11/17/06
Panel rules on Home Depot appeal
By Joe Segura, Staff writer
Article Launched:11/16/2006 10:29:39 PM PST
HUNTINGTON BEACH - Without debate, the state Coastal Commission unanimously agreed Thursday with opponents to the East Long Beach Home Depot that there are "substantial issues" to warrant an appeal on their environmental concerns over the proposed project.
During their meeting, the commissioners also decided there is merit to opposition for a road project near the MarketPlace shopping center at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street.
The commission's decisions set up two key hearings for the major projects, which have drawn fire from homeowner groups and environmentalists, contending that the projects would aggravate gridlock traffic conditions and endanger the adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands.
Long Beach attorney Mel Nutter, representing the opponents, said the commission's future reviews could lead to votes as early as January.
Representatives for the two projects were not present for Thursday's commission hearing.
The commission's vote was so rapid that opponents had no opportunity to outline their positions.
Opponents to the Home Depot design center at Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive filed appeals to the proposal almost immediately after the City
Council's approval in October, contending for the most part that the project's environmental report is flawed.
The commission staff agreed, listing among their "substantial issues" the fact that the city's Local Coastal Program designates the project site for an industrial use, while the project calls for a commercial land use; the project could result in "unanticipated and cumulative impacts" to the adjacent area; and the project does not meet the open- space requirements of 30 percent of its area.
The staff also had concerns that additional traffic could "adversely impact coastal access." And the staff said the project "could adversely affect wildlife, wetlands and the adjacent tidal waters."
The appeal over the MarketPlace project was filed by Commissioners Sara Wan and Dr. William A. Burke. They contend the construction of the extension of Shopkeeper Road - on a .58-acre site near the MarketPlace shopping center - is within 100 feet of wetlands and an estuary.
"The construction of the extension of Shopkeeper Road ... would adversely affect the wetlands on the project site," the commission staff asserted in its report.
The report adds: "the local coast development permit does not acknowledge that the approved development includes the filling of any wetlands, nor does it include any measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to the wetland."
Joe Segura can be reached at joe.segura@presstelegram.com or (562)
11/9/06 Its not over yet....
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust
University Park Estates Neighborhood Assoc.
Stop Home Depot Coalition
Present
Deck the Halls
By Darryll Poper
Standing Ovation Flower Gallery
10582 Los Alamitos Blvd.
Los Alamitos, CA
(562) 598-0441
- Wine and Hors d Oeuvres Reception *
* Fabulous Drawings *
* Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Video Presentation *
* Holiday Gifts and Dcor *
(15% of Gallery sales donated to preserving Los Cerritos Wetlands)
Monday, November 13th
Open House 5:30 8:30 p.m.
$15.00 at door
Tax-deductible donations made payable to Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust graciously accepted. To help fight encroaching development threatening the wetlands, kindly write Legal Fund on the check memo line.
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust P.O. Box 30165, Long Beach, CA. 90853
www.lcwlandtrust.org
10/3/06
Editorial
Suckers
(Oct. 3, 2006) -- We held off on expressing our views on the Studebaker/Loynes "Home Depot" development until seeing whether others would make the points we make below. They didn't, so we do.
In the early 1990s, Doug Otto -- a lawyer now honorably representing the development's land owner and predictably tapdancing around significant traffic impacts -- was spouting near endless concerns over traffic congestion and gridlock.
With City Hall 15 years ago lusting for more tax dollars (some things never change), then-City Manager Jim Hankla oversaw a plan, ultimately approved by the City Council, to impose a whopping 16% surcharge on LB business licenses. City officials said LB faced coming traffic gridlock unless mitigating public works projects were undertaken.
Mr. Otto served as a de facto salesman/liaison for this, enduring stupefying public testimony, meetings, predictions, reports and studies and ultimately applauding a "Traffic Mitigation Program," a paper list of projects (some small, some large) that would supposedly be funded by the business license surcharge.
These included grade separations -- one street going under another -- at the Iron Triangle (PCH/7th/Bellflower), the Traffic Circle, Lakewood/Spring and Ocean/Alamitos. The Press-Telegram helped sell the "plan" with maps, articles...and editorials. To silence doubters, City Hall even wrote the projects into the Transportation Element of LB's General Plan.
Big surprise: City Hall's 16% business license surcharge didn't actually require City Hall to deliver any of the projects. The net effect was a W.C. Fields style shuffle, funneling money to City Hall on one pretext while leaving City Hall free to spend the money as it pleased. As Fields might say, "Never give a sucker an even break."
The result was predictable. Smaller public works projects were done but not one of the grade separations were ever delivered.
This is relevant to the Home Depot project...because if City Hall had delivered what it promised at the Iron Triangle (PCH/7th/Bellflower) -- which City Hall admits will be significantly adversely impacted by the Home Depot development -- the results might be different.
If LB City Hall ever were concerned about traffic and not just milking LB businesses -- who continue paying the 16% business license surcharge to this day -- someone would have pressed to commit the business license surcharge to alleviating a coming traffic trainwreck at PCH/2d. It doesn't take a "study" to know what the Home Depot's effects will be when they collide with a major mixed use at the Seaport Marina Hotel site at 2d/PCH. That intersection is backed up for many hours of the day now
No one dares mention these very real coming costs, or using the business license surcharge to deal with them. That's because the developer knows it would likely cause Councilmembers to seek more money for mitigation. City Hall is currently spending the business license surcharge for smaller public works traffic related items (including widening 2d/PCH...which isn't nearly enough to deal with the combined effects of a Home Depot + the Seaport Marina developments).
In this, we are haunted by the Planning Commission testimony of a representative from Seal Beach City Hall. He said [paraphrase] that if the Home Depot project were proposed in his city, their officials would seek much more from the developer to pay for needed mitigation.
Without saying so, he said LB city officials, and taxpayers, were suckers.
That's what we believe is really at stake here. When management tells the Council to approve a "statement of overriding considerations" on major impacts, to us that's a de facto admission that LB City Hall is willing to let others take advantage of it, settling for small change (like fixing Loynes Dr., a small remote park near Kettering School) while accepting large taxpayer costs in the future.
We hope Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong grasp this...and honestly confront the real long-term costs implicit in the Home Depot development. A W.C. Fields model for public words and public works should be part of LB's past, not its future.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
September 8, 2006
This was buried in the Press Telegram's Wednesday Beach Week section on page BW5. It still leaves doubts!!
School and store to coexist?
By Joe Segura Staff Writer
The Long Beach Unified School District had outlined some serious conserns about the proposed East Long Beach Home Depot project, but it beliieves it can co-exist with it, If approved. The districts Facilities and Planning branch had raised issues over the project's environmental report that, it alleged, "fails to provide any documentaion" to support a conclusion that the potential for diesel air quality impacts would be less than significant at Kettering Elementary.
The school has about 360 children in grades K-5.
In its letter to the city's environmental planing section the district addressed in the final EIR especially along the Seventh Street section that fronts Kettering - with its northern portion being about 70 ft away. The district also raised concerns that potential traffic would begin cutting though neighborhood streets - Silvera and Margo in particular as alternative routes.
The letter added: There is concern that such traffic would travel at higher rates of speed and could pose safety concerns to children in the vicinity of the school.
Despite the concerns, the district did not outline the issues at the Aug. 17 meeting of the Planning Commission, which approved the impact report.
Nor is the district appealing to the City Council the commissions vote, according to district spokesman Chris Eftychiou.
He said the district had decided it can work the traffic issues out by maintaining contacts with city planners.
It (traffic) was not an issue that rose to the the level where the district felt it should oppose the project. Eftychiou said.
An appeal has been filed by neighborhood critics, and a City Council hearing is seet for Oct. 4.
Meet your teacher day
traffic results in accident in front
of Kettering Elementary School.
Tuesday September 5th was not even the first day of school at Kettering. It was a one hour get together for the students to meet with their new teachers. Traffic was terrible and an accident between and truck and a car occoured at Silvera and Sixth Street in front of the schools Kindergarten area.
Imagine adding the traffic from people cutting across from 7th Street on to Silvera to take a short cut to the Home Depot?
8/21/06 its not over till is over....
As expected the Planning Commissioners certified the very flawed and erroneous EIR and approved the project. Traffic, community safety, wetlands, traffic lawsuits, puny annual revenue, and the crushing blow to our quality of life didn't matter one ounce to the four commissioners in attendance.
If you attended yesterday's hearing and want to appeal the Planning Commissioners approval of the EIR and Home Depot project your appeal must be filed within 10 days of the hearing date, 8-17-06. I have attached the form and if you have any questions about the process please call the Planning Dept. @ (562) 570-6194, they are out of the office today.
Thank you,
Janice Dahl
News in Depth
Planning Comm'n Votes 4-0 (Three Absent) To Certify Studebaker/Loynes ("Home Depot") EIR With "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" For Negative Impacts; Appeal to Council And Possibly Court Loom
 (August 20, 2006) -- After a four hour proceeding with speakers stretching beyond the upper rail in the City Council Chamber, LB's Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Yes: Jenkins, Winn, Rouse, Gentile. Absent: Greenberg, Stuhlbarg, Sramek) to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Studebaker/Loynes ("Home Depot") development...along with a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that effectively accepts negative traffic impacts acknowledged by City Hall.
The August 17 action by City Hall's non-elected Planning Commission (Council-approved appointees of former Mayor Beverly O'Neill) is virtually certain to be appealed to the City Council...with some opponents indicating publicly that they're prepared to pursue the matter in court if necessary.
Opponents (in the majority at the hearing) included homeowners and environmental advocates...who cited traffic impacts (some acknowledged as significant by city staff), threats to the adjacent wetlands and possibly diminished property values.
Supporters included city staff, the developer and some consumers and supportive homeowners who cited the benefits of removing the current tank farm eyesore on Studebaker at Loynes plus additional mitigation on and off site, a forecast of $600,000+ in annual City Hall revenue and shopping convenience as reasons for supporting the Home Depot "Design Center."
 The Planning Commission vote capped a four hour proceeding in which the developer was represented by attorney/advocate Doug Otto, Esq...a former LB Planning Commissioner, now a member of the elected LB Community College Board of Trustees.
Mr. Otto introduced CSULB Economics Dept. Chair/Professor Joseph Magaddino who presented supportive testimony:
Prof. Magaddino [transcribed from remarks as prepared for delivery]: About a year ago, [CSULB Econ. professor] Lisa Grobar and I completed a study of the Economic Impact of the Home Depot Design Center and related businesses proposed for the Studebaker site...
From the perspective of economic development, a big box retailer like the Home Depot is an attractive acquisition to the city not only because it generates quality jobs but it also improves the city's general fund. In its first year of operation, we estimate that the City of Long Beach's general fund will capture $500,000 in taxable sales revenues from the [Home Depot] Design Center alone. The other business establishments add another $50,000 in taxable sales revenue annually. In terms of property taxes, another $100,000 is captured by the city's general fund. So, in the aggregate we are forecasting over $600,000 in new general fund receipts to Long Beach.
Prof. Magaddino indicated the development would produce 218 new jobs (163 conservatively estimated at the Home Depot). He noted that without a change in zoning (requested by the applicant), the 20 acre site would readily serve as a container yard; Home Depot has options to locate elsewhere, potentially including the Seal Beach Boeing site; and failure to develop the Studebaker/Loynes site "would remove over $2.5 million in traffic mitigation measures" accepted by the developer.
"As one who studies the Long Beach economy, I believe that this proposal adds to the vibrancy and strength of our local economy," Prof. Magaddino's testimony indicated.
Prof. Magaddino has previously and separately produced a report citing contended economic benefits of locating an 80+ million gallon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility in the Port of LB roughly two miles from downtown LB. He has also separately produced a report citing claimed economic benefits from LB Airport.
To view Prof. Magaddino's remarks as prepared for delivery, click here.
Among those present for much of Home Depot Planning Commission hearing were LB Harbor Commission president James C. Hankla (retired LB City Manager) and Sea Festival chief Chris Pook. Neither testified personally...but in his rebuttal to opposition testimony, Home Depot attorney Otto indicated Mr. Hankla was unable to stay through the entire lengthy proceeding but supported the project [drawing audible jeers from parts of the audience]. Mr. Otto attributed to Mr. Hankla the view that "in every single retail development that has been proposed has been objected to by citizens, every single one. He [Mr. Hankla] said and invariably when those developments are built, the people use them."
Attorney Otto continued, "I remember personally the outcry about Marina Pacifica. I remember further back than that the outcry about the development of the shopping center at the corner of 7th St. and Bellflower, where the Ralphs supermarket is and the Longs Drug, and everybody had placards up from the neighborhood saying you can't put this in there. If you tried to take that away from them now, they'd scream bloody murder. This is a good project. We ask you to support it."
As with the EIR to expand LB Airport's permanent terminal area facilities, the Planning Commission advanced the EIR despite specific alleged EIR deficiencies cited by opponents.
 Among those testifying in favor of the Home Depot project was Theresa Bixby, who indicated that she and her husband are eleven year residents of the immediate area.
Ms. Bixby: I'm here today as a resident, as a project neighbor and as the past PTA president of Kettering [Elementary School]. The Home Depot project was presented to the Kettering PTA...They [Home Depot's project team] listened to our concerns and our request for a pedestrian-friendly shops, for a family restaurant and nice retail in our community. We have also worked with the Home Depot project team on providing a landscape barrier between 7th St. and Kettering, which is a much-needed sound and traffic barrier for the school...The site adjacent to our neighborhood will be developed and I think Home Depot's proposal is a superior alternative to what we could end up with.
Ms. Bixby's spouse is Mark Bixby, who testified in support of certifying the EIR to expand LB Airport's permanent terminal area facilities on behalf of the Airport-boosting entity "Long Beach Alliance."
 Ms. Bixby was followed by retired 3rd district Councilman/former Vice Mayor Doug Drummond. With newly elected 3d district Councilman Gary DeLong monitoring the proceedings (in the distance along the Council wall), Mr. Drummond testified:
Mr. Drummond: I oppose this project with all my heart, and believe me from my point of view, I'm very supportive of business. This is a mistake. Everything market-driven is not good. For example, if we had to do it over again, WalMart would be at about Anaheim and Long Beach Blvd. [applause] It didn't do much for downtown...
To me, this project is a true problem because it's spot zoning. We have an opportunity today to look at that entire region as a package. Unfortunately, your Commission doesn't have the responsibility to ask for that. That will have to be asked for by City Council. The former Councilman [Frank Colonna] didn't take steps in that direction. It needs to be looked at as an entire area, including the lower San Gabriel River wetlands, the Long Beach and Los Cerritos wetlands, the next door Seal Beach wetlands, all the traffic that comes through there and the potential of doing two things that are really important to this city.
One, we need to improve areas coming in and going away from the city and beautifying them. Second, we need to enhance neighborhoods. Here we have an opportunity to study the entire area come up with an entire package that it is absolutely outstanding that benefits everyone...
This is about a better Long Beach. It seems to me that we look back at Planning Commissions and City Councils over the decades that have failed to look at the true improvement of Long Beach. [applause] We need a moratorium and we need a real study of the entire thing with all of the players at the table. [cheers].
The EIR and city staff acknowledge that the Home Depot development will create a number of negative significant impacts it calls unavoidable, including traffic and circulation impacts at Studebaker/SR 22 (westbound), PCH/7th, PCH/2nd and Studebaker/2nd Street. And when the Seaport Marina development is added to the cumulative analysis, the impact would also be felt at Studebaker/SR22 eastbound.
That drew stinging testimony from Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach Planning Director, who said the EIR didn't adequately address traffic impacts at the 22 freeway and Studebaker Rd. Mr. Whittenberg said that if the project were being built in Seal Beach, his city would have imposed $2 million in additional fees on the developer to deal with regional traffic impacts.
Mr. Whittenberg: We understand there are coordination issues with CalTrans. We have dealt with those same coordination issues at Seal Beach Blvd. and the 405 freeway. We have been able to work those coordination issues out and with imposition of traffic impact fees on our developers in our city. We have $6 million to help take care of improvements at Seal Beach Blvd. and the 405 freeway. We strongly urge your body today to impose an additional mitigation fee from this development to help fund and fast-forward future improvements at the 22 freeway on and off ramps, both east and west, at Studebaker Rd.
Mr. Whittenberg added that Seal Beach plans to raise the similar issues with LB City Hall regarding the advancing Seaport Marina project at 2nd St./PCH.
Hayley Brandt noted that Prof. Magaddino's analysis cited benefits...and she proceeded to cite costs
Ms. Brandt: [W]hen you look at this, you really need to look at the cost-benefit analysis," she said, pointing out that in addition to traffic, destruction of the environment and police resources, "these [new Home Depot] revenues are going to be coming from other places, such as Billings Hardware, Ace Hardware on Spring Street, Ace Hardware on Anaheim St., Ace Hardware on 4th St., Anderson Paint, Bay Hardware...[T]hese are all Long Beach sources of revenue that will be taken away just to go to a Home Depot. Furthermore, we'll see possibly home values decreasing...I know my parents are planning on selling our home if this Home Depot is put in place.
Melinda Cotton opened her testimony by noting she's a past president of the Belmont Shore Residents Ass'n, served on the Mayor's Transportation Task Force, and as a 23-year LB resident has been part of many community and planning efforts, including the General Plan update that began two years ago. [W]e have no updated plan for this area which is a major, major problem and that's why I oppose [the Home Depot] development," Ms. Cotton testified, and continued:
Ms. Cotton: If you allow a big box retailer, Home Depot, onto prime land on the edge of the wetlands at the eastern gateway of Long Beach, it will signal to other developers that they too can expect spot zoning to be allowed to build big box retail on other prime open spaces on the edge of the Los Cerritos wetlands at the gateway to the City. [applause] Your decision will have a huge impact on traffic and transportation on the eastside. Nine intersections are currently operating at LOS level E or F, the worst possible at peak commuting hours. The EIR for Home Depot states that they will add more than 5,700 weekday car and truck trips to this area and that on Saturday and Sunday there will be an additional 8,500 car and truck trips each day on the weekend...
Ms. Cotton said Home Depot's representatives have contended that the EIR's traffic mitigation efforts to rebuild and upgrade traffic signals at seven locations are improper, wouldn't help traffic, and the 2nd/Studebaker mitigation measure to add westbound-through lanes is infeasible and improper because it would require third part consent to contribute private property to the mitigation effort. She noted that Home Depot asked to have those mitigation measures rejected and removed from the EIR, which Ms. Cotton said "leaves the City of Long Beach and its residents and visitors with horrific traffic conditions through this eastern gateway to the city. We ask that you reject this EIR and this project until there's a proper plan for this area of the city."
California Earth Corps president Don May testified that he's among the third parties that own part of the property which city staff suggests might be used for traffic mitigation. "This property is not available. It cannot be by deed restriction," Mr. May said. "There is no way that you can mitigate the traffic impacts of this project. That is a flat statement. You cannot do it. And that's the reason they're asking you to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations. We will get no mitigation for adverse traffic impacts, make no doubt about it...I would suggest that this Commission look at what other cities do...They require that if a developer does not meet their conditions of approval, they're reviewed once a year, it brings it back for a de novo hearing on a conditional use permit."
To view written testimony submitted by Mr. May on behalf of California Earth Corps, click here.
Some opponents noted that the project basically requires using bridges for ingress and egress, infrastructure that could not be easily widened. Still others said PCH/2nd Street already backs-up in parts of the day even without the added impacts of the Home Depot and Seaport Marina developments.
In his rebuttal, Home Depot lawyer Otto and City Traffic Engineer Dave Roseman said the EIR's traffic forecasts were conservative...and using the methodology used by other government entities many of the intersections would be rated higher.
City staff said the Home Depot project would replace a heavy industrial use with a community-serving retail development, remediate a contaminated site, provide an attractive site design, add voluntary green elements, contribute to Loynes Drive maintenance and create off-site open space at 7th Street.
This didn't impress veteran LB environmental advocate Ann Cantrell. "You can build a Home Depot anywhere. There's only one place left for a wetlands," she told the Planning Commission.
 During the hearing, observer Chris Pook shares a word with Home Depot attorney/advocate Doug Otto.
Retired LB management-level planner/demographer Jack Humphrey was among those testifying in support of the project...and against the concept of a moratorium (backed by some project opponents) to create a master plan for SE LB. "In my opinion, both city staff and the applicant are to be commended for providing assurances that upon its completion, this project will be everything that it is promising to be: a higher and better use for a property currently in serious need of redevelopment," Mr. Humphrey said, adding that the entitlements requested are consistent with the required findings set forth in LB's zoning regulations.
Later in the hearing, 2nd district resident Bry Myown took aim at Mr. Humphrey's testimony: "In my twenty years in Long Beach, I have been before this body repeatedly as every last bit of open space was devoured for big box retail...[T]hat so many speakers this afternoon have told you this will serve an economic need the city needs to ameliorate its bad financial condition argues that your predecessors have equally failed to protect the city's environment or its economy...This city needs a big box and a wetlands moratorium...Otherwise you will make our coastal plan as big a joke as our name 'Long Beach' has become," Ms. Myown said.
Other salient testimony:
Mike Lanterman: ...I'm also part of the Kettering PTA, Kettering Elementary School Foundation and I'm on the board of directors with Los Altos baseball and youth softball. I represent about a dozen University Park Estates families that could not be here today...We support the Home Depot project...[cites remediating sewage problem and removing unsightly tank farm]...Big box, small box, design center, I just want to go get my home improvement supplies near my neighborhood. I want to walk with my family across that open space on 7th down the channel and over the bridge and to have dinner with my wife and two young boys...
Mike Kowal: [With this Planning Commission] it's always an approved deal. You send it on the Council for their vast knowledge, which really creates lots of bigger problems. At some point in time, I think this Commission has really got to step up and start listening to the residents that come before you in large numbers like you've seen today, and siding with them, and let the project people that want it, let them appeal it to the Council, and let them spend their money and go forward with a project that the residents don't want to see.
Gabrielle Weeks testified on behalf of the LB Greens in opposition to the project, noting that minimum legal standards don't mean the project has the support of the community.
Thomas Marchese, Los Cerritos Wetlands & San Gabriel River Study Group, VP & Legal Liaison for University Park Estates, compared the proposal to the 1970s-80s idea to turn 7th St. into a crosstown freeway: "If justice, fairness and common sense are here in this noble here today, this wetlands Home Depot will join its rightful place in zoning commission infamy. If this bad idea doesn't serve as precedent of what a community and its commissioners can say no to, then no such precedent exists."
Members of the public wishing to testify were required to sign cards, then told stand in line in some cases for well over an hour...only to be told midway through the proceedings by the Commission chair that they'd be limited to two minutes instead of the usual three minutes.
When the Planning Commission made its unanimous votes to certify the EIR and add a Statement of Overriding Considerations, comments such as "big surprise" could be heard from an audience area with opponents.
Project supporters smiled and shook hands.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport
August 14, 2006
Ms. Angela Reynolds
City of Long Beach
Department of Planning and Building
333 West Ocean Boulevard, 7th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Re: Comments on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, East Long Beach Home Depot
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
I am a registered Professional Geologist (PG) in the State of California, attached is a copy of my license. I have over 17 years of professional experience evaluating hazardous materials releases to the environment, and am currently employed as a consultant to government and private industry in this capacity. The following is a statement of my opinions on the recognized environmental conditions present at the Home Depot project area (the Site). These conclusions were developed after review of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) (LSA, May 2006), other documents related to the Site and sites within the surrounding area, and my own independent research.
I am writing to express to you that based on the frequent detections of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) within data collected at the Site, and the lack of adequate site characterization studies, I must conclude that it is impossible to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Home Depot project at the current time. Because of these considerations the RDEIR fails to meet criteria established in 1) South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1166 (Volatile Organic Compond Emissions from Decontamination of Soil); 2) Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Site Investigation); and 3) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (Hazardous Impacts); and therefore, must be declared invalid. I submit for your review the conclusions I have reached following examination of relavent Site data:
1) Petroleum and metals contamination has been detected in Site soils at concentrations that exceed California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs). Undocumented hydrocarbon-impacted soils have also been shown to exist at the Site (Mission Geoscience, 2004). Undiscovered contamination also likely exists under remaining fuel transfer, conveyance, and storage facilities onsite. Existing data confirms that chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are present in soil at the Site, but fails to determine the magnitude or extent of the chemical impact to soil, soil vapor, surface water, or groundwater.
2) Methane has been detected in Site soil at concentrations that exceed ESLs. The existing data supports the conclusion that a significant source of methane exists under the proposed retail complex. The RDEIR has failed to demonstrate that the source area of the methane has been properly characterized, or that determination of the lateral boundaries of the affected media has been completed. Potential methane impacts to groundwater have not been evaluated.
3) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) mixed with transformer oil are strongly suspected to have been released at the site (Mission Geoscience, 2004). Screening for these highly toxic COPCs in soil and groundwater at the Site has not been performed.
4) The Alamitos Generating Station (AGS) located directly adjacent to the Site has been subjected to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for closure and corrective action related to the unauthorized treatment and storage of hazardous waste in surface impoundments. Due to the proximity of the surface impoundments to the Site, it is probable that groundwater at the Site has been contaminated from historic waste disposal practices at the AGS, yet no investigation has been performed to determine the magnitude or extent of groundwater contamination at the Site.
5) The presence of two separate Class II landfills (located within 122 and 145 feet of the project, respectively), indicate that groundwater impacts by COPCs may be present at the Site. We cannot eliminate the possibility that leachate or chemical contaminants from COPCs within the wastes have impacted Site groundwater, yet no investigation has been performed to determine the magnitude or extent of groundwater contamination at the Site.
6) The structures onsite are presumed to contain Lead-Based Paint (LBP) based on the age of construction and industrial use. The structures were well-maintained, and generally contain multi-layered paint coatings. The amount of lead contamination in the LBP present at the Site, and the magnitude and extent of lead contamination in soils at the Site has not been investigated.
7) The presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in both pipeline and tank insulation is strongly suspected at the Site (Mission, 2004). If present, ACMs constitute a significant mass of hazardous material that must be removed under permit prior to the onset of construction activities at the Site.
8) Because the Site is located in close proximity to the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone, an area which is predicted to be capable of a major seismic event (Richter magnitude 7.2), Seismic Considerations are a serious concern in designing the structures proposed for placement at the Site. The DEIR states that seismic design acceleration shall be determined during the project design phase, but this is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. It is clear that a seismic event with epicenter on the adjacent segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault with magnitude 7.0 or greater would generate substantial ground acceleration (estimated to be 1g or greater), thus exposing people and structures to potential substantial adverse affects. For this reason the RDEIR should contain an analysis of probable outcomes and mitigations required to minimize risks in such an event.
In conclusion, until the characterization of soil and groundwater at the Site that has been impacted by COPCs is completed, it is impossible to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The project proponents are currently in negotiations with the DTSC to begin site characterization studies that would ultimately be used to produce a Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) that would be required prior to any evaluation of potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. Until an approved RAW has been produced for the Site, it is premature to conclude that soil and groundwater impacts could be properly evaluated. Based on these data I urge you to request that the RDEIR be withdrawn until the recommended studies can be performed, and the results of the studies evaluated and incorporated in an updated version of the DEIR.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (562) 431-4970, or via mail at 561 Silvera Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90803 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Dana R. Brown, P.G.
Professional Geologist No.7188
University Park Estates Neighborhood Association
Janice Dahl, President
6212 E. Vista Street
Long Beach, CA 90803
August 9, 2006
Angela Reynolds, Advance Planning Officer,
City of Long Beach
333 W Ocean Blvd., 7th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
angelaReynolds@longbeach.gov
RE: UPENA Objections to revised EIR (DEIR)
Dear Ms. Angela Reynolds;
After studying the Re-circulated Draft EIR (RDEIR) we University Park Estates Neighborhood Association remain convinced that the proposed Home Depot project at Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive is unacceptable. The significant unavoidable impacts particularly due to immitigable traffic, non-disclosed toxic concerns, non-disclosed negative air pollution health risk, under described negative wetlands implications, no study analysis of Loynes Drive including risks of danger to motorist and pedestrians. The University Park Estates Board has unanimously voted that this project must be denied.
The DEIR in its summary, chapter 8, titled Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts states impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable after all mitigation is applied.
CITY REVENUE. The $2.5 million tax revenue to be generated over a 5 year period will be off-set by the additional police, fire and sewer services. The EIR states The project will increase the number of on-site visitors and employees, which can result in an increase in calls for emergency fire and medical services. The nature of the proposed project will also lead to an increase in the number of people visiting the site who may generate additional calls for police services, and there is some concern about increases in theft, burglaries Downtown Engine 101 has already been pulled from service to save the city $450,000 annually.
TOXINS. We request that the present E.I.R. be expanded and re drafted to accurately and honestly quantify known toxins which are presently being ignored , negligently or intentionally omitted, obfuscated ,underestimated, secreted or otherwise hidden from the area residents.
Credible evidence exists that the two areas of concern contain some of the most toxic substances known to man and that said substances were never quantified, reported or properly assessed. Notice of potential risks has not been adequately disclosed to area residents, schools and visitors of the adjacent areas.
AREA ONE; HOME Depot proposal,400 Studebaker, Long Beach c/o Studebaker L.B. LLC; Tom Dean, Mike Jensen.
Landlords TOM DEAN and MIKE JENSEN and their lessee, HOME DEPOT, assert that their minimal soil analysis at 400 Studebaker Rd. will sufficiently protect area residents. We contend otherwise. Former Edison employees, present LADWP employees and others have disclosed that for about 50 years, the utility and tank operators have systematically failed to report the hazardous materials in, above and below the areas soils and ground water. The official record which reveals only two minor oil spills in 50 years is disputed by these former employees. It has been stated; That there should be 2 spills per 8hour shift!! For decades we never kept records.
Reports state that cooling oil laden with P.C.B.s has routinely leached into the dirt along with Lead, Arsenic, Heavy Metals, Spilled Crude Oil, Diesel fuel, PIG and other now banned oxidizers and solvents including Benzene, Toluene, Carbon Tetrachloride and other carcinogenic substances which are presently above and below ground throughout this 16 acre site. Decades ago, sporadic radioactivity was measured before the earthen caps were in filled.
We request that a full assessment including an analysis be performed and that appropriate agency intervene on our behalf should the present responsible party; STUDEBAKER L.B., L.L.C., not consent. Upon reviewing the draft E.I.R., this issue received minimal inquiry and area residents are deeply concerned about the release of known toxic substances during excavation and grading along with water and wetlands contamination. An Edison foreman alleged that the site soils; are so thoroughly contaminated that the ground is hot, and, that most soil will not even allow weeds to grow. Also, several former employees contracted cancer and died due to exposure upon the premises. Lawyers and local private investigators are presently assembling facts which are intended to prove a higher incidence of cancer risk due to prolonged exposure to past and present operations of both power plants because an arguable nexus between the operation and release of toxic substances, and, a higher than normal cancer rate in the surrounding communities is emerging, and, warrants full State inquiry. Litigation is proposed.
Also, the E.I.R., ignores the extent of ground water contamination, spillage, leaching or migration into the Los Cerritos Channel and the adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands.
Groundwater contamination is being ignored in the D.E.I.R. despite known infiltration into the public waterways along the Los Cerritos channel. Continuous petroleum smells and steam fallout residue is also ignored.
TRAFFIC. Coastal Southeast Long Beach currently, without any new developments, is already strangled with traffic congestion and intersections that have been identified as the worst in L.A. County. Current peak hour traffic volume averages approximately 8500 cars at the affected intersections. To this mix, Home Depot will add an additional daily volume of 7300 cars. Additionally, the Lennar project, located on the Seaport Marina Hotel site at PCH and 2nd Street, has to be calculated into this traffic gridlock. The DEIR states that the Lennar project traffic study is in Appendix A. This document was NOT provided to the public at the resources stated: citys website and libraries. On top of all of this, there is the Boeing project of nearly 1,000,000 sq ft of industrial park, hotel and restaurants that have not been included in the significant unavoidable adverse impacts plus the upcoming proposed development of the Pumpkin Patch on PCH.
The DEIR states that there are three traffic impacted intersections that cannot be mitigated. These intersections are CURRENTLY RATED F, traffic volume failure. Per the DEIR, The following project intersection impacts described in DEIR 2005 cannot be mitigated. Therefore, these project impacts remain significant and adverse.
PCH & 7th Street
PCH & 2nd Street
Studebaker Road & SR-22 (Garden Grove Freeway)
The DEIR specifically states:
Any improvements to the Studebaker Road/SR-22 eastbound ramps would require potential encroachment into the Los Cerritos Channel immediately adjacent and parallel to Studebaker Road. In addition, Caltrans has no plans to improve this facility.
Not only does Caltrans NOT have plans to upgrade State infrastructure, there is no city infrastructure to support the Home Depot project. Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive are not commercial highways and are incapable of withstanding the volume of additional traffic generated by Home Depot.
College Park West, Seal Beach, is land locked with its only ingress and egress via College Park Drive which is accessed only by the SR-22 off ramp for Studebaker Road. As it is, they are at the mercy of drivers exiting the freeway to stop so the residents can leave their neighborhood. Imagine the quagmire to evacuate College Park West and Southeast Long Beach should there be an emergency.
Then theres Loynes Drive! It is complete and utter incompetency to propose utilizing Loynes Drive as the gateway into the Home Depot development. Loynes Drive is subject to ground movement and undulation because it was built over the historic city dumpsite and its approximation to liquefaction soil. Per the DEIR:
1 Historic shallow groundwater beneath the SITE and vicinity is reported at approximate depths of 4 to 18 feet below ground surface (bgs). The
SITE is located in an area where liquefiable materials occur and/or where liquefaction has occurred in the past, and the SITE liquefaction hazard potential has been identified in the literature to be very high.
Additionally, if Loynes Drive were excavated the potential for unleashed methane gas is likely since it is a by-product of dumps and highly flammable.
The condition of Loynes Drive has resulted in horrific traffic accidents including deaths. We who live here know since our presidents house backs to Loynes Drive and she has called 911 and has witnessed the scenes. She has been summoned to court to testify on behalf of the city due to lawsuits from motorists involved in those accidents. She nor any other residents have been interviewed by LSA, nor has the Police Dept. or Traffic Engineering regarding these accidents and the substandard condition of Loynes Drive.
SEWAGE. Our neighborhoods solid waste sewage system is already at 100% capacity, as stated in the DEIR. Yet the developer wants to add to this. Throughout the year, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has to pump and deodorize our lines as a band-aid to a languishing sewage problem. The DEIR states that Home Depot will use the sewer line down Vista Street. There is supposed to be a pipe increase from 8 to 10. It is not clear if it is the storm drain pipe or the sewage waste pipe from our houses that is increased. But it doesnt matter, because increasing to a 10 pipe is at best only going to keep the sewage capacity at status quo once Home Depot is added! Further, all this waste is going to be pumped over the Loynes Drive Bridge and Los Cerritos Channel. Los Cerritos Channel is a bay/ocean channel and utilized for recreation, by many such as, the Long Beach Rowing Association, boaters and skiers. If all of this sacrifice for Home Depot werent enough the DEIR states, an odor control system would have to be installed The operative word is control because whatever the effort there will be odor.
WETLANDS. The EIR states that there will be no impact on plants and animals, and, that Los Cerritos Channel does not appear to support any wetland. This is totally negligent, misleading and ignorant. It feeds the wetlands and bay, and, the project requires a local coastal development permit, Coastal Commission hearing, etc.
A sewage spill believed to have stemmed from an L.A. County facility on Studebaker Road sent raw sewage onto Studebaker Road and in the Los Cerritos Cannel (which empties into the Marine Stadium area [and wetlands], causing officials of LBs Dept of Health and Human Services to close some LB area beaches in the Alamitos Bay area, Marine Stadium, Mothers Beach and vicinity
In the final analysis, a moratorium should be instituted in order to develop a master plan for Southeast Long Beach. This has already been submitted to the Planning Commission and all but Home Depot agrees that a master plan is needed before any developments are put into the planning process and approved. With or without a master plan, the Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive site for the proposed Home Depot is unacceptable and must be denied.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORT & GEOHAZARDS ASSESSMENT
LONG BEACH HOME DEPOT SITE
400 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, CA
MISSION File Number 03-475
December 20, 2004
Sincerely,
__________________________________
Janice Dahl, President
University Park Estates
__________________________________
Thomas Marchese, Vice President
__________________________________
Ben Goldberg, Past President and Director
__________________________________
Reyna Akers, Secretary
__________________________________
R. Nadine Akers, Treasurer
__________________________________
Robert Rosas, Web Master
__________________________________
Carmen Rosas, Neighborhood Watch Officer
__________________________________
Roger Andries, Past Treasurer, Officer
__________________________________
Tom Rowe, Officer
__________________________________
Larry Hebert, Officer
cc: Chatten-Brown & Carstons L.L.P.,
Douglas Drummond, former Vice Mayor,
William A. Williams Esq., George Jones Esq.,
Scott Dauscher Esq.,Frances Barbot Esq., Charles Legeman J.D.,
A.S. Loftin Esq. e/o Long Beach Law L.L.Pl,
City Attorney of Seal Beach, Seal Beach Leisure World,
Los Cerritos Rezoning Study Group c/o Ric Trent/Thomas Marchese J.D.
Vote via email and signature on file with secretary Reyna Akers
August 6, 2006
TO; The CITY of LONG BEACH
CC. Ms. Angela Reynolds, Greg Carpenter, Mark Kristoffels, Michael Mais Esq.,
Councilman Gary DeLong, The Planning Commission, Jerry Miller, Tom Dean,
Mike Jensen, and Government Solutions.
RE; RESOLUTION of the OFFICERS and BOARD of THE UNIVERSITY PARK
ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF LONG BEACH and technical
memorandum concerning proposed off site mitigation proposals within the
R.D.E.I.R. for the East Long Beach Home Depot.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On 8-6-06, the Officers and Directors of our Homeowners Association met and unanimously voted to strongly oppose the proposed acquisition, redevelopment and transfer of the open space of about 1.37 acre's North of Kettering Elementary School and south of 7th Street on several grounds including but not limited to;
1) Neither the developers, their consultants or City Staff, have formally presented this matter to our H.O.A for preliminary consideration, analysis or presentation. This plan is being foisted upon our membership in the absence of any written request, public meeting, consultation, discussion, explanation or even the common courtesy of a single call to our governing body as if the neighborhood is irrelevant to any public process or planning procedure.
Since 1962, our highly respected and widely regarded H.O.A has been consulted to review and approve, or disapprove, all proposals upon this parcel as it is crucial to the Health, Safety and Welfare of our Neighborhood, its residents, our children and elderly, our property values, our means of ingress and egress, the welfare of Kettering Elementary School, the level of nonresident visitors attracted into our area, the Noise pollution impacts suffered by our area at large, the appearance of our tract, and many other considerations which have controlled any and all planning ideas for this easement corridor. Historically, we have vetoed many proposed ideas on various neighborhood preservation grounds and officially veto this idea. Our legal standing to object is undeniable.
We have RESOLVED and thus DEMAND that;
l) All open space required to achieve our citys 30% rule, be accomplished upon 400 N. Studebaker through reduction of proposed project size and scope onsite rather than by offsite mitigation. This is standard civil engineering protocol which we embrace. Place the burden on the applicant, not distant residents.
2) We oppose the variance request to achieve 30% open space anywhere else in the vicinity of our tract, especially Westward across the street from 400 N. Studebaker upon any of the three wetlands parcels recently acquired by TOM DEAN at the South West or North West corners of Studebaker and Loynes, or south of Loynes Drive and North of the Los Cerritos Channel and East of Belmont Shores Mobile Estates.
3) We disapprove of the extended Channel View Park idea as traffic and visitor inducing and otherwise burdensome,undesirable and dangerous..
4) We cite the high danger level upon this parcel as evidenced by the frequent collisions on 7th St. EAST between Silvera Ave and Studebaker Rd. We will provide witness affidavits, collision photos or an engineering opinion in support of this elevated level of risk. Recent examples include, cars crashing through the fences frequently, an 8 car chain reaction pileup on or about July 2nd, at 10:30 p.m. where a car flew through a block wall across 7th by the North West area of the 7th St. bridge across the Los Cerritos Channel, and regular 2 to 6 car pile-ups during the weekday A.M. or P.M. rush hour commute times.
HISTORICALLY OUR RESIDENTS CONCERNS INCLUDE:
1) Two separate fatalities at 7th and Silvera were so severe that both women were decapitated due to the force of impact by the routine speed violators who often reach 70 m.p.h. on 7th going EAST or WEST, colliding with residents trying to exit or enter our tract.
2) Recently, a 4x4 truck traveling EAST in the #3 merge lane, struck the curb of this parcel hard enough to shear the entire truck body, cab and bed off of the chassis. The chassis stopped about 100 ft. east of Silvera, but the BODY and TRUCK BED skidded almost 100 yd., into this parcel. Had people been there, sever harm would have been likely.
3) Additional park illumination and glare is not desired by most of those in view of this undesirable concept, we consider this glare an aesthetic negative and have historically opposed it..
4) Additional loitering will arguably exacerbate growing vandalism and graffiti events now averaging 2 or 3 a month in and around this area. Crime events will escalate to the detriment of the school and our homes because this parcel is closed to the public and posted No-Tress passing at present. Opening it to public use will reduce campus security and arguably increase area crime through unlimited 24 hour access.
5) That any future proposed mitigation for our neighborhood be directed first to our BOARD and then to our members. We oppose mitigation offered to the LBUSD rather than us because we are the primarily aggrieved stake holders who remain 96% opposed to this application on a variety of legitimate grounds, on file, in writing and by quorum, vote, proxy or verbal opinion, letter, phone message or other communication. Bargaining around us is wholly unacceptable and litigation provoking.
6) We further note that, this parcel presently functions as private open space with locked security fencing. Opening it to the public and converying it to the school district is on a variety of grounds, unacceptable and officially opposed, vetoed and rejected.
We will entertain other ideas in writing for area consideration. Present ideas include:
1) Acquisition for UPENA use, i.e. block wall the perimeter, instal Clubhouse, Pool, Tennis Courts, kayak Center, overflow parking, boat-R.V. storage, etc.
2) Acquisition for land swap. Install 3 way signal and median opening 100 yards East of Silvera and reroute all Kettering visitors, Buses, Deliveries and Teachers to a new lot upon this parcel. Transfer present lot to homeowners Pro-Rata for Public/Private Rec. center. UPENA builds Tennis Courts, Pool, Clubhouse, Boating launch under express agreement that Kettering students, staff and parents will be allowed some use of the facilities by license, agreement or permission. This concept would benefit our quality of life and enhance our students quality of education. Slowing 7th would benefit all as the risk of harm rise yearly as our areas density increase.
3) Private purchase by residents for maintenance of the Status Quo.
Please amend your SITE PLAN, DESIGN, APPLICATION and C.E.Q.A. documentation accordingly and reduce your project scope in compliance with the desire of our adjacent homeowners. Failure to do so will unfortunately result in a well funded, strategically protracted, extensively researched, comprehensively prepared and widely proposed legal challenge or other actions directed towards preserving our hard fought for quality of life.
We remain amenable to a political solution which begins with implementing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Study Group findings and its requested moratorium. We further pledge to professionally endeavor in earnest to site Home Depot in the vicinity of the Long Beach airport upon a properly engineered commercial corridor supported by a recognized truck route, or in Central or West Long Beach where it makes far more sense and may benefit rather than burden our municipality at large.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Thomas Marchese J.D., past President, Vice President, Public Affairs Officer and
Legal Liaison
__________________________________
Janice Dahl, acting President
__________________________________
Ben Goldberg, Past President and Director
__________________________________
Reyna Akers, Officer and Secretary
__________________________________
Nadine Akers, Treasurer
__________________________________
Bob Rosas, Web Master
__________________________________
Carmen Rosas, Officer
__________________________________
Roger Andries, Officer
__________________________________
Larry Hebert, Officer
__________________________________
Tom Rowe, Officer
c.c.; Douglas Drummond, former Vice Mayor,
William A. Williams Esq., George Jones Esq.,
Chatten Borwn-Corstens L.L.P., Scott Dauscher Esq.,
Frances Barbot Esq., Charles Legeman J.D.,
A.S. Loftin Esq. e/o Long Beach Law L.L.Pl,
City Attorney of Seal Beach, Seal Beach Leisure World,
Los Cerritos Rezoning Study Group c/o Ric Trent/Thomas Marchese J.D.
8/4/06
Proposed Home Depot Project = Traffic Nightmare
The traffic infrastructure in Southeast Long Beach is antiquated by at least 15 years and no improvements (except repaving) have been made despite increases in traffic. The city needs to create a Master Plan for traffic before approving any further development.
The Home Depot traffic increase is estimated to be 4500 more cars per weekday and 8500 more cars on weekends. That will be in addition to the minimum 5000 more cars per day into this area from the new 10,000-person capacity Boeing Business Center and Hotel/Retail complex located on Westminster Boulevard which opens this fall.
Home Depot claims that the city will realize $500,000 annually in new tax revenues from this project, yet these revenues diminish when traffic impact costs are included:
o Significant increases in road maintenance costs for adjacent roads and all cut-through streets in surrounding neighborhoods due to huge rise in traffic (including heavy trucks.)
o Additional police department requirements and costs (traffic accidents, added crime.)
o Additional fire department requirements and costs (traffic accidents.)
o Cost of improvements to bridges, intersections and roads (currently over capacity.)
o Cost to re-grade Studebaker and Loynes to eliminate flooding during the rainy season.
o Additional legal fees and law suits (endangerment of life due to hazardous roads.)
The increased traffic impacts at PCH/2nd Street, PCH/7th Street, Loynes/Studebaker and Westminster/Studebaker would be significant and will create unsafe conditions.
LLC Developers/Home Depot claims they will be spending $2.5 million to improve roads. Yet, no specific description of these road improvements (other than re-striping Studebaker Road) or associated costs of these improvements have been made public. The $2.5 million estimate is arbitrary, and may not actually be spent.
LLC Developers/Home Depot claim they will be working with Caltrans to provide computer software fixes that will enhance signal timing at PCH and 2nd Street and at Studebaker/Westminster. Yet, Caltrans has made no public commitment, signed any contract or given any timetable for this project, and furthermore, Caltrans has been, and continues to be uncooperative and uncommunicative with the city on this issue.
LLC Developers/Home Depot guarantees a 3-5% traffic improvement with their re-striping efforts and nebulous Caltrans signal software undertaking. Yet the statistics they used to get this 3-5% percent rate did not include projected traffic estimates from the impending Boeing Complex or the proposed Lennar Seaport Marina Hotel project.
Loynes Drive is extremely dangerous. Major reconstruction is required to render this road safe for the cross-traffic and the inevitable cut-through traffic influx that the Home Depot project would cause. Reconstruction costs are estimated to be $7-11 million dollars, and LLC/Home Depot has not committed to improve this road. Also, Loynes would experience an increased flow of commercial and contractor trucks raising the potential for accidents as well as accelerated road deterioration.
The local area will experience amplified automobile pollution levels from increased traffic and unacceptable truck emissions from semi-trucks idling while restocking Home Depot throughout the night. Nighttime noise pollution will be significant.
Property values for much of District 3 will decrease if traffic gridlock, air and noise pollution become a detriment to the area. Also, over-congestion of local roads creates life endangerment issues: increased fatal accidents, difficulty for emergency vehicles to reach residents in crisis, and major evacuation problems in a natural disaster.
To sign a petition against the Home Depot project, send an email to: stophomedepot@aol.com
TRAFFIC DILEMMA IN DISTRICT 3
A storm of discontent is swelling in District 3 against the proposed LLC Developers/Home Depot Project on Studebaker Road at Loynes Drive. The project was shut down in 2004 due to an inadequate EIR (Environmental Impact Report). After the recent issuance of a re-circulated Draft EIR, residents of District 3 claim that this new DEIR is faulty and are urging the Long Beach City Planning Commission and City Council to impose a moratorium on development in this area until a master plan is in place in order to prevent uncoordinated spot zoning and building.
In actuality, many District 3 residents would like to see enhancements to this rather unsightly area and favor commercial development. So why has this proposed Home Depot stimulated such a negative reaction? A deep look into the backlash points to a number of underlying issues most of which have nothing to do with the Home Depot Corporation. What appears on the surface to be a compilation of residential objections to issues regarding the overall size or clientele target of the Home Depot project, or environmental issues including an urgency to save the remaining wetlands or serious concerns regarding hazardous waste at the site, does not reveal the true underlying catalyst for the controversy: Traffic.
Prior to any talk of the Home Depot Development, residents were already frustrated with expanding traffic in the area. Unfortunately for Home Depot, the proposed project happens to bulls eye the main entrance and exit to Southeastern Long Beach via the 405/605/22 freeway on and off ramps. In addition, Loynes Drive, never intended for use other than an access road to a few adjoining neighborhoods, does not have the capability to handle the huge increase of traffic a big box retail center would introduce. Furthermore, the recent traffic growth which causes frequent gridlock on the Davies Bridge, PCH/2nd Street, PCH/7th Street, and Studebaker/Westminster intersections, is really the consequence of several factors: recent local commercial developments, expansion and increased enrollment at CSULB, the sizeable Downtown commercial and residential developments which create a substantial influx of weekend traffic and weekday-afternoon commuter traffic that streams down Ocean Boulevard and through Belmont Shore and Naples, and most notably, a lack of infrastructure improvements to these roads for more than 12 years..
Residents are already steaming in present traffic, and more traffic is on the way once the Boeing Business Park located on Westminster between Seal Beach Boulevard and Studebaker Road opens this fall. The Boeing facility will house 10,000 new workers and include a 110-room hotel along with a 35,000 foot restaurant/retail space. Estimated traffic increases through East Long Beach are expected to be a minimum of 5000 more cars per day. The Home Depot development, if approved, will add another 5000 cars per day equating to more than 10,000 additional cars per day in an area cant handle its current traffic dilemmas.
Is there any solution? Not on the immediate horizon and certainly not with the citys current budget. A permanent fix calls for the widening of at least five bridges in the proximity (including the Davies Bridge) which would cost the city many millions of dollars. Secondly, widening Studebaker Road or 2nd Street south of PCH would encroach both on wetlands and private property. Extending Studebaker beyond Westminster on pilings behind the Marketplace is a possibility with the exception that the Newport/ Inglewood earthquake fault (culprit in the 1933 Long Beach earthquake) intersects Studebaker just north of Westminster and poses some extreme if not impossible engineering challenges. Most urgently, adapting a very dangerous Loynes Drive to handle increased traffic is projected to cost between $7-11 million.
To conclude, on the standard statewide traffic rating system ranging from A (good) to E (very bad) this area of Long Beach has been given an E and the PCH/2nd Street intersection often spikes to an F rating. Needless to say, the city has its work cut out solving these geographic and traffic dilemmas. The frustration of residents in District 3 has to due with the underestimated traffic night | 
