Home > News and Politics > JENSEN RESPONDS TO READER’S CHARGE THAT HIS TAKE ON SEADIP “SHOWS IGNORANCE”

JENSEN RESPONDS TO READER’S CHARGE THAT HIS TAKE ON SEADIP “SHOWS IGNORANCE”

TERRY JENSEN

Third District city council candidate Terry Jensen responded late Saturday night to a comment that a Redistricted! reader posted on March 25 regarding Jensen’s take on the proposed 2nd+pch mixed-used development—or at least the take Jensen expressed at last week’s candidates debate sponsored by the Long Beach Press Club.

The reader, who self-identified only as “Laura,” charged that Jensen’s reply to a 2nd+pch question at the debate “showed ignorance” of the SEADIP ordinance, and itemized why.

Jensen has now countered that he understands SEADIP very well, and offers his evidence.

Here are the letters, back and forth:

 FROM LAURA:

Mr. Jensen is personable, but I do not think he understands the 3rd District. His reply regarding SEADIP showed ignorance: “Any development adjacent to a wetland should be consistent with SEADIP (ordinance).” True, but SEADIP is broader than that! Perhaps he should have said any development within SEADIP should be consistent with the Ordinance. 2nd+PCH also lies in SEADIP and the Coastal Zone. When Mr. Jensen says he thinks mixed-use is appropriate for that site, it is a betrayal because residential, (condos) are not allowed on that site. SEADIP requires a certain density and height for that site. It’s all in the online SEADIP Ordinance, and I strongly suggest Mr. Jensen get acquainted with it.

FROM TERRY JENSEN:

I have in fact read SEADIP more than a few times and am quite comfortable with the document—a document that the Coastal Commission has not approved, by the way. I must also point out that SEADIP specifically allows mixed-use development on some of the Subareas. Mixed-use means more than one use and can include retail/office/residential/commercial/industrial or any combination, depending on the area. For Subarea 17 (Seaport Marina Hotel site) SEADIP allows mixed-use consistent with the Cities CR Zone. SEADIP also specifically allows the development of 15.6 residential units per acre on Subarea 11A (behind In-n-Out). Three story residential as flats or townhouses are allowed up to three stories.

Advertisements
Categories: News and Politics
  1. Janis Populi
    March 29, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Mr. Jensen- You again show your lack of understanding of the 3rd District, the SEADIP area and our community’s wishes. The South East Area Development Plan is a MASTER PLANNED community. Each area was zoned to balance open space with development and provide the services and ammenities that local residents WANTED in their neighborhood. The SEAPORT Marina property is zoned hotel not retail or industrial. The current zoning is 35 ft.

    Show me one mixed use project in Long Beach that is a success? Marina Pacifica was proposed as a mixed use project with “vacation” condos and a outdoor mall which FAILED. Why should 2nd & PCH do any better than the failed Marina Pacifica now sales tax rebate central central. If the area is such a good retail area why did Best Buy and Loemann’s demand sales tax rebates????? Why are there no upscale retail stores at the Market Place??????????? Take a look at Taki Sun’s other property Peter’s Landing aka another retail disaster.

    Your comment that SEADIP was not approved by the Coastal Commission indicates that have not done your homework. The SEADIP area zoning is included in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) which WAS approved by the Coastal Commission. Long Beach is a city that has a CERTIFIED Coastal Development Plan from the SEADIP area, Belmont Shore all the way down to downtown. Sounds to me that you have been listening too much to your next door neighbor (2nd&PCH Developer and Number 1 on you campaign papers).

    • Janis Populi
      March 29, 2010 at 4:09 pm

      And another thing Mr. Jensen, if you are so concerned with Long Beach’s financial problems why did you oppose Measure I which could of raised money to fix our infrastructure. Sure Measure I was not perfect but what’s your solution????

      You complain about the use of RDA money to fix west/north LB roads…guess you don’t consider third world crumbling ashphalt in front of our homes blight? I look out my window and see crumbling curbs in front of $$Multi-Million Dollar properties. Where do you propose getting the money to fix infrastructure?

      How about the fact that the other 60% of the city which is NOT an RDA district is paying a dispportionate share (3rd District/5th District) of our sales/property tax into the General Fund which pays for the ENTIRE city’s street repair, policing, city staff, and fire. When does the 3rd district get it’s streets and sidewalk repaired?or adequate policing? Keep complaining until you turn all of LB’s nice neighborhoods into high density traffic ridden slums.

      It seems to me that your only idea for increasing General Fund revenue is to stick it to the 3rd District residents with quality of life distroying density at 2nd & PCH and the rest of the SEADIP area.

      If you are so concerned about the city’s financial future WHY did you accept the endorsement of the Long Beach Police Officers Association? Police/Fire/and city staff account for more than 80% of the General Fund’s budget. What your solution for solving the real problem with the General Fund… which unending RDA property tax siphons, unsustainable police/fire/citystaff pensions and the endless/increasing business entitlements which suck up more and more General Fund revenue streams with no accountability to the tax payer.

      Instead of complaining about Foster/DeLong/O’Neil (Who, believe me have their faults) lets hear YOUR solution for the mess LB is in!

  2. Laura
    March 29, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Thank you Mr. Jensen.

    I feel your response could be very misleading to readers as you try to connect Subarea 17 with Subarea 11A which have different land uses.

    Subarea 11A is zoned residential with a maximum density of 15.3 units per acre, 764 total units.. height at three stories, not to exceed 30 feet. But that’s all on paper-no development yet.

    Conversely, subarea 17, is zoned Commercial and is fully developed in accordance with the CR zone. (Commercial/Retail). This is currently the site of the Seaport Marina Hotel, which Lennar and now 2nd and PCH propose to build a mixed-use project. It lies in the Coastal Zone and it’s land use is called out in SEADIP (Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan); height-three stories, not to exceed 35 feet. Neither residential nor mixed-use is allowed there.

    I know what mixed-use is, AND we both know what kind of mixed-use is planned for 2nd and PCH, with over 350 residential condos! So when you answered at the debate that you felt mixed-use was appropriate for that corner many felt you were condoning this project.

    One only has to check the entitlements that Lennar requested; Amendments to the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, (LCP) and subarea 17 of SEADIP to allow residential use and adopt residential standards, a request for approval of a site plan review, a Local Coastal Development permit, and standards variances to construct a mixed-use project etc etc. And of course, this development is even larger.

    You claim that SEADIP is not a document approved by the California Coastal Commission. Really? The SEADIP ordinance was approved by the city of Long Beach in the 1970’s and adopted into the city’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) in 1980. The CCC approves of our LCP—that’s why they cite it, along with the SEADIP Ordinance when making decisions on appeals to protect our enviorment. unfettered development, (Marina Shores, Sims Pond, Shopkeeper Road, Home Depot and most recently subarea 23 which was illegally graded, thus destroying a wetland) In the case of subarea 23—this sailed through city hearings- and was then appealed to the California Coastal Commission-joined by two Coastal Commissioners who also appealed. They referenced both the SEADIP Ordinance and our LCP in their findings for substantial issue.

  3. G. Crew
    March 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    You missed alot more entitlements that Lennar needed. This is and has been a unique site for a hotel, and that’s what Coastal likes, visitor attracting amenities such as a hotel. Who wants a high-rise (12 stories), with condos and 200,000 feet of retail cramed in? Dense and congested. Mr. Jensen said he thought it was a beautiful project. I don’t. And lets not be dumb. Once the city gives the entitlements, these guys can turn around and sell it to any developer they want. The entitlements are what matters. Remember, it has been affirmed that all entitlements granted run with the land, and are not limited to the present owner.

    • wrongbeachjohn
      April 2, 2010 at 11:20 am

      Not exactly the same, but with the “Evos” nightclub scheme good ‘ol gary gave the store away, now claiming he regrets doing so. Done deal.

  4. Lee Braniger
    March 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Your Monday quote, “Don’t be one of the CAVE people” (Citizens againsr virtually everything) printed beside Jenson’s picture. Is he taking credit for that quote?

    Former Mayor Beverly Neill coined that phrase when speaking at the 1996 Democratic
    Convention. It became known as her infamous CAVE people address, and she apologised later in the Press Telegram.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: