The City Hall-hired firm's draft EIR contends there are no feasible alternatives and will be no significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts from rebuilding the pool in the same location as the previous pool which developed seismic issues resulting in its demolition.

The consultant-prepared draft also rejects three alternative sites -- one in downtown Long Beach next to the Convention Center, and two in the south shore QM area -- which it calls "infeasible" (see below.)

[Scroll down for further below.]

On April 9, 2016, as reported by LBREPORT.com, city staff unveiled an architect's proposed design that will be elevated by seven feet to account for sea level rise and will have a building roofline nearly twenty feet (almost two stories) higher at its peak than the previous pool building.

In October 2014, the Council approved a conceptual plan for the rebuild that it was told would cost $103 million from LB's Tidelands operating fund (which can only be used to fund projects in a relatively narrow strip along LB's shoreline and beaches.). However at the April 9, 2016 public meeting, city staff acknowledged that the pool's ultimate cost will be higher by a currently unknown amount (due to construction cost increases over time) and with the drop in oil prices from LB's Tidelands, city staff currently has no ways to pay for the facility's construction but is developing a strategy (thus far not discussed publicly.) Following the meeting, Assistant City Manager Tom Modica indicated that the City may ask L.A. County to include the Belmont Pool rebuild among projects that would be funded if County voters approve a still-to-be-written debt bond ballot measure, possibly for parks and recreational items, that County Supervisors may put on the November 2016 ballot.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The pool rebuild's sizable cost stems in part from its proposed location in the same liquefaction-prone seismic area just east of the Belmont Pier where the City discovered that the former Belmont Pool had serious seismic deficiencies.

Rebuilding the pool is a major priority for members of LB's Aquatics community. Third district Councilwoman Suzie Price (in whose district the pool is proposed to be rebuilt) said at the April 9, 2016 public meeting that she is "deeply committed to the pool" and underscored that she means "at this specific location." Councilwoman Price said this before the public release of the draft EIR, on whose certification she will ultimately be voting, and which is legally required to evaluate alternatives to the project (which the City hired-consultant did and rejected, see below.)

Area resident Susan Miller, joined by a number of park and open space advocates, have suggested that the pool be rebuilt in another location on firmer ground and not requiring a seven foot elevation (now proposed) to deal with sea level rise. They argue that this would cost significantly less, conserve Tidelands funds for other needed shoreline/beachfront projects and simultaneously create a newly created open space shoreline park in the now-cleared area.

When Ms. Miller and others suggested this in urging alternative locations for the pool during a 2015 meeting (held to discuss proposed architectural elements), Councilwoman Price said the Council had already settled the matter by voting to approve the pool rebuild at the Belmont Plaza area location.

Advertisement

Advertisement

In Feb. 2015, mindful of drops in the price of oil, the Council voted to allocate/prioritize a sizable portion of LB's Tidelands funds for the pool rebuild, which is a top priority for members of LB's sizable Aquatics community. However, the large pool Tidelands allocation effectively delays or leaves unfunded other Tidelands are shoreline/beach projects in both the 2nd and Council 3rd districts. 3rd dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price (in whose district the pool would be rebuilt) supported the allocation. 2nd dist. incumbent Suja Lowenthal likewise supported the action and has endorsed candidate Jeannine Pearce to succeed her. Meanwhile, Price has (today April 14) endorsed candidate Eric Gray in the June 7 runoff; several months ago, Gray indicated he might be open to considering a downtown location for the pool, but has since dropped the idea. To LBREPORT.com's knowledge, neither of the 2nd dist. candidates have raised the issue of the large Tidelands sums for the pool rebuild in the Belmont Shore location although it will impact 2nd district shoreline/beachfront area projects.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The draft EIR text states in pertinent part:

"[T]he proposed Project would not result in significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities and service systems."

Regarding alternative locations, the draft text states:

...Three alternative locations for the proposed Project were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. A discussion of each alternative site is included below.

Harry Bridges Memorial Park. The Harry Bridges Memorial Park is a 4.1-acre park located within the Tidelands on the Pier J waterfront at Queens Highway and Harbor Scenic Drive in the City of Long Beach. The site consists of turf, trees, and small facilities for outside events. The site was considered because it does not contain major structures and because of its location near existing public use areas such as the Queen Mary, the Long Beach Arena, and the Aquarium of the Pacific. However, the Harry Bridges Memorial Park was designated as part of the parkland mitigation for the development of the Aquarium of the Pacific and Rainbow Harbor to replace recreational open space in Shoreline Park funded under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act. Under Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act, the Harry Bridges Memorial Park may not be converted to uses other than public outdoor recreation uses. For this protection to include the proposed Project’s enclosed areas as an allowable use, a required petition to the Secretary of the Interior would be required. The petition process with the Secretary of the Interior was considered prohibitive due to the extended time, cost, and uncertain outcome. Additionally, the Harry Bridges Memorial Park is 1.7 acres smaller than the proposed Project site and is not likely to be able to accommodate the required infrastructure for the proposed Project or be able to maintain or increase the amount of open space compared to the former Belmont pool facility (Objective 15). A smaller aquatic facility would also not meet the objectives related to provision of a facility that supports all competitive swimming events, and increased programmable space to minimize scheduling conflicts (Objectives 2, 4, 5, and 7). Currently, the site is used for special events booked through the Queen Mary and there is no public parking at the site. The lack of adequate dedicated parking would negatively impact the future use of the site for the pool facilities.

Due to the location, this site would not allow for summer aquatics camps to have access to the beach, sailing center, or pier facilities, activities, which occurred at the former facility and are planned to continue at the new facility. This alternative site would not be directly accessible for pedestrian and/or bicycle users, and would therefore not serve these existing users (Objective 13).

In addition, this site would not meet many of the other project objectives including: redevelopment of the City-owned site of the former Belmont Pool facility (Objective 1); Minimization of the time period that the community is without a permanent recreation and competitive pool facility (Objective 3); Implementation of the land use goals of Planned Development PD-2 (regulations specific to the Belmont Pool and Pier) at the former site (Objective 9); and provision of views to the ocean from inside the facility (Objective 12). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Harry Bridges Memorial Park was rejected as a potential alternative site and was not considered further.

Queen Mary Site. The Queen Mary Site encompasses 43-acres of land located on the Pier J waterfront at the terminus of Queens Highway in the City of Long Beach. The site features the 1936 Queen Mary ocean liner, which is permanently moored and operates as a hotel and event center. The site also includes the Queen Mary Events Park, Sea Walk Village, adjacent Carnival Cruise Lines terminal, and associated parking areas. This alternative site was considered because of its location near existing public use areas such as the Long Beach Arena and the Aquarium of the Pacific. However, the site is currently leased to a private operator and not under the City’s control. The current lease expires in approximately 40 years, and therefore the site would not be available for the City’s use without renegotiating the lease and paying for the use of the site. The length of the existing lease makes the site unavailable for years, which is in conflict with Objective 3, to minimize the time the public is without a permanent pool facility. Furthermore, the site already provides parking for the current uses (Queen Mary ocean liner, Queen Mary Events Park, Sea Walk Village, and the Carnival Cruise Lines terminal), and would require the need for additional parking for the proposed Project. Providing additional parking for this site would be a challenge due to the current uses already competing for adequate parking spaces.

In addition, the site location would not allow for summer aquatics camps to have access to beach, sailing center, or pier facilities at this site, activities which occurred at the former facility and are planned to continue at the new facility. Traffic volumes associated with Interstate-710 (I-710) and the Magnolia Avenue/Queensway Bay Bridge are greater than the street system surrounding the proposed Project site. As a result, impacts related to traffic, parking, and air quality impacts would be greater than the proposed Project. This would result in recreational uses and sensitive receptors (swimmers, spectators) being located closer to pollution sources, such as the Port of Long Beach and truck traffic in the vicinity of the port.

Finally, the Queen Mary Site would not redevelop the City-owned site of the former Belmont Pool facility (Objective 1).

In addition to not meeting Objectives 1 and 3, this site would not meet the other project objectives including: implementation of the land use goals of Planned Development PD-2 (regulations specific to the Belmont Pool and Pier) at the former site (Objective 9); provision of views to the ocean from inside the facility (Objective 12); and would not be directly accessible for pedestrian and/or bicycle users, therefore not serve these existing users (Objective 13). For the reasons stated above, the Queen Mary site was rejected as a potential alternative site and was not considered further.

"Elephant Lot" at the Long Beach Convention Center. The "Elephant Lot" is an approximately 13-acre surface parking lot on the east side of the Long Beach Convention Center (LBCC). The site is bound by East Seaside Way to the north, East Shoreline Drive to the south and east, and convention center facilities to the west. The site was considered because of its location in the Downtown area and proximity to existing public use areas, such as the LBCC, the Long Beach Arena and the Aquarium of the Pacific. However, Jehovah’s Witness currently leases this parking lot site to accommodate parking demands during the annual convention at the LBCC. The lease expires in 2030 and requires 3,000 parking spaces in two different lots, currently the "Elephant Lot" provides over half of these parking spaces (1,915 spaces). Due to the existing lease, this alternative site is in conflict with Objective 3, to minimize the time the public is without a permanent pool facility. Further, any loss of parking for Jehovah’s Witness or the LBCC would require additional mitigation. Special events, such as the annual Grand Prix of Long Beach, also use the parking lot for events and staging. This alternative site would not represent the highest and best land use for the area adjacent to the convention center, which should be reserved for convention or hotel uses.

Although the proposed pool facility would be compatible with the scale and character of the Downtown area, the unique architecture of the proposed facility would compete with the LBCC and aquarium buildings, and, therefore, the proposed facility would no longer stand out as a signature design as it would at the proposed Project site (Objective 6). In addition to not meeting Objectives 3 and 6, this site would not meet the other project objectives including: implementation of the land use goals of Planned Development PD-2 (regulations specific to the Belmont Pool and Pier) at the former site (Objective 9); provision of views to the ocean from inside the facility (Objective 12); and would not be directly accessible for pedestrian and/or bicycle users, therefore not serve these existing users (Objective 13). In addition, this implementation of the proposed Project on this alternative site would require a Local Coastal Program amendment, which would not be required at the Project site. For the reasons stated above, the "Elephant Lot" site was rejected as a potential alternative site and was not considered further.

Conclusion. For the reasons detailed above, none of the three alternative sites were deemed feasible and are therefore not analyzed further in the Draft EIR. The proposed Project involves replacement of the former Belmont Pool complex on the subject property, which has a notable aquatic history associated with the location. In November 1961, the Long Beach City Council voted to place an item on the February 1962 municipal election for the use of Tidelands funds for the construction of the "Belmont Plaza Beach Center" (now Belmont Plaza) project, which included a swimming pool, wading pool, and public parking lot. Proposition 7 was approved by the voters in February 1962, and the City Council ratified the election results in March 1962, paving the way for site acquisition and eventual construction.

In January 1967, plans were approved for a group of structures at Belmont Plaza, a site west of the Belmont Pier on the beach in Belmont Shore. The Belmont Pool opened in 1968 in time for the United States (U.S.) Olympic swimming trials. The facility hosted both the 1968 and the 1976 U.S. Olympic swimming trials, as well as the 1974 and 1978 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) swimming championships. Mark Spitz, Don Schollander, and Charles Hickox set men's records during these trials. After the trials, the pool was opened to the public for recreational purposes.

The designated property consists of both "Open Space and Parks" and "Mixed Uses" land use designations and is within the Park (P) and Belmont Pier Planned Development District (PD-2, Subarea 1) zoning areas, which allows for the previous and proposed recreational uses. Moreover, all impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant after mitigation. Relocating the Project to an alternative location would not avoid or reduce any of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project. Because the former Belmont Pool complex has been in operation on the Project site for the last 47 years, placing the facilities on another site would not meet several of the project objectives, as outlined above.

Additionally, funding for the proposed Project is entirely sourced from the Tidelands Operating Fund, an umbrella fund that allocates expenditures for tidelands operations and capital improvements projects within the tidelands area of the City. Tidelands are defined as those lands and water areas along the coast of the Pacific Ocean seaward of the ordinary high tide line to a distance of 3 miles. The Tidelands Trust not only restricts the use of the tidelands, but also restricts the use of income and revenue generated from businesses and activities conducted on the tidelands to be used solely for projects within the tidelands area.

Because the proposed Project is dependent on funding from the Tidelands Operating Fund, any alternative location not in the tidelands would have to be funded through alternative sources. Due to a lack of available finances from other City sources, a project that would not be funded by the Tidelands Operating Fund would not be economically infeasible. Therefore, all three alternative sites were located in the tidelands. Additionally, according to the City, no other properties within the City’s Tidelands would be large enough or are currently available to be considered as an alternative location. Therefore, the EIR does not include analysis regarding alternative locations.

The DEIR can be viewed in full online at this link (scroll down to the pool project.)

City staff has scheduled what it describes as "Study Sessions" on the DEIR -- in which city staff traditionally presents its position at length and members of the public are allowed three minutes each to respond -- for LB's non-elected Planning Commission on May 5 (5 p.m.), the Marine Advisory Commission (May 12, 2:30 p.m.) and the City Council (June 14, 4 p.m.)

The public can submit comments and testimony on the DEIR in writing no later than Thursday, June 16, 2016 to Craig Chalfant, a Senior City Planner, at this email address: craig.chalfant@longbeach.gov.

The City (via its hired consultant) is legally required to respond to points raised by the public on the draft EIR [although traditionally, city-hired EIR consultants tend to belittle points made by the public.]

At some point, the City will schedule formal hearings at which the public may submit written and oral testimony on the draft EIR to LB's non-elected Planning Commission and eventually to LB's elected City Council. At that point, a Council majority can vote to approve ("certify") or not approve the EIR; Council approval would effectively clear the way for Council approval of the project it has basically sought from the inception of the process.