Attention Long Beach, Signal Hill, San Pedro & Catalina:
Paid for by Martha Flores Gibson for Assembly 2016 (Dist.70) State ID # 1387345 |
 AND for VIDEO and FURTHER INFORMATION on EL DORADO AUDUBON, CLICK HERE. Paid for by El Dorado Audubon |
| (Oct. 26, 2016, 6:10 p.m.) -- Following-up on a story reported on Sept. 1 by LBREPORT.com, Belmont Shore resident Jeff Miller continues to insist that Long Beach City Hall show the public the real-world height impacts of city staff's proposed Belmont Pool rebuild consistent with LB's Municipal Code. Height has become an issue, not just for aesthetics but on taxpayer grounds. If the pool is rebuilt at its current proposed location just east of Belmont Pier, it would have to be built atop a de facto pedestal to address sea level rise. This would result in a building height reaching 78 feet when current zoning only allows 25-30 feet, incurring additional costs on top of costs to deal with seismic issues that doomed the former pool at the same site.
The additional height means City Hall must grant itself a variance...and that requires compliance with LB Municipal Code section 21.21.302 / "Noticing requirements for hearings," enacted by the Council in 2008, which specifies: Building height variance applicants shall erect story poles which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, including decks and eaves, at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the first public hearing and remain in place through the end of the appeal period. [Scroll down for further.] |
  |
| Story poles physically display a proposed structure's height so the public can judge the impact before testifying pro or con on the requested variance. Since City Hall staff didn't comply with this requirement, Mr. Miller raised the issue, which produced red faces at City Hall and required postponing a Planning Commission hearing. (In a mass emailing, 3rd district Councilwoman Suzie Price 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 attending the scheduled Zoning Administrator hearing on the matter and noted 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 proposal was adequate, Mr. Miller indicated he planned to appeal...and says that triggered an informal discussion outside the Council Chamber with city staff.
Mr. Miller says he and city staffers present (who included Director of Development Services Amy Bodek) sought to work out a compromise to avoid a Planning Commission appeal. Mr. Miller says he was amenable to adding four poles at the facility's four corners and thought there was basic agreement on this...but has since learned that city staff proposes to put up a single line of five poles (the original pole and four others) that he describes as basically a straight line generally east to west, close to the structure's proposed north side (i.e. away from the sand.) "The proposed pool is a three-dimensional structure, so it is obvious that a single line of poles cannot show its 'full extent'," Mr. Miller says...and adds that's why he filed an appeal. LBREPORT.com invited comments/clarifications from Long Beach Development Services (city staff) on what took place, to which the Department's Communications Officer, Jacqueline Medina, emailed the following statement At the Zoning Administrator Hearing held on October 10, 2016, at City Hall, 5th Floor, Mr. Miller protested the Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding the proposed Belmont Pool Revitalization Project. Following the hearing, staff met with Mr. Miller in the 5th Floor Lobby (not outside of the Council Chamber) and listened to his recommendations/suggestions regarding the "story poles." However, no agreement with Mr. Miller was made by staff and/or Amy Bodek, Director of Long Beach Development Services. Staff met with the project consultant to discuss options for accommodating additional poles within the City's land use jurisdiction, and in accordance with the Long Beach Municipal Code. Staff returned with a revised plan to add four additional poles and sent this plan to Mr. Miller. There was a clear attempt by the City to accommodate additional poles, however, Mr. Miller has since appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. An appeal hearing will be tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Planning Commission in December 2016. The matter will now proceed to LB's Planning Commission, a non-elected body whose members were chosen by the Mayor and confirmed by voted action of the City Council. Filing the appeal cost Mr. Miller $100 out of pocket because the Council quietly voted (in adopting its FY7 budget in September) to double the cost of third-party appeals (which had been $50 for several years, prior to which there was no charge.)
The pool rebuild, supported by Councilwoman Price at its current location in her district, is supported by many in LB's Aquatics community but has also generated controversy, now focused mainly 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.
A number of other LB residents have 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.] 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. Some have argued in favor of leaving the current "temporary" pool in place, which they say is quite nice. Others have more recently cited equity grounds for opposing the SE LB location and have proposed more modest pools in every Council district [although Tidelands funds wouldn't cover the costs in areas away from the shore], criticizing six figure cost to rebuild the amenity-filled facility in affluent SE LB. 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, 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.
blog comments powered by Disqus Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:
Follow LBReport.com with:
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com |
     
 Hardwood Floor Specialists Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050  |
