LBReport.com

News

Should Your Councilmember Vote To Pursue $85 Mil Redesigned/Downsized Belmont Beach Pool/Aquatic Center? Aquatics Supporters Say It's Overdue; Opponents Say It Belongs Elsewhere In The City Without Sea Level Rise And Seismic Risks At Less Cost


If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?
No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report.

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Jan. 20, 2020, 8:55 p.m.) -- On January 21, 2020, the Long Beach City Council will vote on whether to pursue a redesigned/downsized Belmont Beach Pool/Aquatic Center (City staff report here, full document list here.) City staff has estimated the the revised/downsized version of the project will cost roughly $85 million in Tidelands Funds (revenue restricted to spending in shoreline areas) with roughly $25 million not yet in hand, a reduction from $100+ million (which ballooned over time to roughly $140 million) for its initially proposed version.

The revised/downsized design is supported by members of LB's aquatics community (who strongly supported the initially proposed project) and opposed by grassroots community advocates who have stated from the project's inception that they believe it belongs elsewhere in the city that doesn't risk future sea level rise and seismic issues and can be delivered at less cost.

City management has revised the proposed project, moving it a bit north of its initially proposed site -- which city staff says will avoid projected sea level rise -- lowered its height by removing its roof and added a "shade sail" to provide some protection from the summer sun. All bodies of water will now be outdoors; the current "temporary" pool will remain with recreational components added including a vortex pool (circulating water similar to a whirlpool), zip line, cascading waterfalls and splash pads.


Revised/downsized proposed project

>At a December 19 Planning Commission hearing, Acting City Manager Tom Modica said that public responses and stakeholder input had contributed to creating a better project. However the process has not gone as City Hall planned and regardless of what the City Council decides on Jan. 21, the project's ultimate fate depends on future approval by the CA Coastal Commission where project opponents have signaled that they plan to mount robust opposition. .

[Scroll down for further.]








On May 16, 2017, following a contentious roughly five hour hearing, the Council voted 6-2 (Uranga and Gonzalez dissenting, Pearce absent but stating in writing she would have voted "no") to pursue a $100+ million version of the project. However Coastal Commission staff subsequently informed City Hall that the project raised sea level rise and other issues (a number of which had been raised by grassroots community members.)

City staff revised, redesigned and downsized the proposed project and assumed it would satisfy Coastal Commission staff concerns...but it didn't. In November 2019, Coastal Commission staff informed City Hall that its application for the downsized/revised project is "incomplete" until city staff provides responses to several pages of questions (including a number of issues raised by grassroots project opponents.) (LBREPORT.com coverage here.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

Public response to the revised design was split. A group that backed the original design, McCormick Divers, voiced measured approval. "Well if it had to be outside, I guess it could look like this," said a message on the group's Facebook page, adding "Good job LB City. Now pitter patter and get at 'er!!"

Those who raised issues in opposition from the outset were unimpressed. Ann Cantrell commented on Facebook: "There is still no reason to build a swimming pool on the sand in a liquefaction zone with certain in sea level rise." Gordana Kajer signaled that she planned to mount robust opposition (and she did; see below.).

Sponsor

Sponsor

City staff indicated it was in the process of responding to Coastal Commission staff's questions but brought the revised pool project to LB's Planning Commission for approval on December 19 (LBREPORT.com coverage here.). City staff said previous public input and responses had resulted in creating a better project and enthusiastically cited its changes. City staff added that the L.A. 2028 Olympics organizing committee had signaled that it might (stressed no guarantee) consider adding the Belmont Beach Aquatic Center to other LB locations now included as part of the 2028 L.A. Olympics.

At the Planning Commission hearing, supporters among LB's aquatics community found themselves outnumbered by opponents who included (in person or in writing) Citizens About Responsible Planning (CARP), Ann Cantrell, Corliss Lee, Susan Miller, Melinda Cotton and Jeff Miller.

Ms. Kajer didn't testify personally but retained LB attorney and former Coastal Commission chair Mel Nutter to represent her. .Mr. Nutter told the Planning Commission that the City's current reasoning and stance on the revised/downsized project raises issues under Coastal Act and could pose hurdles to Coastal Commission approval.

Sponsor


LB's Planning Commission voted without dissent to approve the revised/downsized project, sending it to the City Council for the Jan. 21 hearing and a Council decision. (LBREPORT.com coverage here.

In advance of the Jan. 21 Council hearing, Ms. Kajer produced and disseminated the video below.

The VIDEO cites viewers to a Facebook page maintained by Ms. Kajer she's titled BelmontPOOLITICS

In five pages of emailed comments submitted to the Council in advance of the Jan. 21 hearing, CARP itemized its opposition on a number of grounds and concluded by stating:

As far as we are aware, the City has not received an approved application from the CCC and should not be going forward with this project until it does. The CCC’s biggest concerns, Sea Level Rise and Location, have not been addressed by moving the pool a few yards further away from the ocean.

CARP has always said, "We are not opposed to a pool; we are opposed to the location." Please deny this latest effort to force a square peg in a round hole and find a more suitable location for a pool that serves the whole communality.

LBREPORT.com will provide LIVE streaming of the Council meeting on our front page --< ahref="https://www.lbreport.com/index.htm"> www.LBREPORT.com -- starting at 5 p.m. Jan. 21.

Sponsor

Sponsor


Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



Adoptable pet of the week:




Copyright © 2019 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here
5