Revised/downsized proposed project

A "Notice of Incomplete Application" dated February 20, 2020 from Coastal Program Analyst Dani Ziff to Eric Lopez, says "additional information is required to file the application. including:

An "Updated Engineering Analysis prepared by a licensed professional with sufficient specificity to determine the following:

[Scroll down for further.]

City staff's revised project moved the proposed facility a bit northward (inland) (which city staff would avoid projected sea level rise) and lowered the structure's profile by removing its roof (adding a "shade sail" to provide some protection from the summer sun.) It proposes to have all bodies of water outdoors; with the current "temporary" pool remaining and recreational components added including a vortex pool (circulating water similar to a whirlpool), zip line, cascading waterfalls and splash pads. (City staff report here, full document list here),

The net result lowered the project's cost from an initially estimated roughly $100 million (which grew over time to $140 million) to roughly $85 million that would consume Tidelands revenue (restricted to funding shoreline projects) with staff acknowledging that $25 million of the amount still isn't in hand.

A complete application is required before the project can begin to be formally reviewed by Coastal Commission staff. Coastal Commission staff then produces a detailed report with recommended actions on the application) and within roughly 180 days a public hearing takes place for a voted decision on the application by the Coastal Commission itself.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The additional information now sought by Coastal Commission staff to accept the application for filing and begin processing it focused on three areas:

Updated Engineering Analysis

...The engineering analysis should be prepared by an appropriate licensed professional and should be developed with enough specificity to determine the following:

Would the foundation system function appropriately if the beach profile (slope) were different in the future with sea level rise?

Are there alternatives to the proposed foundation design that would not necessitate 68 piles to support the retaining wall and would not function as a shoreline protective device?

Is there an alternative foundation system for the visitor deck area that would not rely on a deepened foundation system (specifically, can the structures be individually supported by caissons and grade beams without the necessity for a thick concrete foundation system under the deck)?

Updated Sea Level Rise Analysis

The original CDP application described an adaptation measure wherein wave uprush within a 50 foot buffer area would trigger a beach nourishment program. Is this project element still proposed with the revised project? If so, please provide details regarding the program including, but not limited to, the sand source(s), deposition area and methods, and potential impacts on beach ecology. The information provided with the application also suggests that structures would be removed and/or repaired if damaged by coastal hazards. Does this include the proposed piles? Please provide a description of how the City would remove and/or repair structures and how that choice would be made. Did the revised sea level rise analysis provided assume that the existing breakwater would be in place for the life of the development? Did the revised sea level rise analysis model a 100 year storm in the context of the existing breakwater and future sea level rise -- or rely on other unstated assumptions?

Updated Alternatives Analysis for the project site

Given the revised foundation plans, please provide an analysis of alternatives for the proposed project site including the retaining wall at the southwest corner of the project site, which would function as a shoreline protective device as currently designed. As discussed in previous project meeting, please consider a living shoreline alternative and an alternative to eliminate the portions of the development seaward of the wave uprush limit and the retaining wall, which is coterminous with the wave uprush limit. In addition, please analyze alternative locations for the transformer, trash enclosure, and restrooms that would minimize impacts on blue water views.

The Notice states that "on receipt of the requested materials, Coastal Commission staff "will proceed with determining the completeness" of the application.

Sponsor

Sponsor

LB city officials had hoped Coastal Commission staff would accept the application for the revised project, process the application and schedule it for a hearing later this year somewhere in southern California. (The Commission's next scheduled nearby meeting is in Huntington/Newport Beach in May; the Commission rotates its meetings through various coastal locations throughout the state.

On January 21, 2020 the Council voted 8-0 (motion by Price, seconded by Supernaw, Richardson absent) to deny appeals by Jeff Miller, Melinda Cotton, Susan Miller and Jim Hines and advanced the revised/downsized project to Coastal Commission staff.

In seeking Council approval for the action, city staff indicated that the L.A. 2028 Olympics organizing committee had signaled 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. It's not immediately clear to what extent the latest development might affect that possibility,.

Sponsor

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. Coastal Commission staff raised a number of questions and issues about the then-proposed project, and city staff ultimately reworked the project and proposed the revised/redesigned/downsized design.

In November 2019, Coastal Commission staff informed City Hall that its application for the downsized/revised project was "incomplete" and instructed city staff to provide responses to several pages of questions (including a number of issues raised by grassroots project opponents.) (LBREPORT.com coverage here.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

On December 19, 2019, city staff indicated it was in the process of responding to the Coastal Commission staff's questions when it brought the revised pool project to LB's Planning Commission for approval. City staff said previous public input and responses had resulted in creating a better project and staff enthusiastically cited its changes.

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.

Veteran shoreline protection advocate Gordana 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.

In advance of the Jan. 21, 2020 Council hearing, Ms. Kajer produced and disseminated the video below.

The VIDEO cited 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, Citizens About Responsible Planning (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.

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.