Bryant Homeowners vs. City of LB Legal Battle Continues

By Jon LeSage

The legal battle continues for the future of the Bryant neighborhood following a L.A. Superior Court ruling earlier this month.

Judge James C. Chalfant wrote in an L.A. Superior Court 37-page ruling that the petitioner (Bryant homeowners) has failed to prove that the city improperly conducted the Site Plan Review or that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and zoning laws. However, the trial – Bryant Neighbors for Responsible Development vs. City of Long Beach – will continue because the required process to disclose the necessary information to decision-makers and the public was not met by legal requirements.

“Petitioner has presented prima facie evidence that the decision-makers and the public were misled to believe that the GPA (general plan amendment) and zone change were simply a ‘clean up’ that the decision-makers were required to adopt rather than a discretionary decision about the Project. This is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law and is the sole remaining issue for trial,” Chalfant writes in the Dec. 2 ruling.

A trial-setting conference has been scheduled for Jan. 9, 2025, at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.

“We’re resolute on staying with the fight,” said David Lake, president of the Bryant Neighbors for Responsible Development. “We’re a lot more interested in what happens to our neighborhood than the city is. We’ll stay committed.”

The city does plan on continuing with the development of the 73-dwelling unit housing complex on Fountain Street and Wehrle Court, but the timing is dependent on the court case.

“The city appreciates the court’s ruling and the extensive time and attention the court spent reviewing this matter. While the recent ruling resolves many issues, it does not fully end the ongoing litigation. Beyond providing that procedural update we don’t comment in detail about litigation. The city looks forward to a full resolution and expects to resume the project soon, however the exact timing is dependent on the court, state funding and other factors,” wrote Christopher Koontz, director, Community Development for the City of Long Beach, in an email.

Where It All Started

The city conducted its usual process for review of this site, and approval by the Planning Commission. Notices for public meetings were sent out and meetings were conducted in May 2023 and February 2024.

In April, the Long Beach City Council approved zoning changes that gave the green light to a 73-unit affordable apartment construction project for lower-income residents. Two addresses were used in the construction project city document – 4151 Fountain St. and 4220 Wehrle Ct. They’re both located on narrow streets with little available parking. The Fountain Street address is a block away from Bryant Elementary School that can be packed with parents dropping off or picking up their kids.

The former 4151 Fountain St. building that used to be a home for troubled youth and was purchased by the City of Long Beach in 2017, was demolished a few days after the city approved rezoning. The building on 4220 Wehrle Court was demolished later in the fall. The property extends out to nearly two acres of open space. You can stand at the entrance gate on Wehrle Court, look to the left at where the daycare center building used to stand and you can see where that land meets the open space from the 4151 Fountain St. property. It covers about 1.73 acres for the development project.

The City of Long Beach Community Development Department says there will be two structures set up. Building A on Fountain Street will be four stories high and it will have 50 units for renters. Building B on Werhle Court will have three stories and 21 units for renters. There will also be unit space available for the property manager. Eighteen of the units will be designed for disabled residents. Construction had been scheduled to begin in early 2025 with anticipated completion in late 2026; but that will be determined by the court case and other factors.

There will be 67 at-grade parking stalls at the facility as well. The actual number of people who will be living in these apartments isn’t clear, but it would mean at least 150 people will be moving into the new housing complex with more cars than the parking stalls can accommodate, with likely an even larger number of residents and vehicles.

Legal Arguments Over Zoning

One of the concerns described by the petitioner/plaintiff’s attorney was that the city had posted a map online that it claims is a purported land use map from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) using 2021 data. Santa Monica-based plaintiff attorney Scott Pomerantz said that it categorizes the entire neighborhood, including Bryant Elementary School, as “Mixed Residential and Commercial.” It also describes the retail businesses nearby on Anaheim Street as “Mixed Commercial and Industrial” for zoning purposes.

The map used by the City of Long Beach was tied into SCAG’s “transit priority project,” as if this neighborhood is part of a transit corridor. The plaintiff located another map and presented it in the court filing, that it says does reflect the neighborhood much more accurately. The city map apparently came from simulation software used by SCAG, that was then used by a third-party consulting firm for the map provided in the city’s court documents, Pomerantz said.

The second cause of action in the plaintiff’s original filing of the suit addressed actions the city took involving zoning approvals, that could be “subject to an abuse of discretion standard” according to the court filing. The City Council’s approval of the zone changes was not supported by findings and did not provide evidence to support the findings, according to the court filing.

Lake said that the city did not take the concerns of area homeowners seriously prior to the April 16 approvals. The petitioner homeowners had objected to the project orally, in writing and by filling out speaker cards before the close of public hearings.

The plaintiff will continue contesting the lack of documents that the city provided to the court from the initial court dates during the summer and fall, Pomerantz said. A lot of the court ruling was based on statements in the CEQA Sustainable Communities Project Exemption (“SCPE”) document. The SCPE was prepared by City of Long Beach with the assistance of Los Angeles-based Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Some of that information gap was tied to emails that had been sent to the city by Long Beach residents expressing concerns and objections to the Bryant construction project. About 30 pages worth of email comments was missing from the first version of documents submitted by the city, Pomerantz said.

The city cited its SCPE document in its legal arguments, stating that all the necessary factors had been taken into consideration. One principal document cited is SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

“The project is consistent with the general land use designation, density and building intensity outlined in the SCAG RTP/SCS,” according to the SCPE document.

As a fireman, Lake is very concerned about how hard it would be for fire trucks, paramedic units and ambulances to access the new facility and its neighbors on these very narrow streets. Another concern is that there will be rooftop decks on both of the new apartment buildings, meaning that parties will probably be taking place creating excess noise and more parking spots taken up in the surrounding neighborhood.

Lake, Pomerantz and Bryant neighborhood residents, have expressed concerns about the high volume of cars and increased air pollution that would violate clean air standards with the exhaust coming from idling cars attempting to move through the narrow streets once the new residents move in. It will also become especially harrowing during weekday afternoons when parents come to pick up their children at Bryant Elementary School.

What’s Coming Up

The plaintiff will likely exercise its right to appeal, Pomerantz said. They’ll be challenging how the judge ruled on the Site Plan Review findings and CEQA and zoning law violations; with the issue of the public and decision-makers being misled by the city also being a significant part of its case. Pomerantz and homeowners in the Bryant Neighbors for Responsible Development were pleased to see this issue addressed in Judge Chalfant’s statements.

The Planning Commission had a 3-2 vote on approval of the Bryant project, indicating their concerns on full disclosure being made, Pomerantz said.

“Boiler-plate language was reported to the city,” Pomerantz said. “There was no substance to it.”

The city had several other options to consider and it wasn’t fair or necessary to force the issue through the Bryant project, Pomerantz and Lake said. The city is complying with the state’s affordable housing mandate, but there are several areas of Long Beach that have plenty of open space for development and that could see significant economic growth opportunities come for local businesses if more housing came to their area. It wouldn’t jam in too many people and cars into such limited space with the ingress/egress problems that will come from the Bryant development, they said.

The California appellate court or Superior Court may require that the full review and approval process be carried out again without the public and decision-makers being misled. It could be sent back to the Planning Commission and City Council for that to be carried out, Pomerantz said.

For those who’d like to learn more on how to contribute to Bryant Neighbors for Responsible Development, you can send an email to: bryantneighbors@gmail.com.

Jon LeSage is a resident of Long Beach and a veteran business media reporter and editor. You can reach him at jtlesage1@yahoo.com.

Category:

Beachcomber

Copyright 2025 Beeler & Associates.

All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced or transmitted – by any means – without publisher's written permission.