these thresholds kind of being broader than just brand new
[2:43:21] construction and the PD6 update, which will hopefully take less than decades, post-commissioned
[2:43:29] willing.
[2:43:29] We'll start to see a lot of changes within the next few years for the better, both with
[2:43:35] the aesthetic and the design and sustainability of the park, and then more generally within
[2:43:38] in Ocean Boulevard in the shoreline area more broadly.
[2:43:42] So we have one of the large apartment complexes on Ocean Boulevard is in to us for I think
[2:43:49] like 13 additional units, they're converting some storage spaces and different spaces in
[2:43:53] the complex.
[2:43:54] So they're not building a new building, they're not tearing the building down, but that
[2:43:58] is our opportunity to work with them to correct some deficiencies in their landscaping
[2:44:04] and some artificial turf that doesn't drain properly
[2:44:08] and some problematic things that are happening at that property.
[2:44:12] So we do hope to take them on one by one whenever we have
[2:44:16] the opportunity to do so.
[2:44:19] Okay, so these, because I was imagining, you know,
[2:44:22] adding another floor and my vest aren't going to happen, right?
[2:44:25] But you're talking about converting different spaces.
[2:44:27] And even something as low as 13 units on a 500 units,
[2:44:31] 1,000 units would trigger this?
[2:44:34] Yep, okay, and then to be more specific looking at the projects that kind of have happened
[2:44:40] to them past like five years, the breakers hotel conversion, would that qualify?
[2:44:47] Yeah, so we went through a whole process with breakers to make sure that their driveway
[2:44:51] wasn't getting bigger and to look at their landscaping.
[2:44:54] It's just now winding up construction, but that was approved quite a while ago, so the guidelines
[2:44:59] Thanks for watching.
[2:45:00] I'm going to go into the point for a long. And, you know, even older ocean air doesn't perfectly fit these guidelines, but is sort of in line with the spirit of these guidelines, and we were they are working towards, you know, what would be a better fit, what would be a more public fit and a more sustainable fit.
[2:45:16] but I'm just trying to get a sense of what kinds of projects,
[2:45:20] those conversion projects would also qualify.
[2:45:22] Okay, thank you.
[2:45:24] Mr. Templin.
[2:45:26] Thank you.
[2:45:29] Clarification, I hope that means like for driveways
[2:45:31] they're gonna become permeable concrete, okay, good.
[2:45:35] And we're gonna bring you to meetings with the fire department.
[2:45:38] Where we can, where we can, and when you mention the artificial
[2:45:49] There's just one of my little bug news because I was involved with some of the schools
[2:45:53] trying to get it out because of all the chemical exposure to rivers on it.
[2:46:00] And is that going to be taken away, hopefully?
[2:46:04] We're not big fans of artificial turf.
[2:46:06] It turns out to not be great for water quality and it's also, you know, has other issues.
[2:46:13] in the right context, in the right place with the right drainage, it can be okay.
[2:46:19] So, we don't have like a ban, but that isn't really what's contemplated for the most part here,
[2:46:26] what we're looking at is live plant material and permeable surfaces, so that's really the goal.
[2:46:32] There's always going to be locations somewhere here in the city, and you can do really nice artificial turf.
[2:46:38] that it is not always what people choose,
[2:46:41] but there's different levels of quality
[2:46:44] with artificial turf.
[2:46:45] You know, they all poison you, especially children
[2:46:49] and animals, because they're right down on it.
[2:46:53] But that's just something to think about, please.
[2:46:57] Yeah, within the guidelines in section 2 pointing,
[2:47:00] we do mention what can, you know, like turf grass
[2:47:06] be replaced with and it does not include the artificial turf. However there's no
[2:47:12] like language that specifically says we discourage and however we are we can
[2:47:19] add that in certain sections of this guidelines so that you know you know
[2:47:26] the landscape designers and architects know that it is discouraged to use this
[2:47:29] type of material and within a park it should be live landscaping it's just
[2:47:34] better for the environment and for the natural ecosystem along that stretch.
[2:47:39] I think your guidelines do guide you in that direction if you're looking at
[2:47:44] like a large turf area in front of a building. I think the guidelines don't
[2:47:48] encourage you to replace that with artificial grass like for like but you may
[2:47:52] want to consider spelling that out a little clearer for homeowners associations
[2:47:56] and stuff that are looking at that and don't pick up the subtleties of the
[2:48:00] direction that you're pushing them. Commissioner Castillo?
[2:48:02] Yeah, and then one other kind of follow up in regards to just the visibility and I think
[2:48:10] awareness to the general public and the community that this is actual park space.
[2:48:15] Are there things that we will do either as a city or within the department to publicize
[2:48:22] that more?
[2:48:23] And what I mean by that is everything from, for example, the GIS mapping, Google mapping,
[2:48:28] and all of those things where it's designated as park space
[2:48:32] so that there's at least visibility, signage,
[2:48:35] things that nature just so that, I think,
[2:48:38] we start recognizing it and awareness,
[2:48:42] because I think even earlier,
[2:48:44] we were having discussions around the parklets
[2:48:49] and the entitlement mentality that may happen
[2:48:52] or sometimes is inferred once we give access to that space.
[2:48:56] But I think making sure that there's signage of people feeling comfortable and people not
[2:49:03] being discouraged from being there because an owner or condo or whatever have me be misguided
[2:49:11] and say, hey, get off our lawn, the approval will get off our lawn scenario.
[2:49:15] If there's more that we can do it in terms of that advocacy, that would be wonderful because
[2:49:20] again, I'm thinking this through in terms of moving it forward, not on a one-year basis but
[2:49:26] really just to make sure people do feel comfortable to stay there and park there and picnic there or whatever.
[2:49:35] Within our guidelines we do put a huge emphasis on signage.
[2:49:39] We even go as far to kind of guide the exact language that will go on that signage to say that this is a public park.
[2:49:49] This was established this year, things like that.
[2:49:53] We also took a look at how many segments there are and how many
[2:50:00] How many monument signs should go up? Like, the idea is not to have like a monument sign on every segment, but we give different options for signage, like floor plaques, things like that. So, the landscape designer or architect will have the option. But on every every segment of Victory Park or Santa Cruz Park, it will be. There's signage saying that this is a public park, so everyone will know.
[2:50:28] And I think adding to that, I don't know if you can really put this into a design guidelines,
[2:50:35] but figuring out a way to design it so it looks like it's inviting beyond just putting a sign,
[2:50:42] people don't read signs, and I'm thinking I'm looking at this,
[2:50:46] the place downtown here with the big black art piece that has the faces on it.
[2:50:53] I've walked by that a bunch of times and it does not feel like a place you should be.
[2:50:57] Like, it's clearly private property and, you know, it has the frontage, it has the width, it has the green space, but it's designed to keep people away from it, just from a feeling standpoint.
[2:51:12] And I hope that there's something that we can do to formalize making it more of a inviting public space rather than even just having a sign and
[2:51:22] say hey you can come in here if you want right in addition to signage we do
[2:51:28] within our park programming section we have different strategies on how to make
[2:51:33] it more inviting and how to make it aesthetically look like that this is a park
[2:51:38] one of those things is you know creating movement within the park by like
[2:51:45] putting in walkways from the sidewalk into the park and out so that's one of the
[2:51:50] strategies that we looked at for the design guidelines.
[2:51:53] We also limit fencing within the guidelines themselves as well to really only be used to
[2:51:57] screen utility.
[2:51:58] So, holistically, there's a lot of components within different guidelines that provide that
[2:52:05] kind of openness that you're alluding to and that Alex just provided an example of.
[2:52:10] But generally, that was a lot of the guiding principles behind us to make it clear to the folks
[2:52:14] both through signage, overtly stating so, and through the design components that now have
[2:52:19] to be followed, that this is a public walkway of public area that, going back to the driveway
[2:52:24] conversation, they have to be shared paths as are updated, so we might not be able to
[2:52:29] necessarily to give rid of any that are existing unless there's a wholesale redevelopment.
[2:52:33] But if they're going to remain, that they become more accessible to folks and not just cars,
[2:52:38] and that every design component works seamlessly to kind of provide that open experience for
[2:52:43] everybody.
[2:52:45] Sorry, I'm just going to add one more thing.
[2:52:47] It has been a many-year process, but early in the process, we did a review of best practices
[2:52:51] looking at other linear parks, not only in the U.S. but across the world to see kind
[2:52:56] of what works, what makes it feel more inviting, what design treatments, and then we designed
[2:53:01] some of our engagement strategies that way.
[2:53:03] So the 2019 event was a walk through different parts of the park to go with community looking
[2:53:09] at what feels more inviting, what doesn't, why, how does that work, and how can we build
[2:53:13] upon best practices so that was helpful in the process and then in our last workshop it was
[2:53:18] actually a pop-up in the park the idea was have a picnic in the park actually activated in the
[2:53:22] process as part of our work to do the outreach on the guidelines. Thank you. I just wanted to add
[2:53:26] and why I think it's important because that park I'm looking at of Google Street View right here
[2:53:32] it has all the elements that we're talking about it has you know benches and walkways and public
[2:53:36] art, but it just builds in a way that keeps you out of it. But I have faith that you
[2:53:44] folks will be able to figure that out. Thank you.
[2:53:49] Commissioner Templin.
[2:53:51] If I may ask to, one of those components would be park benches. A lot of people like to walk,
[2:53:58] but they get to a certain age and they want to be able to sit down and enjoy it for a while before they get up
[2:54:03] walk a little bit more maybe to another bench, but that park benches let you know you're
[2:54:09] welcome and it makes a big difference. I found that out in Central Park in New York
[2:54:15] that the designer thing and those are the kind of things that have been taken away and
[2:54:21] I think they need to be brought back. Please. Yes, park benches is a requirement within
[2:54:28] in these guidelines, also other park amenities
[2:54:31] that will make a park feel like a park,
[2:54:34] drinking fountains, tables, etc.
[2:54:39] And actually the old design guidelines require a bench as well,
[2:54:42] but when you go out there, you'll see some of the benches
[2:54:44] don't have a walkway leading to them.
[2:54:46] So when it's fully grass up to the bench,
[2:54:48] you might not always feel invited to do it.
[2:54:50] So that goes back to Alex's point about the walkway piece as well.
[2:54:55] Thank you.
[2:54:56] Just one observation as I was looking through this and
[2:55:00] And I was curious because I, again, I, I rely on Google maps and, and Apple maps for almost everything. But everything east of Heart Street, which is just immediately to the east of the, of the terrorist theater, is on being reflected as a park space. But everything west of that included, from heart all the way to the shoreline. But everything else over is looks like private land. So if we could throw that onto the to do list as well, just again,
[2:55:29] from the spirit of visibility and the awareness.
[2:55:33] Yeah, we'll share that with some of our departmental partners.
[2:55:35] I know parks and public works do interact with Google maps
[2:55:38] around some of those issues.
[2:55:43] All right, any other comments or questions or concerns?
[2:55:48] Now, we have a first and a second then.
[2:55:50] If we get up the vote, please.
[2:55:52] Oh, I'm sorry, public comment.
[2:55:53] Thank you, sir.
[2:55:54] Come on out.
[2:55:57] They rolled me.
[2:55:58] They tricked me up here.
[2:56:05] Just one second.
[2:56:06] park from here and thank you. Hello my name is Russ McCurdy I live at West
[2:56:14] Ocean just across the street and in 2009 when I decided to move to Long Beach
[2:56:20] one of the things that really drew me here were all the parks all different
[2:56:25] sizes huge parks small parks medium parks okay now there is a lot of variety along
[2:56:32] Ocean Boulevard for the parks, right? Now I'm going to say respond to some of your comments
[2:56:39] about parks. I think West Ocean has a good one. We have four benches and there's no barriers
[2:56:46] between the sidewalk and going on the grass, but in the new guidelines, because we have more than
[2:56:55] 30 feet of depth, 30 feet or more, we would have to build a new walkway, you know, it doesn't say how big that walkway is, but if it's like six feet, then you're losing 20% of your lawn.
[2:57:11] And you'd have to build some walkways along the side, and because on one side, we have an elevated street, no seaside goes down.
[2:57:20] So along the park you'd have to have a walkway here and on the other side the other building has you know how we
[2:57:27] We don't have a uniform. You know, we're not a development, right? You know, we have some buildings here
[2:57:32] So you'd have to have another walkway over here and so you'd lose 30% of your grass and
[2:57:39] Two huge trees. I don't know the coastal commission is gonna allow you to do the trees
[2:57:43] But my concern is that when I look at the architectural guidelines
[2:57:49] that were put out, that they're very modern looking and there's lots of concrete, lots
[2:57:57] of hard skate.
[2:57:59] One I think of a park, I think of trees and bushes and flowers, oh, we have some of
[2:58:04] those two, but mostly in the spring.
[2:58:07] And so, you know, please, let's not get, you know, too hard skate focused and say, oh, we've
[2:58:16] to have a walkway to the bench. Well, no. If you go to El Dorado Park, and you want
[2:58:22] to go to the, you're going to walk on the grass. I mean, that's part of going to the park,
[2:58:26] right? So, you know, I would like to, you know, get a little bit less emphasis on the concrete
[2:58:34] and more emphasis on the plants. Now, yes, there ought to be places for people to play. Now,
[2:58:40] I have seen people that don't live in my building sit on the benches. I've actually seen people
[2:58:45] that obviously don't live in my building laying on the grass and that's okay
[2:58:50] so people do use it right so I don't know that adding more sidewalks is going to
[2:58:54] encourage more use I really don't now I will say that I went to an orca meeting
[2:59:00] that talked about this I went to the pop-up meeting in the park I provided some
[2:59:05] comments I even sent in email comments with my thoughts this was a few years ago
[2:59:11] now. But I never received any acknowledgement that I had made any comments at all. So when
[2:59:17] I see this thing about, you did public comments, but you didn't listen. Okay, so, and I haven't
[2:59:24] seen any changes in the document that reflect any of my comments. Thank you for listening.
[2:59:34] Thank you for your comments, sir. Appreciate it. Any other public comments in the audience?
[2:59:41] We have any virtual callers.
[2:59:43] If you're joining us virtually
[2:59:45] and you'd like to make public comment on this item,
[2:59:47] please use the raise hand function at this time.
[2:59:50] The first person with their hand up is Anne Cantrell
[2:59:52] and you have been unmuted.
[2:59:54] You have three minutes to provide public comment.
[2:59:59] Good evening.
[3:00:00] Good evening again, and can trail, and I agree with the previous speaker. I went to the original meeting at Billy King Library in 2019 and made comments then. I have not heard from anyone about this sense. In fact, I just happened to see that it was on your agenda tonight.
[3:00:27] The 1980 guidelines required signage, they required benches in every section, they required
[3:00:41] drinking fountains, and Dave Denovan, I don't even know whether he's still alive, but
[3:00:50] He fought for Victory Park and Santa Cruz Park for years.
[3:00:56] That's how I found out about it.
[3:00:58] I'm a Long Beach native and I didn't know
[3:01:01] that all that land along Ocean Boulevard
[3:01:06] along to the city was public land
[3:01:10] because it looks like the front yard of every building there.
[3:01:15] I do not think that putting a lot of concrete in
[3:01:19] is going to make it inviting drought tolerant plants although I have
[3:01:29] succulents in my parkway but they are not something that are inviting or
[3:01:36] like a park. I agree trees, grass, I know it requires water but as one of the former parks
[3:01:51] and wreck directors said, parks are about the only place left where kids can play and see
[3:02:01] green grass. So many residents have turned their front yards into drought tolerant places and
[3:02:10] we need green plants in our lives to even if it takes some water. And so I'm not happy with what
[3:02:25] What I'm hearing is in this revised guidelines.
[3:02:32] I don't think it's going to get what you are thinking it's going to.
[3:02:40] It's not going to be an inviting place for kids to come and just people to come and sit
[3:02:47] Sit in the grass or sit on a bench and under the shade of a tree and enjoy a parkland.
[3:02:59] Thank you for listening.
[3:03:01] Thank you, Ms. Cantrell.
[3:03:03] Next speaker.
[3:03:04] Our next speaker is Kurt.
[3:03:06] Kurt, you have been unmuted.
[3:03:07] You have three minutes to provide public comment.
[3:03:10] Thank you for unmuting me.
[3:03:13] I guess I wanted to say that I really like the design plans.
[3:03:17] I can tell that there's been a lot of work that's gone into it, and I would like to support
[3:03:27] the idea of leaning less into turf lawns and grass, I grew up in a place that had grass
[3:03:36] that I could play in, but I have allergies, so I hated grass, and I played soccer, and I had
[3:03:44] to roll around it all the time.
[3:03:46] Not a great one, but anyway, I think shade is a big components to what I think this
[3:03:56] space could really use.
[3:03:57] I was happy to see that a couple of the trees that were called out looked like good trees,
[3:04:04] not just palm trees, which don't really provide shade and aren't really drought tolerant.
[3:04:11] I guess the other thing that I really like is the raised crossings for pedestrians that
[3:04:18] are in the design guidelines that really made me happy because it calms traffic and it
[3:04:25] lets pedestrians know that there's supposed to be there, which I think is a really important
[3:04:30] thing that is missing from the current park, which is that people just, it is not an inviting
[3:04:35] space. It's somebody else's front yard. This is what it feels like. Yeah, how many people have said
[3:04:40] tonight, they didn't know that that was public property. So I think that the new design rules are
[3:04:47] great and I think that if this park actually gets built out to its vision, it would be a great amenity
[3:04:52] for Long Beach, especially being that it's got a real big place of prominence right next to City Hall
[3:04:58] and our current...
[3:05:02] The other thing is I do agree with some of the other commenters about how inviting the park is, however, that has most to do with Ocean Boulevard. And I'm going to get into that place, but I do agree that there are elements that will make this park uninviting. It's just not the grass. It's the road. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.
[3:05:29] Once again, if you're joining virtually and you'd like to provide public comment on this item,
[3:05:34] please use raise hand function at this time.
[3:05:41] There appears to be no further public comment on this item.
[3:05:44] Thank you with that. I'll close public comment. I would encourage everyone. It sounds there's some
[3:05:49] people that are hearing comments and responding. I would encourage people to actually read through
[3:05:53] and take a look at the design plans, the design guidelines as they've been presented.
[3:06:00] maybe staff could help me a little bit. One of the concerns that somebody had was that
[3:06:03] this plan was very prescriptive. I'm assuming that these design guidelines would be treated
[3:06:09] the way they are for all projects, that they would be somewhat site specific. We'd be
[3:06:13] looking at the building and the lot size and the orientation and we'd be working conjunction
[3:06:18] with them. These are guidelines to point us in a certain direction, but would not be so prescriptive
[3:06:25] that would force somebody to concrete over their entire print yard.
[3:06:29] Right. That's correct, Chair. So, these are guidelines. They're different.
[3:06:34] And, you know, a zoning standard that a building shall be X feet high or, you know,
[3:06:39] shall be Y percentage glass. They are guidelines. We do try to move them forward, but
[3:06:45] we look at intent, not just the individual prescriptive standards and just for the commission,
[3:06:53] question, it may be different than what you see today, but what is prescribed even in
[3:07:03] the prescriptive guidelines is not to cement over any portion of the park or to make it entirely
[3:07:09] hard-scape. And if people are confused about what happened to their comments, there is an
[3:07:14] appendix in the document itself that goes over all the different comments, we received,
[3:07:19] to we did try to be responsive to all of them.
[3:07:23] Sometimes in the course of public outreach,
[3:07:25] you might have two given commenters
[3:07:27] that tell you diametrically opposite things.
[3:07:30] So you try to be responsive to everything you hear
[3:07:34] within the realm of possibility.
[3:07:36] And that's the work that Alex did here
[3:07:39] and we're very proud of the outcome.
[3:07:42] Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that
[3:07:44] and for the comments.
[3:07:45] I also think too that it's nice
[3:07:46] that there's so many images that are in this one.
[3:07:48] And I think it's, people hear low or drought tolerant landscaping and they get a certain
[3:07:54] image in their head.
[3:07:55] And I think of Lincoln Park, which is just recently done, that has a lot of best practices
[3:07:59] and it is a very welcoming space that incorporates the right type of plant pallets.
[3:08:05] So I think looking at the actual design guidelines that are put forward, I think people should
[3:08:10] be encouraged by that.
[3:08:12] Commissioners, any other questions or comments?
[3:08:16] I always want to comment.
[3:08:17] I really love Lincoln Park and I bring my three-year-old down there as much as we can so if that's what we're looking at
[3:08:23] I think we got a good vision
[3:08:26] All right with that I think we are ready for a vote
[3:08:42] Ocean case. Thank you
[3:08:44] At this point I'd like to open up the podium to
[3:08:48] Any members of the public that would like to address the commission on non-agentized items
[3:08:55] Seeing none in the audience do we have any virtual callers?
[3:08:59] If you're joining us virtually and you'd like to make public comment on non-agentized items
[3:09:03] please use the raise hand function at this time.
[3:09:10] There appears to be no further public comment.
[3:09:12] Thank you.
[3:09:14] I was just going to make a comment to Alexis.
[3:09:16] She's snuck out really quickly.
[3:09:18] She's definitely getting her money's worth out of tonight's meeting.
[3:09:20] Did you guys get every project she's ever touched on tonight?
[3:09:24] Getting them all finished.
[3:09:27] Commissioner's any comments?
[3:09:29] Go ahead, Commissioner Templin.
[3:09:31] Just one comment I did get my email on the mayor's survey, and it was pretty short I guess.
[3:09:42] So I don't know why, but demographics, yes.
[3:09:46] Yeah.
[3:09:47] Yeah, so we've got those and hopefully gotten those turned in.
[3:09:51] It's optional, but we appreciate you filling out the survey.
[3:09:55] We had at least one commissioner had a negative reaction to the survey.
[3:09:59] but...
[3:10:00] The survey has nothing to do with kicking anyone off a commission or punishing or rewarding anyone for their demographics. Brand new commissioners, we ask a number of demographic questions of as we onboard them. Some of you that have been with us a longer, more distinguished tenure. We don't necessarily have that information on you. And instead of singling people out, we're asking all the commissioners across all the commissions in the city.
[3:10:29] of different boards and commissions to some basic information so that we have statistics about how we're doing in the aggregate of reflecting the diversity of our city across our different boards and commissions.
[3:10:43] So hopefully no one took offense to it because it's actually really helpful information for us to have here at the city.
[3:10:52] All right. Well, I'd like to thank staff and the meeting tonight and for the public for your patience and participation this evening and I will adjourn the meeting.