Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the demolition of the Belmont Plaza Pool facility at 4000 East Olympic Plaza.  (District 3)
Okay. Moving on to consent, calendar item number five, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wanted to pull this item. We received a number of emails today from residents in the third district who were concerned about this particular item, specifically the planning of the demolition, the truck routes, the traffic related concerns that would arise as a result of the demolition. And I'd like to ask staff to address some of those concerns. I have forwarded several of the emails that I received today to members of our staff, and I'm hopeful that they can help address some of the concerns raised. Mr. WEST Mayor, council members, I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Amy Bolduc, to respond to those issues. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council and Mr. Mays. Hello. Sorry for that. We. A couple of the issues that were we've addressed. Related to the truck routes. That is something that we are working on with our Department of Public Works Traffic Engineer. That truck route will be something that is. Responded to and dealt with through our traditional process. In general, when we deal with demolition of buildings, there are a number of protections. That are required of any demolition site or any construction. Site, and that does include things like haul routes, how. How the construction activity is staged. How the area is fenced off and protected. So that. Members of the public that do not access the construction area and how we protect the surrounding environment. We have a number of municipal code regulations that also dictate how those demolition. Activities also occur. Back in April, to a point that was raised in one of the emails that Ms.. Price is referring to, back in April, the City Council executed an adopted a statutory exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. So for all intents and purposes, CEQA has been done and and the. Project has complied with Sequoia. In order for us to proceed with the demolition phase only. I want to make it clear that we are only talking about the demolition of the existing pool. We are not discussing the new construction of the new pool because we don't yet have a program that has been approved by the City Council for us to move forward . Any discussion about the. Long term location. Or quantity or quality of vegetation, landscaping and the eventual construction of the pool, all of those issues get vetted through a separate, secure process for the new construction of the new pool. So related to the demolition, we have cleared the demolition project under Sequoia. And the item before you tonight is allowing us to issue a coastal development permit because this project is in the coastal zone and because it is in dual jurisdictions of both the city and the California Coastal Commission, there is a process that allows us to request that only one coastal development permit be issued, and we give our authority to the Coastal Commission that does streamline the process and it does make sure that the conditions of approval that are placed on a project are consistent. If we were to do this separately, we might put on one condition of approval and the Coastal Commission may have the ability to put on a separate, conflicting condition of approval . So by doing. A. Consolidated coastal development permit process, it does streamline that process and allows us to act as one agency. If you proceed with the adoption of the resolution tonight, we are hoping that we would go to the California Coastal Commission in October, and if they approve the coastal development permit, then we would initiate demolition activities by mid to late October. We have committed to the Coastal Commission that we would maintain protections above and beyond those required at this time for the vegetation surrounding the area, particularly related to trees and bird species. And we have done surveys on what birds are out there, whether they are nesting or roosting. And we have also had a certified biologist go out to the site as well. All of those issues have been cleared. We've shared all that information with the Coastal Commission in anticipation of of their reviewing this item in October. Hopefully that addressed the issues that were raised. And I'm here to answer any. Questions you may have, Councilwoman. In terms of the truck routes necessary for the demolition process, will there be obviously we want to make sure that we pick. Roots and a path that's least invasive to the residents there. So what kind of meetings or discussions are we going to have to make sure that we pick the route that's least invasive? So typically the traffic engineer looks at the existing truck routes within the city and we try to keep the all the trucks on those mapped existing truck routes. Clearly, there is not a direct truck route that goes to this facility. So the. Traffic engineer. Is tasked with coming up with options to get the trucks to the closest truck route possible. It will go through a couple of local streets, but that is the discretion of the traffic engineer to look at the various options and pick the route that is least invasive to the residential neighborhood. Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you. Katherine Mongeau. I just wanted to comment on the path that's used in my district for another project that the city traffic engineer has been instrumental on, and that the residents have been very appreciative of the responsiveness and the penalties to contractors that do not abide by the guidelines and rules. I think the city has been very proactive to make sure that the neighbors are kept apprized of the situation and it seems like we've come to a great resolution. So when our area was destroyed, we're actually under construction now. Everything went very well and everyone was very responsive. So I look forward to that same thing with the blah blah. Thank you. Can we get a motion to approve some? There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Very good. Clark has the address. So if I understand this correctly, what we're but what we're dealing with here is only only only that which is related to taking down the building and working out the traffic patterns. Is that correct? Of how the what is removed goes, which is which is central? We've been through that with the Terminal Avenue Storm Drain Project. And just in case I'm not here, when other items come up, the import of this is obviously it's going to take more than a fortnight to get this done. And history demonstrates, quite frankly. And some people may take it personally. Sometimes the staff can't be trusted. The majority of them can. So what we will end up with, what I want to try to avoid is a year from now, two years from now and down the pike, they have a permit for X, Y and for one , two, three, four components and then slip in six or seven. That might be contentious and people may try to slip that in underneath the radar. And that has happened. And we don't have to go too far back in history to see that. So as long as we're confident, as long as there's an understanding now that this just has to do with the removal. That's fine. The only other comment I would have made, I would hopefully deal with that. We take a look at maybe just putting that stuff on a barge and taking it whatever it is, and remove it from our area that way and obviously not dumping it in the water, but maybe instead of a truck, we use a barge. We've got a pier there. Run the truck out there. Thank you. And they won't have any traffic lights. Thank you. No other public comment on the item. Members does go and cash your boats. Motion carries eight votes. Keep moving on to item number nine in the regular agenda.