On or about Feb. 13, city officials placed a single story pole (photo helow) at 4000 E. Olympic Plaza in belated compliance with LB's Council-enacted Municipal Code that requires an applicant (in this case, the applicant is City Hall) seeking a variance from LB's zoning height limits to erect story poles (plural) showing how high that variance would be. The purpose is real-world disclosure, letting the public see and judge the impact in real world terms before speaking pro or con at a hearing on the requested variance.

Current zoning for the area allows heights of 25-30'...but the proposed bubble structure for the new facility would reach 78', making it 48'-53' taller than current zoning allows. In the photo below, the blue flag on the story pole shows the height of the former facility...and the red flag presumably shows the height of the new proposed facility.

[Scroll down for further.]

In October, Belmont Shore resident/taxpayer Jeff Miller pointed out that the City hadn't complied with its own story pole requirement, which produced grudging acknowledgment from city staff. (In a mass emailing to constituents, 3rd district Councilwoman Suzie Price [who didn't create the snafu] described what happened as a "noticeable oversight" without providing details.)

City staff then proposed to put up a single story pole, to which Mr. Miller responded by noting that the city ordinance requires story poles -- plural, not singular -- "which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure" and urged putting up four poles at the proposed facility's four corner footprint. When the Zoning Administrator ruled that staff's single-pole proposal was adequate, Mr. Miller spent $100 out of pocket to file an appeal with LB's Planning Commission.

Sponsor

Sponsor

On December 15, 2016. Mr. Miller's story pole appeal came to LB's non-elected (Mayor chosen, Council approved) Planning Commission. After hearing public testimony pro and con, Commissioner Cruz, seconded by Commission chair Van Horik, approved a substitute motion to place five poles with a flag at 70 feet and a flag at 25 feet; it failed 3-3. That cleared the way for a motion by Commissioner Perez, seconded by Vice Chair Verduzco-Vega, to approve city staff's recommendation for a single pole; it carried 5-3 (Yes: Christoffels, Lewis, Perez, Verduzco-Vega and Van Horik; No: Cruz; Absent: Templin).

The single-pole result is now visible at 4000 E. Olympic Plaza as the proposed project heads to a scheduled March 2 Planning Commission hearing where the proposed building height -- and more -- will be at issue. The Planning Commission will decide on the sufficiency of a draft Environmental Impact Report (that some residents say understates various impacts), a site plan review, a zoning height variance.

Sponsor Computer Repair Long Beach

Sponsor

The pool rebuild has also become polarized on ther issues. It's supported by many in LB's Aquatics community but has drawn opposition now focused on cost and equity issues.

Aquatics supporters say rebuilding the pool (officially called an Aquatics Center for its features and amenities) at the SE LB location will enable major swim meets and competitive events that will draw visitors, produce revenue and build Long Beach's reputation as an Aquatics Capital.

Image via City of LB Power Point

Looking west from spectator seating. Image via City of LB Power Point

Looking south from 10 meter diving platform. Image via City of LB Power Point

View from the beach, looking east. Image via City of LB Power Point

View from Belmont Pier parking lot. Image via City of LB Power Point

Image via City of LB Power Point

A number of LB residents object to spending $100+ million for an amenity-filled facility in affluent SE LB, callling it an example of SE LB "privilege" and instead urge building several more modest pools in historically disadvantaged Council districts. [Tidelands funds wouldn't cover costs in areas away from the shore, but Measure A sales tax increase funds might.]

Other LB residents have long urged rebuilding the pool in LB's downtown or Queen Mary areas, alternatives that the city's draft EIR rejected as infeasible and/or unavailable [despite some current or contemplated uses for other projects.] [Supporters of alternate sites note that when filmmaker George Lucas was searching for a location for his museum, some civic voices leaped at the prospect of using a downtown location that the pool-EIR deemed "infeasible."]

Advocates of alternative sites have also argued that leaving the pool's former site as open space (as it is now) would effectively create a new shoreline park...and some have argued in favor of leaving the current "temporary" pool in place, which they say is quite nice.

Sponsor

Sponsor

City staff has indicated the cost will be above $100 million but declined to provide the Council or the public with an estimated final cost at the Belmont Plaza site, saying this won't be known (because time increases costs) until after the Council approves the project.

Thus far, Council majorities have gone along with Councilwoman Price's requests to put aside sizable Tidelands sums for the pool rebuild but that amount is still short of the total needed to complete the project (and city management won't start the project without committed funding in hand.) During Sept. 2016 Council FY17 budget discussions, Councilwoman Jeannine Pearce (whose 2nd district includes shoreline areas that could benefit from using Tidelands funds) briefly proposed to reduce Tidelands funding for the pool rebuild, but subsequently backed off.

The Municipal Code requires story poles to "remain in place through the end of the appeal period." Mr. Miller says in his view, that means keeping the story pole up through any appeal of the Planning Commission's March 2 actions to the City Council.

Developing.

Sponsor