[00:01:54]
[CALL TO ORDER]
AND, UH, CALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR DECEMBER 18TH.UH, TO ORDER, UH, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE
[ROLL CALL]
CALL THE ROLL.VICE CHAIR WARE AND CHAIR CASTILLO PRESENT.
UH, PLEASE, UH, NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT, UH, VICE CHAIR WARE HAD, UM, A FAMILY EMERGENCY AND COULDN'T ATTEND TODAY.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER AT THIS POINT? SEEING NONE, WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
OF ALLEGIANCE, UH, AND IF COMMISSIONER SUAREZ WOULD BE, DO THE HONORS THANK YOU CHAIR.PLEASE RISE IF YOU'RE ABLE AND FACE THE FLAG.
READY? BEGIN PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH HE STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL SOMETIMES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER.
UM, I, I'D LIKE TO AT THIS POINT, UH, SWEAR IN WITNESSES.
SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY, UH, IN TODAY'S SESSION, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, UH, ITEM ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, IS, UH, TO RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE
[1. 25-57286 Recommendation to receive and file Director’s Report. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
DIRECTOR'S REPORT.I'D LIKE TO GET A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER SANTOS AND COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.
I'LL HAND THAT OVER TO STAFF FOR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
UH, JUST WANT TO, UM, WELCOME YOU ALL TO OUR FINAL MEETING OF 2025 AND SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AND THE PUBLIC.
UM, FOR ALL OF OUR WORK TOGETHER THIS YEAR, I WANNA, UH, ESPECIALLY RECOGNIZE, UM, JUST EARLIER THIS WEEK, UH, THE MAYOR, UH, REX RICHARDSON HOSTED A PRESS CONFERENCE AT OUR PERMIT CENTER TO CELEBRATE, UM, HAVING ENTITLED OVER 5,000 HOUSING UNITS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.
UM, MANY OF THOSE ENTITLEMENTS HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BODY, SO YOUR HARD WORK WAS RECOGNIZED WITH THIS IMPORTANT MILESTONE.
UM, AND, UH, THAT REALLY HELPS US TO START TO MEET OUR HOUSING GOALS.
AND, UH, A GOOD NUMBER OF THOSE PROJECTS DO RELATE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, UM, OF WHICH WE HAVE, UH, THREE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE MOMENT.
[00:05:01]
EXPECTED TO BREAK GROUND IN THE NEW YEAR.SO IT'S A, UM, EXCITING TIME TO SEE, UH, THE IMPACT OF THOSE ENTITLEMENTS.
OF COURSE, IT TAKES TIME FROM PROJECT APPROVAL UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AND THE OPENING OF NEW UNITS, UM, BUT IS VERY MEANINGFUL AND IMPORTANT TO THE FAMILIES WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THAT HOUSING, UH, FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS.
UH, SO JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK THIS YEAR.
UH, THE FIRST THURSDAY OF JANUARY FALLS ON JANUARY 1ST, SO WE WILL NOT MEET ON THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL HOLIDAY.
WE'LL SEND OUT THAT FORMAL NOTICE OF, UH, CANCELLATION, UH, AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN 2026.
THAT CONCLUDES THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR? NO, THANK YOU.
SEEING NONE, UH, WE'LL NOW TAKE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, PLEASE, UH, FEEL FREE TO GO UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
ARE THERE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU MADAM CLERK, PLEASE, UH, CALL FOR THE ROLL FOR THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER LEMI, I CAN TAKE A VERBAL YES.
PLEASE, UH, READ THE NEXT ITEM.
[2. 25-57287 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, November 20, 2025. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025.MAY I HAVE A, A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM? AND A SECOND? THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER SANTOS AND COMMISSIONER TEMPLE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, I'LL NOT TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE MINUTES FOR THE PRIOR MEETING? PLEASE FEEL FREE SEEING NONE.
ARE THERE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MINUTES, PLEASE USE THE RAISED HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, MADAM CLERK, CAN I HAVE, UH, THE CALL? PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
PLEASE, UH, READ THE NEXT ITEM.
[3. 25-57293 Recommendation to request City Council accept Exemption SE-25-142, finding the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts; and Request that City Council approve a Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA25-001) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA25-001), and adopt the proposed findings related thereto, to introduce and establish new regulations for Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) within Title 21 (Zoning) of the Long Beach Municipal Code to support proposed changes to Title 5 (Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions) of the Long Beach Municipal Code. (Citywide) Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
IS A RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT EXEMPTION AS C DASH 25 1 42, FINDING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 5 0 6 1 B THREE, AS IT WILL NOT RESULT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INSIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND REQUEST THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS RELATED THERETO TO INTRODUCE AND ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS FOR MICROENTERPRISE HOME KITCHEN OPERATION WITHIN TITLE 21 OF THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO SUPPORT PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE V OF THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CITYWIDE.ALL RIGHT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CLEMSON AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIM.
UH, WE'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO STAFF FOR PRESENTATION.
UM, OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATION OFFICER MARY ANN CRONIN, HAS BEEN WORKING CLOSELY, UH, WITH AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAM ON THIS EFFORT.
AS YOU'LL HEAR, THIS IS A, A SUPPORTIVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO A BROADER EFFORT, UH, RELATED TO, UH, BUSINESS PERMITTING DONE THROUGH TITLE V.
UH, AND MARIANNE WILL GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
SO FOR TONIGHT'S, UH, PRESENTATION WILL BE GOING OVER THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED ANYTIME YOU MODIFY THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
SO WHAT IS AMCO? A MICROENTERPRISE HOME KITCHEN OPERATION IS GOING TO BE REFERRED TO AS A MIKO FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS PRESENTATION FOR BREVITY, AND IN ORDER TO USE THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WILL USE BE USED IN THE ORDINANCE.
BUT, UH, KO WAS ESTABLISHED, UM, THE CONCEPT OF IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER AB 6 26, WHICH WAS KNOWN AS THE MIKO ACT.
AND WHAT THAT DID WAS IT ESTABLISHED A FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT ORDINANCES TO ALLOW HOME-BASED FOOD BUSINESSES THAT FUNCTION SIMILARLY TO A SMALL RESTAURANT, BUT DO HAVE LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEY DO OOC OCCUPY A RESIDENTIAL USE WITHOUT CREATING EXTERNAL EXTERNALITIES OR, UM, NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORING USES.
UH, SO WITH THAT ON THE SUBSEQUENT SLIDES, I'LL GO OVER WHAT THOSE OPERATING RESTRICTIONS ARE, BUT WHAT THAT LEG LEGAL FRAMEWORK DOES IS IT LIMITS THESE TWO SMALL
[00:10:01]
SCALE HOME-BASED FOOD BUSINESSES.YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH COTTAGE FOOD OPERATIONS, VERY SIMILAR TO THAT, BUT VERY DIFFERENT IN THE ITEMS THAT ARE PREPARED WITHIN ACO.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT DISTINGUISHING FACTORS IS IN THE LAW, IT DOES ESTABLISH THAT WHEN YOU OPERATE ACO, YOU CANNOT REQUIRE A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO THAT IS COMMONLY A BUILDING CODE REFERENCE WHEN YOU HAVE A OR B OCCUPANCY OR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING WITH USING THE LEVERS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW.
UM, THE STATE LAW DOES SAY THAT AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PROVIDE SIGNAGE AND YOU COMPLY WITH YOUR, UH, NOISE REGULATIONS, THIS DOES OCCUPY A RESIDENTIAL USE AND IT CAN FUNCTION AS A HOME OCCUPATION.
OKAY, SO I KNOW THIS IS SMALL TEXT FOR THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, BUT THERE'S, UH, A NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF OPERATING RESTRICTIONS FOR A ECO.
SO WHAT THESE ECOS WILL HAVE TO DO IS THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE A, UH, A FLOOR PLAN AND SHOW THE AREAS IN WHICH PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE, THE HOME AND SIT AND, AND OR PICK UP.
SO IT'S NOT ONLY COMING INTO AN A HOME, BUT IT'S ALSO, UH, DELIVERY AND PICKUP.
THERE ARE SOME VERY DISTINCTIVE THINGS THAT ARE, UH, DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THESE USES DO NOT RESULT IN EXTERNALITIES OR IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT INCLUDES THE MAXIMUM OF 30 MEALS PER DAY, OR 90 MEALS PER WEEK WITH AN ANNUAL SALES CAP OF $100,000.
SO THESE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO CHANGE HOMES OR RESIDENCES INTO RESIDE INTO RESTAURANTS.
IT IS TO BE AN INCIDENTAL USE A HOME OCCUPATION AS A HOME OCCUPATION, TRADITIONALLY IS THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DOES HAVE THE LIBERTY TO DECREASE MEAL, UH, MEAL SERVICES AND LIMITS, UM, BASED ON THE LAW.
AND THAT WOULD BE HOUSED WITHIN, UH, TITLE V IF, UH, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WANTS TO RESERVE THAT, RIGHT? FURTHERMORE, YOU'RE ALLOW ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE MECO PER RESIDENCE, AND THE OPERATOR MUST BE THE RESIDENT OF A PRIVATE HOME AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION.
AND YOU'RE LIMITED TO ONE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEE.
UH, YOU CANNOT O OPERATE A CATERING BUSINESS OR A COMMISSARY FOR MOBILE FOOD FACILITIES AT AMICO.
AND, UH, VERY IMPORTANTLY, AND AS CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY HAPPEN, UM, DIRECT SALES ONSITE THROUGH DELIVERY OR AN APPROVED FOOD CART ARE NOT, UH, PERMITTED AND YOU CANNOT USE THIRD PARTY DELIVERY PLATFORMS LIKE YOUR UBER OR UBER EATS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
THOSE ARE LIMITED, ESPECIALLY IN THE STATE LAW.
AND SO THESE PROVISIONS THAT YOU SEE HERE WOULD BE HOUSED WITHIN TITLE V OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, UH, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE LIMITING BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
AND YOU MAY ASK, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT TOOL FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW FOR FOOD-BASED ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITH LOW OPERATING COSTS.
IT IS VERY MUCH AN ENTRY LEVEL WAY TO ESTABLISH AND TEST YOUR FOOD ITEMS AND THEN MAYBE MOVE INTO THAT BRICK AND MORTAR OR ESTABLISH A, A MORE PERMANENT OPERATION WITHIN THE CITY.
SO WE DO SEE THIS AS BEING A PART OF OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, AND IT IS, UM, BEING ENACTED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
SO WE ARE FOLLOWING WITH THE TRENDS AND MAKING SURE WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS AROUND US FOR COMPETITIVE, UH, NATURE.
WHAT THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU IS THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HAS REALLY SPEARHEADED THIS EFFORT, AND IT REALLY STARTED IN 2024 WHEN THERE WAS A PILOT, A GRANT, AND A FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED.
AND THERE WAS NUMEROUS AMOUNTS OF OUTREACH THROUGHOUT THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR.
AND WITH THAT, IN JUNE, 2025, THE CITY COUNCIL DID DIRECT, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DRAFT A ECO ORDINANCE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S, UM, DRAFT ORDINANCE WOULD, UH, INCLUDE TWO PRONGS.
UH, THOSE TWO PRONGS ARE CHANGES TO TITLE V, WHICH REGULATE BUSINESSES, TRADES, AND PROFESSIONS.
THOSE, UH, SECTIONS OF THE CODE ARE NOT UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, BUT ARE SU UH, ACKNOWLEDGED HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A TWO-PRONG APPROACH.
ALL THE OPERATING STANDARDS THAT I WENT OVER IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WOULD BE MEMORIALIZED AND OR ADDED TO TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE.
THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION ARE TITLE 21, WHICH ARE RELATED TO ZONING REGULATIONS.
AND THERE'S ONLY REALLY A, UH, ONE OR TWO SECTIONS, CHAPTERS OF THE CODE THAT ARE BEING MODIFIED AND THAT ARE BEFORE YOU IN THE ATTACHED STAFF REPORT.
AND THOSE ARE TO THE DEFINITION SECTION OF OUR CODE, WHICH IS 21, UH, 15, AS WELL AS THE ACCESSORY USES SECTION OF OUR CODE, UH, WHICH IS IN 21.51 OF THE CODE.
SO THE PROPOSED TITLE V AMENDMENTS HAVE THE, THE CONCERNS THAT ARE
[00:15:01]
COMMON TO MAKING SURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.THEY WILL ESTABLISH THOSE MECO PROVISIONS THAT I TALKED ABOUT IN THAT SLIDE.
THEY WILL ALSO HAVE THE PROVISIONS FOR HEALTH INSPECTIONS, BUSINESS LICENSING, AND ANY OTHER KIND OF PERMITTING PROCESS ON LICENSING ITEMS. THEY WILL ALSO INCLUDE HOURS OF OPERATIONS RESTRICTIONS FOR ONSITE QUEUING, TRASH DISPOSAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND ALCOHOL WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THESE AS IT'S, UM, PROPOSED TO BE DRAFTED BY TITLE V.
UH, ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN THROUGH AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL EFFORT WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT PLANNING, UM, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS BUSINESS LICENSING TO MAKE SURE THESE RUN AS FULL OPERATIONS THAT ARE NOT GONNA CREATE A NUISANCE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE IN TITLE 21 ARE, UM, A COUPLE, UM, IMPORTANT THINGS.
SO IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS, WE HAVE A SET OF DEFINITIONS.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO DEFINITION FOR AMCO BECAUSE IT'S A NEW CONCEPT THAT HAD NEVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
SO THE FIRST IS TO ADD A DEFINITION OF AMCO THAT TIES DIRECTLY INTO THE STATE LAW, AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS THAT I, UH, PROVIDED ON EARLIER SLIDES.
THE SECOND IS TO AMEND OUR CURRENT ACCESSORY USES SECTION OF OUR CODE, WHICH, UH, WHERE WE DO HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION SECTION, WE HAVE FOUR, ABOUT FOUR DISTINCT TYPES OF HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT YOU CAN HAVE.
YOU CAN THINK OF YOUR INCIDENTAL HOME OFFICE IF YOU SELL INSURANCE OR IF YOU'RE A LAWYER FROM HOME.
THOSE THINGS DON'T AFFECT THE, UM, NATURE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE HOME.
THEY'RE USUALLY INCIDENTAL TO THE YOUTH.
WE ALSO HAVE, YOU CAN TEACH PIANO OR SMALLER SCALE THINGS.
THIS WOULD THEN, AND COTTAGE FOOD IS ALSO ONE OF THOSE FOUR SECTIONS.
THIS WOULD BE ADDED AS THE FIFTH SECTION.
AND IT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT ALIGNS WITH THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS, WHEN OPERATED PROPERLY AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY OF THE RESIDENTS.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE, UM, THE, THE CRUX OF THE CHANGES TO TITLE 21 WILL OCCUR.
AND THEN CLARIFYING ALSO, UM, WE HAVE A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES THAT ARE AT A HOME, WHICH INCLUDE BARS AND TAVERNS AND RESTAURANTS CLARIFYING A RESTAURANT IS NOT AMIGO.
AND PUTTING THOSE EXCEPTIONS WILL HELP US TO BE ABLE TO TELL SOMEBODY, IF YOU VIOLATE THE MIKO REGULATIONS, YOU ARE NO LONGER A MIKO AND YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
YOU CANNOT OPEN A TIKI BAR IN YOUR HOME, UH, YOUR GARAGE, YOU WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW AS A MIKO, AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR ESTABLISHED OPERATING PROCEDURES.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE CLARIFICATION OF YOU MUST BE A ECO IN ORDER TO BE IN A HOME.
AND THAT WILL HELP US GIVE THE LEVERS TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HAVE PROPER ENFORCEMENT.
UM, THIS PROVIDES A COUPLE OF THE LAND USE POLICIES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS, UH, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT.
UH, BUT MOST OF ALL, WHAT THEY LEAD TO IS THAT THE, UH, LUE REALLY LEADS TO FOSTERING HOME OCCUPATIONS AND GROWING THEM AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL, BUT ALSO MORE IMPORTANTLY, HELPING, UH, INCUBATOR BUSINESSES GROW WITHIN OUR CITY.
INADVERTENTLY THIS CAN INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, UH, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PICK UP A FRESH, UM, FOOD OPTION WITH VEGETABLES AND, AND HEALTHY FOOD ON YOUR WAY HOME FROM SCHOOL OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PICK IT UP FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
SO THESE ALSO CAN ENHANCE OUR COMMUNITY IN A MORE INFORMAL SPACE.
AND WHENEVER WE CHANGE TITLE 21 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, WE DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COASTAL PERMIT, UH, THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL, UM, PROGRAM AMENDMENT.
OUR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM INCORPORATES ALL OF TITLE 21 STANDARDS.
AND IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHANGES SOME DEFINITIONS AND CHANGES, UH, ALLOWED USES AS HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE INCIDENTAL TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN INTENSITY OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT COULD AFFECT COASTAL ACCESS OR COASTAL RESOURCES.
UH, PUBLIC NOTICING, UH, DID OCCUR IN ADVANCE OF THE 20 DAY REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW.
THEY WERE POSTED AT CITY LIBRARIES, THE WEBSITE, AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AS WELL AS MAILED TO THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE PROJECT.
AND, UH, THOSE THAT HAD PARTICIPATED ON INTERESTED PARTIES LIST FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S OUTREACH THAT I SPOKE ABOUT, UH, THAT HAPPENED IN 2025.
UH, ONE PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, WAS PROVIDED WHERE THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THE CHANGES TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS, UH, REQUIRED A PERMIT, UH, A ZONING PERMIT FOR THAT CLARIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE INTENT IS THAT THERE ARE NO ZONING PERMITS FOR THESE TYPES OF USES.
YOU WOULD OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE AND A HEALTH PERMIT THROUGH THE
[00:20:01]
CHANGES TO TITLE V.THERE WOULD BE NO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS LOCALLY.
THERE WILL BE NO ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS.
NONE OF THOSE WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THIS IS MAKING IT AN A BUY RIGHT ALLOWED, UH, HOME OCCUPATION.
UH, SO WITH THAT, THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMENTER.
UH, AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS I'VE TALKED ABOUT, THIS CHANGE DOES NOT CHANGE THE INTENSITY OF LAND USES IN THE CITY, NOR COULD IT CREATE, UH, WITH ALL THE OPERATING STANDARDS.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE OF USE FOR ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THEREFORE IT CAN BE SEEN TO BE, UH, DETERMINED EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION BECAUSE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
UM, OVERALL, THESE CHANGES REFLECT, UH, CURRENT INDUSTRY STANDARDS IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THROUGHOUT LOS ANGELES AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES.
AND IT WILL ALLOW MCOS TO CREATE NEW ENTREPRENEURSHIP OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING MICKOS IN OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.
UH, THIS COMPLETES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ON THE LINE IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MICKOS AND HOW THEIR NATURE OF THEIR OPERATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS I ASK QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NA THE NUMBER OF YOUR SLIDE, BUT IT WAS, UM, SHORTLY AFTER YOU EXPLAINED THE NUMBER OF MEALS AND THE CAP AROUND THERE.
UM, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR, UM, YOUR REVIEW.
AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YES.
JUST WANNA CLARIFY 'CAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR.
WELL, DID YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT THERE WERE DIRECT SALES ONSITE THROUGH DELIVERY OR VIA AN APPROVED FOR FOOD CAR ARE NOT ALLOWED OR ARE ALLOWED? I BELIEVE THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED.
SO THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEBODY WOULD COME UP TO THE HOUSE AND PURCHASE IT OR YOU CAN DELIVER IT WITHIN, UH, 30 DAYS.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO OPERATE THE FOOD CARTS ON THE PREMISES, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT WE CAN ALSO CLARIFY WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THE TERMINOLOGY BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE TYPES OF MOBILE FOOD FACILITIES AND VENDING CARTS.
SO I WANNA GET IT RIGHT WITH THE LEGAL TERMINOLOGY.
AND MAY I ASK ANOTHER, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO, UH, ENFORCE THE 30 MEALS PER DAY OR THE 90 MEALS PER WEEK? IN REGARDS TO I MAKOS, I BELIEVE THE, UM, TITLE V PROVISIONS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ASK FOR RECEIPTS AND RECORDING AND KEEPING THOSE, UM, PAPERWORK, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT NEED DOCUMENTATION.
AND ALSO TO CLARIFY, UM, AS YOU STATED, BESIDES THESE AMENDMENTS TO CODE, UM, THERE WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY LITTLE IMPACT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES IN TERMS OF APPLICANTS COMING FORWARD.
WE ARE PRETTY MUCH EXEMPT FROM THOSE THAT WOULD ALL BE HANDLED BY THE CORRECT.
EVERY BUSINESS LICENSE, EVEN HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT COME THROUGH THE FINANCIAL SERVICES, UH, DEPARTMENT OR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DO HAVE PLANNING REVIEW.
SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD REVIEW IT, SEE THAT IT'S A ECO, UH, WE WOULD CONFIRM WHAT THE APPLICANT, YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THE OPERATING PROCEDURES AND THEY CAN SHOW US THEIR PAPERWORK.
AND, UH, WE, WE WOULD APPROVE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR OTHER LAYER OF ZONING REGULATIONS AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE TITLE V OPERATING STANDARDS.
NOW WOULD THAT ALSO INVOLVE SEPARATE SET OF FEES THAT BOTH FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THEN YES.
THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR HEALTH AND BUSINESS LICENSES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER? SORRY ABOUT THAT.
UH, ACTUALLY, WILL THERE BE ANY, UM, INSURANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PEOPLE RUNNING THESE BUSINESSES THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE? I MIGHT WANT TO REFER TO OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR CITY ATTORNEY THAT ARE ON THE ZOOM CALL TO ANSWER THAT ONE.
I'M, I'M HONESTLY NOT SURE ABOUT THAT QUESTION.
WE CAN AT THIS POINT, IF, IF WE DON'T MIND, UH, HAVING THE
[00:25:01]
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEIR NAMES? IT WOULD BE VANNA OR JUDITH.AND ALSO IF SHE COULD ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER SCH JUEZ HAD, UH, EARLIER AS WELL.
PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF ON YOUR END.
AND A TOY WILSON IS ON FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THIS IS JUDITH LUNG ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BUREAU MANAGER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, YES.
UM, SO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN ENSURING THAT, UM, MICKO PERMITS THAT ARE ISSUED ARE FOLLOWING THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE ACCORDINGLY.
WE WOULD ALSO DO ANNUAL INSPECTIONS AND PROVIDE, UM, OR IN INSPECT, UM, THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MIKO PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES THE RECEIPT, UH, IN TERMS OF INSURANCE, THAT WOULD BE A BUSINESS LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
AND I THINK WE'RE STILL WORKING ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WOULD THAT INCORPORATE IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL HOME BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
COULD YOU ALSO, UH, SPEAK TO THE, UH, EARLIER QUESTION AROUND HOW, UM, THE QUANTITIES OF SERVICE WOULD BE MONITORED OR TRACKED OR FROM A COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE? YES.
SO AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE A, UM, THE AMIGOS DESIGNED FOR SMALL, SMALL SCALE BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD CONDUCT ANNUAL INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR MEAL PREPARATIONS THE MENU PROPOSED IS, IS, IS MEETING THAT SMALL SMALL SCALE BUSINESS BUSINESS MODEL.
UM, WHEN WE DO OUR ANNUAL INSPECTIONS, WE WOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE, THE TYPE OF PREPARATION, THE FOOD SERVICE, THE EQUIPMENTS THAT ARE USED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, IT'S FALLING UNDER THAT MIKO LIMITED SMALL SCALE BUSINESS OPERATION.
COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, THANK YOU FOR, FOR THOSE ANSWERS.
UM, IN REGARDS TO OTHER FOOD CARTS, FOOD VENDORS, STREET VENDORS AROUND THE AREA, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, UM, HOW THAT THE, THOSE VENDORS IMPACT MAKO ENTERPRISES? YES, ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL AS THE MIKO OPERATIONS PROVIDE COMMISSARY SUPPORT, WHICH MEANS THAT COMPACT MOBILE FOOD OPERATIONS THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ARE NOW HAVE THE APPROVAL TO USE MIKO AS THEIR COMMISSARIES.
COMMISSARIES IS ARE PLACES WHERE CARTS CAN BE STORED, CAN BE CLEANED, AND FOLLOW THOSE LIKE THE, THE COMPACT MOBILE FOOD OPERATION OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
UH, AGAIN, I, UH, APPRECIATE UM, THAT THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF THE COM COMMISSARIES AND THE GROWTH FOR THESE BUSINESSES.
I KNOW THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE BOTH PLANNING AND HEALTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO JUST WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF STAFF COULD TALK TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND AS BUSINESS GROW USING OTHER COMMERCIAL KITCHENS AND PARTNERS HERE IN LONG BEACH, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE A WONDERFUL PROGRAM.
YES, AND WE'RE ALREADY WORKING, UH, WITH, WITH, UM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR OUR STREET VENDORS AS WELL AS FOR OUR LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND OTHER FOOD FACILITIES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER AND INCREASE THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER CLEMEN? THERE'S A, THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE COOKS ALLIANCE DRILLS INTO, UH, AN OBJECTION HAVING TO DO WITH THE, UH, HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A, OR THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE BEING A CONFLICT WITH THE LAW AND OUR REQUIREMENT THAT WE GET A HOME OCCUPATION OR THAT WE HAVE THEM GET A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT.
UM, IS THERE, DO WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT? SO ON ATTACHMENT B, UH, THE TERMINOLOGY THAT THEY WERE USING, UH, IT COMES UP IN 21.5, 1.2535.
[00:30:02]
SO IN THE INTENT, THE TERMINOLOGY IS CALLED A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT IN THE SECTION OF THE ZONE, UH, OF THE CODE THAT EXISTS, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A PERMIT.SO IN THE PROPOSED RED LINES THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET FOR CLARIFICATION, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, UH, IT'S CLARIFICATION IN THE CODE YOU SEE THAT PERMIT IS STRUCK.
AND SO THESE ARE, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS NOT INTENDED TO FUNCTION AS A PERMIT, IT IS A SECTION OF THE CODE JUST TO SHOW ALLOWABLE HOME OCCUPATIONS.
SO THAT CLARIFICATION WAS PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST AND THERE WOULD BE NO, UM, ZONING WOULD JUST BE REVIEWING A BUSINESS LICENSE.
JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS LICENSE, THERE WOULD BE NO PERMITTING OR REQUIREMENT ON THE ZONING SIDE.
THIS IS, UM, FREEING THIS UP AS IN ALLOWED BY RIGHT HOME OCCUPATION, INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.
SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY, IF, IF THE, IF THE APPLICANT HAD A APPROPRIATE BUSINESS LICENSE FOR THIS, THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ABILITY FOR THE CITY STAFF TO DENY THAT IT WOULD BE BY RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE'LL, UH, NOW, UH, TURN IT OVER TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU'RE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
COMMISSION IS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE COMM.
UH, CAN YOU READ THE NEXT ITEM, PLEASE? ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A
[4. 25-57288 Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider a third-party appeal filed by Los Angeles Conservancy c/o Andrew Salimian (Case No. 2510-17 (APL25-006); Accept Categorical Exemption CE-24-145; and Deny the appeal (APL25-006) and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant the approval of a Local Coastal Development Permit (Case No. 2401-15 (LCDP24-006), and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval thereto, to allow the demolition of an existing 2,911-square-foot, two-story single family dwelling and construction of a new 3,846-square-foot, two-story single family dwelling with an attached 600-square-foot garage, located on the first lot off the water at 5679 Corso Di Napoli in the R-1-S (Single-Family Residential, Small Lots) Zoning District. (District 3) Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INTO THE RECORD.CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC CLEARING AND CONSIDER A THIRD PARTY APPEAL FILED BY LOS ANGELES.
CONS, CONSERV VA CONSERVANCY IN CARE OF ANDREWS SIAN.
ACCEPT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CE DASH 24 DASH 1 45 AND DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT THE APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THERETO TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 2,911 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,846 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE LOCATED ON THE FIRST LOT OFF THE WATER AT 5 6 7 9 CORSO D NAPOLI IN THE R DASH ONE DASH S ZONING DISTRICT, DISTRICT THREE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO HEAR THIS ITEM? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TEMPLIN.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SANTOS, WE HAVE MAKING A SECOND.
WE'LL NOW TURN THIS PRESENTATION OVER TO STAFF.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
UM, I'M GONNA PASS THIS OVER IN A MINUTE TO, UH, PROJECT PLANNER LIANA ARGA, BUT IT'S NOT EVERY DAY THAT YOU SEE THIS TYPE OF PROJECT BEFORE HUGHE, SO I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF FRAMING OF WHY IS THIS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
SO TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A THIRD PARTY APPEAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LC.
DPS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND THEY'RE REQUIRED EVEN FOR SMALL, RELATIVELY SMALL PROJECTS COMPARED TO, COMPARED TO WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE, UH, LIKE THE ONE BEFORE YOU.
UM, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LAST DECEMBER, UM, AND THE LCDP BECAUSE IT'S DISCRETIONARY, REQUIRES A CQA APPROVAL UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEN THE PROJECT CAME IN, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO CHECK TO DO A CQA EXEMPTION IS WHETHER THE PRO PROPERTY COULD BE POTENTIALLY HISTORIC.
STAFF LOOKED AND CHECKED TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T LISTED AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE, UM, AND IT WAS NOT AND THEREFORE MOVED FORWARD WITH A CE AT THE TIME.
UM, HOWEVER, WHEN THE PROJECT CAME TO HEARING, WE RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, WITH CONCERNS THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE HISTORIC.
SO AT THAT TIME, WE CONTINUED THE HEARING UNTIL MORE ANALYSIS COULD BE DONE TO SEE, UM, IF THAT EVIDENCE WAS FOUNDED.
UM, AND THEN, UM, OVER THE PAST YEAR OR TWO, SEPARATE HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE, BOTH FINDING THE PROPERTY NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY HISTORIC UNDER CQA AND THEREFORE IT WAS IZED BEFORE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR EARLIER THIS FALL AND THEN WAS APPEALED, UH, TO YOUR BODY AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARS APPEALS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
UH, SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO WHY THIS IS BEFORE
[00:35:01]
YOU THIS EVENING, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO LEANNA TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION.THANK YOU ALLISON, AND GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
THIS EVENING IS A THIRD PARTY APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE.
TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A THIRD PARTY APPEAL OF THE LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, ALSO KNOWN AS LCDS.
DPS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LC.
DPS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMITS HEARD BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
WHEN THE PROJECT WAS FIRST REVIEWED BY STAFF, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A SEQUEL EXEMPTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS NOT A HISTORIC RESOURCE DUE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS CLAIMING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A HISTORIC RESOURCE, TWO STUDIES WERE COMPLETED IN RESPONSE, BOTH FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
UNDER CA DECISIONS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE APPEALED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE APPEAL ASSERTS THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BE HISTORIC RESOURCE AND THEREFORE THE CQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SUPPORTING THE LCDP SHOULD NOT APPLY.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF NAPLES ISLAND IN THE R ONE STONY DISTRICT WITHIN LAND USE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR SINGLE FAMILY OF THE 1989 GENERAL PLAN AND WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IS A 3,456 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITH A 2,911 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE.
THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST WITH ALAMEDOS BAY DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE.
IN THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE SHOWING THE SOUTHWEST, SOUTHEAST AND REAR ELEVATIONS.
ON OCTOBER 9TH, UM, 2024, THE LCDP WAS NOTICED AND SCHEDULED TO BE SEEN BEFORE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN DUE TO SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WHETHER THE BUILDING IS A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE.
ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2025, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED THE LCDP TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 2,911 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW 3,846 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED ON THE FIRST LOT OF THE WATER.
TYPICALLY, PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE OF WORK ARE BY RIGHT AND ONLY REQUIRE BUILDING PLAN CHECKS.
THE MIDDLE, THE PROJECT, UM, THE PROPOSED PROJECT ONLY TRIGGERS DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BEFORE THE ZONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO THE OCEAN.
FIRST THOUGHTS OFF THE WATER REQUIRE THE LCDP APPROVAL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS OR ADDITIONS OVER 10% OF THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA, A THIRD PARTY APPEAL WAS FILED DUE TO THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE EXISTING HOME IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGE, THE CITY'S DETERMINATION THAT A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSE REMODEL, ASSERTING THAT THE RESIDENTS MAY QUALIFY AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A CE IN RESPONSE TO HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS, WERE PREPARED PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT THE CE IS APPROPRIATE.
FURTHERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT.
THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN 1946 WITH A 1,100 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY STUCCO DWELLING CONSTRUCTED BY WILLIS STONER IN AN UNKNOWN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
IN 1956, RAYMOND CAPY WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE STONERS TO DESIGN A 912 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY FRONT EDITION IN THE MID-CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
THE ADDITION WAS ADDED TO THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE FACING EAST COR OLI AND ALAMITOS BAY.
ADDITIONAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS WERE COMPLETED, BUT NO FORMAL PERMITS RECORDS WERE FOUND.
CURRENTLY THE STRUCTURE IS IN POOR CONDITION WITH SIGNIFICANT DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT LISTED IN AND HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED ELIGIBLE BY THE STATE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO NOT DESIGNATED AS A CITY LANDMARK IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A SIGNIFICANT IN A HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY PREPARED BY THE CITY ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2025.
A THIRD PARTY APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN THE 10 DAY APPEAL PERIOD BY THE LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY.
THE APPEAL CONTENDS THAT BOTH COMPLETED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE CONDUCTED AS A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE, ARE, ARE OMNIS IN THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
[00:40:01]
THE APPELLANTS FURTHER PURPORTS THAT THE PROPERTY APPEARS ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS.THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS A SIGNIFICANT EARLY EXAMPLE OF ARCHITECT RAY CAP'S WORK.
THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS ASSERTS THAT THE CLASS TWO CQA EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND THEREFORE THE LCGP SHOULD BE DENIED.
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE SEEING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THEM ON CQL GROUNDS AND NOT THROUGH A HISTORIC LENS.
IF THIS PROPERTY WAS A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING, THEN IT WOULD BE AN IMPACT UNDER CQA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE ALSO NOT DETERMINING IF THE PROPERTY IS A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CQA DETERMINATION.
THE PROJECT PROPOSAL IS THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING TWO TH 2,911 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,846 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH R ONE S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO, OPEN SPACE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT AND REQUIRED SETBACKS.
IN APRIL, 2025, TWO HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED.
ONE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY GPA CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, AND THE SECOND WAS COMPLETED BY MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
EACH ASSESSMENT WAS PREPARED BY PROFESSIONALS WHO MEET THE QUALIFIED THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATIONS, UH, OUTLINED IN SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS.
BOTH ASSESSMENTS CONCLUDED THE PROPERTY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CALIFORNIA REGISTER OR AS A LOCAL LANDMARK.
THE HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH EVIDENCE AND SOURCES TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A HISTORIC RESOURCE AS DEFINED BY CQA AND THEREFORE, DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WOULD NOT REMOVE OR IMPACT A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.
AT THIS TIME, NO SUBSEQUENT HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. IN THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS, LOCK COVERAGE, AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS STANDARDS.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
NEXT YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION.
AND LASTLY, YOU CAN SEE THE SOUTHEAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS.
IN REVIEW OF THE LCDP STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH FINDINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
THE PROJECT CONFORMS WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AS PROPOSED.
UM, THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MAINTAINS THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
COASTAL ACCESS IS MAINTAINED AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
ALL PUBLIC ACCESS ROADS WE MAINTAINED AND THE PROJECT WILL UTILIZE BEST MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE WATER AND DEBRIS RUNOFF.
LASTLY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, USES SHORT TERM RENTAL ON PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS OR TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE LCDP INCLUDE IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, ADHERENCE TO LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS, PROHIBITING ENCROACHMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, MAINTAINING PUBLIC COASTAL ACCESS AND OTHER STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.
PURSUANT TO CQL, THIS PROJECT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER CLASS TWO REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PROJECT INVOLVING DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS DESCRIBED IN THE PREPARED HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT A HISTORIC RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN CQA AND THEREFORE THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND THE APPLICATION OF THAT CE IS NOT BARRED BY ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS SET FORTH IN THE CQA GUIDELINES.
NOTICING WAS COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 21 POINT 21 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THIS POWERPOINT, 80 PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
63 PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION OF APPROVAL OF THE LCDP AND IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AND 17 PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE LCDP AND DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE DENYING THE APPLICATION TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY IS INAPPROPRIATE IN CITY STAFF'S VIEW, THE TWO HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE
[00:45:01]
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CE FOR A HOUSE REMODEL THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AND IS ONLY DISCRETIONARY DUE TO PROPERTIES PROXIMITY TO THE WATER, WHICH NECESSITATES ADDITIONAL REVIEW TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COASTAL ACT.THE PROPOSAL IS FULLY COMPLIANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS PURCHASE THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY HISTORIC DESIGNATION ATTACHED TO IT.
ALL FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO A POTENTIALLY HISTORIC RESOURCE.
THEREFORE, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPEAL AND APPROVAL OF THE LCDP FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 2,911 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW 3,846 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANTS INCLUDE FRED GAINES, RYAN MCDANIEL, AND AUDREY VAUGHN AES.
UH, GIVEN THAT WE, UH, DON'T OFTEN RECEIVE APPEALS, UH, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULDN'T MIND, UM, TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF OUR SCOPE AND ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE AND THOSE THAT ARE ONLINE, UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY BECAUSE, UH, IN PARTICULAR, UH, A VOTE OF YES IS CONFIRMING OR SUPPORTING THE DENIAL.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF REVERSAL THERE.
UM, SO CLARIFYING THAT, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF OUR SCOPE, IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULDN'T MIND, UH, CLARIFYING THAT FOR US, PLEASE.
AND ALLISON, I THINK DID A GREAT JOB OF TEEING UP THIS CONVERSATION AT THE OUTSET OF THE ITEM.
SO WE'RE REALLY HERE BECAUSE UNDER SECTION 21, 21 1 0 1 OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE, ANY APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION COMES TO THIS BODY.
SO IT IS INTERESTING THAT IT'S, IT SEEMS TO BE HISTORIC IN NATURE, BUT THE APPEAL PATHWAY IS TO YOU PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
NOW, WITH IT IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
YOU CAN DENY THE DECISION OF THE IER OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES TO THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF YOU SEE FIT.
UM, YOU ARE REVIEWING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN THIS INSTANCE.
THE FOCUS OF THIS APPEAL IS UPON THE QUA PATHWAY USED HERE BECAUSE THE PERMIT THE LCDP PERMIT DESCRIBED IN THE PRESENTATION IS A DISCRETIONARY ACTION.
SO HERE A CLASS TWO ACCEPT EXEMPTION WAS USED, UM, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT EXEMPTION IS BEING A CHALLENGED BY APPELLANT BASED ON THE POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY BEING A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.
SO KIND OF SQUARELY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, NOT JUST THE LARGER DECISION, BUT THE NUANCED ITEM ON REVIEW APPEARS TO BE WHETHER OR NOT THAT CQA EXEMPTION CAN BE USED BASED ON THE PROPERTY BEING A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
UM, THE STAFF HAS TALKED ABOUT THE RECORD ITSELF.
SO THE, THE MOTION CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THIS BODY IS TO ACCEPT THE CQA DESIGNATION, THE CLASS TWO EXEMPTION, AND TO DENY THE APPEAL.
SO THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING ON A VOTE OF YES, IS TO ACCEPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TO DENY THE APPEAL FROM OUR APPELLANT.
UM, JUST SO THAT YOU KIND OF LIKE UNDERSTAND WHAT WORK WOULD NEED TO BE DONE ON THE DIOCESE TO CHANGE WHERE YOU CURRENTLY STAND.
UM, THE APPEAL PROCESS ITSELF, YOU'VE HEARD FROM STAFF.
THE NEXT WE DON'T OFTEN HAVE HEARINGS.
THE NEXT PORTION OF THE HEARING WOULD BE TO MOVE TO THE APPLICANT, THE APPELLANT.
UM, AND THE APPELLANT HAS 15 MINUTES, 10 MINUTES, SORRY, I HAVE THE NUMBERS CONFUSED.
STAFF HAD 15, WHICH THEY HELD WITHIN.
UM, THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE 10.
UM, AND THEN THE TIME WOULD SHIFT OVER TO, UM, THE APPLICANT FOR A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION.
AND THEN YOU WOULD CLOSE THE HEARING AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS GONNA, YOU STOLE MY THUNDER A LITTLE BIT.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THE, UH, APPELLANT PLEASE COME FORWARD AND ALSO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THIS POINT AS WELL.
SARAH, CAN I STOP YOU JUST FOR ONE SECOND? WE'LL STOP YOUR TIME.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT HER MICROPHONE IS ON SO PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING ON OUR ZOOM CAN HEAR HER CLOSER IF WE CAN RESET THE TIME.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF DOCO MOMO US.
THAT'S THE DOCUMENTATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE MODERN MOVEMENT.
OUR APPARENT ORGANIZATION IS LOCATED IN NEW YORK CITY.
I'M HERE TONIGHT WITH THE COALITION TO SAVE THE STONER HOUSE TO STRONGLY URGE THIS COMMISSION TO GRANT OUR APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE DECISION, ALLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THIS VITAL PIECE OF LONG BEACH'S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
[00:50:01]
DESIGNED BY MASTER ARCHITECT RAY HAPPY.THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE IS BEYOND QUESTION.
AS THE VISIONARY FOUNDER OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS S ARC CAP'S CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE RESONATED AROUND THE GLOBE.
THE STONER HOUSE REPRESENTS THE VERY GENESIS OF HIS CAREER, A PERIOD WHERE HE WAS REFINING THE STRUCTURAL HONESTY THAT WOULD LATER DRAW INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION TO HIS WORK COMPLETED JUST TWO YEARS AFTER CAPI FOUNDED HIS FIRM.
THIS IS THE EARLIEST OF ONLY THREE KNOWN EXTANT CAPY WORKS IN LONG BEACH AND THE ONLY CAPI COMMISSION IN OUR CITY THAT PREDATES 1975.
WHILE LONG BEACH HAS TWO LATER CAPI RESIDENCES BOTH HAVE UNDERGONE SOME SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS OR THEY DO NOT YET MEET ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS DUE TO THEIR AGE.
THE STONER HOUSE IS A SINGULAR RESOURCE.
IT'S POSTED AND BE AESTHETIC AND SITE SPECIFIC PLANNING, CELEBRATE ITS COASTAL LOCATION IN A WAY THAT IS UNIQUE TO CAP'S EARLY GENIUS.
BECAUSE HIS WORK IS INHERENTLY SITE SPECIFIC, WE MUST PRESERVE THESE EARLY EXAMPLES TO UNDERSTAND HIS FULL BODY OF WORK.
TO LOSE THIS HOUSE IS TO LOSE THE REGIONAL CONTEXT OF ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S MOST SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTS.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SUBMITTED TWO EVALUATIONS CLAIMING THIS HOUSE DOES NOT COMPARE TO OTHER WORKS IN LONG BEACH OR THOSE WITHIN CAP'S OWN BODY OF WORK.
OUR COALITION AND MANY EXPERTS WHO SUPPORT US STRONGLY DISAGREE.
THIS HOUSE IS A CRITICAL THREAD IN THE TAPESTRY OF INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED ARCHITECTURE THAT DEFINES LONG BEACH.
FURTHERMORE, ITS HISTORIC NATURE IS NOT A NEW REVELATION.
AFTER THE STONERS LIVED HERE FOR OVER 60 YEARS, THE HOME WAS MARKETED SPECIFICALLY AS A HISTORIC PROPERTY USING CAP'S NAME.
THE MARKET RECOGNIZED ITS VALUE AND THE CURRENT OWNERS WERE FULLY AWARE OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED.
WHILE THEY MAY SEE IT AS A TEAR DOWN, THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNITY SEES A MASTERPIECE READY FOR REVITALIZATION.
THERE'S A MASSIVE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THIS RESOURCE.
OUR APPEAL IS BACKED BY OVER 17, 1700 SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION, INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS AND A GLOBAL NETWORK OF PRESERVATIONISTS ARCHITECTS.
THE LOCAL PRESS HAS ALSO SHARED OUR EFFORTS CALLING FOR PRESERVATION.
THE STONER HOUSE IS SIGNIFICANT.
WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OF EXPERTS WHO ALSO WILL, UM, ALSO SAY THAT IT'S SUFFICIENTLY RETAIN, RETAINS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
MY COALITION PARTNERS WILL FOLLOW ME TO SPEAK ON THE SPECIFICS OF INTEGRITY AND THE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
AND WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH THIS APPEAL, WE ASK THAT YOU LISTEN TO THESE UNITED VOICES.
THIS PROPERTY DESERVES TO BE PRESERVED.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF LONG BEACH HERITAGE, WHICH IS THE ARCHITECTURAL PRESERVATION GROUP HERE IN LONG BEACH.
I HAVE A PHD IN ART HISTORY WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE.
I'M A PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY DOMINGUEZ HILLS.
UH, SO I MUST HAVE SOME KIND OF QUALIFICATIONS AND I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE EVALUATIONS BY MICHAEL BAKER AND GALVIN ASSOCIATES.
UM, I HAVE WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON LONG BEACH ARCHITECTURE.
THEY HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
THEY ARE IN YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARY DOWNTOWN.
YOU CAN BUY THEM AT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
UH, ONE OF THEM IS ABOUT MID-CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECTURE.
SO I TAUGHT COURSES ON THIS SUBJECT FOR 37 YEARS BEFORE I RETIRED.
AND I BELIEVE THAT ONLY THE FRONT PORTION, I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE OWNERS OF THE STONER HOUSE TO SAVE THE STUCCO BOX BEHIND IT, BUT IF THEY WOULD JUST SAVE THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS BY A VERY RENOWNED MID-CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECT, RAY CAP, WHO WAS THE FOUNDER OF S ARC AND DESIGNED OVER A HUNDRED HOUSES, UH, THAT ARE ALL ARCHITECTURAL MASTERPIECES HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THERE ARE THREE HOMES DESIGNED BY HIM IN LONG BEACH.
THIS IS THE OLDEST ONE, UH, THE SECOND ONE BUILT IN 1975.
THE EXTERIOR HAS BEEN ALTERED TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD NOT NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK.
UM, THE THIRD ONE IS TOO NEW TO RECENT TO BE CONSIDERED A HISTORIC LANDMARK.
AND ACTUALLY THERE ARE VERY FEW EXAMPLES OF COPY'S EARLY WORK LEFT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
UH, ONE OF THEM IS THE HOUSE THAT HE DESIGNED FOR HIMSELF, AND IT IS A LOS ANGELES CULTURAL MONUMENT.
MOST OF THIS STUFF WAS IN THERE.
[00:55:01]
READ IT.AND, UH, I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THE FACT MORE THAT IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE IF THIS HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED.
AS I SAID, THE STUCCO BOX IN THE BACK CAN GO, BUT HOPEFULLY THE OWNERS WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO SOME COMPROMISE WITH THEIR ARCHITECT AND DESIGN A NEW RESIDENCE THAT INCORPORATES THE CAPI DESIGN PORTION OF THE HOME.
UH, THE TWO
I HAVE BEEN OVER THERE, I'VE PHOTOGRAPHED IT.
UM, IT'S TRUE THAT THE PARAPET ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HAS BEEN REPLACED, BUT IT COULD EASILY BE RESTORED.
AND ALSO THERE'S A DOOR THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED AND THAT COULD ALSO BE RESTORED.
SO ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO THE HOUSE ARE NOT IR IRREPARABLE AND COULD DEFINITELY BE REVERSED.
UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE A LONG BEACH CITY LANDMARK.
I'M REPRESENTING, UM, THE LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY THERE, AND I'M PART THREE OF THIS THREE LEGGED STOOL THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
UM, AS PART OF THIS APPEAL, WE ECHO THE POSITION MADE BY OUR PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS, UM, AND WE TRULY DO BELIEVE THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT WORK OF RAY KAPPY.
IT RETAINS ITS ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY.
AS LUIS JUST MENTIONED, THE ONLY REAL CHANGES ARE THE ADDITION OF DOORS AND THE REMOVAL OF THE BRI SOLEIL.
UH, IF THE ADDITION OF DOORS CHANGES INTEGRITY OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE, THERE ARE MANY RESOURCES THAT WOULD NOT QUALIFY.
UM, AND WE, WE DO THINK IT'S WORTHY OF PRESERVATION AND WE HOPE THE CITY OF LONG BEACH CAN TREAT IT AS SUCH.
IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THROUGH NEARLY 50 YEARS OF OUR ORGANIZATION'S HISTORY, WE HAVE WORKED WITH OWNERS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS TO FIND WIN-WINS.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR, WHERE PRESERVATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT CAN COEXIST.
WE'RE NOT UNFAMILIAR WITH SITES WHERE IT'S INITIALLY CLAIMED THAT PRESERVATION IS NOT AN OPTION.
UM, BUT THROUGH DIALOGUE AND COMPROMISE, WE USUALLY FIND A, A BETTER PROJECT, A GREATER SUM OF PARTS WITH PRESERVATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AS WE LOOK AT THE SITE, IT SEEMS POSSIBLE TO DESIGN A PROJECT THAT MEETS THE OWNER NEEDS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE FOR NEW BATHROOMS, FOR A NEW KITCHEN, UM, THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
UM, BUT I THINK KEEPING RAY HAPPY'S MID-CENTURY MODERN MASTERPIECE, WHICH IS ONLY ABOUT 900 SQUARE FEET ON THE EXTREME SOUTHERN PART OF THE SITE, CAN BE DONE WHILE ACCOMPLISHING THE THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT.
UM, I WANNA NOTE THAT THE REPLACEMENT PROJECT LARGELY CONFORMS TO THE EXISTING SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS.
IT, THIS BUILDING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE WAY.
UM, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE 1946 PROPERTY CAN BE REDEVELOPED.
I THINK THAT'S THE MOST LOGICAL SOLUTION, UM, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD OCCUR.
I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT CHANGES SHOULD HAPPEN.
UM, BUT OUR APPEAL IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY.
AND IF YOU BELIEVE CAP'S STONER HOUSE, HIS ONE MID-CENTURY MODERN IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH QUALIFIES AS HISTORIC RESOURCE AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
THERE ARE CONSULTANTS REPORTS PAID BY FOR THE OWNERS THAT REFUTE THIS, BUT THERE'S ALSO AMPLE EXPERT TESTIMONY.
WE'VE, UM, THERE SHOULD BE LETTERS SUBMITTED IN PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, UM, FROM MODERNIST SCHOLARS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING ALAN HESS AND DOOMO, THE NEW YORK CHAPTER.
UM, AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE THREE OF US TONIGHT ARE ALSO QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, WE HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS THE TWO REPORTS, UM, THAT WERE WERE MADE.
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THE HOUSE IS INELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCE, IT WILL ALLOW US THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO WORK TOWARD, WORK TOWARDS A WIN-WIN WITH THE OWNERS.
UH, YOU MAY AT THE END DECIDE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
AND, AND WE, WE WILL LET THE OWNERS EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING.
UM, BUT GIVE US THE PUBLIC PROPER INPUT, DO THE CORRECT TERM THING.
IN TERMS OF CQA, WE DO BELIEVE THIS IS AN ELIGIBLE RESOURCE AND THE CLASS 30, THE CLASS TWO SHOULD NOT BE, UM, APPLIED HERE.
SO WE JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO LONG BEACH.
YOU KNOW, THE CITY ALWAYS BALANCES DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORIC RESOURCES REALLY WELL.
UM, AND HOPE TO HEAR YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPELLATE AT THIS TIME? MICHAEL? COMMISSIONER CLINTON?
[01:00:01]
UM, BEFORE I ASK A QUESTION TO THE, THE, UH, UH, APPELLANTS, UM, CAN YOU, UH, I'M GONNA POINT TO CITY STAFF.CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT THE LEVEL OF, UM, I GUESS EVIDENCE OR PROOF WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT TO, I GUESS, APPLY ON OVERTURNING THIS? YES.
WELL, COMMISSIONER, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST.
SO WITHIN YOUR OWN MIND, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FIND THAT NOT ONLY DID THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, UM, ERR OR ABUSE HER DISCRETION, BUT THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD UPON WHICH YOU WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION.
UM, AND FOR WHICH YOU COULD ARTICULATE THOSE REASONS.
AND THEN WE COULD TRANSCRIBE THOSE INTO WRITTEN FINDINGS.
SO THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OPINION OR A DESIRE FOR A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
YOU'D BE ABLE TO, UH, POINT TO SOME TYPE OF DOCUMENT OR REPORT OR EXPERT DETERMINATION, UM, BY WHICH YOU WOULD FIND BOTH THAT STAFF HAD ERRED AND THAT A DIFFERENT DECISION SHOULD BE REACHED.
SO WE HAVE, WE STILL HAVE THE, UM, THE APPLICANT.
I'M SORRY, WHAT? WE STILL HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IF YOU'D LIKE TO YEAH.
HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS OR, I'M SORRY.
HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT.
UH, SHOULD WE, ARE WE GONNA LISTEN, LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT FIRST? WE CAN LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT AND THEN YOU CAN DIRECT QUESTIONS ACCORDINGLY.
WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.
MY NAME IS FRED GAINES OF GAINES.
AND STACY, WE REPRESENT, UH, SARAH FISHER, WHO'S HERE TONIGHT, IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, ONLINE.
UH, IN CASE, UH, THERE IS A QUESTION REGARDING THE ACTUAL PROJECT.
RYAN MCDANIEL IS THE PROJECT ARCHITECT, UH, ONLINE.
AND I WANT TO GET YOU TO, UM, TO AUDREY, UH, VON AARON, WHO IS THE, UH, WHO WAS THE HISTORIC, UH, THE SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN WHO DID THE FULL, UH, REPORT ON THIS.
I DO WANNA SAY THAT, UM, WE, UH, SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WE ACCEPT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THIS WAS A PROJECT AS YOU WOULD WANT IT DESIGNED TO MEET EVERY CODE IN THE CITY.
NO VARIANCE, NO EXCEPTION, NO MODIFICATION.
UH, AND WE'VE BEEN CAUGHT NOW FOR A YEAR IN THIS HISTORIC, UH, THIS HISTORIC ISSUE WAS RAISED AT THE LAST MINUTE, A YEAR AGO, WENT OUT, DID THESE REPORTS.
THIS IS HOW YOU DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S HISTORIC.
THERE'S ACTUAL RULES THAT YOU GO TO.
YOU DIDN'T HEAR ONE WORD JUST NOW ABOUT WHAT DOES THE NATIONAL REGISTRY SAY? WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? WHAT WERE, HOW WERE THE CRITERIA ANALYZED? THAT WAS WHAT WAS DONE IN THE TWO HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORTS.
ONE, THAT MY CLIENT PAID FOR, ONE THAT THE CITY DID ON THEIR OWN, THAT BOTH CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, THAT ONE, IT WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT AND THAT THE INTEGRITY NO LONGER EXISTED.
UM, SO WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO TONIGHT TO GRANT THIS APPEAL IS YOU'D HAVE TO FIND THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AIRED IN, RELYING ON TWO FULLY DONE HISTORIC REPORTS THAT WENT THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA AND ANALYZED THIS PROPERTY AND CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION BASED ON THE COUPLE OF LETTERS THAT YOU RECEIVED WITHIN THE LAST THREE DAYS AFTER A YEAR OF THIS AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE 10 MINUTES OF TESTIMONY THAT YOU JUST HEARD.
UM, AND, UH, I THINK THE DECISION, UH, FRANKLY, IS VERY CLEAR.
I WANT TO JUST TELL YOU ONE QUICK ADDITIONAL, UH, THING.
CQA ITSELF TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO.
IT SAYS MERE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROFESSIONAL CONCLUSIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
SO I WANT YOU TO KEEP THAT SA GUIDELINE 1 5 3 8 4, YOU'RE MAKING A SQA DECISION TONIGHT.
AND SO I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT, UH, AS WELL.
AND I'M SURE YOU VERY CAPABLE CITY ATTORNEY CAN, CAN ALSO GUIDE YOU ON THOSE QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY.
AUDREY VAN AARONS HAS PREPARED A, UH, REPORT.
IT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR HER TO GO THROUGH IT IN FIVE MINUTES, SO I, I GAVE YOU A COPY SO THAT YOU COULD SEE IT, BUT SHE JUST WANTS YOU TO SEE THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS THAT IS DONE HERE, THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT'S TAKEN WHEN THESE REPORTS ARE DONE, HOW SERIOUSLY THEY'RE DONE, HOW THEY FOLLOW CRITERIA, AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU, THAT'S WHAT WAS DONE OVER THIS PAST YEAR IN FRONT OF THE CITY, UH, AND SHOULD BE UPHELD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.
I'M A SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN AT GPA CONSULTING.
[01:05:01]
THE APPLICANT TO PREPARE A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S SIGNIFICANT, UM, AS WELL AS RETAIN INTEGRITY AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED, UH, BY C QA.UM, I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THE SLIDES, UM, TO GET TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE MOST HELPFUL INFORMATION.
UM, OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE PRETTY CLEAR IN TERMS OF EVALUATION UNDER EACH OF THE CRITERIA, UM, FOR NATIONAL, LOCAL AND STATE, UM, EVALUATIONS, UM, WHERE THAT IT WAS NOT, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ELIGIBLE UNDER ANY OF THE CRITERION DUE TO A LACK OF HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, WE WERE BROUGHT IN KNOWING THAT, UM, IT WAS THE WORK OF A MASTER ARCHITECT.
AND SO THE, THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS A SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE WITHIN HIS BODY OF WORK AND A SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF THE STYLE.
UM, AS, UM, EXPLAINED IN THIS SLIDE, UM, ALL OF OUR EVALUATIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WE DID IN THIS REPORT, IS BASED OFF OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDANCE, UM, AND BULLETINS THAT ARE PUT OUT AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE USED TO GUIDE, UM, EVALUATIONS OF PROPERTIES.
UM, SOME IMPORTANT ASPECTS IS THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A PROPERTY CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT'S EVALUATED WITHIN A HISTORIC CONTEXT.
IN OUR REPORT, WE PROVIDED A CONTEXT FOR CAPI AND HIS WORK.
UM, THE SECOND IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THAT, UM, MOST EVALUATIONS, PARTICULARLY ARCHITECTURAL, UH, REQUIRE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN RELATED PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY.
UM, AS DETAILED IN OUR REPORT, UH, WE DID LOOK AT COMPARABLE COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES, UM, AND THROUGH, AND I'M GOING TO FLIP THROUGH TO SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, UM, FOR BOTH THE STYLE, A MID-CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME AND OF THE SAME, UM, UH, TYPE WITHIN THAT STYLE.
AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT EXAMPLES OF HIS WORK, UM, MANY OF THE EXAMPLES THE ONES SHOWN HERE AND MANY OF THE EXAMPLES, UM, THAT ARE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES SHOWN IN OUR REPORT.
OUR WHO TURN IS UP, OUR, OR ARE, HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE OR ARE ALREADY DESIGNATED.
UM, SO WE JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, OUR EVALUATION IS BASED OFF OF GUIDANCE.
UM, IT IS IN DEPTH AND DETAILED AND, UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, HAVING HEARD BOTH, BOTH SIDES HERE, UM, CAN ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? YEAH.
I'M JUST WONDERING, UM, UH, IF ANY CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO, UM, LIKE PR PRESERVING THE, THE F THE HISTORIC FACADE, THE HISTORIC LOOKING F THE WELL, WHETHER IT'S HISTORIC OR NOT IS IS THE QUESTION HERE, ISN'T IT? BUT, UH, WHETHER ANY THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO INCORPORATING THE FACADE INTO THE, UM, THE PLANS.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE COMMENTS AS WELL, BUT I WOULD SAY FROM THE STAFF TABLE WE TOOK, WHEN WE HAD A ZONING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WHERE NO DECISION WAS MADE, WE TAKE COOR PRESERVATION VERY SERIOUSLY.
THIS CASE WAS ON HOLD FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR, I THINK TO THE CHAGRIN OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE TOOK THAT TIME TO NOT TAKE THE APPLICANT'S WORD FOR IT AND DO OUR OWN REPORT TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER IT WAS HISTORIC TO GIVE THE, UM, THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT AND THE PROJECT APPLICANT A YEAR TO HOPEFULLY TALK TO EACH OTHER, UM, OR TAKE WHATEVER ACTION THEY MIGHT TAKE.
BUT ULTIMATELY, WE CAN'T HOLD THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY RIGHT UP FOREVER.
AND BOTH REPORTS SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT HISTORIC.
SO AS THE VIEW OF THE STAFF THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT HISTORIC WITHIN THE MEANING OF CQA AND THAT THE APPROVALS ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT WE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, THAT'S WHAT WE SPENT THE LAST YEAR DOING.
IT JUST CAME TO THE OUTCOME THAT IT CAME TO.
HAVING, HAVING ACTUALLY, UH, DEVELOPED TWO HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE CITY, I CAN ATTEST TO THE, THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH YOU TAKE THESE, THESE HISTORIC PROJECTS.
UM, DIRECTING A QUESTION TO THE, UH, APPELLATE'S, UM, THE CITY STAFF DESCRIBED THE SORT OF LIKE HIGH LEVEL OF EVIDENCE, UM, REQUIRED FOR US TO OVERTURN HIS DECISION.
AND THEN KIND OF ON TOP OF THAT, THE STAFF, THE, UH, THE TWO HISTORIC REPORTS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, WELL-RESOURCED AND WELL-RESEARCHED.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE APPELLATE SIDE ARE EXPERTS OPINIONS, NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO THE, THE SORT OF STANDARDS THAT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE,
[01:10:01]
WE WOULD NEED TO OVERTURN THIS.CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE TWO REPORTS THAT WERE PRESENTED FOR YOU TO LOOK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND, UM, MAKE THE FINDINGS YOURSELF.
I KNOW YOU'RE NOT TRAINED AS PRESERVATIONISTS AND THAT MAKES IT VERY HARD.
AND I DON'T EXPECT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO REALLY FULLY GRASP THAT.
BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PROVIDED IN THOSE REPORTS AND WE'RE COMING TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF INTEGRITY, DOES THE ADDITION OF A DOOR AND THE REMOVAL OF THIS BRISTOL LE REDUCE THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING SO THAT IT'S NO LONGER ELIGIBLE? I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE, AND I THINK THE THREE OF US AGREE AND THE, THE EXPERTS HAVE AGREED.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, COMPARING, COMPARING KILLINGSWORTH TO CAPI, I THINK IS LIKE COMPARING A FORD AND A CHEVY.
YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE ONE IS STYLE DIFFERENTLY IS, DOESN'T MAKE THE OTHER, UM, NOT ELIGIBLE.
SO IT'S, IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAD 10 DAYS TO FILE AN APPEAL.
WE COULDN'T GO OUT AND COMMISSION OUR OWN SURVEY, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY YOU'RE IN.
BUT I WOULD JUST TELL YOU, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THOSE REPORTS CAN BE USED TO REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR WHEN WE ALL LOOK AT THE BUILDING, UM, PRESERVATION AS EXPERTS, WE ALL SEE IT'S, IT'S VERY, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE, SO WE'RE RELYING ON YOU TO MAKE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT.
I DO WANT TO QUIBBLE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT YOU SAID THERE.
THE REPORT, UH, OR THE, THE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE 10 DAYS TO DO THIS.
WE HAD 10 DAYS TO FILE THE, THE APPEAL, RIGHT.
BUT THE REPORTS CAME BACK IN, I THINK APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
WE DIDN'T SEE THOSE UNTIL, UNTIL JANUARY RIGHT BEFORE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS A HIATUS.
AND YOU MEAN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER? OCTOBER.
IT WAS A QUICK TURNAROUND, UM, AND THEN AN APPEAL.
SO IT WAS LIKE A TWO WEEK COMPRESSED TIMELINE.
UM, SO WE, AT THAT TIME, WE COULDN'T GET, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DONE AND SUBMITTED.
UM, WE'VE HAD TO DO, SUBMIT THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD AFTER THE FACT.
IF I MAY SPEAK FOR JUST ONE MORE MOMENT.
UM, I, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF DOOMO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, UM, WE ARE THE ONES WHO FIRST LEARNED OF THIS ISSUE AND, UM, REACHED OUT AT THAT TIME HOPING TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WE STARTED A PETITION JUST BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF THE ISSUE.
WE FOUND OUT, UM, IT WAS DAYS OR WEEKS BEFORE, UM, THAT INITIAL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING.
UM, WE HAVE MADE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OVER THE LAST YEAR, AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS JUST A, A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A WIN-WIN SCENARIO, AS MY MY COLLEAGUE SAID.
AND WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE CAN BALANCE THEIR GOALS AND PRESERVATION GOALS.
AND AS FAR AS THE QUALIFICATIONS, UM, IN BOTH THOSE REPORTS AND, UM, AND OUR APPEAL TONIGHT, I AM A QUALIFIED HISTORIAN, AS ARE MY PARTNERS.
MY BOARD AT DOOMO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS COMPRISED OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS FROM ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP AND OTHERS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
UM, WE COME WITH A LOT OF EXPERTISE TO, TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, AND THEY'RE ALL BACKING THIS APPEAL TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT IN THE ROOM THIS EVENING.
UM, SO I WANT YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT AS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR DECISION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, TOUCH BASE WITH THE STAFF.
IS THERE ANY, UM, CONTEXT BEFORE JANUARY OF ANY OUTREACH TO THIS AS A HISTORICAL, UM, I'M SEEING, I DON'T THINK I'M SEEING THAT, BUT WAS THERE ANY OUTREACH TO THIS HOUSE ABOUT BECOMING A HISTORICAL PROPERTY AND WAS THERE ANYTHING IN REGARD TO STOPPING? ITS DEGRA, ITS DEGRADATION.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE HAVING A HOUSE THAT'S BEING TERMITE RIDDEN, WHICH SO MANY HOUSES AROUND US ARE, OR, YOU KNOW, STARTING TO FALL IN AND ALL OF A SUDDEN 69 YEARS OTHER FROM WHEN IT WAS DONE, IT'S LIKE, WE WANT TO DO THIS.
IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT SOMETHING.
SO THIS PROPERTY'S NOT ON ANY LIST OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
SO THERE WAS NO OUTREACH BY THE CITY ABOUT PROTECTING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC
[01:15:01]
PROPERTY.SO THAT DIDN'T OCCUR PRIOR TO THIS OWNER ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T ACQUIRE HAPPEN OVER THE COURSE OF THIS LAST YEAR, UM, WE TOOK IN AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND BUILD A NEW ONE, WHICH HAPPENS PRETTY FREQUENTLY IN THIS, UH, SIDE OF TOWN.
UM, WE SCHEDULED A, UH, HEARING, UM, AND THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION TO THAT, AND WE, WE PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD.
SO MY FIRST DISCUSSION WITH THE, THE FOLKS HERE IN OPPOSITION WAS ON NOVEMBER 23RD, 2024.
SO THERE HAS BEEN AN EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THEM TO SUBMIT REPORTS OR, OR EVIDENCE OR SOMETHING MORE THAN, UM, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
BUT THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO EFFORT BY THE CITY.
UM, AND THERE WAS NO ACTION BY THE ADVOCACY COMMUNITY, AT LEAST TOWARDS THE CITY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, MS. JUAREZ.
UM, UM, FROM THE APPEAL SIDE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE.
UM, CAN YOU TELL US STAFF, WHAT'S THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE? BECAUSE THIS IS A BROWNED CORNER RIGHT IN ON THE ISLAND.
WHAT WOULD WE CONSIDER THE FRONT? AND THERE'S A SLIDE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN BRING UP A SLIDE THAT'S MAYBE HELPFUL TO ILLUSTRATE, BUT THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL, THERE WAS A HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY, AND, SORRY, LET ME MIC A LITTLE CLOSER.
THERE WAS A HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY IN 1946, AND THEN THE ADDITION THAT WAS DESIGNED BY RAY KAPPY WAS ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THAT 1946 HOUSE IN 1956.
SO I BELIEVE WHEN THE APPELLANTS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS DESIGNED BY RAY KAPPY ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR, FOR THE A, UH, APPELLATES, IF THEY, IF YOU COULD, UM, ONE OF THE ASSERTIONS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER, AND IF I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN WHO, BUT MADE MENTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO STUDIES DONE, AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY PROFESSIONAL DISAGREEMENT IN TERMS OF, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, DETERMINATION.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT, IF ANY, UH, MATERIAL FLAWS WERE IN THOSE REPORTS THAT YOU BELIEVE, UM, DIDN'T TAKE PLACE OR, OR, OR THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THAT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THOSE REPORTS? YES.
IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY, UM, ONE, IT'S WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SITE FOR A MASTER ARCHITECT, LIKE LET'S SAY FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT HAS ONE PROJECT HERE IN LONG BEACH.
UM, IF WE HAD, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT PROPERTY AND SAY, WELL, IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FALLING WATER OR THE GUGGENHEIM, THEREFORE IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE.
YOU KNOW, USUALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WORK OF A MASTER ARCHITECT, IF THERE'S ONE OR TWO LOCAL EXAMPLES, THOSE ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE, ARE AT LEAST AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, VERY MUCH OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL ARE ELIGIBLE.
SO THIS CAME UP, YOU KNOW, COMPARING THE, AND WE'VE ADDRESSED IT IN OUR COMMENTS, COMPARING OTHER RESOURCES OF CAPI.
UM, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A, A VERY COMMON THING IN REPORTS THAT ARE USED TO KIND OF OBFUSCATE IN, IN OUR OPINION.
UM, BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE THREE RESOURCES, POSSIBLY ALL THREE ARE ELIGIBLE.
ONE HAS BEEN ALTERED, SO IT'S NOT, UM, AND THEN ONE IS FROM A DIFFERENT PERIOD OF CAP'S CAREER.
THIS IS THE ONLY MID-CENTURY MODERN, UH, EXAMPLE.
UM, IF THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE MID-CENTURY MODERNS OF KAPPS, THEN WE WOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE WE'D SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS MAYBE NOT THE BEST EXAMPLE LOCALLY.
UM, SO THAT'S ONE KIND OF FLAW COMPARING IT TO, TO KILLINGS WORTH AND OTHER MID-CENTURY MODERN, UM, ARCHITECTS WHO IS BETTER, UM, IS OBJECTIVE.
UH, IT'S, IT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD.
UM, IT'S COMPARING, LIKE I SAID, A FORD TO A CHEVY.
AND SOME, SOME PEOPLE PREFER CHEVYS.
UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE INTEGRITY, UM, ONE OF THE, THE MAJOR FLAWS IS INTEGRITY IS
[01:20:01]
OFTEN LOOKED WHEN WE LOOK AT HISTORIC RESOURCES FROM THE PUBLIC REALM.SO IN THIS CASE, IT'S CORSO OLI, IT'S AN INTERESTING NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE, THE PUBLIC REALM IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE AREA WAY ALONG THE WATER.
UM, AND THAT FACADE HAS BASICALLY NOT BEEN CHANGED EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE SUN SHADE, UM, THAT CAN BE RESTORED.
WHEN WE LOOK AT INTEGRITY, WE OFTEN ASK, IS THAT CHANGE REVERSIBLE? AND I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS CAN BE REVERSED.
IT CAN BE MODERNIZED IN A WAY THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT THE SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY WHERE WE LOOK AT ARE ALL BASICALLY INTACT.
AND THEN AGAIN, THE DOOR ADDING A DOOR DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING NOT HISTORIC.
SO, UM, WHEN THE REPORT LOOKED AT CHANGES TO THE BUILDING, THEY LOOKED AT INTERIOR FEATURES, WHICH WE, WE WOULD NOT WANT YOU TO PRESERVE THE INTERIOR OF YOUR BUILDING EXACTLY AS, AS CAPPY, UH, DONE.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, MOST PRESERVATIONISTS WOULD REQUIRE.
UM, SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE MAIN, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE INTEGRITY IS STILL THERE.
UM, WHETHER THAT'S SUNSHADE, YOU KNOW, REMOVAL, DISCREDITS, IT, I, I THINK IT'S HARD SELL.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF LIKE, THIS IS NOT THE BEST CAPI AND IT, IT'S YOUR BEST MID-CENTURY MODERN CAPY IN LONG BEACH.
UM, AND HE'S A MASTER ARCHITECT.
EVEN THE APPLICANT SAID IT TODAY, THEY KNEW HE WAS A MASTER ARCHITECT.
UM, SO IN MY OPINION, THERE'S TWO CAPS IN LONG BEACH THAT ARE BOTH ELIGIBLE AT THIS POINT.
AND, UH, I GUESS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO START LOOKING AT THE OTHER ONE TOO, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BOTH, THEY'RE BOTH IMPORTANT RESOURCES HERE.
WELL, YEAH, I, IRONICALLY YOU LED ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION MM-HMM
BECAUSE YOU HAD, YOU HAD, I THINK YOU HAD MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER AROUND THE THREE EL OR THREE MM-HMM
OTHER PROPERTIES, UH, AND ONE HAS ALREADY, UH, GONE BEYOND THAT AND ONE IS STILL, UH, FORWARD AND NOT YET ELIGIBLE.
UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION, AND NOT TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACCUSATORY, BUT WHY HASN'T IT, BESIDES THE TIMING ELIGIBILITY, WHY HAVEN'T THEY ALREADY BEEN, SO IN THE CASE OF THIS PROPERTY, WHY WASN'T IT ALREADY, IF IT IS A SIGNIFICANT, IF I TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY AS FACE FACE VALUE, WHY WASN'T IT ALREADY ADVOCATED PRIOR TO THE CURRENT, YOU KNOW, DILEMMA? IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE.
I MEAN, IDEALLY WE WOULD GO OUT THERE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH LONG BEACH HERITAGE IN DOOMO, JUST NOMINATE EVERYTHING.
UM, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY AT THE CONSERVANCY, WE'RE BEING MORE PROACTIVE.
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF LA HCMS THAT ARE BEING DESIGNATED OVER OWNER OBJECTION, BECAUSE WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, UM, ESPECIALLY TO PRESERVE THESE MODERN RESOURCES.
UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS SOLD, WHEN IT WAS LISTED, WHEN I LOOKED UP THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY, STONER HOUSE, LONG BEACH, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF ARTICLES THAT MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S A HISTORIC WORK.
UM, WE DO OFTEN, WE'RE OFTEN FORCED TO RELY ON CQA.
IT'S NOT A POSITION WE, WE LOVE TO BE IN.
AND LIKE I SAID EARLIER, YOU MAY CHOOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF CQA IS DONE, THIS IS THE BEST SCENARIO FOR, FOR THE, THE HOUSE.
AND YOU CAN MAKE A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, UM, OR DO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE HOUSE WOULD BE REDEVELOPED.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME WEAKER PROTECTIONS IN QUA, AND LIKE THE PLANNERS HAVE SAID, BECAUSE THIS IS A COASTAL ZONE, THERE'S A KIND OF AN ADDED LAYER.
UM, BUT TRADITIONALLY THAT IS HOW WE'VE WORKED TO PRESERVE THINGS, AND IT'S JUST BEEN STATE LAW SINCE THE 1970S.
UM, SO IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
AND THEN MY, MY LAST QUESTION IN REGARDS TO TIMING, UH, 'CAUSE I, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAD BROUGHT THIS FORWARD EARLIER.
UM, THERE WAS THE HALT THAT HAPPENED LAST OCTOBER WHEN THE INITIAL ZONING, UH, ISSUE WAS, UH, THERE WAS A STUDY CONDUCTED AND THEN A SUBSEQUENT STUDY THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY.
UM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH TIME? BECAUSE EARLIER YOU HAD STATED THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVOCATE FOR IT AND TO APPEAL IT, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE DONE SO, BUT HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT? UH, GIVEN THAT THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR NOW THAT SINCE THAT ISSUE WAS RAISED IN RETROSPECT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP, WE COULD HAVE DONE A-H-R-A-R OF OUR OWN.
UM, BUT I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER, 2024.
IT WAS PUT ON HOLD FOR EVERYONE KIND OF UNDERSTOOD THE REASON, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
[01:25:01]
YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING STAFF HAD TOLD THE APPLICANTS AND, AND US THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A ASKING 'EM TO DO MORE RESEARCH.UM, BUT THEN THERE WAS RADIO SILENCE, AND THEN THERE WAS A HEARING, UM, WITH A, A SHORT, YOU KNOW, TIMELINE.
WE PROVIDED COMMENTS, WE HAD PEOPLE SHOW UP TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS PEOPLE WROTE IN.
UM, AND THEN WE HAD A 10 DAY WINDOW TO APPEAL.
SO MY APPEAL WAS VERY SHORT AND TO THE POINT.
UM, AND THEN WE PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THAT.
UM, HAD I KNOWN THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE READY, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE HEARING, AND WE COULD HAVE PREPARED, YES, I THINK WE WOULD'VE APPRECIATED THAT.
BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT'S EXPECTED.
I THINK STAFF FOLLOWED PROTOCOL HERE.
UM, BUT YEAH, IF WE HAD A MONTH TO PREPARE A REPORT, I THINK WE WOULD'VE DONE THAT.
UH, AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT.
I KNOW THERE WAS, UH, OR SPECIFICALLY MAYBE THE, THE, THE DESIGNER, UH, THAT CONDUCTED THE STUDY.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY YOUR, BY YOUR REPORT WAS THAT IT WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT WORK.
UM, CAN YOU KIND OF FINISH THAT PIECE OF IT? I KNOW THERE WAS, YOU WERE KIND OF MIDWAY THROUGH THAT, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, 'CAUSE THAT WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING I WAS INTERESTED IN AS I WAS REVIEWING THE INFORMATION.
BUT IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HINGES ON THIS, WHICH I'M NOT TRYING TO ATTEMPT TO EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AN ARCHITECTURAL EXPERT HERE, BUT JUST TRYING TO DISSECT THE TWO POINTS OF VIEW ON THIS, WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE AND WHY THAT IN YOUR REPORT DIDN'T MEET THE, THE THRESHOLD.
SO AGAIN, ANDRE VON AARON, SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, GPA.
UM, SO OUR REPORT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE COMPARISON, WE LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMPARISON CARE, COMPARISON OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STYLE MID-CENTURY MODERN STYLE, AND SEPARATELY COMPARING PROPERTIES.
YOU'RE GONNA PUT UP THE POWERPOINT.
THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE REALLY HELPFUL.
UM, PROPERTIES DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BY CAPI.
UM, IN THAT WE LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF HIS WORK, THE EARLIEST BEING WHEN HE WAS DESIGNING, UM, POST AND BEAM CONSTRUCTION.
UM, LET ME, OH, UM, IN THE SLIDES, WE HAVE A PICTURE OF ONE OF HIS EARLIEST, WELL, IT WAS HIS EARLIEST WORK, AND THAT IS THE NATIONAL BOULEVARD APARTMENTS.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT HIS, THE STYLE IS ALREADY FORMULATED VERY MUCH SO, UM, AND, AND CONVEYED IN THESE OTHER EXAMPLES.
UM, THE, SORRY, I'M TRYING TO TALK AND NAVIGATE THE SIDES AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, SO THE TOP LEFT PHOTO IS THE NATIONAL BOULEVARD APARTMENTS, UM, I BELIEVE, UM, SOME OF THE LETTERS AND FROM THE ENS SAID THAT, UM, THIS IS ONE OF, THIS IS THE FIRST AND, UM, THE MOST ARTICULATED OF THIS DESIGN.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS YOU KNOW, I I WAS TRYING TO SAY EARLIER, UM, WHEN LOOKING AT THIS CRITERION, UM, IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF COMPARING EXAMPLES WITHIN THESE SPECIFIC NICHES OF HIS WORK.
SO OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER, HE DESIGNED, UM, HUNDREDS OF BUILDINGS.
UM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ENTIRE PORTFOLIO.
UM, SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, THERE ARE SIGNATURE QUALITIES OF CAP'S ARCHITECTURAL, UM, ARCHITECTURE APPEAL WELL ESTABLISHED IN SOME OF HIS EARLIEST DESIGNS.
UM, BUT AS OPPOSED TO THE ADDITION, UM, WHICH IS LESS CHARACTERISTICALLY REFINED WHEN COMPARED TO THOSE OTHER EXAMPLES FROM HIS EARLY CAREER.
AND IN NAPLES, UM, THE NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS PROVIDE GUIDANCE.
NOT EVERY BUILDING DESIGNED BY A, UM, MASTER ARCHITECT IS GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE.
UM, ONE THING THAT CAPPI WAS KNOWN FOR AND UM, REALLY, UH, PIONEERED, UM, WITH HIS NEW SCHOOL WAS FOR INNOVATION, URBAN PLANNING ISSUES, UM, SUSTAINABILITY, UM, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY APPROACHES.
UM, I THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY, AS ONE OF HIS EARLY EXAMPLES, UM, IS, UH, CERTAINLY, UM, NOT WHAT WE WOULD CALL UP TO STANDARDS IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, UM, AND MADE OF MATERIALS THAT, UM, TODAY, UM, WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED, UM, INNOVATIVE.
UM, AND AT THAT TIME, UM, COMPARED TO THESE OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE HE USED STRUCTURAL TECHNIQUES, UM, AND, UH, INVENTED NEW WAYS OF BUILDING INTO LOTS, UM, BY USING BEAMS OF CONCRETE, UM, TO BUILD ON HILLSIDE PROPERTIES.
THESE PROPERTIES ARE THE ONES THAT, THROUGH SCHOLARSHIP, ARE
[01:30:01]
RECOGNIZED AS ONES THAT ARE REALLY THOSE, UM, THAT, UH, EXEMPLIFY HIS WORK AND, AND HIS IDEAS.UM, SO THAT WAS REALLY, UM, WHAT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN COMPARING, UM, THIS ADDITION COMPARED TO THESE FULLY NUANCED, UM, DESIGNS OF HIS.
UM, AND THEN JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE INTEGRITY, UM, I DIDN'T GET INTO THIS EARLIER BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF A REPORT IS DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, A PROPERTY MUST FIRST HAVE SIGNIFICANCE, AND THEN YOU EVALUATE, ANALYZE INTEGRITY.
INTEGRITY IS THE ABILITY TO CONVEY THAT SIGNIFICANCE.
SO OUR REPORT DID NOT NEED TO INCLUDE, UM, AN EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY BECAUSE WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THOROUGHNESS, WE DID INCLUDE THAT.
ALSO TO JUST REITERATE, UM, OR TO BRING UP SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT, UM, EASY REPAIRS OR REHABILITATION WORK.
THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION AND ASSOCIATED GUIDELINES STATE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, RATHER THAN ITS LIKELY CONDITION AFTER A PRO PROPOSED TREATMENT SHOULD BE EVALUATED.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE BASING OUR INTEGRITY ANALYSIS ON.
UM, AND ALSO WITH MID-CENTURY MODERN BUILDINGS, WHICH HAVE MORE SIMPLE DESIGNS, THE SMALLEST, UM, ALTERATIONS ACTUALLY HAVE A LARGER IMPACT.
UM, SO WE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
BUT IF I COULD HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, SIMILAR TO, FOR, FOR THE APPELLANT, UM, THERE ARE THREE PROPERTIES HERE IN THE CITY THAT, UM, WHAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THOSE THREE PROPERTIES AND WHERE THIS FELL IN RELATION TO THOSE THREE? UM, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LARGER BODY OF HIS WORK.
NOT SIMPLY JUST THE THREE IN LONG BEACH.
UM, LOOKING AT THOSE THREE IN LONG BEACH, UM, YES, WE WOULD SAY THAT THE OTHER TWO, WELL, THE OTHER, THE MIDDLE ONE, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE DATES ON ME, UM, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UM, BUT WOULD BE A, UH, MORE, UH, COMPREHENSIVE, UH, EXAMPLE OF HIS WORK COMPARED TO THIS ADDITION.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGES OVER TIME, UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT CURRENT CONDITION.
CONDITION IS SEPARATE THAN INTEGRITY.
INTEGRITY IS THE DESIGN, THAT'S EXTENT.
UM, AND HAVING WALKED THE PROPERTY AND LOOKED CLOSELY AT THE PROPERTY AND, UM, UH, THE DESIGN OF IT, UM, YES, THERE ARE ASPECTS THAT ARE REFLECTED IN HIS OTHER, UM, UH, PROJECTS SUCH AS THE, UM, THE LARGE EXPANSES OF WINDOWS, THE SOLID PLANES, VERSUS THE TRANSPARENCY TO INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.
BUT AGAIN, THERE, THERE, THEY'RE ONES, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, SIGNATURES OF HIS WORK THAT ARE SEEN THROUGHOUT A LOT OF HIS PROPERTIES AND ESPECIALLY THE EARLY ONES.
AND THIS IS A MUCH SMALLER COMMISSION THAN OTHER ONES AT THAT TIME WHEN HE WAS FIRST STARTING HIS CAREER, UM, AS MOST ARCHITECTS, UM, HAD, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEY HAVE MANY DIFFERENT CLIENTS AS THEY ARE, UM, UM, MAKING BUSINESS, MAKING A LIFE.
UM, SO IT IS OUR ANALYSIS AND INCLUSION, UH, CONCLUSION AFTER IN-DEPTH, UM, RESEARCH REVIEW, ANALYST ANALYSIS, UM, THAT THIS DOES NOT RISE TO A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE.
SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING THAT? OKAY.
UM, DO WE, JUST A PROCESS QUESTION.
UH, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER CONSULTANT, UH, THAT WAS ADVISED FOR, FOR THE CITY, UH, THERE ON THE LINE AS WELL.
THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL POSE THE SAME QUESTION TO THE OTHER, UM, CONSULTANT THAT'S ON THE LINE FOR THAT, THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONED.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE SAME QUESTION THAT I ASKED, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT, IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE, IN TERMS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY, IF THE CLERICAL NO.
HI, THIS IS SUSAN WOOD FROM WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, THANK YOU.
UM, YES, UH, WE WERE COMMISSIONED BY THE CITY TO PREPARE AN EVALUATION, UM, AND I THINK YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN YOUR REPORT.
UH, THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UM, GPA CONSULTING'S CONCLUSIONS AND OUR CONCLUSIONS IS THAT WE, UM, DID SAY THAT THE PROPERTY RISES TO THE LEVEL OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE ONLY, LIKE AS A LOCAL CITY OF LONG BEACH LANDMARK UNDER CRITERIA, UM, SORRY, I HAVE TO, I THINK IT'S ONE NOT, AND UNDER, UH, CRITERIA.
UM, AND THE REASON, I DUNNO IF YOU WANT ME TO READ OUT THE REASONS, BUT, UH, SO WE DID FIND THAT IT LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT, HOWEVER, WE DID FIND, UM, AS GPA SAID, LACKING, UM,
[01:35:01]
INTEGRITY TO, UH, FULLY EVIDENCE THAT ARCHITECTURAL, PRIMARILY ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.UM, WE FOLLOWED, UH, AS GPA ALSO SAID, WE FOLLOWED STANDARD, STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, WHICH IS TO EVALUATE THE INTEGRITY BASED ON CURRENT CONDITIONS, UH, NOT ON THE POTENTIAL FUTURE CONDITIONS, UM, THAT RESTORATION, YOU KNOW, MAY BE ABLE TO, UH, RESTORE.
UM, UH, AS FAR AS TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, FOR THE, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GONNA WANNA HEAR THIS, THE FALL, UH, THE INTEGRITY, UH, PRIMARILY THE CHANGES, UH, TO THE FACADE, UM, THAT WERE OBSERVED AND NOTED ARE THE REMOVAL OF AN ORIGINAL BOAT, UH, GARAGE.
UM, UH, THERE WAS DOUBLE DOORS.
UH, THEY WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH WINDOWS.
THEY, THE SCREEN THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT WENT THE FULL, UM, LENGTH OF THE EXTERIOR.
UH, AND, UH, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE REPORT.
BUT AS THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SIMPLE, UH, YOU KNOW, MID-CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECTURE IS A SIMPLE, UH, DESIGN.
AND SO THE SMALLEST CHANGES, UM, CHANGE WHETHER OR NOT THAT CAN FULLY EVIDENCE THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE SIGNIFICANT WHAT IT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR.
SO WE CONCLUDED THAT WHILE SIGNIFICANT, WHILE IT DOES NOT MEET THE, UH, SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER, THE NATIONAL REGISTER, IT DID MEET IT AS A LOCAL LANDMARK, BUT THAT IT LACKS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO EVIDENCE THAT SIGNIFICANCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
I'LL NOW, UM, LIKE TO OPEN UP, UM, UH, ANY SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, COME FORWARD AND SPEAK.
YES, WE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENT CARDS.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE LINE UP AT THE PODIUM.
WE HAVE JACK S. LEE FUKUI AND MONA ELSNER.
WE HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
THANKS YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME.
I, UH, CHANGED WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY 10 TIMES AFTER LISTENING TO ALL THIS, AND I DON'T REALLY THINK YOU NEED ME.
THE OWNERS BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH NO IMPEDIMENT AS FAR AS HISTORICAL PROPERTY.
UH, THEY WEREN'T TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE PAINSTAKING PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE LONG BEACH BUILDING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
AND NOT ONLY GOT THROUGH THAT, BUT THE, THE COASTAL COMMISSION TOO.
MY DAUGHTER JUST WENT THROUGH THIS A YEAR AGO, SO I KNOW IT'S A LONG AND EXPENSIVE AND TEDIOUS AND FRUSTRATING PROCESS, AND TO GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND GET IT APPROVED.
AND THEN THE LAST MINUTE, SOMEBODY'S SAYING, OH NO.
OH NO, THIS IS A HISTORICAL PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT, IT'S A LITTLE MORE FRUSTRATING.
THE OPPOSING SIDE REALLY CAME UP HERE AND DIDN'T REALLY GIVE YOU ANYTHING OTHER THAN, WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAID.
THEY HAVE ALL THESE EXPERTS ON THEIR SIDE, BUT NO REPORTS.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THE WHOLE THING HAS BEEN A WASTE OF YOUR TIME, A WASTE OF THE OWNER'S TIME, UM, AND, AND CERTAINLY, UM, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RECTIFIED.
AND YOU GUYS SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE 'EM THEIR PERMISSION TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MANA EICHNER, AND I LIVE IN, UH, THE WRIGLEY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND MY ADDRESS IS ON RECORD.
I'VE HAD MY MIND CHANGE, UH, A DOZEN, NOT CHANGE, I'M SORRY, A DA DOZEN DIFFERENT THINGS I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE THAT THIS ISN'T HISTORIC AND JUST BECAUSE, UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS HISTORIC IN LONG BEACH, AND THAT'S WHERE IT IS.
THIS IS ALL LONG BEACH, AND THINGS CAN BE REVERSED.
YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING'S REVERSIBLE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, THESE MID-CENTURY MASTERPIECES THAT ARE BEING THROWN AWAY LIKE THIS, AND IT'S JUST REALLY HORRIBLE.
UM, THERE'S ANOTHER BUILDING, ANOTHER MID-CENTURY MODERN HOME IN NAPLES THAT IS FOR SALE RIGHT NOW.
AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THE, THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE HOUSE, AND, BUT THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT, OH, THIS IS BIG LAND AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN RESTORE IT OR YOU CAN TEAR IT DOWN.
THESE THINGS SHOULDN'T BE TORN DOWN.
WHEN YOU BUY IT, YOU BUY IT BECAUSE YOU WANNA RESTORE IT.
IF YOU'RE BUYING IT TO TEAR DOWN, FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE.
AND YOU, AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
I'M SURE I DON'T, I CAN'T FIND THE AD.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT SAID IT, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT PROBABLY MENTIONED RAY CAP.
AND YOU CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE THAT HE'S SOMEONE PRETTY PHENOMENAL.
AND HE WAS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A REALLY BIG EXAMPLE OF HIS EARLY WORK IN LONG BEACH, AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
[01:40:01]
LANDMARKING IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS NATIONAL OR STATE.WE HAVE ONE IN WRIGLEY THAT WAS A KILLINGSWORTH, AND AT FIRST IT WAS LIKE, THIS ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
IT, IT WASN'T A HOME, IT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THIS ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN BECAUSE KILLINGSWORTH HAS BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE, BUT THEY WEREN'T IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT GOT THE LOCAL LANDMARK.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I FEEL THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN PUT UPON, BUT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT IT, WE DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WRITING LETTERS.
AND THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE WRITING LETTERS ALL YEAR.
SO IT'S NOT SINCE DECEMBER LAST YEAR.
AND SO IT'S NOT THAT WE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME
IT DISAPPEARED FOR A WHILE, AND IT CAME BACK AND THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS OVER AND DISCOVERED IT WASN'T.
THE POINT IS, IS THAT, UH, PEOPLE, WHEN THEY BUY THESE HOMES, THEY REALLY SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE BUYING AND TAKE CARE OF IT.
THE PEOPLE THAT OWNED IT, I, IT HAS BEEN IN DISREPAIR.
BUT AGAIN, ALL OF THAT IS REVERSIBLE, AND I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT YOU SAVE IT AND SEND AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE THAT BUY THESE PROPERTIES, THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THEM.
UM, I'M A RESIDENT OF WRIGLEY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF, UH, LONG BEACH HERITAGE, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, MAYBE WE COULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION.
UM, YES, UH, I'M ALL FOR SAVING THE BUILDING.
IT'S ONLY 912 SQUARE FEET, SO THAT MEANS IT COULD BE DECONSTRUCTED, IT COULD BE, UH, TAKEN APART, PANELIZED, CATALOGED, AND IT COULD BE STORED UNTIL, UH, ANOTHER PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOUND.
IF YOU RECALL, UH, PALOS VERDES, UH, UNDERWENT A SIMILAR, UH, DILEMMA WITH WAYFAIR'S CHAPEL, UH, DONE BY LLOYD WRIGHT.
IT WAS FALLING APART BECAUSE THE GROUND WAS, UH, UH, JUST BECOMING LIQUEFACTION AND IT WAS ENDANGERED.
AND THEY MOBILIZED, THEY DID A CROWDFUNDING SOURCE, AND THEY SAVED THAT BUILDING, AND THAT BUILDING IS VERY FRAGILE.
AND SO THEY HAD TO GET IT'S MOSTLY GLASS, AND IT WAS DECONSTRUCTED IN RECORD TIME.
AND NOW THEY HAVE A, A NEW LOCATION THAT'S ON SOLID GROUND.
I'M SUGGESTING THIS BECAUSE THAT'S A WIN-WIN SITUATION.
PALO VERITY'S, UH, RESIDENTS, UH, KNEW THE VALUE AND WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SAVE THE BUILDING.
UM, I'M HOPING THAT THIS BUILDING CAN BE SAVED AND THAT WE CAN, UH, I APPRECIATE THE WORK WITH, UH, LA CONSERVANCY, DOKO, MOMO, NLB, HERITAGE, ALTOGETHER HAVE COME TO SAVE THIS BUILDING BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF LONG BEACH AND ITS HISTORY.
AND WE ARE LOSING A LOT OF BUILDINGS IN LONG BEACH BECAUSE WE CAN'T LANDMARK EVERYTHING.
IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE, AND IT'S VERY HARD TO CONVINCE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING.
A LOT OF PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT IT'S GONNA AFFECT THEIR SALEABILITY IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT'S NOT REALLY THE CASE, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S OUT THERE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST ALL THE TIME.
AND SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO LANDMARK THESE BUILDINGS IN A TIMELY MANNER.
UM, BUT WHAT I'M OFFERING IS THAT THIS BUILDING IS NOT THAT BIG.
I'VE SEEN IT, AND IT COULD BE SAFELY STORED AWAY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS CAN BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT ON THAT PROPERTY, AND WE COULD STILL SAVE A BUILDING, JUST MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS HERE IN THE CHAMBER? SEEING NONE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU ARE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
AGAIN, IF YOU'RE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OR FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS?
[01:45:06]
UH, I DO NOT.I JUST, ONCE AGAIN, AFTER HEARING EVERYONE'S COMMENTS FOR THEIR CLARIFICATION ON THE VOTE.
SO THE MOTION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU IS TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADOPT AND AFFIRM THE ENVIRONMENTAL, WHICH IS THAT CLASS TWO EXEMPTION.
UM, AND THEN IT'S ALSO TO DENY THE APPEAL, UM, AND KIND OF AFFIRM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS.
THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT MOTION IS.
BEFORE YOU ALL, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
SO A YES VOTE, A POSITIVE VOTE WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DENY THE APPEAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, PLEASE.
UM, UM, ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT, UM, COULD BE AFFIRMING AND DENYING THE APPEAL, BUT ALSO DOING SOMETHING WITH CULTURAL HERITAGE OR PROVIDING SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT? YEAH, SO THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.
SO BASED ON, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S REVIEW, IT'S NOT A HISTORIC RESOURCE, SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ADD, UM, ADDITIONAL MEASURES.
BUT IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMISSION, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, WELL, YOURSELF OR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER MIGHT SAY, THIS DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF LANDMARKING AND PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING CONSTRUCTION, BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF, UM, DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.
SO IN OTHER, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THAT, UM, WE REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, BE PHOTOGRAPHED WITH WHAT WE CALL HABS LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHY.
UM, AND THAT THOSE ARE ARCHIVED, UH, WITH THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION, UM, THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU.
THERE WAS A PUBLIC SPEAKER THAT TALKED ABOUT DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT, QUITE HONESTLY, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A INTACT FULL HOME OF A DIFFERENT STYLE, YOU CAN SOMETIMES DO LIKE A HOME MOVE.
I DON'T HONESTLY KNOW THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE DECONSTRUCTED AND RECONSTRUCTED, BUT EVEN IF THEY COULD, THE COST OF THAT WOULD BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL, AT LEAST IN RELATION TO THIS IS A ONE UNIT PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A MULTI-FAMILY OR A LARGE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE VIABLE, BUT IF YOU, YOU HAVE IDEAS, WE'RE GLAD TO, TO WORK THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CLEMSON? I JUST, I DON'T THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL APPEAL, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S NEEDING TO BE SAID ABOUT HOW THINGS LIKE THIS ARE CONNECTING WITH THE AFFORDABILITY, HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING IN THE REST OF THE CITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS COST, WHAT THIS DELAY COST, BUT IT DID COST A YEAR OF, BETWEEN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION HEARING AND, AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
UM, THE DOLLY OF ART AND SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS KILLED LARGELY BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, UH, CONCERNS, UH, THAT COST US THINGS.
SOMETHING LIKE, IT WAS EITHER LIKE 200 UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE FOUNTAIN WHIRLEY PROJECT GOT DELAYED, UH, A YEAR.
AND THESE THINGS HAVE REAL COSTS IN ADDITION TO JUST THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE UNIT, IT'S ONE HOME.
IT'S NOT LIKE A THING WHERE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, 60 UNITS, A HUNDRED, 200 UNITS.
BUT THAT STILL, PRESUMABLY THE OWNERS OF LIVING SOMEWHERE, I ASSUME, YOU KNOW,
UM, THAT'S A UNIT THAT A PERSON IS NOT LIVING IN RIGHT NOW.
THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE UNITS THAT ARE NOT BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THESE CONTINUAL QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO BE ASKING.
AND, UM, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY BEARING WITH THE ACTUAL DECISION THAT WE NEED TO BE MAKING HERE, BUT IT'S, I THINK, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE HIGHLIGHTED JUST IN GENERAL OF HOW THE DECISIONS THAT WE DO MAKE ARE IMPACTING, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE IN THE CITY IN ADDITION TO JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT ACTUALLY GETS BUILT, HOW QUICKLY IT DOES GET BUILT.
I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE LEVEL OF
[01:50:02]
EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE RESPECTED HERE.WE'RE MAKING A BIG DECISION, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE, UH, APPELLATE BROUGHT THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE BRINGING IN THE WAY THAT, UH, IT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED TO DENY THIS.
AND I THINK THAT IT, IT IS A FAST TURNAROUND IN TERMS OF FROM WHEN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED IT TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH A YEAR'S WORTH OF DELAYS.
THAT WAS A YEAR'S WORTH OF DELAY THAT WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE VOICE TO THE CONCERNS THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT TODAY.
SO THIS IS WHERE, HOW I'M APPROACHING IT.
UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT, GET THAT OUT ON THE, UM, ON THE RECORD.
I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, UH, AND IT'S RELATING TO THE SECOND STUDY.
UH, COULD YOU SPEAK TO, UH, 'CAUSE THERE WAS ONE DONE BY THE, UH, BY THE APPLICANT AND THEN ONE COMMISSIONED BY THE CITY.
HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN? AND CAN YOU KIND OF LEAD UP? 'CAUSE ONE OF THE ASSESSMENTS THAT I'M MAKING PERSONALLY AND OBVIOUSLY AS A BODY IS, UH, WHETHER THERE WERE, UM, UH, ISSUES IN THE PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
UM, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF LED UP TO THAT, THAT SECOND STUDY? AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, THAT GENESIS? UM, SO THAT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED, BUT EXCEPTIONALLY RARE.
WE DON'T SEE IT AS IT WAS A, UM, PROCESS PROBLEM.
BUT, UM, HIS APPLICATION CAME IN AND BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON ANY LIST OR ANY DATABASE, THERE WERE NO RED FLAGS.
WE SCHEDULED A HEARING, WE DID RECEIVE A LOT OF, UM, PUBLIC INPUT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THIS, UH, PROPERTY DEMOLISHED.
UM, SO THEN, UM, WE RECEIVED THE REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT SHOWING THAT IT WAS NOT HISTORIC, AND I, AS THE DIRECTOR HAD TO MAKE A CALL THAT WE NEEDED, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, IT NEEDED TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT, AND WE NEEDED TO BE FULLY CERTAIN OF THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE MADE THE DECISION, UM, TO SOLICIT AN ADDITIONAL REPORT AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE FROM THE PERSON PAYING FOR THE, THE REPORT TO REACH A CERTAIN CONCLUSION.
UM, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, AND APPLICANT'S SOILS REPORT AN APPLICANT'S REPORT ABOUT, OR THAT THEY'RE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS, WE TAKE THE REPORT AT FACE VALUE.
I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE GOT IT CORRECT AND THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR THE SECOND REPORT.
UM, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, DIRECTOR KONZ, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, BUT I ALSO WANT TO KNOW, UM, WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH DOING THAT.
WHO, YOU KNOW, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ULTIMATE FOR THAT DOCUMENTATION? YEAH, SO WHEN WE DO, UM, HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHY, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, HIRES A, A PROFESSIONAL, THERE IS A, UM, CERTIFICATION.
UH, SO, UM, THE US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ESTABLISHES THRESHOLDS AND STANDARDS FOR DOING HAPS LEVEL PHOTOGRAPHY.
AND THERE'S CERTAIN FOLKS ARE, ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, THEY WOULD CONTRACT, UH, WITH ONE OF THOSE FOLKS AND THEN OUR HISTORIC STAFF, UM, MARISSA AND ALEJANDRO WOULD REVIEW THE HABS REPORT AND SIGN OFF ON IT BEFORE IT'S HANDED OVER, UM, UH, TO THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, ONCE WE HAD SIGNED OFF, WE WOULD RELEASE THE PERMITS FOR THE, THE DEMOLITION WORK.
AND HOW DOES THE COMMISSION, UM, AND PROCESS WORK WITH MM-HMM
UM, IS THE FRIENDLY, ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS COMM, WHICH IS VICE CHAIR TEMPLIN.
I IS IT ON, JUST TO CLARIFY PROCESS, UM, ARE YOU MAKING THE MOTION NOW OR JUST ASKING THE INQUIRY RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THE PROCESS AND I'M MAKING THE FRIENDLY, SO COMM, SO VICE CHAIR TEMPLAN.
UM, BEFORE I ACCEPT, COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE COST MIGHT BE AND THE TIMELINE OF LEVELS
[01:55:01]
CONSTRUCTION INTERRUPTED.COMMISSIONER TEMPLAN, CAN YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MIC? OH, I, YEAH, SO I SEE THE APPLICANT COMING THE, SORRY, I CAN SUMMARIZE THE QUESTION FOR THIS, THIS TUNING IN C SO WHAT I HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER TEMPLAN, WHICH I COULD HEAR HER, BUT HER MICROPHONE WAS ON, WAS THAT SHE'S NOT ACCEPTING OR NOT ACCEPTING.
SHE WANTS SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, PLEASE.
AND SHE'S INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT THE COST AND TIMELINE FOR HABS PHOTOGRAPHY WOULD BE.
SO I THINK THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVES AT THE, BUT WE'RE JUST GONNA TELL YOU FROM THE CITY EXPERIENCE, THAT COST IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $30,000.
AND THE TIMELINE IS SOMETHING IN THE EIGHT TO 12 WEEKS.
IT'S, IT'S NOT LIKE TAKING FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHS.
COMMISSIONER TEMPLE, DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? UM, I, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT
SO THERE WAS A FRIEND, THERE'S A FRIENDLY MADE AND THE FRIENDLY IS NOT ACCEPTED.
SO FOR PROCEDURALLY COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, IF THERE WAS SOME WAY FOR THEM TO GET GRANTS OR FUNDING, WE'LL PUT THAT, BUT TRUTHFULLY, WELL, I THINK THAT, UH, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT TEAM WANTED OR WAS WAITING TO SPEAK, SIR, PLEASE.
WELL, THE FIRST THING I WAS GONNA SAY IS YOU NEED TO REALIZE IT COSTS 25 TO $30,000 FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
I MEAN, THERE, THERE, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO BE, WANTS TO GET GOING HERE.
IT'S BEEN A, THIS HAS BEEN A HORRIFIC EXPERIENCE.
IT'S BEEN ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS IN HOLDING COSTS AND ADDITIONAL COSTS OVER THIS COURSE OF THIS YEAR.
UM, AND THEY DON'T MIND TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS.
BUT ONCE YOU SAY HABS LEVEL, YOU KNOW THAT THEN HABS HAS THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS.
THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 3 IS THE LOWEST LEVELS, THEN THERE'S HABS, LIKE, WHICH GETS THE PHOTOS.
AND YOU ALREADY HAVE A VERY DETAILED REPORT OF THE HISTORY OF TWO DETAILED REPORTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.
SO MS. FISHER DOES, SHE DOESN'T WANNA SAY NO, SHE WANTS TO BE APPROVED AND BE COOPERATIVE, BUT PLEASE NOT THE FULL HABS $30,000 REPORT IF YOU WANT A SET OF HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHS DONE, UH, THEY CALL IT HABS.
LIKE, IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING I THINK YOU CAN CRA IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS KIND OF A CONDITION, YOU, YOU COULD HAVE ONE THAT DOES A SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE HISTORIC SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THE FULL FIVE FIGURE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEN WE WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT CONDITION, AND WE'D PREFER YOU DON'T.
BUT IF YOU DO, THEN THAT YOU'D CONSIDER IT BEING AT THAT LOWEST, THE LOWEST LEVEL.
AND AGAIN, FROM THE STAFF TABLE.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, BUT I WANNA FACILITATE WHERE THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO.
SO WE CAN DO HAPS, LIKE WE CAN DO HABS THREE, HABS TWO, HABS ONE THAT'S, THAT'S UP FOR THE, THE COMMISSION.
JUST GIVE US DIRECTION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE, UH, TRYING TO DO.
I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE'S SO MANY, WE'RE WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, THIS THINGS HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME.
UM, I, I AM NOT ACCEPTING THE FRIENDLY, UM, IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY DICE FOR LACK OF, UH, OF, UH, AMENDMENT HERE FRIENDLY.
UM, I, I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO THIS.
UM, AND, AND I'LL SAY THIS IN TERMS OF MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE, UM, WHETHER THE PROCESS, UM, WAS APPROPRIATE AND THINGS WERE FOLLOWED AND, AND, AND THERE AND FOLKS WERE GIVEN THE ENOUGH INPUT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I AM ALSO, ALTHOUGH THE, THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS DIDN'T SPEAK TODAY, UH, THEIR REPRESENTATIVE DID.
I, I ALSO HAVE TO, IN MY MIND EVALUATE, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE TO THE CITY, UM, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS AS WELL.
UM, SO CERTAINLY THAT'S WHAT'S ONE OF THE, THE, UH, THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN MY HEAD IN TERMS OF HOW, UM, I WOULD WANNA BE TREATED IN A SIMILAR SITUATION.
SO, UM, WITH THAT SAID, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS NEED TO SPEAK WITH COMMISSIONER WAN? YEAH, UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, UH, BASED ON, UH, EVERYTHING THAT, THAT WE'VE HEARD, UH, THIS EVENING, UM, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AND, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE, UM, UH, THEIR DILIGENCE AND DONE THEIR DUTY, UM, UM, AND PERHAPS EVEN GONE A, A BIT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS REALLY NECESSARY IN THIS CASE.
AND, UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME POINT WE DO HAVE TO RESPECT THE, THE RIGHTS OF, UH, OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
[02:00:05]
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, STAFF FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NO, SIR.SEEING NONE, UH, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR, FOR COMING FOR THAT ITEM, UM, ESPECIALLY THE, THE APPELLANT.
THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PASSION AND GOOD LUCK TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER.
[PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Planning Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the Chair.]
PUBLIC COMMENT, IF I MAY.ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON A NON AGENDIZED ITEMS? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO IN PERSON, PLEASE LINE UP AT THE PODIUM AT THIS TIME.
ARE THERE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? IF YOU ARE JOINING US VIRTUALLY AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDIZED ITEMS, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THIS TIME.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?THANK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER TEMPLIN.
ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? SEEING NONE, I HAVE ONE.
I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER TEMPLIN, IF YOU CAN TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE.
I DO APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE WITH THE PASSION AND THE SUGGESTIONS, AND IT KIND OF HURTS MY HEART THAT THE OUTREACH WASN'T DONE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
NOT ONLY IN STOPPING THE DEGRADATION OF THE BUILDING, BUT IN OPPORTUNITIES OF WHAT THEY COULD DO.
LIKE DE I I, I GAVE MONEY TO THE, UM, WE WAYFAIRS CHAPEL RELOCATION.
UH, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE EXCITING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND IT'S, AND IT'S, IT HURTS.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE DO BECAUSE WE'RE WANT TO, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW RULES AND STUFF.
AND A HOMEOWNER THAT DIDN'T KNOW IN ITS TIME FOR OVER A YEAR TO BUILD THEIR HOME, IF THEY HAD KNOWN SOMETHING EARLIER, IF THEY HAD COME TO SOME SORT OF A, UM, ASSISTANCE EARLIER, THAT MIGHT, MIGHT HAVE GONE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
THAT'S ALL I, I THINK WE NEED MAYBE TO MAKE MORE PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR HISTORY AND PEOPLE HELPING PRESERVE IT AND WHAT WE ALL NEED TO DO TO DO THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE KIND OF RUSHED AND NOT HAVING ENOUGH PROPER TIME TO DO 'EM.
BECAUSE I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR PASSION.
DID YOU WANNA, AND, AND YES, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.
I WAS JUST GOING TO ECHO THE SENTIMENTS FROM THE DI.
WISHING EVERYONE A REALLY SAFE AND CELEBRATORY SEASON.
[ADJOURNMENT]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING.UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS RIGHT NOW.
NOTHING ON MY SCREEN, BUT, UH, 7 3, 7 30.
WHAT IS THAT? 7:04 PM THANK YOU.
7 0 4, HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT GONNA BE THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER OF OUR COMMISSION.